The article below is by Professor Ernest Tucker and was originally posted in the Encyclopedia Iranica . on August 15, 2006. Kindly note that version printed below is different in that in the Encyclopedia Iranica  in that it has pictures, maps and captions not seein in the Encyclopedia Iranica version.  

Readers are also invited to consult Professor Michael Axworthy’s excellent book entitled:

Title: The Sword of Persia: Nadir Shah from Tribal warrior to Conquering Tyrant. 

Publisher: I.B. Taurus Publishers, 2009.

ISBN-10: 9781845119829

ISBN-13: 978-1845119829

=========================================================================

Nader Shah was the ruler of Iran in 1736-47. He rose from obscurity to control an empire that briefly stretched across Iran, northern India, and parts of Central Asia. He developed a reputation as a skilled military commander and succeeded in battle against numerous opponents, including the Ottomans and the Mughals. During Nāder’s campaign in India, and several years after he had replaced the last Safavid ruler on the Persian throne, the elimination of much of the Safavid family effectively ended any real possibility of a Safavid restoration. The decade of Nāder’s own tumultuous reign was marked by conflict, chaos, and oppressive rule. Nāder’s troops assassinated him in 1747, after he had come to be regarded as a cruel and capricious tyrant. His empire quickly collapsed, and the resulting fragmentation of Iran into several separate domains lasted until the rise of the Qajars decades later.

Statue of Nader Shah Afshar in Mashhad, the provincial capital of Khorasan. Nader Shah’s tomb restoration project was led by Houshang Seyhoun in the 1950s, with the 6.5-meter statue being sculpted by Abolhasan Seddighi. The latter reconstructed Nader’s face and features in accordance with historical illustrations.  The sculpting process took place in the Borooni workshop supervised by the Italian Embassy in Tehran (Picture source: Kaveh Farrokh’’s lectures at the University of British Columbia’s Continuing Studies Division and Stanford University’s WAIS 2006 Critical World Problems Conference Presentations on July 30-31, 2006).

Born in November 1688 into a humble pastoral family, then at its winter camp in Darra Gaz in the mountains north of Mashad, Nāder belonged to a group of the Qirqlu branch of the Afšār (q.v.) Turkmen. Beginning in the 16th century, the Safavids had settled groups of Afšārs in northern Khorasan to defend Mashad against Uzbek incursions.

The first major international political event that directly affected Nāder’s career was the Afghan invasion of Iran in the summer of 1719 that resulted in the capture of Isfahan and deposition of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn, the last Safavid monarch, by the autumn of 1722. After the fall of Isfahan, Safavid pretenders emerged all over Iran. One was Solṭān Ḥosayn’s son Ṭahmāsb, who escaped to Qazvin, where he was proclaimed Shah Ṭahmāsb II. He led a resistance movement against the Afghans during the 1720s. The Russians and Ottomans saw the Afghan conquest as their own opportunity to acquire territory in Iran, so both invaded and occupied some land in 1723. The following year they signed a treaty in which they recognized each other’s territorial gains and agreed to support the restoration of Safavid rule.

The Shamshir sword attributed to Nader Shah presently housed in the Nader Museum of Mashad (Muzeye Naderi ye Mashad) [Click to enlarge].  Picture Source:  Khorasani, Manouchehr, Arms and Armour from Iran: The Bronze Age to the end of the Qajar Period,  Legat Verlag, 2006, pp.483.

Around this time, Nāder began his career in Abivard, an Afšār-controlled town just north of Mashad. He made himself so useful to the local ruler Bābā ʿAli Beg that he gave Nāder two of his daughters in marriage. Due to internal tribal rivalries, Nāder was not able to become Bābā ʿAli’s successor, so he vied for power with various upstart military chiefs in northeastern Iran who had emerged in the wake of the Afghan invasion.

In the mid 1720s, Nāder played an important role in defeating Malek Maḥmud Sistāni, one of that area’s main warlords, who had set himself up as the scion of the 9th-10th century Saffarid dynasty. Nāder was his ally for a while but soon turned against him. His role in suppressing this usurper brought him to Ṭahmāsb’s attention. Ṭahmāsb chose him as his principal military commander to replace Fatḥ ʿAli Khan Qajar (d. 1726, q.v.), whose descendants (the founders of the Qajar dynasty) blamed Nāder for the murder of their ancestor.

With this promotion, Nāder assumed the title Ṭahmāsb-qoli (servant of Ṭahmāsb). His prestige steadily increased as he led Ṭahmāsb’s armies to numerous victories. He first defeated the Abdāli (later known as Dorrāni; q.v.) Afghans near Herat in May 1729, then achieved victory over the Ḡilzi (q.v.) Afghans led by Ašraf at Mehmāndust on 29 September 1729. After this battle, when Ašraf fled from Isfahan to Qandahar, Ṭahmāsb became finally established in Isfahan (with Nāder in actual control of affairs) by December 1729, marking the real end of Afghan rule in Iran. In the wake of Ašraf’s defeat, many Afghan soldiers joined Nāder’s army and proved helpful in many subsequent battles.

Map of Nader Shah’s empire [Click to Enlarge], just prior to the invasion of India. Picture Source, Farrokh, Kaveh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, Osprey Publishing, pp. 86.

Three months before the Mehmāndust victory, Nāder had sent letters to the Ottoman Sultan Aḥmad III (r. 1703-30) to ask for help, since Ṭahmāsb “was made the legitimate successor of his esteemed father [Solṭān Ḥosayn]” (Nāṣeri, p. 210). Receiving no response, Nāder attacked the Ottomans as soon as Ašraf was defeated and Isfahan reoccupied. He waged a successful campaign during the spring and summer of 1730 and recaptured much territory that the Ottomans had taken in the previous decade. But, just as the momentum of his offensive was building, news came from Mashad that the Abdāli Afghans had attacked Nāder’s brother Ebrāhim there and pinned him down inside the city’s walls. Nāder rushed to relieve him. (This distraction came at just the right time for the Ottomans, since in Istanbul the Patrona Halil rebellion, which led to the deposition of Aḥmad III, broke out in September 1730.) Nāder arrived in Mashad in time to attend the wedding of his son Reżā-qoli to Ṭahmāsb’s sister Fāṭema Solṭān Begum.

Nāder spent the next fourteen months subduing Abdāli forces led by Allāh-Yār Khan. To commemorate his victory over them, he endowed in Mashad a waqf (pious foundation) at the shrine (see ĀSTĀN-E QODS-E RAŻAWI) of Imam ʿAli al-Reżā (d. ca. 818, q.v.). Nāder’s personal seal, preserved on the waqf deed of June 1732, showed his unremarkable Shiʿite loyalty at that time: Lā fatā illā ʿAli lā sayf illā Ḏu’l-Faqār / Nāder-e ʿaṣr-am ze loṭf-e Ḥaqq ḡolām-e hašt o čār (There is no youth more chivalrous than ʿAli, no sword except Ḏu’l-Faqār (q.v.) / I am the rarity of the age, and by the grace of God, the servant of the Eight and Four [i.e., the Twelve Imams].” (Šaʿbāni, p. 375; cf. Rabino, p. 53). Ṭahmāsb took Nāder’s absence in Khorasan as his own chance to attack the Ottomans and pursued a disastrous campaign (January 1731–January 1732), in which the Ottomans actually reoccupied much of the territory recently lost to Nāder. Sultan Maḥmud I (r. 1730-54) negotiated with Ṭahmāsb a peace agreement that allowed the Ottomans to retain these lands, while returning Tabriz to avoid angering Nāder. Three weeks later, Russia and Persia signed the Treaty of Rašt, in which Russia, trying to curry favor with Persia against the Ottomans, agreed to withdraw from most of the Iranian territory it had annexed in the 1720s.

When Nāder learned that Ṭahmāsb had relinquished substantial territory to the Ottomans, he quickly returned to Isfahan. He used the peace treaty as an excuse to remove Ṭahmāsb from the throne in August 1732 and replace him with Ṭahmāsb’s eight-month-old son, who was given the regnal name ʿAbbās III. Now regent, Nāder resumed hostilities against the Ottomans. After a decisive round of victories, interspersed with short excursions to quell uprisings in Fārs and Baluchistan, he signed a new treaty in December 1733 with Aḥmad Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad. It marked an attempt to reinstate the provisions of the 1049/1639 Ottoman-Safavid Treaty of Qaṣr-e Širin (Ḏohāb), since it called for the restoration of the borders stipulated at that time, a prisoner exchange, and Ottoman protection for all Persian ḥajj pilgrims. The Ottoman sultan would not ratify it, because disputes persisted over control of parts of the Caucasus, and so intermittent hostilities continued.

In March 1734, Šāhroḵ was born to Reżā-qoli and Fāṭema Begum. Šāhroḵ thus formed a direct link between the lineages of Nāder and the Safavids—an important basis for Šāhroḵ’s eventual right to rule. The choice to name his grandson after Šāhroḵ b. Timur (r. 1409-47) revealed Nāder’s growing interest in emulating the conqueror Timur (r. 1369-1405).

A recreation of a Zanbourak camel artillery unit during the 2,500 year celebrations held in Persepolis in 1971 [Click to enlarge]. Picture Source: Booklet of 2,500 Year Celebrations in 1971

There followed another series of Ottoman-Persian battles in the Caucasus, and Nāder’s capture of Ganja (q.v.), during the siege of which Russian engineers provided assistance. Russia and Persia then signed a defensive alliance in March 1735 at Ganja. In the treaty, the Russians agreed to return most of the territory conquered in the 1720s. This agreement shifted the regional diplomatic focus to a looming Ottoman-Russian confrontation over control of the Black Sea region and provided for Nāder a military respite on his western border.

By the end of 1735, Nāder felt that he had gained enough prestige through a series of victories and had secured the immediate military situation well enough to assume the throne himself. In Feburary 1736, he gathered the nomadic and sedentary leaders of the Safavid realm at a vast encampment on the Moḡān steppe. He asked the assembly to choose either him or one of the Safavids to rule the country. When Nāder heard that the molla-bāši (chief cleric) Mirzā Abu’l-Ḥasan had remarked that “everyone is for the Safavid dynasty,” he was said to have had that cleric arrested and strangled the next day (Lockhart, p. 99). After several days of meetings, the assembly proclaimed Nāder as the legitimate monarch.

The newly appointed shah gave a speech to acknowledge the approval of those in attendance. He announced that, upon his accession to the throne, his subjects would abandon certain religious practices that had been introduced by Shah Esmāʿil I (r. 1501-24) and had plunged Iran into disorder, such as sabb (ritual cursing of the first three caliphs Abu Bakr, ʿOmar, and ʿOṯmān, termed “rightly guided” by the Sunnites) and rafż (denial of their right to rule the Muslim community). Nāder decreed that Twelver Shiʿism would become known as the Jaʿfari madòhab (legal school) in honor of the sixth Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq (d. 765), who would be recognized as its central authority. Nāder asked that this madòhab be treated exactly like the four traditionally recognized legal schools of Sunnite Islam. All those present at Moḡān were required to sign a document indicating their agreement with Nāder’s ideas.

Flintlock muskets were introduced into Iran during the Afšārid period. Iranian-built flintlock musket of the Afsharid- Qajar type [A] and the barrel of an Iranian flintlock shaped like a dragon’s head with two red stones serving as the “eyes” of that dragon![B] (Picture Source: Khorasani, Maouchehr, Mosthagh (2009), Pistols and Gun Accessories in iran. Classic Arms and Militaria, pp. 23-24).

 Just before his actual coronation ceremony on 8 March 1736, Nāder specified five conditions for peace with the Ottoman empire (Astarābādi, p. 286),most of which he continued to seek over the next ten years. They were: (1) recognition of the Jaʿfari maḏhab as the fifth orthodox legal school of Sunnite Islam; (2) designation of an official place (rokn) for a Jaʿfari imam in the courtyard of the Kaʿba [Perry, 1993, p. 854 and “Kaʿba,” in EI2 IV, p. 318 vs. Lockhart, p. 101] analogous to those of the Sunnite legal schools; (3) appointment of a Persian pilgrimage leader (amir al-ḥajj); (4) exchange of permanent ambassadors between Nāder and the Ottoman sultan; and (5) exchange of prisoners of war and prohibition of their sale or purchase. In return, the new shah promised to prohibit Shiʿite practices objectionable to the Ottoman Sunnites

Nāder tried to redefine religious and political legitimacy in Persia at symbolic and substantive levels. One of his first acts as shah was to introduce a four-peaked hat (implicitly honoring the first four “rightly-guided” Sunni caliphs), which became known as the kolāh-e Nāderi (EIr. X, p. 797, pl. CXIII), to replace the Qezelbāš turban cap (Qezelbāš tāj; EIr. X, p. 788, pl. C), which was pieced with twelve gores (evocative of the twelve Shiʿite Imams) Soon after his coronation, he sent an embassy to the Ottomans (Maḥmud I, r. 1730-54) carrying letters in which he explained his concept of the “Jaʿfari maḏhab” and recalled the common Turkmen origins of himself and the Ottomans as a basis for developing closer ties.

During this negotiation and subsequent ones, the Ottomans rejected all proposals related to Nāder’s Jaʿfari maḏhab concept but ultimately agreed to Nāder’s demands concerning recognition of a Persian amir al-ḥajj, exchange of ambassadors, and that of prisoners of war. These demands paralleled the provisions of a long series of Ottoman-Safavid agreements, especially an accord, drawn up in 1727 but never signed, between the Ottoman sultan and Ašraf, the Ḡilzay Afghan ruler of Persia (r. 1725-29). At the end of the 1148/1736 negotiations, both sides approved a document that mentioned only the issues of the ḥajj pilgrimage caravan, ambassadors, and prisoners because of disagreement over the Jaʿfari maḏhab concept. Although no actual peace treaty was signed at that time, mutual acceptance of these other points became the basis for a working truce that lasted several years.

Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations. Safavid legitimacy depended on the dynasty’s close connection to Twelver Shiʿism as an autonomous, self-contained tradition of Islamic jurisprudence as well as the Safavids’ alleged descent from the seventh Imam Musā al-Kāżem (died between 779 and 804). Nāder’s view of Twelver Shiʿism as a mere school of law within the greater Muslim community (umma)glossed over the entire complex structure of Shiʿite legal institutions, because his main goal was to limit the potential of Sunnite-Shiʿite conflict to interfere with his empire-building dreams. The Jaʿfari maḏhab proposal also seems intended as tool to smooth relations between the Sunni and Shiʿite components of his own army. In addition, the proposal had economic implications, since control of a ḥajj caravan would have provided the shah with access to the revenue of the lucrative pilgrimage trade.

The military camp of Nader Shah. A detailed diagram of Nader Shah’s military camp by Bazin, The camp market can be seen at the bottom, the Divankhaneh (grand audience hall) tent in the center and the circular harem tent at the top. The 12-striped banner can be seen to the lower left. Picture Source:  Matofi, A. (1999). Tarikh e Chahar Hezar Saleye Artesh e Iran: Jled e Dovoom [The Four Thousand Year History of the Iranian Army: Volume Two], Tehran: Iman Publications, pp.-834.

Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals. When describing Nāder’s coronation, Astarābādi called the assembly on the Moḡān steppe a quriltāy, evoking the practice of Mughal and Timurid conclaves that periodically met to select new khans. In various official documents, Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well.

Nāder’s novel concepts regarding the Jaʿfari maḏhab and common “Turkmen” descent were directed primarily at the Ottomans and Mughals. He may have perceived a need to unite disparate components of the omma against the expanding power of Europe at that time, however different his view of Muslim unity was from later concepts of it. But both ideas had less domestic importance. On coins and seals, and in documents issued to his subjects, Nāder was more conservative in his claim to legitimacy. For example, the distich on one of his official seals focused only on the restoration of stability: Besmellāh – nagin-e dawlat-e din rafta bud čun az jā / be-nām-e Nāder Irān qarār dād Ḵodā (In the name of God – when the seal of state and religion had disappeared from Iran / God established there order in the name of Nāder; Rabino, p. 52). In a proclamation sent to the ulamaof Isfahan soon after the coronation, the Jaʿfari maḏhab was depicted as nothing more than an attempt to keep peace between Sunnites and Shiʿites. The document explained that ʿAli would continue to be venerated as one especially beloved by God, although henceforth the Shiʿite formula ʿAli wali Allāh (ʿAli is the deputy of God) would be prohibited. In contrast to the shah’s letters to foreign rulers, this proclamation did not even mention the Safavids (Qoddusi, p. 540).

Nāder’s domestic policies introduced major economic, military, and social changes. He ordered a cadastral survey in order to produce the land registers known as raqabat-e Nāderi. Because of the establishment of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the Safavid framework of pious foundations was suspended (Lambton, p. 131), although their revenues were the main source of financial support for important ulama. Only in the last year of his reign did Nāder decree the resumption of pious foundations. After his accession to the throne, Nāder claimed the ruler’s privilege to issue coinage in his name. His monetary policy linked the Persian currency system to the Mughal system, since he discontinued the Safavid silver ʿAbbāsi and minted a silver Nāderi whose weight standard corresponded with the Mughal rupee (Rabino, p. 52; see COINS AND COINAGE, in EIr. VI, p. 35). Nāder also attempted to promote fixed salaries for his soldiers and officials instead of revenues derived from land tenure. Continuing a shift that had begun in the late Safavid era, he increased substantially the number of soldiers directly under his command, while units under the command of provincial and tribal leaders became less important. Finally, he continued and expanded the Safavid policy of a forced resettlement of tribal groups (Perry, 1975, pp. 208-10).

Nader Shah defeating Ashraf the Afghan as seen in the Jahangoshay-e Naderi. Note that the Afghan attacks are repelled by a disciplined row of Iranian artillery. The Afghans soon tried to copy Nader Shah’s tactics but this failed to save them from complete defeat in Iran. Note that the infantry stand behind the cannon, ready to deploy when Nader gives the order. There is a space after the first two cannon (from the bottom of the picture) where Nader’s cavalry stand ready for the counterattack. The cavalryman to the front is depicted with mail, Kolah-Khud  helmet and the Shamshir sword. Picture Source, Farrokh, Kaveh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, Osprey Publishing, pp. 86.

All these reforms can be viewed as attempts to address weaknesses that had emerged in the late Safavid era, but none solved the problems that were tied to larger trends in the world economy. Iran had suffered from a swift rise in the popularity of Indian silk in Europe during the last few decades of Safavid rule, a shift that dramatically reduced Iran’s foreign income and indirectly contributed to the draining of bullion away from Persian state treasuries (Matthee, pp. 13, 67-68, 203-06, 212-218). This crisis, in turn, put more pressure on the provinces to produce tax revenue, which led provincial governors to take oppressive measures and fueled the Afghan revolt that had resulted in the Safavid collapse in the first place.

After his ascension to the throne Nāder’s main military task was the ultimate defeat of the remaining Afghan forces that had ended Safavid rule. After laying siege to Qandahar for almost a year, Nāder destroyed it in 1738—the last redoubt of the Ḡilzi, who were led by Shah Ḥosayn Solṭān, the brother of Shah Maḥmud, who had been the first Ḡilzay to rule Persia (1722-1725). On the site of his camp Nāder built a new city, Nāderābād, to which he transferred Qandahar’s population and Abdāli Afghans.

The destruction of Qandahar completed the reconquest of territory lost since the reign of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn. Nāder’s career now entered a new phase: the invasion of foreign territory to pursue dreams of a world empire that could resemble the domains of Chinghis Khan (d. 1227, see ČENGIZ) and Timur. After the fall of Qandahar, many Afghans joined his army. His pursuit of Afghans who had fled across the Mughal frontier grew into an invasion of India when Nāder accused the Mughals of providing them with shelter and aid. Nāder had appointed Reżā-qoli as his deputy in Iran. While his father was away, Reżā-qoli feared a pro-Safavid revolt and had Moḥammad Ḥasan (the leader of the Qajars between 1726 and 1759) execute Ṭahmāsb and his sons.

After a successful offensive that culminated in the final defeat of the Mughal forces at the battle of Karnāl near Delhi in February 1739, Nāder made the Mughal emperor Moḥammad Šāh (r. 1719-48) his vassal and divested him of a large part of his fabulous riches, including the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor (q.v.) diamond. When the rumor spread that Nāder had been assassinated, the Indians attacked and killed his troops. In retaliation, Nāder gave his soldiers permission to plunder Delhi and massacre its inhabitants. The peace treaty restored control of India to Moḥammad Šāh under Nāder’s distant suzerainty; it proclaimed M oḥammad Šāh’s legitimacy, citing the Turkmen lineage that he shared with Nāder (Astarābādi, p. 327). Nāder arranged a ceremony in which he placed the crown back on Moḥammad Shah’s head. To further emphasize Moḥammad Šāh’s subordinate status, he assumed the title šāhānšāh. To further strengthen his ties to the Mughals, Nāder married his son Naṣr-Allāh to a great granddaughter of the Mughal emperor Awrangzēb (r. 1658-1707). His chroniclers represent his victory over Moḥammad Šāh as another sign of his similarity to Timur. The shah himself was so obsessed with emulating Timur that he moved, for a time, to Mashad (Lockhart, pp. 188-89, note 4).

Painting of the Battle of Karnal made by Mosavar ol-Mamalek [Click to enlarge]. Picture Source: R. Tarverdi (Editor) & A. Massoudi (Art editor), The land of Kings, Tehran: Rahnama Publications, 1971, p.228.

While Nāder was invading India, Reżā-qoli was securing more territory for Nāder north of Balḵ and south of the Oxus river. His campaign aroused the ire of Ilbars, the khan of Khwarazm (see CHORASMIA, in EIr. V, p. 517), and of Abu’l-Fayż (r. 1711-47), the Toqay-Timurid khan of Bukhara (see BUKHARA, in EIr. IV, p. 518). When they threatened counterattacks, Nāder engaged in a swift campaign against them on his way back from India. He executed Ilbars and replaced him with a more compliant ruler, but this new vassal would soon be overthrown. Abu’l–Fayż, like the Mughal emperor, accepted his status as Nāder’s subordinate and married his daughter to Nāder’s nephew.

After the campaigns in India and Turkestan, particularly with acquisition of the Mughal treasury, Nāder found himself suddenly wealthy. He issued a decree canceling all taxes in Iran for three years and decided to press forward on several projects, such as creation of a new navy. Nāder had sent his naval commanders at various times on expeditions in the Persian Gulf, particularly to Oman, but these missions were unsuccessful, in part because it was difficult to secure naval vessels of good quality and in adequate numbers. In the summer of 1741, Nāder began to build ships in Bušehr, arranging for lumber to be carried there from Māzāndarān at great trouble and expense. The project was not completed, but by 1745 he had amassed a fleet of about thirty ships purchased in India (Lockhart, p. 221, n. 3).

However, Nāder experienced several major setbacks after his return to Iran. In 1741-43 he launched a series of quixotic attacks in the Caucasus against the Dāḡestānis (see DĀḠESTĀN, in EIr. VI, p. 570-71) in retaliation for his brother’s death. In 1741, an attempt was made on Nāder’s life near Darband. When the would-be assassin claimed that he had been recruited by Reżā-qoli, the shah had his son blinded in retaliation, an act for which he later felt great remorse. Marvi reported that Nāder began to manifest signs of physical deterioration and mental instability. Finally, the shah was forced to reinstate taxes due to insufficient funds, and the heavy levies sparked numerous rebellions.

In spite of mounting problems, in 1741 Nāder sent an embassy to the Ottomans to resubmit his 1736 proposal for a peace treaty. But Maḥmud I had just won wars against Russia and Austria and was not receptive. The sultan rejected the shah’s claim to Iraq (a claim based on Timur’s earlier control of the province). Then the Ottomanlegal authority, the šayḵ al-Eslām, issued a fatwā (legal opinion) formally declaring the Jaʿfari maḏhab heretical. In response, Nāder besieged several cities in Iraq in 1743, with no results, and in December of that year he signed a ceasefire with Aḥmad Pāšā, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad (d. 1747; cf. EI2 I, p. 291). Subsequently, Nāder convened a meeting of ulama from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia in Najaf at the shrine of ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (d. 661, q.v.), the fourth of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the first Imam. After several days of lively debate on the question of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the participants signed a document which recognized the Jaʿfari maḏhab as a legitimate legal school of Sunnite Islam. The Ottoman sultan, however, remained unimpressed by this outcome.

Nāder soon had to leave Iraq to suppress several domestic rebellions. The most serious of these began near Shiraz in January 1744 and was led by Moḥammad Taqi Khan Širāzi, the commander of Fārs province and one of Nāder’s favorites. In June 1744, Nāder sacked Shiraz, and by winter he had crushed these revolts. He resumed his war against the Ottomans and defeated them in August 1745 at Baḡāvard near Yerevan. Although Nāder’s victory led to new negotiations, his bargaining position was not strong because of new, large-scale domestic uprisings. The shah dropped his demands for territory and for recognition of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, and the final agreement was based only on the long mutually acceptable positions regarding frontiers, protection of pilgrims, treatment of prisoners, and exchange of ambassadors (Lockhart, p. 255). The agreement recognized the shared Turkmen lineage and ostensibly proclaimed the conversion of Iran to Sunnism. Yet the necessity to guarantee the safety of pilgrims to the Shiʿite shrines (ʿatabāt-e ʿāliya) in Iraq reveals the formal character of this concession. The treaty was signed in September 1746 in Kordān, northwest of Tehran. It made possible the official Ottoman recognition of Nāder’s rule, and the sultan dispatched an embassy with a huge assortment of gifts in the spring of 1747, although the shah did not live to receive it.

One of Nader Shah’s musketeers armed also with Shamshir sword and Khanjar dagger. .He also carries a powder flask. Picture Source: Booklet of 2,500 Year Celebrations in 1971 

Nāder had spent the winter and spring of 1746 in Mashad, where he formulated a strategy to suppress the plethora of internal revolts. He also oversaw the construction of a treasure house for his Indian booty at nearby Kalāt-e Nāderi (see EI2 V, p. 103). The building complex that Nāder constructed within this natural mountain fortress, near his birthplace in northern Khorasan, became his designated retreat, and he created there a secure showplace for his accomplishments. Nāder followed the nomadic custom of not staying long in any permanent capital city, and Kalāt and Mashad (in, as he saw it. a complementary relationship) served as his main official sites in ways that resembled capital cities of other nomadic empires. Under Nāder’s patronage, Mashad flourished at the midpoint of a trading route between India and Russia and grew in importance as a major pilgrimage center with its Emam Reẓā shrine complex.

In June 1747, a cabal of Afšār and Qajar officers succeeded in killing Nāder. The succession struggle embroiled Persia in civil war for the next five years. Two months before the assassination, Nāder’s nephew ʿAli-qoli, son of his brother Ebrāhim (d. 1738), had risen in revolt, and in July he followed his uncle on the throne as ʿĀdel Shah (r. 1747-48). Nāder’s grandson Šāhroḵ, although blinded after an earlier coup attempt, finally secured the throne in Khorasan in 1748 as a vassal of the Afghan Aḥmad Shah Dorrāni (r. 1747-73, q.v.). This former deputy of Nāder founded the Dorrāni dynasty and is credited with being the first ruler of an independent Afghan state. Šāhroḵ ruled for almost fifty years until 1795, when Āqā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (r. 1779-97) deposed him, marking the end of the rule of the Afsharids (q.v.) in Iran.

Bibliography

The following list is a supplement to the extensive bibliography in John R. Perry, “Nādir Shāh Afshār,” in EI2 VII, 1993, p. 856, which itself is an addition to the bibliographies of Vladimir Minorsky (“Nādir Shāh,” in EI1 III, pp. 813-14) and Laurence Lockhart (Nadir Shah: A Critical Study Based Mainly Upon Contemporary Sources, London, 1938, pp. 314-28). It uses Perry’s categories for new materials, yet also includes already known works if cited in this article.

              Persian narrative sources.

Mirzā Mahdi Khan Astarābādi (q.v.; more correctly, Estrābādi), Tāriḵ-e jahāngošā-ye nāderi, ed. ʿA. Anvār, Tehran, 1962. Ḵᵛaja ʿAbd-al-Karim Kašmiri, Bayān-e wāqeʿ, ed. K. B. Nasim, Lahore, 1970.

Moḥammad Kāzem Marvi, Tārīḵ-e ʿālam-ārā-ye Nādirī, 3 vols., Tehran, 1364/1985-86.

Moḥammad Reżā Nāṣeri, ed., Asnād o mokātebāt-e tāriḵi-e Irān: I – Dawra-ye afšāriya, Tehran, 1985.

Moḥammad Šāfeʿ Wāred Tehrāni, Tāriḵ-e nāderšāhi, ed. Reżā Šaʿbāni, Tehran, 1990.

             Selected non-Persian sources and documents.

Erewants’i Abraham, History of the Wars: 1721-1738, tr. George A. Bournoutian, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1999.

Kretats’i Abraham, The Chronicle of Abraham of Crete, tr. George A. Bournoutian, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1999.

Riazul Islam, A Calendar of Documents on Indo-Persian Relations: 1500-1750, 2 vols., Tehran and Karachi, 1979-82, II, pp. 74-107.

Koca Rağib Mehmed Paşa, Tahkik ve tevfik: Osmanli-Iran diplomtik münasebetlerinde mezhep tartişmalari, ed. Ahmet Zeki Izgöer, Istanbul, 2003; in romanized Ottoman. ʿ

Abd al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, ed., Nāder Shāh o bāzmāndagānaš: Hamrāh bā nāmahā-ye salṭanati o asnād-e siāsi o edāri, Tehran, 1989.

Moḥammad-Amin Riāḥi, ed., Safarāt-nāmahā-ye Irān: Gozarešhā-ye mosāfarat o maʾmuriyat-e sāferan-e ʿoṯmāni dar Irān, Tehran, 1989, pp. 205-42.

             Studies not mentioned in other articles.

Chahryar Adle, “La Bataille de Mehmândust (1142 /1729),” Stud. Ir. 2, 1973, pp. 235-41.

Layla S. Diba, “Visual and Written Sources,” in Carol Bier,ed., Woven from the Soul, Spun from the Heart: Textile Art of Safavid and Qajar Iran 16th-19th Centuries, Washington, 1987, pp. 84-97.

Naimur Rahman Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire 1556-1748, Delhi, 1989; originally, Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1986.

Willem Floor, Ḥokumat-e Nāder Shah: Be rewāyat-e manābeʿ-e holandi, tr. Abu’l-Qāsem Serri, Tehran, 1989.

Idem, “The Iranian Navy in the Gulf during the Eighteenth Century,” Iranian Studies 20, 1987, pp. 31-53.

Vladilen G. Gadzhiev, Razgrom Nadir-shakha v Dagestane (Nāder Shāh’s destruction in Daghestan), Makhachkala (Russian Federation), 1996.

Mohammad Ali Hekmat, Essai sur l’histoire des relations irano-ottomanes de 1722 à 1747, Paris, 1937.

Ann K. S. Lambton, Landlord and Peasant in Persia: A Study of Land Tenure and Land Revenue Administration, London, 1953, pp. 129-33, 164.

Rudolph P. Matthee, The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver 1600-1730, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 175-230.

John Perry, “Forced Migration in Iran during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Iranian Studies 8, 1975, pp. 199-215.

Moḥammad Ḥosayn Qoddusi, Nāder-nāma, Tehran, 1960.

Hyacinth Louis Rabino di Borgomale, Coins, Medals and Seals of the Shâhs of Îrân, 1500-1941, London, 1945, pp. 51-56; repr., Dallas, 1973.

Reżā Šaʿbāni, Tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi-ye Irān darʿaṣr-e afšāriya, 2nd. ed., Tehran, 1986.

Manṣur Sefatgol, “Baroftādan-e farmānravāʾi-e Afšāriān az Ḵorāsān va satizahā-ye pāyāni-e Afšāriān ba Qājāriān,” Farhang 9/3, Fall 1375/1996, pp. 293-338.

Ernest Tucker, “Explaining Nadir Shah: Kingship and Royal Legitimacy in Muhammad Kazim Marvi’s Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi Nādirī,” Iranian Studies 26, 1993, pp. 95-117.

Idem, “Nadir Shah and the Jaʿfari Madhhab Reconsidered,” Iranian Studies 27, 1994, pp. 163-79. Idem, “The Peace Negotiations of 1736: A Conceptual Turning Point in Ottoman-Persian Relations,” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20/1, 1996, pp. 16-37.

Iranian military history expert and martial artist, Dr. Manouchehr M. Khorasani has been very active in promoting the project of Persian swordsmanship.

As noted in Persian by the honorable Hessamoddin Shafeian:

Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran: A Study of Symbols and Terminology

Author: Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani

Publisher: Legat Publishers (Tübingen, Germany) (2010)

ISBN: 978 0 96276 645 9

To Order click on the Legat Publishers link or order directly from LEGAT Publishers: Alexander Frank (alexander.frank@legat-verlag.de)Tel. +49 (0) 70 73 / 30 24 49; Mobile +49 (0)179 / 453 61 21

Iranian historical fighting techniques arts gathered in the martial art of “Razmafzar” which, based on Persian manuscripts, include the training of the following historical weapons:

• Kamān (bow)
• Shamšir (sword)
• Gorz (mace)
• Tabar (axe)
• Neyze (spear)
• Kārd (knife)
• Xanjar (dagger)
• Pišqabz (dagger with a S-shaped blade)
• Qaddāre (one edged short sword)
• Qame (double edged short sword).

In addition to weapons training, Persian wrestling techniques as described by different mansucripts are trained extensively. These include a number of moves for throwing and even groundfighting.

Iran has been a multi-ethnic country since the Achaemenian empire and many influences and fighting arts of different Iranian tribes have been considered in the setting up of this project. The techniques are trained on foot as well as on horseback as described by Persian manuscripts. A number of experienced martial artists and historical fencers have already started to train in this ancient art

The following articles by Dr. Khorasani, on Persian swordsmanship and traditional martial arts from Iran have been published in peer-reviewed academic, military history and cultural journals thus far:

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010f). Persisches Bogenschießen Teil II. Traditionell Bogenschiessen, 3. Quartal 2010, 56, pp. 64-67.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010e). Persischer Schwertkampf. Pallasch: Zeitschrift für Militärgeschichte. Heft 35, 14. Jahrgang 2010, pp. 23-29.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010d). El Arma Sagrada: El Combate con Arco y flecha en Irán. Revista de Artes Marciales Asiáticas, Volumen 5, Número 1, pp. 53–76.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010c). Persisches Bogenschießen. Traditionell Bogenschiessen, 2. Quartal 2010, 56, pp. 62-67.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010b). Belief Systems: Iran, The Principles of Javanmardi and Ayyaran, Shah-Nama, Recitations (Naqqali), Passion Plays (Ta’ziyeh). In: Svinth, Joseph R. and Thomas A. Green (eds.), Martial Arts of the World An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volume 2: Themes. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, pp. 363-369.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010a). Iranian Martial Arts: Archery, Swordsmanship, Iranian Wrestling. In: Svinth, Joseph R. and Thomas A. Green (eds.), Martial Arts of the World An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volume 1: Regions and Individual Arts. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, pp. 66-77.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2009e). Las Técnicas de la Esgrima Persa. Revista de Artes Marciales Asiáticas. Volumen 4, Número 1, pp. 20–49.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2009d). El Combate con Armas Blancas Cortas en la Esgrima Persa. Revista de Artes Marciales Asiáticas. Volumen 4, Número 2, pp. 38–53.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2009c). La Maza y el Hacha en la Tradición Marcial Iraní. Revista de Artes Marciales Asiáticas. Volumen 4, Número 3, pp. 28–43.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2009b). La Lanza: El Arma Principal en la Tradición Marcial Iraní. Revista de Artes Marciales Asiáticas. Volumen 4, Número 4, pp. 70–85.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2009a). L’Escrime Persane. Traduit par Francisco José Luis. La Revue de Téhéran. Mensuel Culturel Iranien en Langue Francaise. N. 49, Décembre 2009, 5e Annee, pp. 10-19.

Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, the world’s leading expert on the history of Iranian and Oriental arms. armour, firearms and traditional Iranian martial arts.See for example Dr. Khorasani’s lecture at M.I.T. on Iranian arms and armor from the Bronze age to the Qajar era. For more information on Dr. Khorasani’s works, consult his list of publications.

Note that Dr. Khorasani is the only person to have obtained two awards of academic merit in the field of Iranian Studies – he won the Book the Year Award in 2009 and well as the Book of the year Award in 2012. Dr. Khorasani’s first book (recipient of the 2009 award), Arms & Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period is also unique in that it is the first textbook of its kind to provide an exhaustive and detailed compendium on the history, development, description and analysis of Iranian arms and armor from the bronze age to the Qajar era.

Dt. Khorasani “Lexicon of Atms and Armor from Iran (which won the 2012 award) is the first academic book ever to be written on the lexicon and terminology of Iranian arms and warfare.

To rrder these books, please click on the Legat Publishers link or order directly from LEGAT Publishers: Alexander Frank (alexander.frank@legat-verlag.de)Tel. +49 (0) 70 73 / 30 24 49; Mobile +49 (0)179 / 453 61 21

The pictures and descriptions below were originally posted by Hessamoddin Shafeian. 

The pictures seen below will appear in Dr Khorasani’s upcoming text:  “Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Traditional Martial Arts of Iran” .

[Click to Enlarge] Historical weapons of Iran (kard, khanjar, separ, gorz, tabar, neyze, akenakes, shamsher sasani, qame, qaddare, ir va kaman, pishqabz/deshne): part of the upcoming book by Dr Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani “Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Traditional Martial Arts of Iran” to be published soon

[Click to Enlarge] Koshti jangi (war wrestling) part of the upcoming book by Dr Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani “Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Traditional Martial Arts of Iran” to be published soon.

[Click to Enlarge]  Traditional workouts from the Zoorkhaneh (lit. House of Power) along with traditional Iranian martial arts and archery techniques. Dr. Khorasani has done much to restore and revive traditional Iranian martial arts.

[Click to Enlarge] Razmafsar

[Click to Enlarge] War wrestling (koshti-ye jangi). 

[Click to Enlarge] War wrestling (koshti-ye jangi)

[Click to Enlarge] Razmafzar: Persian swordsmanship and traditional martial arts of Iran

[Click to Enlarge]  Razmafzar, Dr. Khorasani’s project of reviving Persian/Iranian martial arts and swordsmanship is going very well. Now he has also our constitution (asasnameh) defining all steps and levels with names and techniques

[Click to Enlarge] Razmafzar: A Persian Fighting Art based on Persian manuscripts

The Ottoman Turks had defeated the Iranian army of Shah Ismail I (r. 1502-1524) at the Battle of Chaldiran on August 23, 1514. In the disastrous aftermath of the ensuing Ottoman-Safavid wars, much of Iran’s Azarbaijan province (including its provincial capital Tabriz), Armenia (known as the Irvan Khanate in Medieval Iranian sources) and the Caucasus fell under the occupation of the Ottoman Turks.

[Click to Enlarge]Shah Ismail as depicted by a European painter – the painting is now housed in the Uffizi Gallery in Italy. Note the Latin terms “Rex Persareum” [Monarch of Persia] which makes clear that Shah Ismail was the king of Safavid Persia or Iran. Despite being hopelessly outmatched by the Ottoman armies in manpower and firerams, Ismail stood his ground in Chaldiran on August 23, 1514. Despite their victory, the Ottoman Turks, who had also sufferred heavy losses,  failed to conquer Iran.

The Ottoman Turks also occupied many of the Caucasian Khanates such as Irvan Khanate (modern Republic of Armenia) as well as much of those Caucasian territories (i.e. Shamakhi, Nakhchevan, etc.) known as the Republic of Azarbaijan since May 1918 (i.e. Shamakhi, Nakhchevan, etc.).

[Click to Enlarge]Recently published article by Kaveh Farrokh and Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani on the Battle of Chaldiran by major peer-reviewed military history journal based in Austria: Pallasch: Zeitschrift für Militärgeschichte, Organ der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Heereskunde. At left is the cover page of the journal; at center is a Safavid sword and a Qajar era painting of the battle of Chaldiran and at right are the profiles of the authors (in German). The peer board of Pallasch consists of high-ranking European military officers. The citation of the journal article for reference is: Farrokh, K., & Khorasani, M.M. (2012). Die Schlacht von Tschaldiran am 23. August 1514, Pallasch: Zeitschrift für Militärgeschichte, Organ der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Heereskunde. Heft 41, März 2012, pp. 47-71.

Despite their status as the world military superpower of the day, their deployment of heavy firepower (muskets and cannon) as well as larger numbers of troops, the Ottoman Turks failed to destroy the Iranian army. This was due to important military reforms (especially in the creation and integration of firearms units within the Iranian army) as well as a revived Iranian martial arts tradition (discussed further below).

[Click to enlarge]Iranian artilleryman of the type serving in the Iranian armies of Shah Abbas I during his campaigns which cleared the Ottoman Turks out of Western Iran (notably Luristan and Kurdistan), northwest Iran (especially Azarbaijan province) and the Caucasus in the early 1600s (Picture source: Historum.com). The Iranians facing the Ottoman armies in 1514 at the Battle of Chaldiran had no cannon or muskets; Shah Ismail and his cavalry suffered very heavy losses by repeatedly charging into the Ottoman lines in their endeavor to silence the Ottoman Sultan’s 500 cannon!

Important military reforms which had begun at the time of Shah Tahmasp I (r. 1524-1576) reached their apogee at the time of Shah Abbas I (r. 1587-1629), especially in the latter’s success in fully integrating firearms into the Safavid battle order. The latter task was assisted by the English brothers, Anthony and Robert Shereley.

Vincenzo D’Alessandri a European visitor to Iran arriving in 1571, reported that:

“Persians are tall and strong… commonly use swords, lances and guns on the battlefield…Persian Musketeers use their muskets so adeptly…they will draw the sword at times of necessity…muskets are slung to the back as to not interfere with the usage of bows and swords…their horses are very well trained and they [the Iranians] have no need to import horses…” [As cited in Amiri, M. (1970). Safarnameye Venezian dar Iran [The Travelogues of the Venetians in Persia]. Tehran: Entesharat-e Kharazmi, pp.448-449].

Despite fielding smaller numbers of troops, the reformed Safavid armies of Shah Abbas I defeated the Ottoman Turks and liberated Tabriz from Turkish occupation on October 21, 1603 (after 20 days of fighting).

Rare drawing by a European traveller who witnessed the aftermath of the liberation of Tabriz by Shah Abbas I on October 21, 1603. Local Azari citizens welcomed the Iranian Safavid army as liberators and took harsh reprisals against the defeated Ottoman Turks who had been occupying their city. Many unfortunate Turks fell into the hands of Tabriz’s citizens and were decapitated (Picture Source: Matofi, A., 1999, Tarikh-e-Chahar Hezar Sal-e Artesh-e Iran: Az Tamadon-e Elam ta 1320 Khorsheedi, Jang-e- Iran va Araqh [The 4000 Year History of the Army of Iran: From the Elamite Civilizaiton to 1941, the Iran-Iraq War]. Tehran:Entesharat-e Iman, p.63).

Note that the sources cited in this article thus far are clear that the Safavids are Iranians; they are consistently refered to as “Persians” in reference to their historical and cultural links to the wider Iranian mileau. Therefore, the fact that many of the Iranian Azarbaijanis had become Turcophone was simply another facet of their Iranian identity – Iranians are not limited to Persian-speakers only, as Iranian culture is multi-faceted and characterized by diversity and synthesis within an Iranian cultural framework.

Note the observations of a European traveller to Iran named Antonio Tenreiro in 1525 and his descriptions of the inhabitants of the city of Tabriz:

“This city [Tabriz] is inhabited by Persians and some Turkomans, white people, and beautiful of face and person” [Ronald Bishop Smith (1970), The first age of the Portuguese embassies, navigations and peregrinations in Persia (1507-1524), Decatur Press, pp. 85-86.].

It should be noted that the Turkoman tribes cited above were religious followers of the Safavid dynasty (themselves originally of the Iranian pedigree but progressively Turkicized linguistically, hence of the Persianate civilizational realm). These had migrated from the Anatolian regions and became the military backbone of the early Safavid dynasty. It was these same Turcomens who had stood up with Shah Ismail against the Ottoman Turks in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514.

It is clear that the Ottoman Turks had intended to hold Tabriz and all of Azarbaijan under permanent occupation. In a letter written by Shah Abbas to Jalal e Din Mohammad Akbar (the powerful emperor of India and contemporary of Shah Abbas, whom the Iranian king always addressed as father) after the liberation of Tabriz, he had noted that the Ottomans in Tabriz had:

“…200 cannon, 5000 musketeers…supplies lasting for ten years and much equipment for the holding of fortresses…” [Falsafi, N. (1965). Zendeganiye Shah Abbas Avval [The Life and Times of Shah Abbas the First] (6 Volumes). Tehran University, Volume IV, pp.22-23.].

[Click to enlarge] Shah Abbas I (r. 1587-1629) as depicted in a European copper engraving made by Dominicus Custos citing him as“Schach Abas Persarum Rex” or “Shah Abbas the Great monarch of Persia”. Note how Custos makes a particular emphasis on linking Shah Abbas to the “Mnemona Cyrus” (the Memory of Cyrus the Great of Persia). His victories over the Ottomans weakened them against the Europeans to the West, and especially in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. See also Hessamoddin’s article in Persian -شاه عباس و عیاری–Shah Abbas and Chivalry/knighthood.

Shah Abbas I then thrust into the Caucasus to expel the Ottoman Turks from the Irvan Khanate and the rest of the Caucasus. The occupying Ottoman garisson of Irvan (Yerevan) city lost 2000 troops in just a few hours after it was forced by the Iranians into close-quarter combat; the Ottoman were then forced to surrender in June 1604.

[Click to enlarge] The Zoorkhaneh or “House of Power”. The Zoorkhaneh is the traditional Iranian martial arts school which has for centuries been an important medium for the training of Iranian warriors. The roots of this can be traced to the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian tradition. At right is Pahlavan  (lit. brave intrepid champion) Mustafa Toosi wielding Zoorkhaneh meels at 60 pounds each (Picture source: Pahlavani.com). Meel training is one of the Zoorkhaneh regiments used for building strength, stamina, and overall physical strength. Each Meel can range from 25-60 pounds and can be as tall as 4 ½ feet. At left is Pahlavan Reza Zanjani with traditional Iranian weights  (Picture soource: Abbasi, M. (1995), Tarikh e Koshti Iran [History of Wrestling in Iran], Tehran: Entesharate Firdows, page 133.).

The Iranian ascendancy over the Ottomans had much to do with the revival and promotion of Iran’s ancient martials arts tradition by the Safavids. As noted by Jean Chardin, a French Huguenot jeweller who had arrived in Iran in 1665:

“…the youth, much like the times of ancient Persia, are introduced to martial exercises…” [Abbasi, M. (1956). Siyahatnameye Chardin [The Travelogues of Chardin] (10 volumes). Tehran: Amir Kabir, Volume III, pp.179.]

Yet another European travellor to Iran, Giovanni Battista Vecchietti reported the Iranians in the late 16th century as being:

“…expert in fighting with sword, lance and bow, and… greatly superior to the Turks in this” [As cited by Matthee, R.P., 1991, The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.394].

Regarding this topic consult Professor M. Haneda: Iranian Safavid Armies, Iran at War:1500-1988, 2011, pp. 28-41, 56-61 and Dr. Manouchehr M. Khorasani’s upcoming text “Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Traditional Martial Arts of Iran”.

[Click to Enlarge]Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani (at left in each photo) demonstrating hand to hand combat technciques in accordance with tradtional Iranian martial arts techniques. As the Ottoman Empire had vastly larger numbers of troops than Iran, the Safavids developed an excellent core of professional fighters who were often capable of standing up to larger numbers of Ottoman troops (Photos to appear in Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani’s upcoming text “Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Traditional Martial Arts of Iran”).

Shah Abbas I completed his defeat of the Ottomans by crushing their counteroffensive in Iran’s Azarbaijan province (November 6, 1605). He then cleared the Ottoman Turks out of Ganja and Shamakhi in the Caucasus by late June 1606 .

The Ottomans once again attempted to occupy Tabriz and Yerevan in 1616-1618, by deploying 200-300,000 troops and heavy firepower. Once again, they were defeated and expelled back into Ottoman territory by Shah Abbas I (see Iran at War:1500-1988, 2011, pp. 56-61).

[Click to Enlarge] (LEFT-Picture source: Yerevan.Am) Modern-day Yerevan and traditional Armenian churches; (RIGHT-Picture source: Historum.com) Safavid musketeer of the type contemporary to Iranian forces liberating Yerevan from the Ottoman Turks in 1604; it is notable that among the troops liberating Yerevan were musketeers from Iran’s Azarbaijan province.

Kaveh Farrokh’s third book, entitled -(ایران در جنگ (۱۹۸۸-۱۵۰۰-Iran at War: 1500-1988 has been reviewed by the Iran-based Library, Museum and Center of Manuscripts -کتابخانه، موزه و مرکز اسناد -

Below is one excerpt of that review:

-فرخ با تحلیل جنگ های مذهبی و غیرمذهبی رخ داده در این مدت به ما نشان می دهد که چگونه ایران از همه طرف (شرق، غرب، جنوب) و در دوره های مختلفی مورد هجوم همسایه هایش قرار گرفته است… تحلیل های فرخ از انقلاب اسلامی و جنگ ایران و عراق، اطلاعاتی در مورد پیشینه نظامی ایران در اختیار ما می گذارد که تا به حال مطرح نشده است.-

“Farrokh has analyzed the religious and non-religious wars and has demonstrated how Iran has been attacked by its neighbors from all sides (east, west and south) over several periods…Farrokh’s analyses of the Islamic revolution and the Iran-Iraq war provides us information that has hitherto remained unmentioned…”

[Click to Enlarge]Modern-day Lur rifleman of the type that formed the backbone of the armies of Karim Khan Zand (1705-1779) (Picture source: courtesy of Mehdi Dehghan). Below the Lur warrior is a picture of a Zand era Iranian gun with a British percussion cap mechanism fitted to the barrel of the firearm (Picture source: Khorasani, Maouchehr, Mosthagh (2009), Persian Firearms part Three: The percussion Cap Lock. Classic Arms and Militaria, pp.22-27).

Kindly note that the Farrokh text has been reviewed by other major venues such as the Wall Street Journal (click icon below for details…)

The review by the Iran Library, Museum, and Center of Manuscripts concludes by noting that:

-جمع آوری و طبقه بندی اطلاعات تاریخی حدود ۵ قرن یک کشور کار بسیار دشواری است و به نظر می رسد کاوه فرخ، به خوبی از پس آن برآمده است-

”The compilation and categorization of historical information spanning five centuries is a very difficult task and it would seem that Kaveh Farrokh has done well in achieving this.”

[Click to Enlarge] (Left) Young Lur women from Malayer pose with their pistols and rifles circa early 1960s. The women of Luristan often accompanied their husbands to battle in the armies of Karim Khan Zand and were famed for their skills with firearms, archery and horseback riding. Many of these traditions endure to this day among the Lurs. (Picture source in Facebook, with special thanks to Shahyar Mahabadi and the Moradi clan) (Right) Pre-Islamic tombstone of a female warrior in Malayer. Iranian women have often been cited as warriors, one example being the presence of female fighters in the armies of Shapur I in the 3rd century AD (Picture source in Facebook, with special thanks to Shahyar Mahabadi and the Moradi clan).

Farrokh has also been interviewed on a number of major media outlets on his third text (see for example interviews in Voice of America, (August 14, 2011) and Pars TV (August 27, 2011).

The University of British Columbia’s Asian Studies program recently gave Kaveh Farrokh a tribute acknowledging his long association with the University of British Columbia – kindly see video showing the distinguished Professor Harjot S. Oberoi who is a world-class historian at the University of British Columbia’s Asian Studies program.

Address by Professor Harjot S. Oberoi of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Asian Studies Department: Introduction to “An Evening with Dr. Kaveh Farrokh – Sassanian Architecture” (Monday March 12, 2011). This talk  was given as part of the overall drive by the UBC Asian Studies department to promote support for the University of British Columbia’s Iranian Studies and Persian language initiative.

Farrokh’s text in also being increasingly consulted in various US and Western venues.

Select history books cited by Union University in November 2011 – note Union University History Department Chair, Professor Stephen Carls  (at right) displaying a copy of Farrokh’s Iran at War (for full report click here…).

Kaveh Farrokh’s third text. Iran at War: 1500-1988-(ایران در جنگ (۱۹۸۸-۱۵۰۰- has been reviewed in the Small Wars Journal by Youssef Aboul-Enein on July 12, 2012.

Iran at War: 1500-1988. Osprey Hardcover 480 pages, released May 24, 2011 • ISBN: 978-1-84603-491-6. Contact: John Tintera, Marketing Director @ 718/433-4402, john.tintera@ospreypublishing.com.

To order consult Chapters-Indigo or Amazon.

Cover jacket of Iran at War: 1500-1988. [CLICK TO ENLARGE] A photo taken in 1926 of a military assembly in Tehran. The troops are about to pose for a military review. Standing at far left with hand resting on sword is Colonel Haji Khan Pirbastami (of Northern Iranian origin). Note the diverse nature of Iranian troops, reminiscent of the armies of Iran since antiquity. Kurds, Azaris, Lurs, Baluchis, Qashqais, Persians, all partake as one in the assembly.  Colonel Haji Khan and the officer to the right are members of the Gendarmerie para-military forces. Haji Khan died just a year later when fighting as a colonel with the Iranian army against Bolshevik/Communist and Russian troops attempting to overrun northern Iran after World War One.  

Note that this text has also been reviewed by the Wall Street journal (click on icon below):

The Farrokh text has been reviewed by the Iran-based Library, Museum and Center of Manuscripts (see also -ارایه کتاب «ایران در جنگ: ۱۹۸۸-۱۵۰۰» در کتابخانه مجلس-).

The review by Youssef Aboul-Enein opens in the following fashion:

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh … has published a timely volume immersing readers in five centuries of how Persians have waged and conducted war.  The book delves deeply into the history and psychology of warfare and provides a grounding of how Iranians see threats and challenges today. 

The book begins with the Safavids, the empire that ruled Persia from 1501 to 1736, and was largely responsible for imposing Shiism in the region, making it the state religion and forcing the conversion of Sunni Muslims, Jews and Zoroastrians.  His insights are fascinating, and include the caste system introduced by the Arabs when they conquered Persia, which led to a yearning for an Islamic system that incorporated and respected Persian identity.  Shah Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid Empire, is detailed and we see a military leader who although was merciless towards Sunnis, personally provided medical care to his soldiers.  Shah Ismail would battle the Uzbeks, Portuguese, and Ottoman.   

[Click to Enlarge]Shah Ismail as depicted by a European painter – the painting is now housed in the Uffizi Gallery in Italy. Note the Latin terms “Rex Persareum” [Monarch of Persia] which makes clear that Shah Ismail was the king of Safavid Persia or Iran. Despite being hopelessly outmatched by the Ottoman armies in manpower and firerams, Ismail stood his ground in Chaldiran on August 23, 1514. Despite their victory, the Ottoman Turks, who had also sufferred heavy losses,  failed to conquer Iran.

Note then the following observation about the Safavids by Youssef Aboul-Enein:

It was under Shah Abbas I that the Persian army began to acquire gunpowder, and readers will be surprised to learn of the intrigues between the Shiite Muslim Empire of the Safavids and various European monarchs wanting to use the Safavids to divert the growing power of the Sunni Ottoman Empire.  Imagine what the Ottomans could have accomplished if it were not for the Shiite Safavid Empire challenging the eastern edges of their empire. 

Rare drawing by a European traveller who witnessed the aftermath of the liberation of Tabriz by Shah Abbas I on October 21, 1603. Local Azari citizens welcomed the Iranian Safavid army as liberators and took harsh reprisals against the defeated Ottoman Turks who had been occupying their city. Many unfortunate Turks fell into the hands of Tabriz’s citizens and were decapitated (Picture Source: Matofi, A., 1999, Tarikh-e-Chahar Hezar Sal-e Artesh-e Iran: Az Tamadon-e Elam ta 1320 Khorsheedi, Jang-e- Iran va Araqh [The 4000 Year History of the Army of Iran: From the Elamite Civilizaiton to 1941, the Iran-Iraq War]. Tehran:Entesharat-e Iman, p.63). Had the Ottomans not been embroiled in Iran and the Caucasus, their armies could have advanced much deeper into Europe.

Youssef Aboul-Enein then notes the following regarding the military career of Nader Shah:

The section on Nader Shah is exquisite, and contains a few unique tactical innovations, like the use of camels with incendiary materials sent within the ranks of Elephants causing them to panic and turn against their Mugal opponents.  Reading Nader Shah’s campaigns matter for it will give you a grounding on fighting in the terrains as varied as Iraq to Afghanistan.  After the Shah Tahmasp I was attacked by the Ottomans, Afghans and Russians, the Safavid Persian Empire was carved up between these powers.  Nader Shah would reorganize the Persian Army and would be instrumental in restoring the Persian Empire created by Shah Ismail and Abbas, he would also put aside the weak figurehead Shah Tahmasp II and assume rule evolving from Nader Khan to Nader Shah, he is right or wrong Islam’s Napoleon and just as controversial.  Nader Shah use of a highly mobile light cannon, the Zanbourak, that can be packed on camels and set up quickly to amass firepower is a must read. 

[CLICK TO ENLARGE] A painting of the Battle of Karnal (February 22, 1739) made by Mosavar ol-Mamalek.The battle ended in an overwhelming victory for Nader Shah (see his statue in the inset photo). The Iranians then occupied Delhi and captured India’s royal jewels. Some Indian historians (i.e. Sarkar) have argued that India was severely weakened by Nader Shah; this allowed the British Empire to easily spread its dominance over the entire Indian subcontinent just decades after the battle of Karnal (picture source: R. Tarverdi (Editor) & A. Massoudi (Art editor), The land of Kings, Tehran: Rahnama Publications, 1971, p.228).

The review then discusses the book’s sections on the Zands, Qajars, and Pahlavis. Youssef Aboul-Enein then concludes: 

The section on the Iran-Iraq War is a must read and offers a fresh narrative of the tactics used by the Islamic Republic against Saddam’s armies.  My only critique is that I would have liked to have seen a discussion or even section on Iranian use of proxies like Hizbullah to asymmetrically undermine their adversaries.  That said, the book is recommended for anyone interest in warfare generally, the Middle East, and even Afghanistan.  In short, this is the kind of book worthy of discussion in America’s War Colleges of the 21st century.

[CLICK TO ENLARGE] -Elements of the Iraqi 12^th Armored Division assemble at Fakkeh (in the Dezful area) on March 23^rd 1982 to rescue remnants of the Iraqi 4^th Army Corps crushed by a powerful Iranian offensive (Left – Steven J. Zaloga, Modern Soviet Combat Tanks, Osprey Vanguard  37, pp.32).  As these units deployed to attack, they were bombed and strafed by up to 95 Iranian F-4 and F-5 combat aircraft.  The Iraqi 12^th Armored Division was virtually eliminated. At right are Iranian regular army troops atop an overturned Iraqi tank of the 12th armoured division (source: www.shahed.isaar.ir). Note that the vehicle has been overturned as a result of aerial bombardment by Iranian F-4 and F-5 combat aircraft.  For more see Pars TV (August 27, 2011).

Kaveh Farrokh provided a presentation at (بخش ایران شناسی دانشگاه دولتی ایروان) the University of Yerevan Iranian Studies Department at the “Shirvan, Arran, and Azerbaijan: A Historical-Cultural Retrospective” conference (kindly click here for more information on all conference participants and their topics).

Frontal view of the State University of Yerevan, host to the“Shirvan, Arran, and Azerbaijan: A Historical-Cultural Retrospective” conference  on Nov. 1-2, 2013. The university is host to an excellent Iranian Studies program, staffed by exemplary researchers such as Professor Garnik S. Asatrian (Chair, Iranian Studies Dept., Yerevan State University; Editor, “Iran and the Caucasus”, BRILL, Leiden-Boston) and Professor Victoria Arakelova (Associate Professor, Department of Iranian Studies, Yerevan State University; Associate Editor, “Iran and the Caucasus”, BRILL, Leiden). The conference has been made possible through the works of Professors Asatrian and Arakelova.

Cover page, dedication and list of organizers of the conference. Kindly note that Kaveh Farrokh was one of the members of the organizing committee for the conference at Yerevan State University (Click to enlarge to see list of organizers). For more information on the conference kindly click here for more information on all conference participants and their topics.

Kaveh Farrokh’s presentation and abstract for the conference was as follows:

“Cultural Links between Iran and Arran (Modern Republic of Azerbaijan) from Antiquity to the 1900s” (November 2, 2013)

This paper will provide an overview of the cultural and historical links between ancient Albania/Arran and Iran from antiquity to the early twentieth century. A comprehensive series of Classical and pre- Islamic Iranian sources as well as archaeological studies are referenced for the pre-Islamic (Medo-Achaemenid and Partho-Sassanian) era. Examples cited include discoveries of Achaemenid palaces in the region as well as the role of the Albanian knights in the Sassanian army (Spah). The post-Islamic era is discussed with respect to Islamic and European primary sources and cartography with references to languages, the Safavid and post-Safavid eras to the early 1900s.

Modern-day Zoroastrians from Iran at the Baku Atash-kade (Zoroastrian Fire-Temple) being led in religious ceremonies by Mobed Kourosh Niknam (Source: Image by Farroukh Aliev with this first appearing in Fravahr.org).

The Hall of Firdowsi at (تالار فردوسی در بخش ایران شناسی دانشگاه دولتی ایروان)  the Iranian Studies department of Yerevan State University.

After the conference, Farrokh delivered an additional lecture on November 4, 2013 at the University of Yerevan entitled:

Cultural Links between Iran, Armenia and Georgia from Antiquity to the early 1800s 

This lecture will provide an overview of the cultural and historical links between ancient Iran, Armenia and Georgia,notably with respect to the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian eras. The role of Northern Iranian peoples in the Caucasus and their impact upon the Caucasus is also examined. Topics addressed the role of the Naxarar Armenian knights in the Sassanian Spah (Army) and the role of Armenia and Georgia in cultural contacts between the Iranian Plateau and Eastern Europe. The discussion will conclude with the promotion of Persian language and literature in the Caucasus during the post-Islamic era up to the early 1800s.

The Surva festival in Bulgaria. Local traditions ascribe this festival to the ancient Iranian cult of Zurvan (Master of Time); the Caucasus has long acted as a conduit between Eastern Europe and the Iranian plateau.

The “Shirvan, Arran, and Azerbaijan: A Historical-Cultural Retrospective” conference has been dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Enayatollah Reza.

The late Professor Enayatollah Reza (1920-2010).

Western scholarship has been uncovering a number of links between the Vikings and Persia, as noted in a previous posting on Viking traders and Persian silk.

Readers are also invited to partake in the following upcoming event at the British Museum regarding the Vikings and their legacy:

The Vikings are coming… British Museum launches The BP Exhibition Vikings: life and legend (6 March – 22 June 2014
 Sainsbury Exhibitions Gallery)


Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist of the University of Stockholm has provided a very intriguing interview with the 2012 documentary television Nova program entitled “Secrets of the Viking Sword“.

The Viking Ulfbehrt Sword: (Top) Contemporary reconstruction of the Ulfbehrt (Picture Source: Reliks.com) (Bottom) an original sample of the weapon from the 9th century – note the “Ulfbehrt” inlay within the blade (Picture Source: Public Domain). A new generation of Western scholars have traced the metallurgical engineering of this venerable Scandinavian weapon to the east, outside of Europe.

The section of interest in the Nova program is where Professor Ljungqvist (photo at left – Source: Stockholm University) states of the Volga trade route between Lake Malaren to Northern Iran where:

“…it is very likely that the steel that you find in the Ulfberht swords originated from Iran…I would guess that they bought it [Persian steel] from friendly trading connections in Iran paid with furs and other Nordic commodities and took it back on the small ships that they used on the rivers”

Video clip of the PBS Nova program section outlining the Viking-Iranian connection.

In summary, as noted by Professor Ljungqvist, the Vikings sailed from Lake Malaren in Sweden to the Volga River and from there into the Caspian Sea southwards towards the ports of northern Persia.

Map of the Viking Volga Trade Route (Picture Source: PBS-Nova Program). The Ulfberht sword is dated to the time when the Volga Trade Route was operational, between the early 800s to mid-1000s. In practice, the Vikings had several trade routes in addition to the Volga.

Despite the fall of the Sassanian Empire (224-651 CE) to the Arabo-Muslim invasion in 637-651 CE, many facets of the ancient Sassanian Spah (military) continued to endure in northern Persia. The Caliphate had great difficulties subduing Iran’s mountainous and forested north, where local military commanders were often designated with Sassanian military titles. Northern Iran’s metallurgical and weapons building technology continued unabated after the fall of the Sassanians, a factor which benefited Viking traders sailing along the Volga trade route.

The Oseberg longship at the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo (Picture source: Heritage Trust). Viking ships like these sailed to northern Persia in search of trade.

However, the Vikings were already aware of Sassanian military technology, long before the advent of the Ulfbehrt sword. As noted by Peter Wilcox:

“The resemblance between this [Sassanian] helmet…from the fully armored king carved into the rock at Taq-i-Bostan [Taghe Bostan] near Kermanshah and those recovered from the Scandinavian graves at Vendel and Valsgarde in Sweden is remarkable ” [Wilcox, P. (1999). Rome’s Enemies: Parthians and Sasanid Persians. Osprey Publishing, p.47, Plate H1].

This raises questions as to whether this technology was transmitted by other Turkic or Iranian peoples in ancient Eastern Europe sharing the same military tradition as the Sassanians, or through trade. The transfer of Iranian and Hun-Turkic weapons technology to the European realms is a fascinating domain, one currently under investigation by numbers of Western scholars.

Viking Helmet (Right; Picture Source: English Monarchs) and reconstruction of earlier Sassanian helmet at Taghe Bostan, Kermanshah, Iran (Left; Picture Source: Close up of Angus Mcbride painting of Sassanian knight at Taghe Bostan, Wilcox, P. (1999). Rome’s Enemies: Parthians and Sasanid Persians. Osprey Publishing, p.47, Plate H1).

The sword building technology was certainly not confined to northern Iran only: Central Asia, with its deep-rooted Turco-Iranian or Persianate civilization was also home to advanced metallurgy and sword building as seen in another portion of the   2012 documentary television Nova program entitled “Secrets of the Viking Sword“.

[Click to Enlarge] Images of North Iran: [Left] an elderly Talysh man plays his flute in the forests of Gilan; [Right] Massouleh region in Gilan (Picture Source: Fouman.com). Evidently the Scandinavians and Northern Iranians have had cordial cultural relations since at least Sassanian times, but this topic has received scant academic attention. 

Studies have yet to be conducted on the relations between the northern Iranians and the Vikings, but it is clear that the interactions were constructive and cordial at the very least. In a sense, the geography of northern Iran would not have appeared all that different from Europe, as Iran is a highly diverse country with respect to geography, linguistic diversity, etc.

The Fezana Journal has published an article by Kaveh Farrokh on the ancient women of Iran:

Farrokh, K. (2014). Gender Equality in Ancient Iran (Persia). Fezana Journal (Publication of the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America), Vol. 28, No.1, March/Spring, pp. 105-107.

A reconstruction by Cernenko and Gorelik of the north-Iranian Saka or Scythians in battle (Cernenko & Gorelik, 1989, Plate F). The ancient Iranians (those in ancient Persia and the ones in ancient Eastern Europe) often had women warriors and chieftains, a practice not unlike those of the contemporary ancient Celts in ancient Central and Western Europe. What is also notable is the costume of the Iranian female warrior – this type of dress continues to appear in parts of Luristan in Western Iran. 

As noted in the beginning of the article: “One topic that has received little attention in academia is ancient Iranian warrior women. There are in fact numerous references to ancient Iranian female warriors, from classical sources to post-Islamic Iranian literature.”

A reconstruction of a female Achaemenid cavalry unit by Shapur Suren-Pahlav.

It is further averred in the article that: “The rights of women in Achaemenid Persia were remarkably “modern” by today’s standards: women worked in many “male” professions (e.g. carpentry, masonry, treasury clerks, artisans, winery working), enjoyed payment equity with men, attained high-level management positions supervising male and female teams, owned and controlled property, were eligible for “maternity leave,” and received equitable treatment relative to men in inheritance“.

Iranian women from Malayer (near Hamedan in the northwest) engaged in target practice in the Malayer city limits in the late 1950s.  The association between weapons and women is nothing new in Iran; Roman references for example note of Iranian women armed as regular troops in the armies of the Sassanians (224-651 AD).

The legacy of the status of the women of Iran is emphasized in the article as thus: “To this day, women in Iran’s tribal regions continue to be seen wielding their weapons“.

Iranian tribal woman in shooting competition on horseback at the 2011 Fereydanshahr Olympiad in Iran.

The Persian Heritage Journal has published an article by Kaveh Farrokh on the historical background of factors that led to the revolt of Babak Khorramdin:

Farrokh, K. (2014). An Overview of the Historical Circumstances that led to the Revolts of Babak Khorramdin. Volume XIX, No. 74, Summer, pp.21-23.

An ingress into Babak Khorramdin’s Castle of Bazz in Iran’s Azerbaijan province in the northwest (Picture source: Pouya Yazdchi). Built during the Partho-Sassanian eras, Bazz proved to be a formidable fortress. Bazz finally fell to the Caliphate’s Turkish troops in August 15, 837 CE. Babak was executed five months later by the Caliphate in Samara (in modern Iraq) in January 838 CE.

As noted in the the article: “…though conquered [By the Arabo-Muslims in 637-651 CE], Persian language and cultural traditions such as the Nowruz (Iranian New Year) continued to endure (Axworthy, 2006, p.107). Ettinghausen corroborates this by noting that Iran had “…lost its independence, though not its cultural identity” (Ettinghausen, 1972, p.1). “

Babak Korramdin (795-838 CE) was to lead the last and perhaps greatest of all anti-Caliphate movements in Iran; as averred to in the article, Ibn Hazm has stated that: “the Persians…were greater than all of the people… after their defeat by the Arabs, they [the Persians] rose up to fight against Islam…among their leaders were Sunbadh [Sindbad], Muqanna, Usta- sis, Babak [Khorramdin] and others…”.

A portrayal of Babak Khorramdin (Picture source: Babak Khoramdin) who led a three-decade (816-837 CE) rebellion to eject the Caliphate from Iran.

As cited in the article: “Primary historical sources are clear that Babak was a Persian. One of these is medieval Armenian historian Vardan Areweltsi, approx. 1198-1271 CE (Muyldermans, 1927, p.119). “

Signpost at Bazz which reads “Let us become familiar/get to know the Castle of Babak”  (Picture source: Historical Iran Blog).

Shah Ismail I (r. 1502-1524) led the armies of Iran against the numerically superior and firearms equipped invading horses of Sultan “Yavuz” (the Grim) Selim at the Battle of Chaldiran on August 23, 1514.  The Italian nobleman and ambassador to Persia, Giosofat Barbaro, has provided a description of Shah Ismail’s troops in an 1873 publication based on his travels:

“…the flower of the Persian people, as the kings of Persia are not accustomed to give pay on the occasion of war, but to a standing force…Thus it is the Persian gentlemen, to be well brought up, pay great attention to horsemanship, and when necessity calls, go willingly to war…” (Josafa Barbaro (1873). Travels to Tana and Persia. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, p.58).

In the disastrous aftermath of the ensuing Ottoman-Safavid wars, much of Iran’s Azarbaijan province (including its provincial capital Tabriz), Armenia (known as the Iravan Khanate in Medieval Iranian sources) and the Caucasus fell under the occupation of the Ottoman Turks. What is clear is that, despite the prevalence Turkic speech among Shah Ismail’s Safavid court and the Turkmen Qizilbash warriors of his army, the Europeans (1) recognized the Safavids and their troops as belonging to the Iranian realm and (2) that the Ottomans were the mortal enemies of the Safavids.

[Click to Enlarge] Shah Ismail as depicted by a European painter – the painting is now housed in the Uffizi Gallery in Italy. Note the Latin terms “Rex Persareum” [Monarch of Persia] which makes clear that Shah Ismail was the king of Safavid Persia or Iran. Despite being hopelessly outmatched by the Ottoman armies in manpower and firerams, Ismail stood his ground in Chaldiran on August 23, 1514. Despite their victory, the Ottoman Turks, who had also suffered heavy losses,  failed to conquer Iran.

Despite the defeat at Chaldiran, the Ottomans failed to conquer Iran. The Iranian army, though battered, lived to fight another day. Important military reforms which had begun at the time of Shah Tahmasp I (r. 1524-1576) reached their apogee at the time of Shah Abbas I (r. 1587-1629), especially in the latter’s success in finally implementing the full integration of firearms into the Safavid battle order. The latter task was assisted by the English brothers, Anthony and Robert Shereley.

Vincenzo D’Alessandri a European visitor to Iran arriving in 1571, reported that:

“Persians are tall and strong… commonly use swords, lances and guns on the battlefield…Persian Musketeers use their muskets so adeptly…they will draw the sword at times of necessity…muskets are slung to the back as to not interfere with the usage of bows and swords…their horses are very well trained and they [the Iranians] have no need to import horses…” [As cited in Amiri, M. (1970). Safarnameye Venezian dar Iran [The Travelogues of the Venetians in Persia]. Tehran: Entesharat-e Kharazmi, pp.448-449].

[Click to Enlarge] Son and successor of Shah Ismail, Shah Tahmasp (r.1524-1576). Note from the partially visible lettering that Tahmasp is also clearly identified as king of Persia. Ismail Commissioned a copy of the Iranian epic Shahname for his son (Savory, R. M. (1994). Land of the Lion and the Sun, in Lewis, B. (ed.), The World of Islam: Faith, People and Culture, Thames & Hudson, pp.245-271, as cited from pp.252) which was completed after Ismail’s death.

Despite fielding smaller numbers of troops, the reformed Safavid armies of Shah Abbas I defeated the Ottoman Turks and liberated Tabriz from Turkish occupation on October 21, 1603 (after 20 days of fighting).

Rare drawing by a European traveler who witnessed the aftermath of the liberation of Tabriz by Shah Abbas I on October 21, 1603. Local Azari citizens welcomed the Iranian Safavid army as liberators and took harsh reprisals against the defeated Ottoman Turks who had been occupying their city. Many unfortunate Turks fell into the hands of Tabriz’s citizens and were decapitated (Picture Source: Matofi, A., 1999, Tarikh-e-Chahar Hezar Sal-e Artesh-e Iran: Az Tamadon-e Elam ta 1320 Khorsheedi, Jang-e- Iran va Araqh [The 4000 Year History of the Army of Iran: From the Elamite Civilizaiton to 1941, the Iran-Iraq War]. Tehran:Entesharat-e Iman, p.63).

Note that the sources cited in this article thus far are clear that the Safavids are Iranians; they are consistently refered to as “Persians” in reference to their historical and cultural links to the wider Iranian mileau. Therefore, the fact that many of the Iranian Azarbaijanis had become Turcophone was simply another facet of their Iranian identity – Iranians are not limited to Persian-speakers only, as Iranian culture is multifaceted and characterized by diversity and synthesis within an Iranian cultural framework.

Note the observations of a European traveler to Iran named Antonio Tenreiro in 1525 and his descriptions of the inhabitants of the city of Tabriz:

“This city [Tabriz] is inhabited by Persians and some Turkomans, white people, and beautiful of face and person” [Ronald Bishop Smith (1970), The first age of the Portuguese embassies, navigations and peregrinations in Persia (1507-1524), Decatur Press, pp. 85-86.].

A girl from modern-day Ardabil (known as Abadan Piruz or Shahram Peruz in Sassanian times). There are numeorus historical references to a Pahlavi-based language in Iranian Azarbaijan, notably the Fahlaviyat, Tabrizi and and Azariyeh before the linguistic Turkification of the province.  Examples include: (1) The Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Chelebi reports as late as 17th century that the majority of the women in [the city of] Maragheh conversed in Pahlavi or Middle Persian (2) Sadeqi has noted that “Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi and Dehqani” among the Iranian languages prevalent in Nakhchevan khanate in the Caucasus (Sadeqi, A.A. (2003). The conflict between Persian and Turkish in Arran and Shirvan. Iranian Journal of Linguistics, 18 (1), pp 1-12) (3) Ganjakets’i stating that Maragheh (Ganjakets’i, Kirakos (1986, Tr. with preface by R. Bedrosian), Kirakos Ganjakets’i’s History of the Armenians. New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, pp.197): “…was densely populated with Persians and a small number of Christians.”

It should be noted that the Turkoman tribes cited above were religious followers of the Safavid dynasty (themselves originally of the Iranian pedigree but progressively Turkicized linguistically, hence of the Persianate civilizational realm). These had migrated from the Anatolian regions and became the military backbone of the early Safavid dynasty. It was these same Turcomens who had stood up with Shah Ismail against the Ottoman Turks in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514.

[Click to enlarge] Shah Abbas I (r. 1587-1629) as depicted in a European copper engraving made by Dominicus Custos citing him as“Schach Abas Persarum Rex” or “Shah Abbas the Great monarch of Persia”. Note how Custos makes a particular emphasis on linking Shah Abbas to the “Mnemona Cyrus” (the Memory of Cyrus the Great of Persia). His victories over the Ottomans weakened them against the Europeans to the West, and especially in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

It is clear that the Ottoman Turks had intended to hold Tabriz and all of Azarbaijan under permanent occupation. In a letter written by Shah Abbas to Jalal e Din Mohammad Akbar (the powerful emperor of India and contemporary of Shah Abbas, whom the Iranian king always addressed as father) after the liberation of Tabriz, he had noted that the Ottomans in Tabriz had:

“…200 cannon, 5000 musketeers…supplies lasting for ten years and much equipment for the holding of fortresses…” [Falsafi, N. (1965). Zendeganiye Shah Abbas Avval [The Life and Times of Shah Abbas the First] (6 Volumes). Tehran University, Volume IV, pp.22-23.].

The Topkapi Palace Museum of Istanbul in Turkey is one of the world’s most important sites for the study of world history and civilization, on par with Museums such as the Hermitage (St. Petersburg, Russia), The British Museum (London, England), The Louvre (Paris, France), Iran Bastan Museum موزه ایران باستان (Tehran, Iran), Altes Museum (Berlin, Germany), Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome, Italy) and the Egyptian Museum المتحف المصري (Cairo, Egypt).

The Enderûn Library at the Topkapi palace Museum (Source: Public Domain). The Topkapi is one of the most important museums of Persianate or Turco-Iranian civilization.

Kavehfarrokh.com’s previous posting on “Giosofat Barbaro’s Reference to the Identity of Shah Ismail and the Safavids” resulted in communication highlighting the housing of significant Safavid items in Istanbul’s Topkapi Museum. The source of this information is an article penned in the BBC on December 6, 2014 by Pejman Akbarzadeh entitled “ردپای فرهنگ ایران در موزه‌های استانبول” [The Footprint of Iranian Culture in Istanbul’s Museums]. Below are two Safavid military items (a helmet and a military standard) housed in Istanbul’s Topkapi Museum.

Safavid helmet with mail (کلاهخود از دوران صفویه – موزه کاخ توپکاپی در استانبول), most likely captured during the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman empires; Topkapi Museum (Source: BBC Persian & Pejman Akbarzadeh).

Safavid Battle Standard captured in the Battle of Chaldiran (August, 23, 1514) (درفش ارتش ایران در جنگ چالدران – موزه کاخ توپکاپی) (Source: BBC Persian & Pejman Akbarzadeh).

The article below and the photographs originally appeared in the Historical Iran Blog.

=============================================================================================================

The Fortress of Izadkhast is located in the Fars Province of Iran, roughly 135 km south of Isfahan. This historical complex has been situated on a natural base along with unique characteristics. The complex contains the castle of Izadkhast, one caravanserai and the Safavid-period bridge. The works inside of the castle belong to different periods from Sassanids to Qajars. The most important section of the complex is the castle that has been built on singular bedrock in a sand construction and close to the valley of Izadkhast. A bridge and a gate in the most accessible part of the complex made it possible to connect with the surrounding areas.

[Click to Enlarge] An old photo of Izadkhast (Picture source: Historical Iran Blog)

It is, in form of construction, unique but can be, from the-materials-used point of view, compared with Citadel of Bam, Rhine and many other citadels, castles built in provinces of Yazd and Kerman. The complex caravanserai can be compared with Safavid caravanserais especially the caravanserais in Isfahan-Shiraz Route.

[Click to Enlarge] Arched entrance way at Izadkhast (Picture source: Historical Iran Blog)

Inside the walls of the fortress, there are alleyways and passages that criss-cross it. Right by the front gate that goes over a moat, there are many homes that are now fully deserted while some are completely destroyed. According to the locals, as recent as the turn of the millennium, people still lived in the old part of Izadkhast but due to floods in the past two years, the homes were destroyed and people were forced to move. Most of the homes in the interior were constructed from wood and mud. The smallness of the bedrock led to agglomeration of built rooms. Hence, the smallness of rooms resulted in increase of floors, some as many as five stories high which in itself and considering the circumstances of its time is a remarkable architectural feat.

[Click to Enlarge] Walls and built-in tower structure at Izadkhast (Picture source: Historical Iran Blog)

The caravanserai at the castle dates back to the time of Safavid Dynasty (1502 – 1736). The front gate was burned down by Nader Shah’s soldiers camping there during a cold night as they were looking for firewood.

[Click to Enlarge] Panoramic view of Izadkhast (Picture source: Historical Iran Blog)

The bedrock on which the complex is situated on protected the castle from the foreigners’ attacks. The tall and almost perpendicular height, ranging from 6 to 15 meters, on three sides of the fortress made it almost impossible for enemies to gain access to the interior. And for further protection, on the fourth and shorter side, a moat 30 meters long, 4 meters across and 4 meters deep had been dug.

[Click to Enlarge] An overview of Izadkhast (Picture source: Historical Iran Blog & Abbas Soltani at Iranian.com)

Many parts of the Izadkhast fortress have been destroyed as they have collapsed due to erosion and flooding. Inside the walled city, there are clear signs of damage from treasure hunters and unfortunately also graffiti on the walls.

[Click to Enlarge] An old alley at Izadkhast (Picture source: Picture source: Historical Iran Blog & Abbas Soltani at Iranian.com)

Brill Publications in Leiden, which is a major international academic venue for scholarly works, has just published a seminal book entitled:

Studies on Iran and The Caucasus (In Honour of Garnik Asatrian), Leiden: Brill, 2015

The book has been edited by Uwe Bläsing, University of Leiden, Victoria Arakelova, Yerevan State University and Matthias Weinreich, along  with the Assistance of Khachik Gevorgian. The Bibliographia Iranica provides an overview of the table of contents…

Front cover of the 2015 text “Studies on Iran and The Caucasus (In Honour of Garnik Asatrian), Brill, 2015“. As noted in the Brill webpage: “This unique collection of essays by leading international scholars gives a profound introduction into the great diversity and richness of facets forming the study of one of earth’s most exciting areas, the Iranian and Caucasian lands. Each of the 37 contributions sheds light on a very special topic, the range of which comprises historical, cultural, ethnographical, religious, political and last but not least literary and linguistic issues, beginning from the late antiquity up to current times. Especially during the last decennia these two regions gained greater interest worldwide due to several developments in politics and culture. This fact grants the book, intended as a festschrift for Professor Garnik Asatrian, a special relevance.” Professor Garnik S. Asatrian is the Chair of the Iranian Studies Department at Yerevan State University and the Editor of  the “Iran and the Caucasus” journal, BRILL, Leiden-Boston). Professor Victoria Arakelova (Associate Professor, Department of Iranian Studies, Yerevan State University) is the Associate Editor, of “Iran and the Caucasus”, BRILL, Leiden.

The textbook has also published an article by Kaveh Farrokh [The Military Campaigns of Shah Abbas I in Azerbaijan and the Caucasus (1603-1618). Studies on Iran and The Caucasus (Studies in Honour of Prof. Garnik S. Asatrian; Edited by U. Bläsing, V. Arakelova & M. Weinreich), pp. 75-95.] – below is the abstract for that article:

This paper provides an overview of the Safavid military forces and reforms at the time of Shah Abbas I (r.1587-1629), especially with the promotion of the new Ghulam units to counterbalance the traditional Qizlibash forces which had bought the Safavids to power at the time of Shah Ismail (r. 1502-1524). Other significant military reforms were the introduction of firearm units such as the Tofanchi (musketeers), Jazayerchis (bearers of larger and heavier muskets) and Toopchis (artillerymen). The introduction of these reforms proved instrumental in Shah Abbas I’s successes in expelling the Ottomans from Tabriz (1603) and Yerevan (1604), defeating the Ottoman counteroffensive in Azerbaijan (1605) and the capture of Shamakhi (1606) and Ganja (1606). Large numbers of Armenians, Kurds and Azeris had been displaced from their homelands by Shah Abbas I as a result of his scorched earth tactics against invading Ottoman forces in 1606-1607. Shah Abbas’ military successes led to the Ottoman-Safavid peace treaty of 1612 which affirmed all of the Iranian conquests since the recapture of Tabriz. The Safavid army had to fight a series of battles in Georgia (1613-1623) which led to a new Ottoman war (1616). The Safavid army defeated the Ottoman offensives in Yerevan and Ardabil (1616-1618) obliging the Ottomans to negotiate a new peace treaty which affirmed all of Shah Abbas’ conquests since 1603.

Rare drawing by a European traveller who witnessed the aftermath of the liberation of Tabriz by Shah Abbas I on October 21, 1603. Local Azari citizens welcomed the Iranian Safavid army as liberators and took harsh reprisals against the defeated Ottoman Turks who had been occupying their city. Many unfortunate Turks fell into the hands of Tabriz’s citizens and were decapitated (Picture Source: Matofi, A., 1999, Tarikh-e-Chahar Hezar Sal-e Artesh-e Iran: Az Tamadon-e Elam ta 1320 Khorsheedi, Jang-e- Iran va Araqh [The 4000 Year History of the Army of Iran: From the Elamite Civilization to 1941, the Iran-Iraq War]. Tehran: Entesharat-e Iman, p.63).

Back cover of the 2015 text “Studies on Iran and The Caucasus (In Honour of Garnik Asatrian), Brill, 2015“. The Brill webpage cites the following scholars as contributors to the volume: Victoria Arakelova; Marco Bais; Uwe Bläsing; Vahe S. Boyajian; Claudia A. Ciancaglini; Johnny Cheung; Viacheslav A. Chirikba; Matteo Compareti; Caspar ten Dam; Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst; Kaveh Farrokh; Aldo Ferrari; Ela Filippone; Khachik Gevorgian; Jost Gippert; Nagihan Haliloğlu; Elif Kanca; Pascal Kluge; Anna Krasnowolska; Vladimir Livshits; Hirotake Maeda; Irina Morozova; Irène Natchkebia; Peter Nicolaus; Antonio Panaino; Mikhail Pelevin; Adriano V. Rossi; James R. Russell; Dan Shapira; Wolfgang Schulze; Martin Schwarz; Roman Smbatian; Donald Stilo; Çakır Ceyhan Suvari; Giusto Traina; Garry Trompf; Matthias Weinreich; Eberhardt Werner and Boghos Zekiyan.

[Click to enlarge] Shah Abbas I (r. 1587-1629) as depicted in a European copper engraving made by Dominicus Custos citing him as “Schach Abas Persarum Rex” or “Shah Abbas the Great monarch of Persia”. Note how Custos makes a particular emphasis on linking Shah Abbas to the “Mnemona Cyrus” (the Memory of Cyrus the Great of Persia). Shah Abbas’ victories over the Ottomans weakened them against the Europeans to the West, and especially in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

On a humorous note: A long time between drinks! A 1902 cartoon entitled “491 BC-1902 CE” in Puck magazine (v. 52, no. 1348, 1902, December 31) depicting “Persia” (at left) toasting “Greece” (at right) from a punch bowl labeled “Renewal of Diplomatic Relations” (Source: US Library of Congress).

ANNOUNCEMENT: CALL FOR PAPERS | THE ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPT ASSOCIATION
SUFISM AND ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPT CULTURE – THE ELEVENTH ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPT CONFERENCE – Hosted by the University of Cambridge, UK, 13–15 September 2016 -***CFP Deadline: 23 November 2015***

Prior to World War One (1914-1918; also known as the Great War) Iran lacked a single unified standing army capable of resisting military invasions, a situation that lasted until 1921.

When the Great War ended in 1918, Iran’s military situation was dire. There were now four distinct military forces, in which each acted according to different interests: (1) the Qajar government national army (2) the Persian Cossacks (3) the South Persia Rifles and (4) the Gendarmerie.

(1) The Qajar Government force. Nominally the “national army”, this was in fact a highly ineffective force. Military equipment (especially guns and cannon) were mostly outdated and of substandard quality. Iranian arsenals were also poorly managed. The last military acquisitions were Austrian artillery pieces that had been delivered to Iran in 1898 (negotiations for more purchases had been made in 1901). Iranian troops were still using obsolete percussion and matchlocks, but there were numbers of more modern Snider and Martini (single-shot breech-loading) rifles becoming available.

Very interesting photo of an assembly of Qajar troops prior to World War One; these troops show marked imperial German influence as seen by a number of troops wearing “Germanic” type helmets. The backpacks of the above troops resemble those worn by imperial German and Austro-Hungarian troops (Source: Russian Guns.Ru website).

The Iranian military of the early 1900s was in a desperate state. While Iran had on paper a total of 150,000 troops at Mozzafar e Din Shah’s time, barely a fraction of such troops could be raised when World War One began in 1914. The few available troops were hardly effective as a fighting force. Farjollah Hosseini, the Chief Consul of Iran to England in the early 1900s summarized the desperate state of the Iranian military as follows:

“…the military office is nominally 70,000 men but is officially nil as numbers of our formations have never seen service…it would take six months to get our army to move if we were to mobilize available formations. We have no weapons, no ammunition reserves, no military schools…no military regulations, no factories and no battleships” [Unit for the Publication of Documents-Office of International Political Studies, 1991, pp. 92]

While Hosseini’s observations regarding military factories and schools were somewhat exaggerated, much of what he told the British was accurate. Many Iranian officers lacked knowledge of modern military doctrines, and most troops were poorly trained and disciplined, and morale was low.

A small Qajar army detachment prepares to march (Source: قشون‌ نظامی ایران در زمان قاجار and Public Domain). Note the slovenly state of their appearance, such as boots, gear on belts (or lack of), unkempt uniforms (note person in the rear with oversized military coat). Due in large part to the Qajar administration’s mis-management, cronyism and corruption, the Iranian army by the early 20th century was poorly equipped and trained to defend the country’s borders against Russian, Ottoman and British (or British-Indian) intrusions. 

French postcard with photograph of a Qajar military band attired in red-blue uniforms (Source: Fouman).

A serious obstacle against serious military reform was corruption in just the militayr apparatus but the Qajar government and society as a whole. Put simply, corrupt officials in important posts (civilian and military) often placed their personal wealth, personal interests and status ahead of their country’s interests. As a result, regular army troops, conscripts and levies continued to suffer from arrears in pay. The army even failed to provide its troops with adequate food, housing and a whole host of other essential services. To make matters worse, these same troops would also often see their personal income pocketed by their corrupt officers. Forced to make ends meet, Iranian soldiers were thus forced to engage in low-level vocational services and odd-jobs in the civilian sector such as hard labour and gardening. All of this meant time taken away from regular military training and preparedness. All of this in turn translated to increasing anger and resentment among ordinary Iranian troops.

Shopkeepers at a bread outlet in a Tehran street in the early 20th century (Source: Poolnews.ir). Due to arrears in payments or outright theft of monthly payments by their superior Qajar officers, many regular troops had to find other jobs just to make ends meet. 

The weaknesses of Qajar army forces allowed for foreign governments to invade Iran at will and to  sponsor breakaway movements on Iranian soil.

Tribal levies normally support the central government but increasing Qajar weakness and disorganization in Tehran meant that recruiting these troops for the regular army became increasingly difficult. Thus, while these warriors remained effective in combatting (though not stemming) foreign invaders, tribal warriors became increasingly beholden to the security issues of their respective local provinces rather than the country as a whole.

(2) The Persian Cossack Brigade. This was first formed in 1879, with the arrival of Colonel Alexei Ivanovich Dumantovich to Tehran with a Cossack contingent. The Persian Cossacks were essentially modeled and trained by Imperial Russia. These were essentially under Russian command and served imperial Russian interests in Iran.

Elements of the Persian Cossack Brigade in Tehran sometime in the early 20th century, possibly in the 1910s prior to World War One; note the Persian sabres (Source: Russian Guns.Ru website).

The Persian Cossacks supported Czarist actions in suppressing the Constitutional Movement in Iran – notably the infamous bombing of Iran’s democratically elected Majlis (Parliament) by Colonel Vladimir Platonovitch Liakhov on June 23, 1908. The Persian Cossacks were finally disbanded on December 6, 1921.

(3) The South Persia Rifles (S.P.R.). This force had been formed by the British Empire by Fall 1916 on Iranian soil during World War One. Led mainly by British officers,  the S.P.R. worked to safeguard British interests (for the main part) in southern Iran, notably the Persian Gulf coastline and the new oil industry in Khuzestan province.

Interesting photograph (1917?) of British and Iranian officers of the South Persia Rifles (S.P.R.) of Shiraz, under the command of Lieut.-Col. W. A. K. Fraser, M.C., of the Central India Horse (Source: The Illustrated First World War). Note the description in the above photograph which clearly outlines the S.P.R.s objectives: “Guarding Our Interests in the Land of the Shah: officers of the South Persian Rifles”.

The S.P.R. had first recruited approximately 8000 Iranians and Indians into its force. Units of the S.P.R. were then stationed in Fars, Kerman and Bandar Abbas. The S.P.R. proved critical in suppressing anti-British revolts in the south during the war. At its height, this force was to have a maximum size of 11,000 thousand troops. Many Iranian politicians opposed the S.P.R., noting that this force was the British version of the Persian Cossack Brigade. London had assured that the S.P.R. would be turned over to Iranian control after the conclusion of the First World War. The force was finally disbanded in October 1921.

(4) The Gendarmerie. The Iranian parliament had voted as early as 1910 to hire officers from neutral countries with Sweden  soon chosen for the task. The Swedish mission led by Colonel H.O. Hjalmarsen arrived in Iran by May 1911 to quickly work towards building an indigenous Iranian gendarmerie. The mission proved successful.

The most effective force of the Iranian military prior to and during World war One: the Gendarmerie – above are Iranian Gendarmerie posing with two 75mm (Shneider-Cruesot?) in Tehran prior to World War One (Picture Source: Morgan Shuster, The Strangling of Persia, T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1913, pp. 144, 152). Despite being a para-military force, the Iranian Gendarmes fought very well against opponents who enjoyed superiority in numbers and military equipment.  For more on the Iranian Gendarmerie, consult Stephanie Cronin’s article in the Encylopedia Iranica.

The Gendarmerie proved to be a highly motivated and relatively efficient force. These were the only forces loyal to the country and took no orders from Russia or Britain. They were however, a small force and despite their good training, lacked heavy weapons which prevented them from being able to repel foreign invasions.

Military Reform: Continuing Challenges until 1921

A serious problem for Iran was foreign, namely British and Russian interference: neither wished for Iran to have a strong, unified and modern national army. The British however, shifted their position, especially after the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czarist regime in Russia in 1917.

The Russians (Czarist and their Soviet successors) remained unfavourable to the notion of a modern, strong and militarily capable Iranian state. This is because if Iran were to possess a modern army, this would then be capable of repelling foreign invasions. Russia in particular was sensitive about this as it had conquered Iranian territory in the Caucasus and continued to harbour ambitions in not just northern Iran but all way towards the Persian Gulf. Despite having instituted a long-term and well-funded anti-Iranian cultural campaign in its conquered Caucasian territories, especially in the Arran-Shirvan region (Republic of Azerbaijan since May 1918), the Russians were deeply perturbed by the Caucasus’ historical ties with Iran. A reformed Iranian army and a strong national government in Tehran were seen as a threat by the Czarist regime in Moscow.

Map of Iran in 1805 before the territorial losses to Russia of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Iran also lost important eastern territories such as Herat  which broke away with British support (Picture source: CAIS).

Following the end of the First World War, the importance of forming a unitary and modernized military was finally instituted. As noted previously, the disbanding of the pro-Russian Cossack brigade (now under British command following the overthrow of the Czars by the Bolsheviks in 1917) and the pro-British South Persia Rifles resulted in Iran finally having a unified national army, one of the chief aims of the Constitutional Movement of the Early Twentieth century.

Next to Iranian museums the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg has one of the most beautiful collections of Persian shamshirs in their collection. The following article shows some of these magnificent pieces:

A 19th century ritual sword (šamšir-e mostāqim: straight sword)  from Iran (Source: M. Khorasani Consulting). It was acquired in 1931 and was formerly held in the collection of Count Sergey Sheremekev’s collection.

A magnificent Persian shamshir with a Safavid period blade and Qajar-period fittings. the State Hermitage Museum provides the following description:

“Steel, gold, leather, precios stones, enamel, forging, casting, chasing, carving. Iran, First half of the 19th century. Acquired in 1885-1886 from the Armoury of Tsarskoye Selo“.

The bolčāq ﺒﻠﭽﺎﻖ (crossguard) of the shamsir is made of gold and inserted with diamonds and precious stones as well as the kolāhak (pommel cap).  The handle slabs are made of ivory. The book Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran: A Study of Symbols and Terminology, Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani (2010) provides the following information on the term bolčāq ﺒﻠﭽﺎﻖ:

bolčāq ﺒﻠﭽﺎﻖ: (Haft Darviš) (n) handguard, crossguard of a sword; the term bolčāq is also used in the manuscript on futuvvat called “Haft Darviš” (seven dervish) which was probably written in naskh and is undated (Afshari & Madayeni, 1381:123).  Afshari and Madayeni (1381:123-4) attribute this book to the 11th or 12th century (17 or 18 A.D.) as it belonged to the library of Etezadol Saltane (the minister of science and mines) in 1296 hegira (1876 A.D.).  Afshari and Madayeni (1381:184) quote from this manuscript which says that one day a butcher who was a jawanmard went to Ali, kissed his hand and asked for help saying that his kārd became blunt very quickly.  Ali touched the bolčāq of his Zulfagar (the famous legendary sword attributed to Ali), rubbing it so long that a kardmal (a knife sharpener) was created.  Afshari and Madayeni (1381:184) further explain that bolčāq is originally a Turkic term describing the handguard which separates the qabze (handle) from the sword’s blade, tiqe-ye šamšir.

The magnificent Persian crucible Damascus steel blade as the pattern of Kirk nardeban (forty steps/rungs) in the western literature.  Persian manuscripts call this patttern pulād-e jŏhardār-e qerq nardebān : (New Persian) (n + adj + adj + n) watered steel with ladder pattern; a type of crucible steel with ladder pattern; known as forty ladder rungs (Romanowsky,1967b/1346:78).  Note that pulād ﭘﻮﻻﺩ (n) means “steel,” jŏharﺟﻭﻫﺮ(n) means “watered steel,” dār ﺪﺍﺭ derives from the verb dāštan ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ (to have), qerqﻗﺮﻖ (adj) means “fourty,” and nardebān ﻧﺮﺩﺑﺎﻥ (n) means “ladder”  This pattern is also known as čehlband  ﭼﻬﻞﺑﻨﺪ (forty straps) (see Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag.  For a detailed discussion of this pattern see Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period (2006) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübungen: Legat Verlag.

The blade has a beautiful gold-inlaid maker’s mark which reads “amal-e Assadollāh Esfahāni (Isfahāni)” : (the work of Assadollāh Esfahāni).

This maker’s mark appears on a number of high quality Persian swords.  Other variants of this signature also exist as amal-e Assadollāh  (the work of Assadollāh), Amal-e Assad Esfahāni (the work of Assad Esfahāni), and Assadollāh Esfahāni (Assadollāh Esfahāni) – for more information see Moshtagh Khorasani (2006:156-163).  Dated swords with this maker’s mark complicate the issue even more.  There are seven dated examples that, rather than solving the mystery behind the smith Assadollāh’s life, only complicate the matter as the time span over which these swords are purported to have been constructed is too long for a normal human life, let alone the active life of a smith.  Among the swords discussed in the book Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period, the earliest date is 992 Hegira (1583 C.E.), and the latest is 1135 Hegira (1722 C.E.), a time span of 139 years (Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006:156-163).  Even the positioning of the individual words in this phrase varies from sword to sword.  Taking all these factors into consideration, it seems unlikely or even fundamentally implausible that a single smith named Assadollāh produced all these blades.  It seems feasible and probable that “Assadollāh” ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲwas a title of honor signifying the highest level of mastery in swordmaking.  The theory that some of these inscriptions were counterfeited to add to the value of a sword may be true of later swords bearing cartouches where one finds poorly executed inlayings or even overlayings, but all examples presented in the book mentioned above have inscriptions with finely executed calligraphy and workmanship and exhibit outstanding inlaying techniques.  If one assumes that the name “Assadollāh” ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲwas the highest title given to an Iranian smith who had attained a very high level of mastery in making swords, the mystery of the existence of a variety of handwriting and calligraphy styles over a long period of time appears to be solved.  As mentioned by Mayer (1957-9:1), a person counterfeiting a fraudulent cartouche would most likely imitate the original as precisely as possible in order to deceive buyers since he attempted to sell his swords under a fake name.  Additionally, a counterfeiter would surely have ensured that the date on forged cartouches exactly matched the era of Šāh Abbās Safavid if there were only one famous smith named Assadollāh during the relevant period.  Another fact reinforcing the hypothesis that “Assadollāh” ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲwas presumably an honorary title bestowed during the Safavid period is that there are three dated swords bearing the phrase of Amal-e Assdollah Esfahāni from the same time period, namely Amal-e Assadollāh Esfahāni 116, Amal-e Assadollāh Esfahāni 117  , and Amal-e Assadollāh Esfahāni and Bande-ye Šah-e velāyat Abbās saneye 135 (see Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006:156-163), all originating during the period of Šāh Sultan Hossein Safavid, who ruled from 1105-1135 Hegira (1694-1722 A.D.).  However, all three swords look different in many respects, especially regarding the handwriting style.  This is further evidence that, at least during the period of Šāh Soltān Hussein Safavid’s reign, various smiths signed blades using the signature Amal-e Assadollāh Esfahāni and further corroborates the theory that Assadollāh  ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲwas, indeed, an honorary title.  . . . . . . .

For more information on this topic read the entry amal-e Assadollāh Esfahāni in the Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag. For more information see:

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2010). Persian Swordmakers (Armeiros Persas). In: Rites of Power: Oriental Arms(Rituais de Poder: Armas Orientais), Casal de Cambra: Caleidoscópio, pp. 41-55.

and

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2013). Les Légendaires Forgerons Iraniens Assadollȃh et Kalbeali. La Revue de Téhéran Mensuel Culturel Iranien en Langue Française. No. 90, 8e Annee, Mai 2013, pp. 20-40.

The next gold-inlaid cartouch is the symbol of bodduh in numbers;

bodduhﺒﺩﻭﺡ : (Dehkhoda) (n) the name of a genie or an angel who can do miraculous things, whose name is written by letters or numbers in occult sciences.  Certain characteristics are attributed to this angel. For example, if one writes its name on an envelope, the letter will certainly arrive.  Therefore, it serves as the angel for protecting the letters.  It is a secret telesm ﻂﻠﺴﻢ(talisman).  The are certain beliefs regarding this sign.  For example, when a traveller has this sign, he would be able to travel day and night without getting tired, or a pregnant woman would be able to give birth without fearing a miscarriage.  The term bodduh ﺒﺩﻭﺡ is also used to conjure feelings of love.  It consists of the even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8 or 8, 6, 4, 2.  The numbers are equivalent to the lettersﺐ, ﺩ, ﻭ, and ﺡ of huruf-e jomal ﺠﻤﻝ ﺣﺮﻭﻑ.  Anandeaj reports that bodduh is the name of an angel who died and left this world and whose name is gold-inlaid on swords and daggers and is used for protection. (Digital Lexicon of Dehkhoda).  For more information on this topic read the entry bodduhﺒﺩﻭﺡ in the Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag.

For another classification of Persian crucible steel see:

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr (2011). Tabaqebandi-ye Fulād-de Johardār bar Asās-e Nosxehā-ye Xatti (Classification of Persian Watered Steel on the Basis of Old Manuscripts). Journal of the Iranian Studies. Faculty of Literature and Humanities. Šahid Bāhonar University of Kermān. Volume 9, Number 18, Autumn 2010, pp. 243-281.

Varband (scabbard fittings) are also made of called and inserted with diamonds.

The wooden scabbard consists of two parts glued to each other and covered with the precious  sāqari ﺳﺎﻏﺭﻯ or kimoxt ﻜﻴﻤﺧﺖ (shagreen leather), which is the skin of the back of the horse and donkey that is used as a special leather.  The book  Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) (Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag) provides the following entry on this type of leather:

sāqari ﺳﺎﻏﺭﻯ: (Rostam al Tavārix) (n) shagreen leather (Āsef, 2003/1382:90). Shagreen leather was often made from the skin of jackass (donkey) hindquarters.  According to Dehkhoda, saqari ﺳﺎﻏﺭﻯ is a type of leather made of the hide of jackass hindquarters.  Its surface is rough.  Saqari ﺳﺎﻏﺭﻯ can be obtained from the hindquarters of a horse as well as zebra hide.  With regard to the processing and tanning of shagreen leather, Chardin (268) states that significant amounts of this leather was made in Iran and exported to the Indies (India), Turkey, and neighboring kingdoms.  He states that shagreen was made from jackass (donkey) hindquarters, and a seed called toxm casbini, (seed of casbin that is said to be black, hard, and larger than the mustard seed).  Toxm ﺗﺨﻡ stands for both “egg” and “seed” in Farsi as Chardin rightly says.  He further states that the name shagreen comes from the Persian word saqari, meaning “hindquarters.”  According to Chardin, this was the name of any animal they rode on, similar to the English word “steed,” and this name was given to this sort of hide because it was made of an jackass’s hindquarters.  The coarse hides were dressed by tanners with lime.  They used salt and galls in the tanning process instead of bark, which, according to Chardin, was sufficient due to the hot Iranian climate.  Floor (2003:383) quotes Olmer, who stated that sagari was primarily prepared in Yazd and describes it as a type of tanned leather made of the skins of a horse or donkey and, sometimes, even that of a cow.  The cleaning of the skin was performed using almost the same method as that used for sheepskin.  Olmer explained that before applying the barley treatment to the skin, the tanners covered them with small, dried grains and let them dry.  The grains worked their way into the skin, resulting in unevenness of the surface and a grained appearance.  After the skins dried, they were soaked in water with fermenting barley, causing them to swell.  The workers, then, used somāq ﺴﻤﺎﻖ leaves (rhum coriaria) for the tanning process.  Olmer reports that these leaves contained much tannin.  Floor (2003:383) also quotes Consul Abbot, who provides more information on the making of shagreen leather in Esfahān.  He said that this leather was made from the raw hides of horses.  They spread the wet skin on a level surface, threw small, round seeds over it, and trod upon it.  After the skin partially dried, they shook off the seeds, shaving the surface of the hide to remove all but the indented parts that gradually rose again to their former level, producing the bumps on the shagreen.  Then, they applied a preparation of copper and sal ammoniac to the reverse side, which penetrated to the front, coloring it green.

The scabbard chape tah-e qalāf is also made of gold.

This Persian shamshir has engraved and gold-inlaid spatulated quillons.  The pommel cap is also gold-inlaid.  The handle slabs are made of walrus ivory.  The blade is made of Persian crucible damascus steel. The blade has three cartouches.  The upper and middle cartouches are the original ones from the Safavid period to the blade and are gold inlaid.  The lower cartouche is gold-overlaid and added to the blade during the early Qajar period.

The upper cartouche reads bande-ye šāh-e velāyat Safi . The book “Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran: A Study of Symbols and Terminology” provides the following entry for this phrase:

bande-ye šāh-e velāyat Safi : (New Persian)(n + n + n + n) literally means, “The subject/ slave of the kingdom/ dominion/trusteeship of Ali, Safi.”  This translates into the following:  “Safi is the representative of Ali’s rule and acts on his behalf.”  Note that bande ﺑﻨﺪﻩ (n) means “slave/subject,” šāh ﺷﺎﻩ (n) means “king,” and velāyat ﻮﻻﻴﺕ (n) means “country, trusteeship,” and Safi ﺼﻔﻰ (n) is a king’s name.  ……

For the same cartouche on royal pieces of Iranian Military Museums see “Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period” (Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006444, cat.80; 446, cat.81; 448, cat.82).

The gold-inlaid cartouche in the middle reads Yekšanbe Helāl Šahr Kār Mehr Ali which means “Sunday the first day of the month the work of Mehr Ali.”

Note that a smith named Mehr Ali made a dated pišqabz in 1109 hijra, dedicated to Mohammad Mehdi Khan Zand.  For more information and to see the dagger consult the book “Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period”, Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006, which explains:

The date, 1190 hegira, is 1776 A.D.[1]  Additionally, the name of the owner is engraved on the back of the blade close to the handle: Sahebe Mohammad Mehdi Khan Zand (The owner Mohammad Mehdi Khan Zand).  The name of the smith is gold inlaid on the blade and reads, “Mehr Ali.”  There is a spade-shaped eyelet at the base of the handle with engraved inscriptions on one side, Howal Kafi (one of the names of God, meaning that God is independent and without needs), and on the other side, Howal Bagi (another attribute of God, meaning that he is eternal).

[1]  This is within the reign of Karim Khan Zand, who ruled from 1163–1193 A.D. (1750–1779 A.D.) (see Safaraz & Avarzamani, 2004/1383:275).

The lowest cartouche is the royal seal of Fath Ali Shah Qajar which reads “Abu al Seif al Soltān Fath Ali Šāh Qājār” (The father of the sword Fath Ali Shah Qajar).  A number of royal shamshirs attributed to Fath Ali Shah Qajar which are kept in the Military Museum of Tehran have the same cartouche which is the royal seal of Fath Ali Shah Qajat.  To see these examples see “Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period”, Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006, Tübingen: Legat Verlag.

A Persian shamshir with a typical wedge-shaped blade with a high curve. The handle slabs are made of ivory.

The blade has a beautiful crucible damascus blade with the pattern pulād-e jŏhardār-e mošabak, watered steel with net pattern; a type of crucible steel with woodgrain pattern (Romanowsky, 1967b/1346:78).  For more information on this pattern see  Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag.

For another classification of Persian crucible steel see:

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr(2007). The Magnificent Beauty of Edged Weapons Made with Persian Watered Steel.Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 9 Volume 16, number 3, pp. 8–21.

The Persian blade has three catouches: The upper cartouche is a bodduh sin in numbers. The lower is a maker’s mark amal-e Assadollāh (Work of Assadollah), The carouche in themiddle reads: bande-ye šāh-e velāyat Abbās.

For the meaning of this pharse see the entry bande-ye šāh-e velāyat Abbās from the book Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag:

bande-ye šāh-e velāyat Abbās: (New Persian) (n + n + n + n) literally means, “The subject/ slave of the kingdom/ dominion/trusteeship of Ali, Abbās.”  This translates into the following:  “Abbās is the representative of Ali’s rule and acts on his behalf.”  Note that bande ﺑﻨﺪﻩ (n) means “slave/subject,” šāh ﺷﺎﻩ (n) means “king,” and velāyat ﻮﻻﻴﺕ (n) means “country, trusteeship,” and Abbās ﻋﺒﺎﺱ (n) is a king’s name.  For this inscription see Moshtagh Khorasani (2006b:430, cat.70; 432, cat. 73, 434, cat. 74; 435, cat. 75; 436, cat. 76; 438, cat. 78; 441, cat. 79; 451, cat.85; 453, cat.86; 454, cat.87; 456, cat.89; 475, cat.107; 481, cat.112; 526, cat.151; 541, cat.162).

Also part of the next entry from the same book:

bande-ye šāh-e velāyat : (New Persian) (n + n + n) the slave/subject of the king of that country/trusteeship.  Note that bande ﺑﻨﺪﻩ(n) means “slave/subject,” šāh ﺷﺎﻩ(n) means “king,” and velāyat ﻮﻻﻴﺕ(n) means “country, trusteeship.”  This is a phrase that frequently appears on Safavid blades is bande-ye šāh-e velāyat… in combination with the name of the Safavid king who ruled at that time.  The phrase amal-e Assadollāh appears often with the phrase bande-ye šāh-e velāyat Abbās .  According to Digital Lexicon of Dehkhoda, bande ﺑﻨﺪﻩ means “subject” or “slave.”  Obviously, people who serve or inhabit the realm ruled by a king are his subjects.  velāyat ﻮﻻﻴﺕmeans “kingdom” or “ruled land”; therefore, a king has a velāyat  ﻮﻻﻴﺕ  to rule.  Dehkhoda further states that the person to whom velāyat-e Ali relates considers himself the representative of Imām Ali and, consequently, rules and governs on his behalf.

………………..

A Persian shamshir with a steel handle and a highly curved blade. The State Hermitage Museum states that this shamshir was acquired in 1885-1886.  It was formerly held in the Armoury of Tsarskoye Selo.

The gold-inlaid maker’s mark reads “amale-e Kalbeali Esfahāni 1019” (The work of Kalbeaöo Isfahani 1019).   1019 stands for the Gregorian year 1610-1611- For more information see part of the entry amal-e Kalbeali from the book Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag:

amal-e Kalbeali: (New Persian) (n + n) the work of Kalbeali (dog of Ali).  Note that amal ﻋﻤﻞ (n) means “work,” kalbﻜﻟﺐ (n) means “dog,” and Ali ﻋﻟﻰ (n) is the name of Hazrat-e Ali.  The expression “The dog of Ali” is used to show the devotion of the maker to Hazrat Ali , the first Imam of the Shiites.  This maker’s mark is also a mystery as different swords with different handwriting and calligraphy with this maker’s mark exist.  The existence of different phrases of the signature of “Kalbeali” indicates that there were, indeed, different smiths who signed their swords with this title.  There are three different types: a) amal-e Kalbali , b) amale-e Kalbeali Esfahāni, and c) amal-e Kalb-e Ali ibn Assad-e Esfahāni.  The name “Kalbeali” is sometimes written as one word asﻜﻠﺒﻌﻠﻰ, and it is written in two words on other cartouches as well as ﻋﻠﻰﻜﻠﺐ.   Even the reference to the father, Assadollāh, is different.  One cartouche bears the expression, Ibn Assad Esfahāni  , whereas another cartouche reads, Ibn Assad Zahābdār .  The inscription, Valad-e Kalbeali ibn Assad Zahābdār, reveals that the smith wanted to stress that his grandfather had the title “Assadollāh” ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲ, the highest level, or wanted to stress that he was a seyyed (descendant of the Prophet Mohammad’s family), for a detailed discussion of the maker’s mark of Kalbeali ﻜﻠﺒﻌﻠﻰ, see Moshtagh Khorasani (2006:163-167).  Assuming that Assadollāh ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲ was an honorary title, one is faced with the problem of interpreting the phrase Amal-e Kalbeali ebn Assad  (“the work of Kalbeali the son of Assad”).  In this regard, Mayer (1957-9:2) states that there were two sons of Assadollāh ﺍﺴﺪﺍﷲ, Kalbeali ﻛﻠﺒﻌﻠﻰ and Esmāil ﺍﺴﻣﺎﻋﻳﻞ.  He asserts that only one blade is signed “The work of Esmāil son of Assadollāh. ………………………”

The blade has also a gold-inlaid bodduh sign in numbers.

A Persian shamshir with a curved blade and a raised backedge (yalman). The handle is the shape of karabela hilt. The downward quillons end up in dragon heads. The State Hermitage Museum attributes this shamshir to the late 17 century (or early 18th century) and adds that it was acquired in 1885-1886. It was formerly held in the Armoury of Tsarskoye Selo.

The handle slabs are made of ivory with  the steel crossguard decorated with gold-overlaid floral design.

The blade has an engraved and gold-inlaid maker’s mark amal-e Mesri Mo’alam.  For this maker’s mark see the book Lexicon of Arms and Armor from Iran; A Study of Symbols and Terminology (2010) by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Tübingen: Legat Verlag which provides the following entry:

amal-e Mesri Mo’alam or amal-e Mo’alam Mesri : (New Persian) (n + n + n) the work of Mesri Mo’alam or the work of Mo’lam Mesri.  Note that amal (n) means “work” and Mesri Mo’alam (n) is a name.  A sword signed by amal-e Mesri and attributed to Sāh Safi is kept in the Military Museum of Tehran.  For more information see Moshtagh Khorasani (2006:444, cat. 80; 538, cat.159).

The forte of the blade is also gold-overlaid in floral design and also the inscription in Persian reads:

Ze huše Falātun domaš tiztar [upper part]

Ze abruye deldār xunriz tar [lower part]

Its edge [literally, tail] is sharper than the intelligence of Plato!  It sheds more blood than the eyebrows[1] of the beloved.
[1] Persian literature always refers to eyebrows as one of the physical beauties of women (author’s observation).  For the same inscription on Persian qaddāres see Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006, Tübingen: Legat Verlag.

A highly curved Persian shamshir with a handle with walrus ivory slabs. It has a wooden scabbard covered with shagreen leather. The State Hermitage Museum attributes this shamshir to the first half of the 18 century and adds that it from the Winter Palace. The crossguard (bolčāq) has an engraved inscription Bismellah al Rahman al Rahim (In the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful) in the gilded background.

A highly curved Persian shamshir with a handle with walrus ivory slabs. The State Hermitage Museum attributes this shamshir to the 17- 18 century and adds that it from the Winter Palace. The crossguard (bolčāq) is beautifully gold-overlaid with the inscription Bismellah al Rahman al Rahim (In the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful).

A Persian shamshir made of crucible steel with a raised backedge (yalman).  The handle slabs are made of walrus ivory.  The steel crossguard is decorated with gilded image of a lion hunting a deer (for a detailed explanation of this symbol see “Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period” by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani (2006).

The upper gold-overlaid cartouche reads Bismellah al Rahman al Rahim( In the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful). The length of the blade is gold-overlaid with a Persian poem.

For a technical analysis of Persian crucible steel see:

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr and Zahra Karamad (2008). The Microstructure and Elements of Persian Crucible Steel, Pāyām-e Bāstānšenās (Journal of the Archaeology of the Islamic Azad University of Abhar), Volume 5, No. 9. Spring and Summer 2008, pp. 6–26.

A highly-curved Persian shamshir with a typical wedge-shaped blade. The wooden scabbard is covered with shagreen leather.

The handle slabs are made of walrus ivory and the steel crossguard and pommel cap are engraved. The State Hermitage Museum attributes this shamshir to the 18 century and adds that it was acquired in 1885-1886.  It was formerly held in the Armoury of Tsarskoye Selo.

A highly-curved Persian shamshir with downward quillions and a karabella hilt. The crossguard is made of steel and decorated with gilded floral design.  The handle slabs are made of stag horn.

The blade is made of Persian crucible damascus steel and has a central fuller. The State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg attributes this shamshir to the 19 century and states that it is from the Winter Palace.

A straight sword šamšir-e mostāqim from the second half of the 19th century. It was acquired in 1926 from the Marble Palace. The handle is made of steel with downward quillons.  For a detailed analysis of this types of swords see “Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period” (Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, 2006, Tübingen: Legat Verlag):

“Lebedynsky (1992:56) provides a brief analysis on Qajar straight swords.  He states that the later straight swords (such as Qajar straight swords) share the same features as their medieval ancestors.  These Iranian swords of the 17th and 18th century have blades with a rounded tip, downward quillions, and a three-lobe pommel and, thus, share the same feature of the grip as on some older swords”.

For more information on Iranian straight swords also see:

A 19 century ritual sword (šamšir-e mostāqim: straight sword) from Iran. It is from the Winter Palace.

For another article on Iranian straight swords see:

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr(2008). Dragons Teeth: The Straight Swords of Persia. Classic Arms and Militaria, Volume XV Issue 1, pp. 21–25.

Moshtagh Khorasani, Manouchehr and Iván Szántó (2012). Straight Swords in Iran: A Continuing Tradition (A perzs pallos: egy töretln hagyomány). In: Persian Treasures – Hungarian Collections (Perzsa Kincsk – Magyar Gyüjtemények), pp. 39-51.

A 19 century ritual sword (šamšir-e mostāqim: straight sword)  from Iran. It was acquired in 1931 and was formerly held in the collection of Count Sergey Sheremekev’s collection.

Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani has published a book in 2013 entitled:

Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Historical Martial Arts of Iran

• Title: Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Historical Martial Arts of Iran
• Author: Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani
• Publisher: Niloufar Books, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
• Number of pages: 392
• Date of Publication: 2013
• ISBN-13 978-3-00-039054-8

The book Persian Archery and Swordsmanship: Historical Martial Arts of Iran is  a reference manual on the historical Iranian martial arts in application. The martial arts have influenced all aspects of the ten thousand year history, language and culture of the Iranian people, and remain to this day integral to the Iranian national identity as clearly demonstrated in the Persian epic the Book of Kings.

A unique martial culture has permeated all of the most important artifacts of ancient (bronze- and iron age Luristan and Marlik sites), classical (Achemenid, Parthian and Sassanids), medieval (Samanids) and early modern and modern Iran (Safavid, Afsharid, Zand and Qajar periods), in its art and archaeology, literature, physical culture and national outlook.

Helmets and shields (Courtesy of M. Khorasani Consulting).

It is, without doubt, a martial tradition whose lineage extends back in time to the ancient period, as evidenced by production of large numbers of copper, bronze and iron swords and other weapons made of same materials, and which subsisted in Iran through the classical period (iron and steel weapons), and culminated in the production of the magnificent crucible steel during medieval and modern periods despite all of the historical changes that Iran underwent at a political level. Accordingly, research into the martial arts of Iran has, until now, demanded an intimate familiarity with a vast range of diverse materials that deal with the subject either directly or indirectly, including direct access to rare manuscripts, manuals, arms and armor that can only be found in Iranian museums itself. With this book, that situation has now changed. The present book deals with the revival of Persian swordsmanship and the traditional martial arts of Iran. Within these pages there are no unprovenanced claims to knowledge. Everything is meticulously referenced.

Close-quarter blade combat techniques (Courtesy of M. Khorasani Consulting).

The Iranian martial arts do not depend solely on an “oral tradition” for their lineage as well as their transmission from teacher to student, although the actual instruction is imparted from teacher to student. Rather, with regard to the lineage, every technique, every tactical advice and every method of training and application presented herein is properly provenanced with reference to at least one historical documentary source. Documentary evidence of specific techniques and training methods, taken from primary sources, fully supports every photographic and textual presentation of such techniques and methods shown in a vast number of miniatures and paintings and presented in this book. Didactic literary descriptions of martial arts, which might be likened to combat manuals, have a long history in Iran, and this book continues that tradition and showcases a number of complete and annotated manuascripts on archery, spear and lance fighting, war wrestling, etc. The Iranian martial arts presented in this book therefore hold up to a standard of academic scrutiny that will serve as a basis both for their introduction to the enthusiast or novice as well as a highly credible reference source to researchers.

The project for the book “Persian Fire and Steel: Historical Firearms of Iran” came about from Dr. Manouchehr M. Khorasani’s desire to share with the world the beauty and the sophistication of historical Persian firearms, and his respect for the skill of the craftsmen who made and decorated them, the ingenuity of the engineers who designed them, and the bravery of the people who used them.

Book cover of “Persian Fire and Steel: Historical Firearms of Iran“; for more information contact: info@mmkhorasani.com. 

Like his previous book, Arms and Armour from Iran, the aim of Persian Fire and Steel is to give the reader a view of these artifacts not only as instruments of war, but also as objects of art and great beauty.

Sample page from the text “Persian Fire and Steel: Historical Firearms of Iran“.

This book is the result of several years of research and translation by Dr. Khorasani in several collections and archives in different countries. It is his hope that lovers of art, history, and weaponry all find in it something that speaks to them.

With over four hundred pages and hundreds of high quality photographs and illustrations describing over , Persian Fire and Steel represents one of the most comprehensive insights into the world of historical Persian firearms ever written.

Ranging from small arms to artillery, it covers everything on the subject from their manufacture to their deployment in battle as described in contemporary treatises. Many of these texts are included in this book, where they have been translated to English for the first time.

Short video by Dr. Khorasani’s on his project and text “Persian Fire and Steel: Historical Firearms of Iran“; to support Dr. Khorasani’s pledge and reward campaign kindly click this link here …

The article below entitled “Caravansaray” by Moḥammad-Yūsuf Kīānī and Wolfram Kleiss originally appeared on the Encyclopedia Iranica on December 15, 1990 and is available in print (Vol. IV, Fasc. 7, pp. 798-802).

Kindly note that excepting three figures and captions from the original Encyclopedia article, all other images and captions did not appear in the original Encyclopedia Iranica posting.

==================================================================================

The report “A Stroll Through the Isfahan’s Armenian Julfa Quarter” and the accompanying photos below were originally published in the Real Iran outlet on March 7, 2016.

====================================================================

New Julfa (literally Jolfa quarter of Isfahan) is the Armenian quarter of Isfahan, Iran, located along the south bank of the river Zayandeh River.

Established by Armenians from Julfa, Nakhichevan in the early 17th century, it is still one of the oldest and largest Armenian quarters in the world.

New Julfa was established in 1606 as an Armenian quarter by edict of Shah Abbas I, the influential shah from the Safavid dynasty. Over 150,000 Armenians were moved there from Julfa in Nakhichevan.

All history accounts agree that, as the residents of Julfa were famous for their silk trade, Shah Abbas treated the population well and hoped that their resettlement in Isfahan would be beneficial to Persia.

New Julfa is still an Armenian-populated area with an Armenian school and sixteen churches, including Surp Amenaprgitch Vank, which is a Unesco World Heritage site, and undoubtedly one of the most beautiful churches in Iran.

Armenians in New Julfa observe Iranian law with regard to clothing, but otherwise retain a distinct Armenian language, identity cuisine, and culture.

The policy of the Safavids was very tolerant towards the Armenians as compared to other minorities, such as the Iranian Georgians and Circassians.

According a reference by David Petrosyan of the Institute for Central Asian and Caucasian studies, New Julfa had between 10,000-12,000 Armenian inhabitants in 1998. As of today it is still one of the largest ethnic Armenian quarters in the world.

Popular with young people in Isfahan, it is experiencing considerable growth compared to other districts.