Talk:Persia

---

Re: Shah: That was my suggestion when I was filling up FOIB, I proposed that Persia was still ruled by the Shah (Pahlavi or otherwise I dunno), and that it's called Keshvare Shahanshahiye Iran...nobody argued...

[Ferko]

---

> Why wouldn't they? They are an Empire (Keshvare shahanshahiye)...

As I explained before, *here*, the shah was trying to be more "western friendly" then his neighbours. One of the thing that meant (and one reason for the iranian revolution) was that he repressed overt signs of religiousity (such as using the lion instead of the crescent on the preotection flag) which furthermore might prove to be a paralel powerbase..

Now, since persia *there* is a largely zoroastrianist country, this would mean a different evolution. I doubt its foundation would have been due to western intervention and even then, zoroastianism is not the same type of religion as islam (quite monarch friendly)persia is a empire, I doubt it would bear much similitude with the pahlavi regime anyway instead being probably in some way a continuation of the sassanids dinasty (the last non-muslim one).

[Marc Pasquin]

---

>> I take it you meant the: >>> >>> "the Arabs were *not* in control long enough to make Islam dominant >>> in Persia, but were in control long enough to permit the spread of >>> Islam to other areas (which didn't have the control problems of >>> Persia)." > > > Oops. Yes.

Even that would require that:

1) Persia was less bancrupt and anarchic at the Arabic attack

2) Large contingents of Arab armies were busy elsewhere

3) The impact of the Mongols was less severe at least in Persia and probably in central Asia as well.

Actually (1) and (2) go together as well: if Persia was less worn out by the conflict with Byzantium, then so was Byzantium, so the Arabs would have a tougher time with them too. That may also help to explain why Carthage and Donatism wasn't entirely overrun. Would it affect the history of Spain? Perhaps the internicine fighting of the Arabs is also more severe. What if Muawija dies before Constantinople instead of becoming Caliph?

IMHO (3) is harder than it seems. Can we doctor away Chengis entirely, or perhaps better make the Mongols Christians (or even Manicheans!?)? That *may* have affected their policies and/or behavior towards Zs and Muslims. Certainly if the Mongols were Manicheans the Zs would have closed their ranks against the Mongols, while the Mongols were less likely to become Muslims themselves.

Many Mongols were already Christian (Church of the East), as were many Chinese. Elemtilas

So what about this:

When Shahrbaraz makes overtures to Heraclius about returning conquered areas and the True Cross in return for support or complacence while he rebels against Khosru II, Heraclius feigns to play along, but unlike *here* he notifies Khosru II in return for a lasting peace. Khosru II survives and peace is established. There is no battle at Niniveh. Heraclius is not murdered by Phocas. Kavadh II eventually succeeds his father, but held in check by a queen stronger and cleverer than himself, and a strong Mobad Mobadan (Priest of Priests) handpicked by Khosru before he died. Persia *is* eventually conquered by the Arabs, but after much longer and harder fighting than here (decades and perhaps even centuries as with Byzantium *here*). Byzantium is also stronger and manages to hold on to a reduced Carthaginian Exarchate. Muawija is killed (by his own?) while besieging Constantinople, and noone is found to fill his slippers. Fighting for the succession of the Caliphate is longer, harder, more divisive etc. than *here*. The Arabs never become effectively naturalized in Iran. They and Islam continue to appear foreign to the majority of Persians. Cf. Spain *here*. [Marc suggested that a rump Zoroastrian Persia remained around Ishtakhr -- again like Spain *here*.

A place from which to launch a Persian Reconquista? The Spanish also had a lot of Christians within the occupied territories -- would presume that most of conquered Persia remained Zoroastrian. Elemtilas

Fast forward 4 centuries:

The Mongols (and Turks) who overrun Persia are largely Manichean. To the Zoroastrians Manicheanism is an abomination, so they become more ardent and solidified in their own faith.

How would they have felt about Christian Mongols? Elemtilas

Unlike the Chengis *here* who had a special beef with Manicheans these Mongols have a special beef with Muslims: Mani was the last prophet, and ipso facto Muhammad is a false prophet, no? Fighting between Mongols and Muslims is hard in Persia, and the Muslims are mostly losing. At this time a certain Mehrdad appears and claims to be a descendant of the Sassanians. Both he and his brother Narseh have some military genius, and the still Zoroastrian or only lightly Islamicized majority rally to Mehrdad, so that a new Zoroastrian dynasty is established.

Islam does remain as a sizeable minority religion in Iran, but Islam still filters through to Central Asia and manages to convert a majority of Turks. (C'mon, you don't want to be filthy Manicheans or idolatrous Buddhists like the Mongols, haughty Zoroastrians like the Persians...)

What about the Christians already in Central Asia? Elemtilas

However there are still sizeable numbers of Buddhists, Christians and Manicheans in Central Asia, especially further east.

Ah, OK. Elemtilas

(Later, the Mongols are solidly made Buddhist by the Tibetans, just like *here*, so we are not talking of masses of Christian and Manichean Turks and Mongols in modern times, and they are chiefly in China/Inner Mongolia.

Comments?

I guess the Tibetans destroy all the Christian churches in Tibet, yes? Elemtilas

[BPJ]

Comment: Sounds reasonable to me, but wouldn't this have a major impact on Indian history? Would it be possible that the Arab armies did still take over large parts of Persia on their way to India, but then there's either a "reconquista" of sorts, or the Zoroastrians remain a sizeable minority for some time, but with a ruling Muslim minority, that was only relatively recently overthrown. [Nik]

Answer: The idea with this scenario is to make Muslims in India and Central Asia (and hence Turkey) possible.[BPJ]

I think it sounds a reasonable scenario. Elemtilas

So, what's modern Persia like? A modern constitutional monarchy or a Zoroastrian theocracy where the Mobad Mobadan is the real power and the Shahanshah is just a figurehead? Deiniol 13:49, 25 May 2005 (PDT)

Ooh, and as an afterthought I propose that the Persian currency be 1 toman = 12 rial = 240 dinar Deiniol 13:56, 25 May 2005 (PDT)

Why in that breakdown? Is it because Persia was "Westard looking" *there* as well? I have no idea what the ancient currency divisions were; but *here*, 1 toman = 8 riyals = 10000 dinars up to 1825. Thereafter: 1 toman = 10 krans = 200 shahis = 10000 dinars. Elemtilas

Ancient currency was 1 toman = 50 abassi = 200 shahi = 500 histri = 2000 kazbeki = 10,000 dinars. The rial was added in the 19th century. I suggest the modern system is 1 toman = 8 rials = 200 shahi = 2000 kazbeki = 10,000 dinars, though most likely, the the kazbeki or shahi is the smallest unit today (1 toman was worth 5/9 in 1891 *here*, 1/10,000 of that is insignificant, even 1/200 is rather tiny)

---

If nobody objects, I'm intending on "adopting" Persia for a while, just long enough to get the history of the place sorted and do a little bit of speculation on what a Zoroastrian state might be like. If everyone with interests in the Middle East could keep an eye on it and decry any huge mistakes, I'd be grateful. I hereby pledge to have this as a non-stub by Christmas! Deiniol 07:26, 20 November 2005 (PST)

Well, it looks like you've made this a non-stub already! :) --IJzeren Jan 08:05, 20 November 2005 (PST)

Instead of a european intervention to get ride of the quajar, how about an old fashion home grown revolution ? If persia end up being a regional power, this "we took it back ourselves" episode could have given them the impetus to achieve greatness.

Incidently, Instead of the red-white-green, one flag that could also be appropriate is the legendary Derafshe Kavian (the red-yellow-purple flag of Kaveh) which refers to a pre-islamic King-Hero. No one know what it looked like (beside the colours) but is is often depicted in 3 horizontal bands. The reigning dinasty could have claimed decent form him (as some british kings used to do in regard to Arthur).--Marc Pasquin 16:09, 20 November 2005 (PST)

Both cool ideas. However, I'm crappy with flags- would someone else like to have a go? Deiniol 16:12, 20 November 2005 (PST)

Uh... well, two sites I've found show depictions of what they call the Derafsh Kavian:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/images/derafsh_kavian.jpg

http://www.shahnameh.com/images/06006Fereydoon/06017DerafshKavian.gif Doobieous 16:20, 20 November 2005 (PST)

That seem to be based on the sassanids version.--Marc Pasquin 16:36, 20 November 2005 (PST)

Arab vs. Persian names

Shouldn't we weed out Arab names like Nadir and Karim in favor of Persian names? BPJ 05:23, 28 November 2005 (PST)

Karim certainly- I wasn't aware it was an Arabic name! But not Nadir Shah, he was an Afghan Muslim, so the name fits. Deiniol 07:26, 28 November 2005 (PST)

See Behind the Name and Maryam Kutchemeshgi's site for Persian names, but look out, not all names listed at "Behind the Name" are really Persian, while some listed as Arabic are Persian! The other site seems more reliable. -- BPJ 13:08, 28 November 2005 (PST)

Probably the quickest way is to simply avoid blatantly "biblical" names (due to lack of islamic influence) like Navid (David). A few Arabic names could probably be justified by being surrounded by them. --Marc Pasquin 14:41, 28 November 2005 (PST)

Probably the situation would be somewhat like in India *here*, that you can tell a persons faith from his name, so that a Zoroastrian would have a Persian name and a Muslim an Arabic name. For this refer to Maryam Kutchemeshgi's site. It also follows that Indian Muslims won't use Persian names. BPJ 23:05, 4 December 2005 (PST)

Persian Flag

Here a couple of proposals for a Persian flag:

• 

  version 1

• 

  version 2

• 

  version 3

• 

  Marc's proposal

They're pretty bad, so I implore those who are better at flag-making than I to come up with some prettier proposals. Deiniol 09:36, 4 December 2005 (PST)

Don't be hard on yourself, they look nice. I can't keep away from an oportunity however so here is my proposal. it use the Derafshe Kavian's colours with a design meant to be an echo of the one used *here* (couldn't the "allah is great" writting obviously).--Marc Pasquin 15:49, 4 December 2005 (PST)

Oooh! Oooh! I really like yours! Deiniol 15:53, 4 December 2005 (PST)

Uh...yeah. What Deiniol said! Zahir 16:05, 4 December 2005 (PST)

I take it that this means that the first three flags have been rejected? If so, that still leaves us with the one here to the right. May I inquire what its status is, or is going to be? —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 03:01, 12 September 2007 (PDT)

I think we can safely remit it to the limbos of rejected proposals --Marc Pasquin 03:12, 12 September 2007 (PDT)

Done! If at some later stage someone would like to use it as a historical flag, a provincial flag or something similar, it can always be found there. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 03:16, 12 September 2007 (PDT)

Persian-Iraaq War

Just a thought. For Egypt it has been proposed that Nasser came to power on a wave of PanArab Nationalism that briefly created the United Arab Rebublic. However, following the latter's collapse after a military coup in Syria, the Khedive was restored in Egypt--the Khedives very carefully playing the "religion" card to counter-balance the overt secularism of the Nationalists. This created a particular stalemate in Egypt as far as certain social tensions go.

But the idea and urge for PanArab Nationalism was not limited to Egypt. It was a very natural and obvious result of recent Middle Eastern history. However, because both the Arab peoples and Islam itself is less widespread, this movement is not as universal as it is *here*.

My suggestion is that Iraaq was the next place where a strong PanArab Nationalist government arose, but unlike Egypt this time they played the religion card. Another way to put it was that the PanArabs were led by Muslim clerics. In other words Iraaq underwent some version of what *here* was the Iranian Revolution. It need not be even particularly tyranical. Classical Islam was tolerant of other religions, but did impose a tax on non-believers. Perhaps they only persecute followers of Zoroastrianism? On the other hand, maybe they had an extremist wing a la the Jacobins or Taliban? Either way, historically one way to unite a country or a people has always been to find an ENEMY to demonize and Persia might serve that purpose nicely. More, there's likely the old standby of border disputes.

Might that work? Zahir 09:46, 4 December 2005 (PST)

BPJ's comments

• The name Iran is a cognate to Aryan meaning "Land of the Aryans."

Perhaps better The name Iran is derived from Airyāna Vaēja meaning "Land of the Aryans."

• Kom

Are you sure this should not be spelled Ghom? I've seen it spelled Qom which both suggests that pronunciation and an Arabic origin, tho it may be just an Arabicizing spelling.

• Meherasp

Shouldn't it be spelled mehr as everywhere else?

• the Supreme Triumvirate

That supreme power should not at least theoretically rest with the Shâhânshâh seems to me to run counter to Zoroastrian theology where the King of Kings is divinely appointed.

• Rustam

Shouldn't رستم be spelled Rostam so as to be consistent with the transliteration of the reflexes of Middle Persian ĭ and ŭ as e and o? I'm thinking of making a point of the orthography using the Avestan letters for ě and ŏ for these sounds.

• Yazdegerd's heir, Mehrdad

Is this Mehrdad fictious? If so Mehrdad, one of Yazdegerd's sons may be more appropriate.

• Hulegu Khan

Isn't he Hülegü? The e implies a front harmony word.

• remnants of Islamic forces in Persia

Shouldn't it rather be Muslim forces? Islamic forces smacks of modern Islamism to my ear!

• Mobedhan Mobedh

Wouldn't the "phonemic" spelling Mobadân Mobad be preferable?

• wakil

If I'm not mistaken this is Arabic. Why not fârmândâr?

• Narsids

Why are they so called? Did Mehrdâd (which BTW should be so spelled) die before Narseh, or perhaps better Mehrdâd became Mobadân Mobad while Narseh became Shâhânshâh? This would in part "explain" the later importance of the Mobadân Mobad.

• Safavid

I guess this is a mere typo for Narsid.

• Khan

It seems unlikely to me that Zoroastrians or Muslims in IB would use this term connected with the Manichaean Mongols. I suggest Shahrâb for Zoroastrians and Âghâ for Muslims. Shâh which is not quite Shâhânshâh may come in handy too.

• Karim

Needs another name if he is Zoroastrian. Look for Iranian names in K. An (A) means the name is Arabic or partly so.

• Alimardan and Ardosht

Is this meant to be the same person?

• Mossaddegh

Isn't that an Arabic name?

BPJ 05:51, 6 December 2005 (PST)

In summation, Benct- yes, very probably ;o) I don't know any Persian *at all*, so feel free to correct, tweak and fiddle as you will- look on the names I used as placeholders (half the names that I used I'm not sure are modern Farsi, Avestan, Old Persian or quite what!) In fact, I'd be grateful if you would- this isn't "my territory", as I said I've just "adopted" it temporarily to get a quick framework together. Deiniol 06:49, 6 December 2005 (PST)

Name of Persia/Iran

I was under the inpression that the land called (rather erroneously) Persia was always called Iran. Persia is the rough equivalent of the Fars province of Iran and the province's environs. --Sikulu 16 December 2005, 9:50 (GMT)

It is. It's just that westerners *there* still know it as "Persia", not "Iran". Deiniol 06:59, 8 February 2006 (PST)

Deproposalised

This has been a proposal for the appropriate amount of time, I hereby declare it to be (Conditionally) QSS- the names are still to be worked out- anyone can feel free on that front- as is the Persia-`Iraaq War. I also hereby un-declare myself the "keeper" of the region. Deiniol 06:59, 8 February 2006 (PST)

Hülegü Khan

Hülegü Khan should still be a Khan, being Mongolian BPJ 11:06, 8 February 2006 (PST)

National Emblems

A few things I tought of --Marc Pasquin 23:56, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

• 

  merchant ensign

• 

  roundel

• 

  royal banner

I like them. Although the Ahura Mazda symbol might be difficult to render on an aircraft. Roundels are usually pretty geometric, aren't they? Benkarnell 07:10, 3 March 2008 (PST)

While its true for most of them, there are a few exception (the lion of singapor and the leaping springbok of South Africa comes to mind). the main thing that is important is that it be recognised from a distance which the tricolore would do well by itself, the spirit symbol is just for show.

If you want to see some of the less simple ones, look here:

http://cocardes.monde.online.fr/v2html/en/mini_autre.html

--Marc Pasquin 14:28, 3 March 2008 (PST)

Then I say it's been five months. I'd say they're OK to add to the article. Benkarnell 14:52, 3 March 2008 (PST)

Baha'i Faith

Does it exist *there*? I have a feeling it doesn't, or if it does it's rather different from the one we know *here*, probably being Zoroastrian- rather than Islam-based. Juan Martin Velez Linares 23:23, 21 September 2015 (CDT)

Demographics

A few suggestions:

• Why so many Armenians? By applying the population growth rate of post-Islamic Revolution Iran to the pre-Islamic Revolution population of Armenians in Iran, I only got a little over 500,000 Armenians. Where do the extra 2 million come from?

Pure supposition on my part but since Armenia proper also has a larger population then *here*, maybe there wasn't an armenian genocide combined with Persian Armenia (or at least part of it) remaining part of the empire.--Marc pasquin 16:19, 11 January 2018 (PST)

• On a similar tack, why so few Muslims? Of course there isn't going to be a Muslim population anywhere near the size of here, but there's still like 1.5 million Arabs in Persia. That's still only like 2% of the population, but still. I don't really feel like the Arabs of Persia would be substantially Christians or Zoroastrians--Islam just seems so strongly associated with the ethnic identity of the Arabs that it seems unlikely that many of them would be Zoroastrian, and the Arabs of Khuzestan would have been under Islamic rule for long enough that the Assyrian Church would no longer be that widespread among them by the time Persia became independent again. In addition, I think there might be quite a few Turkic and maybe even some Persian Muslims. Definitely I think there'd be enough Muslims to provide for the Qajar dynasty. That being said, there is one religion that some Arabs might follow in place of Islam--I'll elaborate below.
• IMO the numbers of Ahl-e Haqq should be higher. *Here* they're estimated to be anywhere from 2 million to even 3 million, and the population also includes Turks, Arabs, and Persians.

either they, unlike other religion, suffered from persecution which lead to a high rate of conversion or at least, to the religion being under reported. --Marc pasquin 16:19, 11 January 2018 (PST)

• The number of Jews seems too high IMO. There are only like 350,000 Iranian Jews in our world, and that's counting all the ones who hightailed it for Israel. Where did all the others come from?

no massacre or expulsion under the early safavids ? based on some graphs I found online, the world jewish population went from (roughly) 1 million to 17 million between the 1600s and late 1930s (i.e. pre-holocaust) so assuming a similar population growth in the persian jewish community, you could easily account for a near six fold increase. --Marc pasquin 16:19, 11 January 2018 (PST)

• Most Syriac Christians in Persia would be Church of the East. From what I can tell, the Syriac Orthodox Church is something of West Assyria, and has much less of a foothold in East Assyria.
• Where do all the Eastern Orthodox Christians come from? I'm not sure if there are enough Georgians in Persia to provide all those Orthodox adherents.

I can't find a middle east map for IB so that while we know what country persia shares a border with, it *might* be possible that Persia *there* has a larger overall territory, that is, Persia includes territories we would assume are part of other countries *here*. Again, just a supposition.--Marc pasquin 16:19, 11 January 2018 (PST)

• I really don't think there's any way that Mandaeism would get that big. They're a closed off, Aramaic-speaking ethnoreligion, and while I don't have any stats on their numbers from the times of the old Sassanid Empire, I don't think they'd ever manage to grow to a population of over 1 million. Pedro only had like 60,000 Mandeans in pre-Hussein Iraq, which I think is the same number as *here*.

Going back to the jewish population growth I mentioned above, the mandean *there*, assuming they never suffered from pogrom or forced conversion, could easily have a larger population even without converts.--Marc pasquin 16:19, 11 January 2018 (PST)

IDK. IMO the most likely religious situation in *there*'s Persia would be something along the lines of Zoroastrianism as the main religion, with Assyrian Christianity and Shia Islam jockeying for 2nd place, with several other religious minorities sprinkled in. Probably the most important ones would be Judaism, Armenian Orthodox and Georgian Orthodox. I understand if you disagree with all of this, lol. Maybe I'm being dumb. These are just my $0.02 on the demographic matter. Juanmartinvelezlinares 11:17, 11 January 2018 (PST)

not dumb. My problem as before with fiddling around with QSS demographics is that the person who wrote it could have a decent explanation for the numbers which make me weary of changing them. --Marc pasquin 16:19, 11 January 2018 (PST)

No, no, lol, it's not something that came before! I'm just discussing w/Kostas. He's the one who wrote the demographic bit up yesterday, I think. He's kinda my "demographic partner-in-crime", haha. I'm just waiting for him to explain his reasoning is all. FWIW, when it comes to all those ethnoreligious groups, I've just always found it kind of hard to square the circle and massively boost the numbers. There's always a headache in figuring out genealogies (which don't necessarily help in figuring out how many members of an ethnic group got converted) and unfortunately academia doesn't always provide straightforward enough answers as to conversion patterns. That's part of the reason why I tend to tread carefully in massively boosting ethnoreligious numbers *there*--it's just so hard to know for sure who's the great^72-grandchild of Convert McApostate from X religion. The Jews are kind of an exception, of course, since there are so many examples of extensive conversion to Judaism and Judaism allows converts, but I was basing my calculation on the numbers of Jews in *here*'s Iran. Although I couldn't get the stats of *here*'s Iranian population circa the establishment of Israel, at which point there were about 150,000 Jews in Iran, using the closest population I could get (Iran circa 1956, using the Jewish population of circa 1948) I still couldn't crack 350,000. Which unfortunately is the same number of Jews of Persian descent *here*. Overall, it's not really a personal disagreement so much as "the demographic math just doesn't add up, and I haven't the foggiest idea on how to make it work." Juanmartinvelezlinares 16:48, 11 January 2018 (PST)