This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samanid Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Isma'il Muntasir was copied or moved into Samanid Empire with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoey.khan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello!
I think there is a mistake here; Samanid is different from Sassanid.
It should be noted that the tajik identity was formed after the occupation of Central Asia by Turks. I.e. it is a privative(?)definition. It means persian speaking as opposed to turkish speaking. Since at the time of Samanids Central Asia was not occupied or controlled by Turkic tribes Tajik identity does not make sense. It was after the Samanids that turic tribes took control over the region.
RE: Can You prove that? Bring some sources, please,. I would like to know my history.
This is just a claim and highly questionable and debatable as ricahrd nelson frye is known to make outragoues claims like this one. It almost seems that Everything in Central asia has descended from Persian(iranians) when infact no scholars from afghanistan or tajikstan or in the region has verified or accepted this claim. The tajiks were first to migrate to what is now iran. Ironically Iranians come from what is now tajikistan and afghanistan. Also there are too many people here are reading the western version of central asia and afghanistan history and just tie it into the persian history because they speak the same language which is not true because persian is a western terminology and historically incorrect when reffering to DARI or afghans Pashtun786 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786
Pashtun Dombdar,
Tajik is a sononymus for Persian. Persians of central Asia use it to define Persians there. Tajiks are not turks, they are pure Indo-Europeans. People who live in Turkey or in areas where they make a minority like in Kurdistan people call them as well as Tajik. Some great Poets called themself as well as Tajiks like Saadi. Even in the Shahnama Soraab (i think it is Sorab) call himself as Tajik. Tajik was used for 2000 years ago to descibe Avestan speaking people by Indians. Even chinese´s and tibetans use this word till today to descibe all Persian people, including those in Iran and Aserbaidshan (Tats). But Pashtuns have turkish origine, at least all non-Kanlari-groups. Jaji= Jajra, Karokhil= Karo, Ghalzai/Ghilzai= Khilij, Abdali= Ebdali (indo-europeans of non-iranic origine from Sibiria and east mongolia who became very strong turkizised). And now add all sub-groups, too.
Dari is the language of Iran, Tajikistan and Persian Afghans while Awghans/Aoghans speak Pashto, a SOUTH-EASTERN iranian language. That means there is no relation to the avestan (bactrian-sogdian-Parsi->Kambuji people). Awghans->Ashvakans! first vedic speaking people who became as well mixed by drawidas and later had developed an own stock of the indo-aryan language, of course not intentionally.
Parsi is Parsi. It differ just in it´s dialects. Btw, our dialect is known as Parsi e/Palawi e Khorassani!! to understand that you have to see who parthians were and who are their descends today-->Tajiks!! Of seven tribes three tribes settled in modern Afghanistan. Now accept it or get die by your facist mentality. best regards
-- 84.59.13.115 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Koh-Damani
"PERSIAN AFGHANS" wrong, first of all the real scholars will never say that afghans or tajik are "PERSIAN" this is an incorrect Western usage when reffering to these people. Theres an old saying never believe anything that you hear. Also have you seen any afghan historian has accepted any of these articles? or did you hear from your own family saying that they are persian? NO. These articles are written and referenced by iranians, jews, british, americans. How come afghans never write there own articles instead foreigners are doing it for us who have no clue of the language or the culture. Pashtun786 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786
I know this discussion is 8 years old but i thought i would for people that might read this. You guys are both somewhat right and wrong. The Samainds themselves were from the area we would call "Tajkistan" today and the area has been historically inhabbited by a people called "Tajiks." Richard Frye's statement is wrong since a huge migration of Persians into central asia would have not been possible since the Arabs advanced eastwards into Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Ummayd empire ruled the vast land of Iran all the way to Pakistan so it wouldn't exactly make sense for them to migrate into an area also invaded by Arabs. Secondly, i think the Samanids were more or less just Sodighans who got persianized and adopted Farsi as state language, as you know very well that Farsi was the lingua franca and court language at the time. Also, the word Tajik was revived ruing the soviet rule and was not accepted at first by the majority of Persians from Afghanistan and Tajikistan as the word originally had a negative connation to it. Akmal94 ( talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
is this where 9th-century Pahlavi literature comes from? Jonathan Tweet 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Arian,
Wikipedia is not a site or a book like Puta Khazana or sth like that. The last Samanid King ruled till 1005. That their rule took so long i do not need britanicca or sth. ...i have read the books about them!! I have movies about them!!! I have old texts about them written by arabs!!! PLZ do not hide their full ruling date!! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MADE BY PASHTUNES WHO DOES NOT KNOW SAMANIDS IN AFGHANISTAN!!!
Ps:Dqiqi was writing for the shanameh in the court of the samanids but he died to early so firdowsi wrote for them further the book but they didn´t want it so he wrote the shahname for sulatn mahmud till his death!!! by the way before daqiqi and firdowsi the shahname was written by another persian from merv unfortunatley i have forgotten his life.
and 1+1 is not zero even when the samanids had ruled from 875 or whatever it don´t make 102 years!! it would be very good to visit midnight schools, my tip to you!! education is the most important thing today, don´t forget it!! ...it won´t hurt..even you are a pashtune ;)
does this (819–999) make 102 years??--
Tajik-Professor 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Samanid empire" is not a popular term in English books or academic articles (compare Samanids or Samanid dynasty with "Samanid empire). This page should move back to Samanids. Alefbe ( talk) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the first page of the chapter on Samanids (in the Cambridge history of Iran). Even Frye (who has used the term "Samanid empire" once) has not used this term in the title of that chapter or its lead (also see this for the usage of various terms in that chapter). Alefbe ( talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
excuse me can someone please move the picture of a samanid king nasr ii which is covering a part of the text!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethyx ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the information must be verified and accepted by a large scholarly society in afghanistan and historians that are neutral about the subject, other than that apparently everything on here is written favoring an iranian view as everyone on here including the editor is a tajik wannabe persian which in most people's opinion is not the same. 76.103.37.61 ( talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Pashtun786
This article does not mention the Samanids trading with Europe
The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (trans. Richard N. Frye), Page 143 mentions the following:
"...The Samanids were involved in trading with Europe, as thousands of Samanid coins that have been found in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries testify. Trades, agriculture and slave trading were the economic basis of Samanid State...", - I have reworded it. I will be adding it with proper citation.
The article claims "To legitimize the dynasty, the Samanids claimed to be descendants of Bahram Chobin,[9]".. this is somewhat inaccurate. In the book, 'The History of Bukhara' by Narshakhi (Trans. by Richard Nelson Frye), there's an entire chapter called "An account of the house of Saman and their lineage", Here' it says (roughly) "Saman Khuda was one of the descendant of Bahram Chobin", in other words, they didn't simply claim it, they were infact descendants of Bahram Chobin as recorded in their lineage. I will be adding it with proper citation. -- Source: The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (Trans. Richard Nelson Frye), Pg 79, Chapter XXVI. -- Theotherguy1 ( talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To IP: 91.200.216.10, you are writing repeatedly that Samanids were not descendants of Bahram Chobin, rather they simply claimed it. This is not true. The article as it stands is properly cited. Please do not remove/make changes. -- Theotherguy1 ( talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
During the Samanid period the Tajik nation was formed in Central Asia. The Samanid Empire is considered as the first Tajik state.
I have removed these from the text from the article, being of spurious nature. This is exactly what the official Soviet ethno-nationalist propaganda machine of Tajikistan pumped out, and as such does not belong in a NPOV encyclopaedia.
This is not only contentious but unvalidated. Please do not restore these passages to the article without proper scholarly citations directly making these claims. -- Jhelyam ( talk) 10:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why most of the references (Notes) do not have dates or publishers given, let alone if there are different editions? It should also have a bibliography to supplement the script of the Notes. If these are article titles they should have the Journal, and issue and volume information, shouldn't it? Isn't the idea of providing information so that someone else can find it and use it too? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
in all historical source samanids empire certainly is persian.and verb of tajik were made in later years.samanids named Themselves padishahe iran (king of persia).So if tajik's want are related themselves to the samanids,Because to build identity for their history and their newly establishment country,this identity building shouldn't effected on fact and history. if this post have misspelling excuse me Because my english is some weak. Ali Historian ( talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Ali Historian
Persian or Tajik, both the same word for the same people. -- 88.69.9.31 ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The Cultural and Religious efforts section appears to have been copied word-for-word from "History of Afghanistan" [8] and "History of Iran" [9]. I will attempt to re-write the section without changing the "gist" of the section. Any concerns can be posted here. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Compare it with cited source (link to the book page). I think current text does not summarize cited source very well. Plus shouldn't we add more details to it per source and move it to Culture, Legacy, or a new section? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani: Your thoughts on this? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 09:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani:, I hope you are all doing well and staying safe. As leading contributors of this article, I would like to draw your precious attention to one ambiguous template vigorously guarded by HistoryofIran, which is "History of Iran" template (suspicious coincidence, uhm). You guys talked so much of how this empire contributed to Turco-Persian tradition and made a lasting impact on Central Asia, but seem not to notice the above-mentioned template, which should not be there all alone. I thoroughly added a handful of history templates of the present-day countries, whose territories constituted a significant part of the Samanid Empire, but they were immediately deleted by HistoryofIran for "obvious" reasons. Apparently, I thought that the best compromise would've been using "history of Greater Iran" template (as you know the territory from Derbent in Dagestan to Pakistan, and from Khwarazm to Bahrein is considered Greater Iran) and to this end, I swapped the templates, but again, to no avail, thanks to the relevant user. HistoryofIran, know that this empire had a profound influence on all the people of Central Asia (Official Dushanbe even claims this Kingdom to be their own) and this impact is still clearly felt around (trust me, I travelled solo along the Silk Road). Therefore, my guess is that History of Greater Iran template should be used instead of the Iran one, because first of all, this State was centered more in Transoxiana, second, considering the reasons I have stated earlier, Samanid Empire cannot be solely claimed by present-day Iran. Thanks, -- Visioncurve Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment : Greater Iran is a cultural sphere, thus, the History of Iran template sounds more relevant here, in my humble opinion. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment :I have seen no sources which would indicate a need to include the other templates. Also, personal experiences or opinions are useless. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Curious question, what is the use case of {{ History of Greater Iran}} then? It seems just as applicable here as {{ History of Iran}} to me, listing the various empires and dynasties encompassing the areas around modern-day Iran. If there isn't a case where the former should be used concurrently or in place of the latter, then an XfD may be in order. — MarkH21 talk 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Shaykswag: Page 179-180 in The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith is about the Mongols, it doesn't mention anything about Islam/Zoroastrianism in the era of the Samanids, could you please add the correct page(s)? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ History: Got it, ill stop mentioning fars and I'll link the other source instead of Google play.
Khorazmiy ( talk) 16:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
According to Richard Frye, the Samanid dynasty ruled Transoxania for a period of one hundred ten years, (892-999). [7] In other publications, Ismail Samani (874-907) is considered the founder of the Samanid state. [8] [9] [10] In other sources, the beginning of the reign of the Samanids is traced to 872. [11] Thus, among orientalists there are different opinions about the time of the creation of the Samanid state.
"We also know that the Muslim Persian Samanid empire (819–999), a vassal state of the Abbasids in eastern Iran.." -- The Muslim Merchants of Premodern China, John W. Chaffee, Cambridge University Press, page 19. It is not clear how an empire can be a vassal of another state? Khorazmiy ( talk) 23:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There is still debate about the Samanid being Tajik. I think Tajikistan History soap should be added here.
DifaiTal (
talk) 14:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC) <---
blocked
sock of
User:Aydın memmedov2000
Understood. I originally stated this idea because it originated in the borders of modern Tajikistan. thanks for the clarification.
DifaiTal (
talk) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC) <---
blocked
sock of
User:Aydın memmedov2000
I do not understand why this article states that it could be possible that the house of saman belonged to the oghuz turks just to mention the unlikeliness of this possibility right after. The house of Saman descended from a parthian family and are Iranian, the idea that there is a chance that the house of saman is of turkic origin is ridiculous at best. I hope someone can address my concerns over this. Thank you. 216.181.132.21 ( talk) 20:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear writer of this article. A peace of poem in legacy section, is not a reliable source to prove that Samanids were from Sassanid linage.
The source from Cambridge Press https://books.google.com/books?id=hvx9jq_2L3EC only indicates that Samanids are decendents of Bahram Chubin as a theory putting it along side their Turkic origin theory. The book mentions a first hand source for the latter while it does not support the first theory (Samanids' descendancy from Sassanids). However, in this article you state with certainty that "They considered themselves to be descendants of the Sasanian Empire" without mentioning that it is a probability.
You may want to either erase the sentence or mention that their origin is a matter of debate.
Aceditor00 ( talk) 13:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As for Foltz source which you used, does not say that they were Tajiks in the same manner as Tajiks of today;
"During his last years and up to his death in 907 Ismā‘īl Sāmānī exercised control over most of the Iranian world. One may, as modern Tajiks emphatically do, consider him to be a ‘Tajik’ in the sense that he was a Persian-speaking Muslim – Persian being, as we have noted, the primary language through which Central Asia was Islamicized by Iranian converts from the West" - p. 66
[18] This Iranica article goes into depth regarding the fact that "Tajik" was not an ethnonym in the same sense as it is today. There is more. Can't post it all here, too much info. Though it's freely accessible:
Also, the Adeeb Khalid source you used does not say that the Samanids were Tajiks, quite the contrary, that the Soviet-era Tajiks tried to create their own identity; "In the Soviet era, the Tajik intelligentsia built up a glorious heritage for the nation that traced the origins of the Tajik nation, via the tenth-century Samanid state centered in Bukhara, to the ancient Sogdians. Tajik intellectuals saw their nation as the most ancient, most “civilized” people in Central Asia, heir to the wisdom of the Avesta and the glories of much of Persian poetry. But they had no modern history to lay claim to and no political references more recent than the Samanids." p. 148 HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samanid Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Isma'il Muntasir was copied or moved into Samanid Empire with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoey.khan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello!
I think there is a mistake here; Samanid is different from Sassanid.
It should be noted that the tajik identity was formed after the occupation of Central Asia by Turks. I.e. it is a privative(?)definition. It means persian speaking as opposed to turkish speaking. Since at the time of Samanids Central Asia was not occupied or controlled by Turkic tribes Tajik identity does not make sense. It was after the Samanids that turic tribes took control over the region.
RE: Can You prove that? Bring some sources, please,. I would like to know my history.
This is just a claim and highly questionable and debatable as ricahrd nelson frye is known to make outragoues claims like this one. It almost seems that Everything in Central asia has descended from Persian(iranians) when infact no scholars from afghanistan or tajikstan or in the region has verified or accepted this claim. The tajiks were first to migrate to what is now iran. Ironically Iranians come from what is now tajikistan and afghanistan. Also there are too many people here are reading the western version of central asia and afghanistan history and just tie it into the persian history because they speak the same language which is not true because persian is a western terminology and historically incorrect when reffering to DARI or afghans Pashtun786 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786
Pashtun Dombdar,
Tajik is a sononymus for Persian. Persians of central Asia use it to define Persians there. Tajiks are not turks, they are pure Indo-Europeans. People who live in Turkey or in areas where they make a minority like in Kurdistan people call them as well as Tajik. Some great Poets called themself as well as Tajiks like Saadi. Even in the Shahnama Soraab (i think it is Sorab) call himself as Tajik. Tajik was used for 2000 years ago to descibe Avestan speaking people by Indians. Even chinese´s and tibetans use this word till today to descibe all Persian people, including those in Iran and Aserbaidshan (Tats). But Pashtuns have turkish origine, at least all non-Kanlari-groups. Jaji= Jajra, Karokhil= Karo, Ghalzai/Ghilzai= Khilij, Abdali= Ebdali (indo-europeans of non-iranic origine from Sibiria and east mongolia who became very strong turkizised). And now add all sub-groups, too.
Dari is the language of Iran, Tajikistan and Persian Afghans while Awghans/Aoghans speak Pashto, a SOUTH-EASTERN iranian language. That means there is no relation to the avestan (bactrian-sogdian-Parsi->Kambuji people). Awghans->Ashvakans! first vedic speaking people who became as well mixed by drawidas and later had developed an own stock of the indo-aryan language, of course not intentionally.
Parsi is Parsi. It differ just in it´s dialects. Btw, our dialect is known as Parsi e/Palawi e Khorassani!! to understand that you have to see who parthians were and who are their descends today-->Tajiks!! Of seven tribes three tribes settled in modern Afghanistan. Now accept it or get die by your facist mentality. best regards
-- 84.59.13.115 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Koh-Damani
"PERSIAN AFGHANS" wrong, first of all the real scholars will never say that afghans or tajik are "PERSIAN" this is an incorrect Western usage when reffering to these people. Theres an old saying never believe anything that you hear. Also have you seen any afghan historian has accepted any of these articles? or did you hear from your own family saying that they are persian? NO. These articles are written and referenced by iranians, jews, british, americans. How come afghans never write there own articles instead foreigners are doing it for us who have no clue of the language or the culture. Pashtun786 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786
I know this discussion is 8 years old but i thought i would for people that might read this. You guys are both somewhat right and wrong. The Samainds themselves were from the area we would call "Tajkistan" today and the area has been historically inhabbited by a people called "Tajiks." Richard Frye's statement is wrong since a huge migration of Persians into central asia would have not been possible since the Arabs advanced eastwards into Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Ummayd empire ruled the vast land of Iran all the way to Pakistan so it wouldn't exactly make sense for them to migrate into an area also invaded by Arabs. Secondly, i think the Samanids were more or less just Sodighans who got persianized and adopted Farsi as state language, as you know very well that Farsi was the lingua franca and court language at the time. Also, the word Tajik was revived ruing the soviet rule and was not accepted at first by the majority of Persians from Afghanistan and Tajikistan as the word originally had a negative connation to it. Akmal94 ( talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
is this where 9th-century Pahlavi literature comes from? Jonathan Tweet 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Arian,
Wikipedia is not a site or a book like Puta Khazana or sth like that. The last Samanid King ruled till 1005. That their rule took so long i do not need britanicca or sth. ...i have read the books about them!! I have movies about them!!! I have old texts about them written by arabs!!! PLZ do not hide their full ruling date!! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MADE BY PASHTUNES WHO DOES NOT KNOW SAMANIDS IN AFGHANISTAN!!!
Ps:Dqiqi was writing for the shanameh in the court of the samanids but he died to early so firdowsi wrote for them further the book but they didn´t want it so he wrote the shahname for sulatn mahmud till his death!!! by the way before daqiqi and firdowsi the shahname was written by another persian from merv unfortunatley i have forgotten his life.
and 1+1 is not zero even when the samanids had ruled from 875 or whatever it don´t make 102 years!! it would be very good to visit midnight schools, my tip to you!! education is the most important thing today, don´t forget it!! ...it won´t hurt..even you are a pashtune ;)
does this (819–999) make 102 years??--
Tajik-Professor 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Samanid empire" is not a popular term in English books or academic articles (compare Samanids or Samanid dynasty with "Samanid empire). This page should move back to Samanids. Alefbe ( talk) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the first page of the chapter on Samanids (in the Cambridge history of Iran). Even Frye (who has used the term "Samanid empire" once) has not used this term in the title of that chapter or its lead (also see this for the usage of various terms in that chapter). Alefbe ( talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
excuse me can someone please move the picture of a samanid king nasr ii which is covering a part of the text!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethyx ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the information must be verified and accepted by a large scholarly society in afghanistan and historians that are neutral about the subject, other than that apparently everything on here is written favoring an iranian view as everyone on here including the editor is a tajik wannabe persian which in most people's opinion is not the same. 76.103.37.61 ( talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Pashtun786
This article does not mention the Samanids trading with Europe
The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (trans. Richard N. Frye), Page 143 mentions the following:
"...The Samanids were involved in trading with Europe, as thousands of Samanid coins that have been found in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries testify. Trades, agriculture and slave trading were the economic basis of Samanid State...", - I have reworded it. I will be adding it with proper citation.
The article claims "To legitimize the dynasty, the Samanids claimed to be descendants of Bahram Chobin,[9]".. this is somewhat inaccurate. In the book, 'The History of Bukhara' by Narshakhi (Trans. by Richard Nelson Frye), there's an entire chapter called "An account of the house of Saman and their lineage", Here' it says (roughly) "Saman Khuda was one of the descendant of Bahram Chobin", in other words, they didn't simply claim it, they were infact descendants of Bahram Chobin as recorded in their lineage. I will be adding it with proper citation. -- Source: The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (Trans. Richard Nelson Frye), Pg 79, Chapter XXVI. -- Theotherguy1 ( talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To IP: 91.200.216.10, you are writing repeatedly that Samanids were not descendants of Bahram Chobin, rather they simply claimed it. This is not true. The article as it stands is properly cited. Please do not remove/make changes. -- Theotherguy1 ( talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
During the Samanid period the Tajik nation was formed in Central Asia. The Samanid Empire is considered as the first Tajik state.
I have removed these from the text from the article, being of spurious nature. This is exactly what the official Soviet ethno-nationalist propaganda machine of Tajikistan pumped out, and as such does not belong in a NPOV encyclopaedia.
This is not only contentious but unvalidated. Please do not restore these passages to the article without proper scholarly citations directly making these claims. -- Jhelyam ( talk) 10:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why most of the references (Notes) do not have dates or publishers given, let alone if there are different editions? It should also have a bibliography to supplement the script of the Notes. If these are article titles they should have the Journal, and issue and volume information, shouldn't it? Isn't the idea of providing information so that someone else can find it and use it too? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
in all historical source samanids empire certainly is persian.and verb of tajik were made in later years.samanids named Themselves padishahe iran (king of persia).So if tajik's want are related themselves to the samanids,Because to build identity for their history and their newly establishment country,this identity building shouldn't effected on fact and history. if this post have misspelling excuse me Because my english is some weak. Ali Historian ( talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Ali Historian
Persian or Tajik, both the same word for the same people. -- 88.69.9.31 ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The Cultural and Religious efforts section appears to have been copied word-for-word from "History of Afghanistan" [8] and "History of Iran" [9]. I will attempt to re-write the section without changing the "gist" of the section. Any concerns can be posted here. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Compare it with cited source (link to the book page). I think current text does not summarize cited source very well. Plus shouldn't we add more details to it per source and move it to Culture, Legacy, or a new section? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani: Your thoughts on this? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 09:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani:, I hope you are all doing well and staying safe. As leading contributors of this article, I would like to draw your precious attention to one ambiguous template vigorously guarded by HistoryofIran, which is "History of Iran" template (suspicious coincidence, uhm). You guys talked so much of how this empire contributed to Turco-Persian tradition and made a lasting impact on Central Asia, but seem not to notice the above-mentioned template, which should not be there all alone. I thoroughly added a handful of history templates of the present-day countries, whose territories constituted a significant part of the Samanid Empire, but they were immediately deleted by HistoryofIran for "obvious" reasons. Apparently, I thought that the best compromise would've been using "history of Greater Iran" template (as you know the territory from Derbent in Dagestan to Pakistan, and from Khwarazm to Bahrein is considered Greater Iran) and to this end, I swapped the templates, but again, to no avail, thanks to the relevant user. HistoryofIran, know that this empire had a profound influence on all the people of Central Asia (Official Dushanbe even claims this Kingdom to be their own) and this impact is still clearly felt around (trust me, I travelled solo along the Silk Road). Therefore, my guess is that History of Greater Iran template should be used instead of the Iran one, because first of all, this State was centered more in Transoxiana, second, considering the reasons I have stated earlier, Samanid Empire cannot be solely claimed by present-day Iran. Thanks, -- Visioncurve Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment : Greater Iran is a cultural sphere, thus, the History of Iran template sounds more relevant here, in my humble opinion. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment :I have seen no sources which would indicate a need to include the other templates. Also, personal experiences or opinions are useless. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Curious question, what is the use case of {{ History of Greater Iran}} then? It seems just as applicable here as {{ History of Iran}} to me, listing the various empires and dynasties encompassing the areas around modern-day Iran. If there isn't a case where the former should be used concurrently or in place of the latter, then an XfD may be in order. — MarkH21 talk 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Shaykswag: Page 179-180 in The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith is about the Mongols, it doesn't mention anything about Islam/Zoroastrianism in the era of the Samanids, could you please add the correct page(s)? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ History: Got it, ill stop mentioning fars and I'll link the other source instead of Google play.
Khorazmiy ( talk) 16:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
According to Richard Frye, the Samanid dynasty ruled Transoxania for a period of one hundred ten years, (892-999). [7] In other publications, Ismail Samani (874-907) is considered the founder of the Samanid state. [8] [9] [10] In other sources, the beginning of the reign of the Samanids is traced to 872. [11] Thus, among orientalists there are different opinions about the time of the creation of the Samanid state.
"We also know that the Muslim Persian Samanid empire (819–999), a vassal state of the Abbasids in eastern Iran.." -- The Muslim Merchants of Premodern China, John W. Chaffee, Cambridge University Press, page 19. It is not clear how an empire can be a vassal of another state? Khorazmiy ( talk) 23:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There is still debate about the Samanid being Tajik. I think Tajikistan History soap should be added here.
DifaiTal (
talk) 14:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC) <---
blocked
sock of
User:Aydın memmedov2000
Understood. I originally stated this idea because it originated in the borders of modern Tajikistan. thanks for the clarification.
DifaiTal (
talk) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC) <---
blocked
sock of
User:Aydın memmedov2000
I do not understand why this article states that it could be possible that the house of saman belonged to the oghuz turks just to mention the unlikeliness of this possibility right after. The house of Saman descended from a parthian family and are Iranian, the idea that there is a chance that the house of saman is of turkic origin is ridiculous at best. I hope someone can address my concerns over this. Thank you. 216.181.132.21 ( talk) 20:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear writer of this article. A peace of poem in legacy section, is not a reliable source to prove that Samanids were from Sassanid linage.
The source from Cambridge Press https://books.google.com/books?id=hvx9jq_2L3EC only indicates that Samanids are decendents of Bahram Chubin as a theory putting it along side their Turkic origin theory. The book mentions a first hand source for the latter while it does not support the first theory (Samanids' descendancy from Sassanids). However, in this article you state with certainty that "They considered themselves to be descendants of the Sasanian Empire" without mentioning that it is a probability.
You may want to either erase the sentence or mention that their origin is a matter of debate.
Aceditor00 ( talk) 13:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As for Foltz source which you used, does not say that they were Tajiks in the same manner as Tajiks of today;
"During his last years and up to his death in 907 Ismā‘īl Sāmānī exercised control over most of the Iranian world. One may, as modern Tajiks emphatically do, consider him to be a ‘Tajik’ in the sense that he was a Persian-speaking Muslim – Persian being, as we have noted, the primary language through which Central Asia was Islamicized by Iranian converts from the West" - p. 66
[18] This Iranica article goes into depth regarding the fact that "Tajik" was not an ethnonym in the same sense as it is today. There is more. Can't post it all here, too much info. Though it's freely accessible:
Also, the Adeeb Khalid source you used does not say that the Samanids were Tajiks, quite the contrary, that the Soviet-era Tajiks tried to create their own identity; "In the Soviet era, the Tajik intelligentsia built up a glorious heritage for the nation that traced the origins of the Tajik nation, via the tenth-century Samanid state centered in Bukhara, to the ancient Sogdians. Tajik intellectuals saw their nation as the most ancient, most “civilized” people in Central Asia, heir to the wisdom of the Avesta and the glories of much of Persian poetry. But they had no modern history to lay claim to and no political references more recent than the Samanids." p. 148 HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)