Suchergebnisse

IT is Not so Long Ago That the Period Between 1500 And 1800 Hardly figured in western scholarship on Iran. As recently as 1970 the number of book-length studies on aspects of Safavid Iran was limited to Lucien-Louis Bellan's study of Shah ᶜAbbas I, Walther Hinz's book on the rise of the Safavids in the fifteenth century, Ghulam Sarwar's study of Shah Ismaᶜil I, Vladimir Minorsky's edition of and commentary on the Tadhkirat al-Muluk, Laurence Lockhart's volume on the fall of the dynasty, and Klaus Michael Röhrborn's study of the Safavid administrative system. A number of precocious dissertations, most of them never published as books, completed the list at that time. The period between the fall of Isfahan in 1722 and the rise of the Qajars at the turn of the nineteenth century was even less well served, with the output amounting to little more than studies on Nader Shah by Lockhart, and M. R. Arunova and K. Z. Ashrafyan, respectively, and Mehdi Roschanzamir's thesis on the Zand dynasty.

It is indisputable that the religious history both of the Safavid period and of the two centuries that preceded it remains inadequately explored. There existed in Transoxania and Anatolia, as well as the Iranian plateau, a plethora of groups and individuals with diverse tendencies and aspirations that it is difficult, in our present state of knowledge, to synthesize into a comprehensible whole. There are however a number of minor observations on Professor Nasr's presentation that I wish to make. The first is an expression of respectful disagreement, and the others are intended to direct attention to matters not mentioned in his otherwise comprehensive paper.Professor Nasr's contention that Sufism owes its essential origin to Shiᶜism, and that therefore its suppression in the Safavid period ought to be regarded as a return to the womb that bore it, is highly contestable.

This thesis is about the start and the evolution of the Safavid Monarchy in Iran between the 16th century and the first quarter of the 18th century. It studies, in particular, the links between the monarchial power and the different groups at the head of the social and parish hierarchy, such as the qizilbash followers. Given the fact that the advent of the Safavid Monarchy is contemporary with the rise of the Modern States in Europe, this research also studies the point of view of the « good man » of the 17th century about this process of state construction. This approach is based on the context analysis of the diplomatic exchanges between the States, but also of the individual meeting between the European and the Safavid elite representatives, throughout the study of stories of travelers (embassy and travel relations). This study is an invitation to think about the way the Modern State and its behavior reflection are built. ; Cette thèse porte sur la formation et l'évolution de la monarchie safavide en Iran entre le XVIe et le premier quart du XVIIIe siècle. Elle étudie en particulier les rapports entretenus entre le pouvoir monarchique et les différents groupes qui composent le sommet de la hiérarchie sociale et curiale, comme les clientèles qizilbashs. L'avènement de la monarchie safavide étant contemporain de la montée en puissance des États modernes en Europe, cette recherche s'intéresse également au regard que l'« honnête homme » du XVIIe siècle porte sur ce processus de construction étatique. Cette approche est fondée sur l'analyse du cadre des échanges diplomatiques entre États, mais aussi sur la rencontre individuelle entre les Européens et les représentants de l'élite safavide, à travers une étude des récits de voyageurs (relations d'ambassade et de voyage). Elle invite à réfléchir sur la manière dont s'élabore la réflexion sur l'État moderne et sur les comportements qui s'y rapportent.

This thesis is about the start and the evolution of the Safavid Monarchy in Iran between the 16th century and the first quarter of the 18th century. It studies, in particular, the links between the monarchial power and the different groups at the head of the social and parish hierarchy, such as the qizilbash followers. Given the fact that the advent of the Safavid Monarchy is contemporary with the rise of the Modern States in Europe, this research also studies the point of view of the « good man » of the 17th century about this process of state construction. This approach is based on the context analysis of the diplomatic exchanges between the States, but also of the individual meeting between the European and the Safavid elite representatives, throughout the study of stories of travelers (embassy and travel relations). This study is an invitation to think about the way the Modern State and its behavior reflection are built. ; Cette thèse porte sur la formation et l'évolution de la monarchie safavide en Iran entre le XVIe et le premier quart du XVIIIe siècle. Elle étudie en particulier les rapports entretenus entre le pouvoir monarchique et les différents groupes qui composent le sommet de la hiérarchie sociale et curiale, comme les clientèles qizilbashs. L'avènement de la monarchie safavide étant contemporain de la montée en puissance des États modernes en Europe, cette recherche s'intéresse également au regard que l'« honnête homme » du XVIIe siècle porte sur ce processus de construction étatique. Cette approche est fondée sur l'analyse du cadre des échanges diplomatiques entre États, mais aussi sur la rencontre individuelle entre les Européens et les représentants de l'élite safavide, à travers une étude des récits de voyageurs (relations d'ambassade et de voyage). Elle invite à réfléchir sur la manière dont s'élabore la réflexion sur l'État moderne et sur les comportements qui s'y rapportent.

This article studies the position of the kings in the period of Safvid of Iranian Islamic History. The king in this period was considered as a holy figure. Indeed the king was considered and deemed as a great person encouraging a lot of respects. He was considered as the surrogate of prophet. Therefore he had a lot of unlimited powers and authorities. He was the symbol of excellence and raised the respect of anybody in the society. Since the Safavid dynasty itself was a religious one, based on the teaching of the twelve imams, it was important that the king be a religious person too. He is an emblem of God's bounty among humanity, he is the inauguration and termination for generosity among all human beings.

Before 1600 few Europeans visited Persia. But with the advent of the seventeenth century there was a marked change from several causes: first, the awakened interest in Eastern trade; the East India Company of London was chartered on 31 December 1600, the Dutch East India Company less than two years later; second, the common enmity against the Turk shared by Persia and Western Europe; third, a by-product of that, Shāh ᶜAbbās' tolerant and even encouraging attitude to Christians; fourth, the freeing of Persian Gulf ports from Portuguese domination; fifth, reports filtering back to Europe of the wonders of Persia and particularly of its splendid new capital; sixth, more Europeans with the means and urge to travel.And so we have, passing through Isfahan or settling there for long periods, a motley band of Europeans--ambassadors and adventurers, monks and mountebanks, traders and travellers, including combinations of each. Some could scarcely read or write, others wrote volumes--some went on writing about it for the rest of their lives.

Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, Notes et documents sur les Ottomans, les Safavides et la Géorgie, 1516-1521.
Le présent article fait partie d'une série de cinq études (liste dans la note liminaire) consacrées à la place et au rôle des États géorgiens dans la politique extérieure ottomane et safavide entre 1500 et 1524. Celui-ci traite de la crise qui, à partir de la fin de 1515, opposa deux prétendants à la succession de l'atabeg Mzé-Čâbûk, prince du Samtzkhé-Saatabago (le plus méridional des États géorgiens) et tributaire de la Porte ottomane. Cette rivalité amena les compétiteurs à s'appuyer l'un sur Šâh. Isma'il, l'autre sur le sultan ottoman Selîm Ier, lesquels étaient eux- mêmes en guerre depuis 1514. Alors engagé dans la conquête de l'Empire mamlouk, Selîm était résolu à entreprendre dès son retour une campagne de grande envergure contre l'Iran safavide dont la défaite devait entraîner la solution de la crise géorgienne au profit des Ottomans. Ceci explique l'excessive modicité du soutien militaire qu'il envoya à son candidat Manučar et l'échec rapide de celui-ci devant Kvarkvaré, protégé du chah. Selîm ayant dû finalement renoncer à la campagne prévue, Kvarkvaré III demeure atabeg, mais la suzeraineté safavide imposant vraisemblablement des tributs trop lourds pour la principauté, on le voit au début de 1521 faire aux Ottomans les offres les plus claires pour passer de nouveau sous leur protection et se retourner contre Šâh Isma'il. Contrairement à Selîm, décédé l'année précédente, son fils et successeur Süleymân entendait abandonner progressivement les fronts orientaux pour opérer militairement dans les Balkans. C'est la raison pour laquelle les avances de Kvarkvaré ne reçurent aucune réponse. Quelques mois plus tard, l'atabeg se joignit à la révolte générale des principautés géorgiennes contre le chah, événement étudié dans un autre article de cette série. Les chroniques géorgiennes étant lacunaires et peu fiables pour l'histoire de cette période, nous avons tenté ici de reconstituer les faits en nous fondant sur deux importants documents inédits des Archives du Palais de Topkapi et en confrontant systématiquement les données fournies par les sources ottomanes, safavides et vénitiennes accessibles.

Turkic languages and dialects played a much more important role in Safavid Iran than is generally thought, while Azerbaijani Turkish in particular was widely spoken and written in Safavid Iran. It was not only the language of the court and the army, but it was also used in poetry, even by renowned poets who usually wrote in Persian. The Safavid shahs, many of whom wrote poetry in Turkish themselves, promoted its literary use. Also, Turkish was used in the court's official correspondence, for both internal and external affairs.

In his Study on Afsharid Historiography, Ernest Tucker has Shown that Nadir Shah's chroniclers depicted him as the restorer of the Safavid dynasty, and appealed to notions of Safavid legitimacy in their histories. One chronicler, Muhammad Kazim Marvi, accomplished this partly by relating how Nadir Shah found a tablet (lawḥ) upon which Timur had inscribed instructions for Nadir Shah. Although Marvi was predominantly appealing to Safavid legitimacy, in the process he also linked Nadir's name with Timur. Laurence Lockhart notes a number of similarities between Nadir and Timur, indicating instances where Nadir seems to have modeled his reign on Timur's. These include (1) Nadir's naming his grandson Shahrukh, (2) Nadir's wife and Timur's daughter-in-law (wife of Shahrukh) both sharing the same name, Gawhar Shad, and (3) Nadir's use of certain Timurid military tactics.

Ever since Minorsky published his introduction and commentary on the Safavid manual of administration Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, which has become a classic in the field, scholars have come to agree on the tribal character of the state that was founded by Shah Esma`il. In fact, it is through the military force of the Turkmen tribes, the Qezelbash, that Shah Esma`il was able to accede to the throne, thus inaugurating a period of relative stability for Iran that lasted more than two centuries. Iran owed its ability to resist the recurring and alternating attacks by the Ottoman Empire and the Uzbegs to Qezelbash power as well.Initially mobilized by religious fanaticism, the military strength of the Qezelbash became a double-edged sword for the Safavid rulers with the waning of unconditional Qezelbash devotion to the shah. Though they were indispensable to the defense of the empire's frontiers, the Qezelbash amirs, with their unbridled despotism and the resulting turmoil, never ceased to be a prime source of concern for the rulers.

Safavid Iran's foreign trade is usually described as the highly profitable export of silk to Europe. That is at best an incomplete description. One problem is that it focuses on only one side of the trade (exports) rather than looking at both sides. Taken to its extreme, the usual story could make Iranians look like mad mercantilists determined to export without thinking much about what they got in return, while Europeans could look like crazed consumers so eager for Iranian silk that they would buy without thinking about the bill. At the very least, an account of trade should examine what is going in each direction, not just at what one side exports and the other side imports. That is one major lacuna of the usual story. Another is that it concentrates on Iranian–European trade without as much attention to Iranian trade with other areas. Safavid Iran's trade with Europe can be understood only in the context of its overall trade, for only in that context can we know whether Europe was an important market or an incidental one.

This paper examines the notions of Shiʿism and kingship in Safavid cultural materials (coins, architectural inscriptions, enthronement orations, and panegyrics) to trace the role of Safavid ideology in the dynasty's transformation from a Sufi order into a monarchic institution with a sectarian identity. It examines these materials in order to reconstruct the dominant ideology of the Safavids in various venues. Examination of the ideologies of Safavid rulership shows a marked difference between ideologies expressed in these cultural mediums. We argue that this difference points to a multi-pronged Safavid strategy of projecting political legitimacy in distinct registers for different audiences. By combining ideologies that were embraced and practiced by people of different regions and sects in the Persian empire before the Safavids, the Safavid monarchs managed to spread widely their power within the empire and beyond, to change the religio-political ideology of the empire, and to remain in power for more than two centuries.