Iran - Blog Posts
Pakistan issued a set of three stamps on 21 Jul 1969 to mark the Fifth Anniversary of Regional Co-operation for Development between Turkey , Iran & Pakistan.The Three stamps depict Miniatures
Ottoman Miniature (Turkey),Safavi Miniature (Iran), Mughal Miniature (Pakistan)
World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them
Мировая политика как черное и белое: Иран и Израиль, или как люди становятся жертвами намеренно проецируемых на них заблуждений
To a previous text of mine about Iran, an apparently pro-Iranian and pro-Palestinian reader reacted expressing his fervent support for Iran; however, when it comes to modern states, governments, non-governmental organizations, companies and conglomerates, as well as international bodies, any blind support is totally wrong, misleading and destructive. It actually prevents people from accurately assessing the situation in each and every point. Even worse, when the absurd consideration and the erroneous evaluation of a state is laced with an equally false demonization of the opponent, then people enter into the vast realm of the unreal, the fictional, and the delusional.
Darius I the Great (522-486 BCE) of the Achaemenid dynasty, Khosrow (Chosroes) I (531-579 CE) of the Sassanid dynasty, Adud al-Dawla (949–983) of the Buyid dynasty, and Tahmasp I (1524-1576) of the Safavid dynasty in the dates of their reigns; neither the ayatollahs nor the leader of the self-styled National Council of Iran Reza 'Pahlavi' can represent the colossal historical and cultural heritage of 3000 years of Iranian History. All the same, all the Iranians together and their military commanders in charge of the administration can certainly afford the task.
Содержание
Введение
I. Каждый сектантский подход и каждая сектантская мысль являются порочной ошибкой и нетерпимым поступком
II. Политическая ситуация и международные отношения не определяют природу режимов, правительств и государств
III. Когда дело касается мировых дел, не существует шахматной доски с «черными» и «белыми» клетками
IV. Все СМИ сообщают одну и ту же ложь, меняя только «шахматные наборы»
V. Достоинство иранцев и палестинцев является наиболее спорным вопросом
VI. Вера в обещания, данные врагами, замаскированными под друзей, может оказаться смертельной
VII. Военные и фермеры против королевской семьи и аятолл
VIII. Нет никакой разницы между Ираном и Египтом, когда дело доходит до раболепия по отношению к крупным колониальным схемам
Contents
Introduction
I. Every sectarian approach and every sectarian thought are a vicious mistake and an intolerable act.
II. Political situations and international relations do not define the nature of regimes, governments, and states.
III. When it comes to world affairs, there is no such thing as a chessboard with "black" and "white" squares.
IV. All mass media report the same lies, changing only the «chess sets».
V. The dignity of the Iranians and the Palestinians is a most controversial subject.
VI. Believing promises given by enemies disguised as friends may be lethal.
VII. Military and farmers against the royals and the ayatollahs
VIII. There is no difference between Iran and Egypt when it comes to servility toward major colonial schemes.
Introduction
When it comes to humans, human societies, and states, there is nothing as mistaken as a "black & white" contrast; the people, who intentionally adopt and propagate such an erroneous approach, stance and attitude, become inevitably integral part of the problem they intend to discuss, because they thoughtlessly victimize themselves. Quite unfortunately, all regimes, establishments and states have gone astray and all will be duly, terribly and inescapably punished; in this case, as usual, the exceptions confirm the rule. What follows is my response to the reader's comment that I republish first.
Mauro Meneghin
Your comment against Ayatollah Khomeini appears unclear and not justified. I'm not an expert on the history by any means, but I now see that Ayatollah Khomeini is standing up with honour to defend the sovereignty and dignity of Iran and of the Palestinians. Ayatollah Khomeini is a wise man who uses reason and moderation in his decisions, and his religious approach serves well to provide moral guidance.
If you dislike him, I wonder if maybe it's due to envy because Egypt is a puppet of the US, but instead, Iran is still a sovereign country with honour.
My response
Thank you for your comment that gives me the opportunity to clarify several issues, which trouble and confuse billions of people today. I am sure that you misread and misunderstood my brief text, but this is the least.
I realize that your approach to events is essentially a Manichaean aberration, which divides everything into "good" and "evil" or "black and white"; quite unfortunately, this categorization does not exist. It is an inconsistent and absurd falsehood that has been systematically spread and dexterously imposed worldwide by all ruling elites, secret societies, governments, states, regimes, establishments, and international bodies. They all need you and me (and all the rest) to be stupid enough to believe that some "good guys" combat "the evil ones". This never happens. And anyone who adopts this false and disastrous approach is genuinely incapacitated to ever understand what happens.
An even worse version of this fallacy is the story of "peoples" fighting against "cruel elites" or "poor people" standing up against the "world Mafia of money"; for the purpose of confusing, deceiving and deluding all the people across the Earth, several subliminally strong terms are created, but they are all nonsensical, fallacious and harmful for the average people. It is essential for everyone not to be caught in the malicious process, because its end will be the destruction of the Mankind.
As a matter of fact, few people escape from this mental, intellectual, educational and academic delusion, which is certainly worse than any pandemic. This is so because by means of a technically Manichaean conceptualization, people are fooled, fail to understand what happens around them, and are therefore easily, complementarily and comprehensively controlled by all the forces, which -while fighting against one another- need exactly to spiritually, mentally and intellectually enslave and utilize the masses by reducing them to "followers", "admirers", "supporters", "adepts" or even "party members" and by canceling the enormous potentialities that the non-deceived and non-deluded people have.
You say that Ayatollah Khomeini "is standing" and that he "is wise"! Odd! Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989! I am afraid that you confusingly thought that I referred to Ayatollah Khamenei, who is currently the imam of Iran. You did not realize that the reference that I made in my text is about the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and not the current imam.
In addition, you speak about "defending the sovereignty" of a country, but this is totally unrelated to the theological concept that Ayatollah Khomeini developed and which I denounced, stating that the notion of "Wilayat al faqih" (conventionally translated as "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist", in other words, the regime of the ayatollahs) is historically rejected as nonexistent throughout the History of Iran, and the History of Islamic states.
All the same, beyond this rather minor issue, in your comment, I find a most misleading approach that turns every person to a victim of one of this world's major forces and backstage societies. These historical orders have nothing to do with states and do not care at all about countries; they only use governments and international bodies, by incessantly placing their stooges in positions that enable them to duly implement the agendas of their superiors.
So, the main part of my response will revolve around the following points:
I. Every sectarian approach and every sectarian thought are a vicious mistake and an intolerable act.
When it comes to faithful people, it is even worse; any sectarian approach is a grave sin. It greatly damages the person (or government or state) that happens to be foolish enough to believe that their choice is perfect and that the opposite is evil. All people who think that what they like is "good" and what they reject is "bad" are so idiotic that they -in and by themselves- justify the agendas of secret organizations that intend to eliminate the major part of Mankind.
To make things clear, I herewith define sectarianism as an egoistic, partial, narrow-minded, deliberately subjective, and therefore always wrong adherence to a specific idea, thought, opinion, concept, notion, ideology, political ideology, conviction, philosophy, theology, cult, belief, religion or system of values; sectarianism is a very immoral attitude, behavior and model of life anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever. This is so because it always constitutes a abhorrent sin and a calamitous transgression not to consider another person's, group's, society's, people's or nation's rights, values and standpoints.
Detrimental to anyone against whom it is expressed, a sectarian predisposition automatically prompts support, at least partly, for the concept or idea that is rejected by a sectarian person. Sectarianism is disastrous to everyone who happens to be too weak and too erroneous to avoid succumbing to its attraction; this abhorrent stance discredits every sectarian thinker or activist, religious leader or statesman, rendering him untrustworthy, intransigent and fanatic.
The only possible remedy to sectarianism (within the mind of every sectarian) is a reconsideration and a systematic, forcefully implemented at the personal level, effort to evaluate the other's (any other person's, group's, society's, people's or nation's as per occasion) measures, standards, rights, needs, and values objectively, impartially and neutrally.
At the level of international relations, an abhorrent example of sectarianism (noticed during the past few days) is the attitude of Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other states in the region toward the Bedouin citizens of Israel. For reasons particular to them, this ethnic group decided to accept the existence of the Zionist state. All the same, many of them have been mistreated by the Israeli authorities on many occasions. Few days ago, around 50 Bedouin families in Israel were left without homes, because the respective authorities demolished their illegally built edifices.
Yet, building structures wherever they find it opportune has been very common to nomads since time immemorial all over the Earth. However, none of the supposedly "good" states, which care for "justice" and fight for the "rights" of the Palestinians, did not champion the rightful cause of the Bedouins, because they are not their "political tool". About:
Authorities level 47 illegal homes in Bedouin village, leaving hundreds homeless
This fact fully demonstrates that Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other states in the region are as criminal, heinous, vicious and unacceptable structures as Israel. Any person and any state that is characterized by sectarianism are totally untrustworthy and genuinely dangerous for the society or the international community (if we ever accept that such notion exists!).
II. Political situations and international relations do not define the nature of regimes, governments, and states.
There is no doubt that the Palestinian nation has been a long time victim of the cruel colonial plans, deeds and practices of England, before being targeted with genocide by the anti-Jewish, Zionist state. But by supporting the Palestinians, Iran (or any other state) does not get the nature of its regime approved; these issues are very different from, and totally unrelated to, one another.
The nature of the Islamic regime of Iran is entirely fraudulent; it is viciously anti-Iranian and even worse, it contradicts all historical standards of Islamic states that existed throughout Iran since the 7th–9th c. CE. Khomeini's absurdity of Wilayat al faqih is a preposterous, colonial novelty masterminded by the English colonials, who invited the young Ruhollah Khomeini to Iraq in the 1930s for studies and managed to aptly guide him as to how to invent a counterfeit concept that is tantamount to Sunnitization of Iran.
As a matter of fact, this deceitful theory consists in a form of political islam, which is a colonial fallacy invented by 19th c. colonial Orientalists as a tool first against the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran. Political islam is the worst enemy of the Islamic world, because Islam has nothing to do with the filthy world of politics, and there had never been 'politics' in any Islamic state.
By acting as per the needs of the apostate Freemasonic lodge of England, which attempts to destroy the (also fake) state of Israel (by means of an alliance with the Jesuits, the Anti-Christian pope Francis I, and a degenerate Zionist synagogue), Iran became the tool of the most ferociously anti-Islamic forces. In any case, since Day 1, the detrimentally anti-Iranian regime of the Ayatollahs has proved to be a useful plaything for the most perverse forces of financial globalism. It must therefore be replaced as soon as possible.
III. When it comes to world affairs, there is no such thing as a chessboard with "black" and "white" squares.
The world is not divided into "good" ones and "bad" ones; Zbigniew Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard' is a fraud. It consists in a historical falsification, a political aberration, and a technically Manichaean delusion. Most of the naïve people who read it did not understand that its purpose was mainly to fool eventually all the readers by projecting onto their minds deliberately invented fallacies. No assertion made in the book is correct. The proof of what I am saying at this point has been available online for many years ever since the notorious and very much publicized meeting between the fraudulent author and the Russian intellectual Alexander Dugin took place in 2005.
"The meeting had been set with a photo-prop of a chessboard placed between Brzezinski and Dugin (to promote Brzezinski’s book). This arrangement with a chessboard prompted Dugin to ask whether Brzezinski considered Chess to be a game meant for two: “No, Zbig shot back: It is a game for one. Once a chess piece is moved; you turn the board around, and you move the other side’s chess pieces. There is ‘no other’ in this game”, Brzezinski insisted".
Strategic cultural fond, https://dzen.ru/a/YkLt_-d9BHIRxNMi
This story tells us something simple; the chessboard exists only if you are naïve enough to accept that it does. In other words, it is a nonexistent reality or, if you prefer, a delusion structured in lines that lead to destruction those who admit that they exist.
IV. All mass media report the same lies, changing only the «chess sets».
In Gaza and elsewhere, the mass media systematic falsehood makes everyone believe that "innocent people" are murdered by "cruel rulers"; this is a central part of the confusion spread in order to drive Mankind to extinction. In fact, there are cruel acts perpetrated by all, but there are no "innocent" or "good" or "enlightened" rulers in today's world. Consequently, this evaluation is extended to governments, states, and international bodies.
The same is valid for peoples, ethno religious groups, and nations indeed. Within the colonial and postcolonial context of the last five centuries, no people and no nation managed to preserve their cultural integrity and national identity; only very few subjugated nations, which are located in remote regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America that are lacking technological infrastructure, make an exception.
Before the colonization process started (in different times from continent to continent and from land to land), all different nations were in variant forms of decay; and during the colonization period, all the peoples and ethnic groups underwent a severe process of Westernization. Because of these facts, one should not exempt peoples from being held to account for their contribution to the onerous and troublesome situation in which they find themselves nowadays.
For this reason, all the news, the reports, the editorials and the fact files published here and there are practically speaking identical; what the Iranian mass media report as news on Israel is equivalent to what the Israeli mass media propagate about Iran and Hamas.
V. The dignity of the Iranians and the Palestinians is a most controversial subject.
In fact, the dignity of every nation hinges on the morality, the dexterity and the ability of their elites and rulers. Many nations have been dishonored, subsequently destroyed, and ultimately vanished because of their immoral and incompetent elites. At the very beginning of every case of decay, there is always immorality – evaluated as per the local standards and values.
When the ignorance of the elites and the rulers, their inability to cope with rivals, and their naivety turns them to mere tools in the hands of the enemies of their enemies, then you can expect the worst! This is so because only strong nations attack enemies directly; on the contrary, weak, vile and perfidious nations that cannot attack directly their enemies search always for fools able to do the job for them. In fact, the nations, which are governed by idiots believing that "the enemy of my enemy can be my friend", risk being disintegrated.
Unfortunately, Iran became -gradually and secretively- the ally of England against Israel; UK-based Muslims are in their majority fake, because they fall into the traps of the English secret services, namely the fallacy of multiculturalism, the fraud of political islam, and the false promises that the colonial statesmen, diplomats and academics often make to their forthcoming victims.
And this is exactly what happened to the Islamic Republic of Iran because the ill-fated state has become the tool of the anti-Israeli, Zionist-Jesuit establishment of the UK and the US. In fact, Iran and Israel have nothing to divide and do not need to be enemies; the silly, anti-Israeli stance of the unrepresentative, religious Iranian authorities caused only harm to their country and people. This becomes evident, if one takes into account the fact that, if tomorrow Israel collapses, Iran will gain practically speaking nothing.
The true forces that clash in the Middle East and in other parts of the world are:
a) the anti-Israeli, globalist, Zionist-Jesuit establishment represented by Vatican, the 'deep state' in the US, President Biden, many EU figureheads that are in striking contrast with earlier European statesmen, former UK premier Boris Johnson, the so-called Neo-cons, the Israeli Left, and -last but not the least- the majority of the top IT companies in the US;
and
b) the pro-Israeli, Freemasonic-Zionist establishment represented by major Oil companies worldwide, former US President Trump, the US Pentagon, few EU figureheads after the end of the tenures of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, notably Victor Orban and Marine Le Pen, Xi Jinping's China, Naredra Modi's India, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli non-religious Right, Elon Musk, and -last but not the least- Putin's Russia.
There are also other major forces and influential societies that I don't mention at this point, but they either side with one of two establishments or stay neutral or inactive to some extent.
Opposite such forces, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an infinitesimal quantity. What naïve people fail to grasp is that, if Iran proved to be able to survive, this is due to the fact that the anti-Israeli, globalist, Zionist-Jesuit establishment made it known to the countries that dealt, cooperated and allied with Iran that they do not mind if they do so to some extent. Iran is a useful instrument to them. Therefore, there is no 'bravery' involved, and the Iranian rulers are typically immoral, cynical and hypocritical - just like their 'enemies'.
In addition, it would be definitely foolish and totally misleading for anyone to eventually imagine (let alone conclude) that sizeable organizations and international bodies can possibly be impenetrable and therefore utilized exclusively by one of the aforementioned two establishments; it is totally inconsiderate to believe that for instance BRICS+, as a group of states, acts as a tool for the interests of only the pro-Israeli, Freemasonic-Zionist establishment. As a matter of fact, the original concept of BRIC is known to have been credited to a major globalist thinker, Jim O'Neill who back in 2001 was chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
The bottom line is that, under current circumstances, the dignity of the Iranians and the Palestinians is none, because both nations have been fooled by their corrupt elites and leaders. It is very sad, but it is like this, and the same is valid for most of the peoples and the nations across the Earth.
VI. Believing promises given by enemies disguised as friends may be lethal.
Hamas and Gazan Palestinians are in exactly in the same position as the foolish Ukrainians who believed the mendacious discourses of Boris Johnson and every other English governmental and diplomatic filth, only to ruin their own country. Stupid Poles, silly Czechs, and the worthless Baltic elites are about to commit the same lethal error.
As a matter of fact, Iran is not a sovereign state, but a tool of UK's Foreign Office. Iran's dignity has therefore been ridiculed due to impermissible policies that Iran pursued at the international level only for the sake of the English globalist agenda. Crypto-Jesuits, like the former Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the notorious Mohammad Javad Zarif, also known as "Boris Johnson's Filipina", infiltrated the Iranian state, killing gallant but unfortunate military and paramilitary officers, who were honest enough not to grasp the filth of Iranian politics.
Only idiots may believe that Sardar (General) Qasem Soleimani (1957-2020) was assassinated by the Americans (3 January 2020) without consent from the ruling ayatollahs whose vengeance against the abhorrent assassination was evidently too pale, too insipid, and too timid. The pathetic theologians, who are genuinely unable to run a government, may have been frightened due to false data 'leaked' to them, as per which Soleimani had been about to undertake a regime change, supplanting the worthless religious dogmatists with military pragmatists. This shows the extent of incapacity that typifies the Islamic Republic, which is a shame for Iran's three millennia long History.
Similar disaster befell on the Palestinians of Gaza. Having known that Hamas was openly and repeatedly supported by Benjamin Netanyahu, Gazans are now being punished for not reacting against the shame of their leadership. Every Palestinian knew very well that Hamas took control of Gaza only with the help of Netanyahu; it would therefore be foolish for any Palestinian to imagine that this deeply immoral act would not lead to an unsurpassed disaster. This is what truly happens now.
While two million people in Gaza lost their properties and currently live in tents, facing starvation, death, and exile, the disreputable Hamas leaders rejoice the lavish environment of their fabulous villas in Qatar. Nice resistance indeed! One should be mentally degenerate and morally dead in order not to understand that it is all an entire theater played at the detriment of all the populations of Palestine irrespective of state, religion, ethnic origin, and ancestry.
VII. Military and farmers against the royals and the ayatollahs
There is certainly a medication to the very preoccupying, current situation in Iran, but by definition it cannot be the son of the last shah of Iran. It is known to all that the family of Mohammad Reza lived in France and America, i.e. in states that were historical enemies of the Iranian Empire. By so doing, they discredited themselves to the eyes of the average Iranians.
Even worse, the infamous claimant to the throne Reza 'Pahlavi' irreparably stigmatized himself as an Iranian and Muslim renegade by shamelessly making known the following: "Just as I defend the rights of every Iranian, I am proud to stand up for the rights of the Iranian LGBTQ community". https://twitter.com/PahlaviReza/status/1723830025374351830
In fact, pretty much like the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a Western colonial forgery that tarnishes indeed 14 centuries of Islamic faith, culture and civilization in Iran, the ill-fated Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) was a colonial trick that besmirched 2500 years of Iranian History. The pseudo-kingdom utilized the country's pre-Islamic past in order to fool the masses and to introduce Western concepts and behaviors, instead of aptly modernizing the country and duly empowering its infrastructure while preserving the traditional culture and revivifying the historical heritage after the example of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey.
Even worse, the pseudo-religious regime put in place an alien system, the pseudo-Shia "Islamic republic", which functioned as the ultimate colonial instrument geared for the replacement of the Islamic Iranian culture with a Sunni-styled political activism.
Because of the aforementioned situations, Iran's survival will be guaranteed only by a transient military regime that will reflect in the governance of Iran the values, the traditional culture, the historical heritage, the social order of the rural areas, and the provincial particularities or localisms. In its practices, Iran's forthcoming military establishment should combine tolerance for the Westernized Iranian Diaspora, vision for Iran's role in the world, and absence of religious ideology. After extensive consultations, numerous conferences, public debates, and active participation of people from all the walks of life, a series of referenda will help bring forth a totally new form of governance fully supported by all the people of Iran.
Meanwhile, the transient military regime of Iran will have to make it clear to every Iranian that there cannot be national sovereignty without a deeply decolonized and de-Westernized national education which must be based on truthful evaluation and accurate representation of the nation's historical past and heritage. It is degenerate, despicable and ridiculous for the anti-Iranian and pseudo-Islamic regime of the ignorant and illiterate ayatollahs to pretend that they defend the rights of the Palestinians without first protecting the majestic past of Iran from all the Western academic distortions, Orientalist denigrations, colonial historiographical clichés, constant references to fallacious sources (such as Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, etc.), and the bogus-scholarly interpretational schemes, divides, and cases of foremost anti-Iranian and anti-Oriental racism due to inferior 'Ancient Greek' authors, the likes of Aeschylus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and others.
Instead of mobilizing the entire world against the colonial forgeries of Hellenism, Classicism, Greco-Roman civilization, Judeo-Christian heritage, as per which the world is divided into two parts, namely "the Civilized West" and the "Barbarian Orient", the silly ayatollahs played the game of the English and the French colonials.
Without rejecting the present world order, which is based on the so-called Western European Renaissance and the ensued fallacies, the useless Islamic Republic played exactly the role ascribed to them by the Western colonizers; they became part of the problems that the Anglo-Saxon racists created in the Middle East.
VIII. There is no difference between Iran and Egypt when it comes to servility toward major colonial schemes.
I don't understand why you mention Egypt in the last sentence of your comment. All countries in the region are subservient to their Western colonial masters; there is no difference. Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. are all controlled by the colonial countries, England, France, America and their satellites. All these so-called regional powerhouses have no proper national education, no decolonized and de-Westernized universities, no true national identity, and no cultural integrity. It is therefore totally absurd to supposedly fight for independence without a strong feeling of historicity that permeates the education and the entire society.
The same is also valid for the Palestinians, who never undertook a nation building process, simply because this was not the priority of their treacherous leaders who wanted to make money with their bogus-resistance against Israel. Otherwise, all Palestinians would be proud to know that their presence in Palestine antedates that of the Ancient Hebrews and that their ancestors came from Crete, Western Anatolia, and the South Balkans during the Sea Peoples Invasions. In fact, because of the ineptitude of their leaders, Palestinians remain a populace without true national consciousness.
Iran and Egypt are exactly at the same level in this regard. Just like Tehran, Cairo has always been, under khedivial, royal, military and republican administration, a docile and servile capital filled with empty words, useless threats, angry jargons, and unrealistic purposes. Irrevocably fooled with the nothingness of Pan-Arabism and the worthlessness of political islam, the Egyptian academic, intellectual, religious, military, economic and political elites never imagined that their foremost task would be to denounce at the international level and to eliminate at the local level the colonial forgeries of Hellenism, Classicism, Greco-Roman civilization, Judeo-Christian heritage, as per which the world is divided into two parts, namely "the Civilized West" and the "Barbarian Orient",
Actually, such things would be too difficult for theologically indoctrinated morons like Khomeini and uneducated fools like Gamal Abdel Nasser to comprehend.
As you see, you don't need to be Egyptian in order to reject the fallacious notions advanced by Ayatollah Khomeini. You need to be Iranian.
After all, why should a historian side with one or another state, when both fail to defend their historical heritage, national dignity, and cultural integrity?
To conclude I would say that a honest historian cannot possibly allow himself to be caught up in the fight among the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists; even more so in the under-covered conflict between the UK and Israel, and in the clashes of their respective instruments, i.e. the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hamas.
=========
Download the article in PDF:
Bulgarians Mentioned in Egyptian Papyri from Fayoum
What was Ordinary in the Antiquity looks Odd today, due to the Greco-centric Fallacy of the Biased European Colonial 'Academics'
A while back, I received a brief email from a Bulgarian friend, who urgently asked me to watch a video and comment on the topic. The video offered links to a blog in Bulgarian and to an Austrian site of academic publications. The upsetting affair was the mention of a Bulgarian, or to put it rather correctly of a Bulgarian item or product which was imported in Coptic Egypt. As I understand Bulgarian to some extent, due to my Russian, I read the long presentation of the informative blog, and then replied to my friend. The video was actually a most abridged form of the article posted on the blog of a non-conventional Bulgarian blogger.
Contents
Introduction
I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri
II. Karl Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications
III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII
IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)
V. Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks
VI. Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars
VII. Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt
VIII. Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History
i- the conceptualization of World History
ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there
iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years
iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity
v- and last but not least, several points of
a) governance of modern states
b) international alliances, and
c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it
Introduction
What follows is my response on the topic; although it concerns an undeniably very specific affair, it helps greatly in making general readership aware of how deeply interconnected the Ancient World was, of how different it was than it is presented in conventional publications, and of how many layers of fact distortion, source concealment, systematic forgery, academic misinterpretation, and intellectual falsification have been adjusted to what average people worldwide think of as 'World History'. In brief, the modern Western colonial presentation of World History, which was dictatorially imposed worldwide, is nothing more than a choice-supportive bias and a racist construct. You can also describe it as 'Hellenism', Greco-centrism or Euro-centrism.
----- Response to an inquisitive Bulgarian friend -----
My dear friend,
Your question and the associated topic are quite complex.
The video that you sent me is extremely brief and almost introductory.
Папирусът от Фаюм
However, in the description, it offers two links.
I read the article in the blog; I noticed that it was published before 12-13 years (13.10.2011). Папирусът (който щеше да бъде) с истинското име на българите?
The author seems to have been taken by surprise due to the Fayoum text, but as you will see, there is no reason for that.
The second link included in the video description offers access to Tyche, an academic annual (Fachzeitschrift) published by the Austrian Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Papyrologie und Epigraphik der Universität Wien. But this is an introductory web page (https://tyche.univie.ac.at/index.php/tyche) that has links to many publications, which you can download in PDF.
You must not be surprised by such findings; they are old and known to the specialists; there are many Bulgarian professors specializing in Ancient Greek. Some of them surely know about the text. But it is in the nature of the Western sciences that scholars do not write for the general public; it is very different from what happened in the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Socialist bloc. Reversely, all the average bloggers, who find every now and then a historical document known but not publicized, think that they discovered something incredible, but in most of the cases, we don't have anything to do with an extraordinary discovery. Simply, History has been very different from what average people have been left to believe.
I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri
Fayoum by the way is an enormous oasis. It has cities, towns and villages. In our times, it was one of the strongholds of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Former president Muhammad Morsi got ca. 90% of the votes locally. About:
The discoveries of papyri in Egypt started mainly in the 19th c.; excavators unearthed tons of valuable documentation, unfortunately in fragmentary situation most of them; indicatively:
Such is the vastness of the documentation that either Egyptologists or Coptologists or Hellenists, there are many scholars of those disciplines who specialize in papyri only: the Papyrologists.
Fayoum map with Ancient Greek names
Fayoum Lake (above) - Wadi El Rayan waterfalls (below)
Temple of Soknopaios at Soknopaiou Nesos (Island), Fayoum (viewed from the SE)
Fayoum: a tourist destination
Another major site of papyri discovery is Oxyrhynchus (Ancient Greek name of the Egyptian site Per medjed / Oxyrhynchus is merely the Ancient Greek translation of Per medjed), i.e. the modern city of Al Bahnasa. Indicatively:
To get a minimal idea of the vastness of this field of research, go through the following introductory readings:
Cairo Fayum Papyri: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Fayum.html
II. Karl Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications
The fragment of papyrus that mentions in Ancient Greek an adjective, which means «Bulgarian» in English, was found in the Fayoum (you can write the word with -u or -ou). It was first published by a great scholar C. (Carl or Karl) Wessely (1860-1931).
He was one of the 10 most prominent scholars and philologists of the 2nd half of the 19th and the 1st half of the 20th c. He published a voluminous series of firsthand publications of discoveries, which was named Studien zur Paleographie und Papyruskunde (SPP). As you can guess, this took decades to be progressively materialized. Here you have an online list:
Unfortunately, the volume VIII (Leipzig 1908), which is mentioned in the article of the blog, is missing in the wikisource list!
No problem! You can find the PDF in the Internet Archives site. Here is the link:
You will find the text’s first publication on page 189 of the book; this is the page 63 of 186 of the PDF. This means that you will find this indication at the bottom of the PDF: 189 (63 / 186).
This volume, as stated on p. 7, contains «Griechische Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats», i.e. Greek papyri documents of smaller format. If you find it strange that on the first page of the main text (137 (11 / 186) as per the PDF), the first text has the number 702, please remember that this is an enormous documentation published in the series of volumes (SPP) published by Wessely between 1900 and 1920.
III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII
As you will see, the text slightly differs from what is shown in either the blog article or the video. It is indeed the 1224 papyrus fragment as per the enumeration of the publication. Similarly to many other cases, most of the text is lost; this is quite common. Few things are easy to assess, if you through the entire volume; apparently the background reflects Coptic Egypt, which means that all the texts date between the early 4th and 7th c. CE. This is clearly visible because the dating system is based on indiction, which was a Roman system of periodic taxation and then chronology. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiction
This Latin word was accepted in Greek: ινδικτιών,
We can also understand that the person, who wrote this specific document, was following (not the Julian calendar but) the Coptic calendar, because on the 8th line the remaining letters αρμουθί (armouthi) help us reconstitute the well-known Coptic month of Pharmouthi (or Parmouti) which corresponds to end March-beginning April (in the Julian calendar) or April and early May in the Gregorian calendar. In Arabic, it is pronounced 'Bermouda' (unrelated to the Bermuda islands).
About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmouti
It has to be noted that the pagan Greek calendar was abolished, and that the use of 'Greek' ('Alexandrine Koine, to be correct) in the Fayum papyri texts and elsewhere does not imply 'ethnic' membership but rather religious affiliation (in this case, in contrast to Coptic).
About the Coptic calendar:
In addition, you can see the first letter of the word «indiction» ι (ι) after Pharmouthi.
Apparently, this papyrus documented a transaction effectuated by a certain Cyril (Cyrillus / Κύριλλος). Only the letters «rill» (ριλλ) are saved, as you can see, but the high frequency of the name among the Copts makes of this word the first choice of any philologist. By the way, the name is still widely used among today’s Copts as «Krulos».
I fully support Wessely’s reconstitution of the document on lines 7, 10 and 11.
Line 7 (εγράφη out of εγρα-), i.e. «it was written»
Line 10 (απείληφα out of -ειλ-), i.e. «I received from»
Line 11 (και παρών απέλυσα out of -αρω-), i.e. «I set free by paying a ransom or I disengaged or I released». Details:
Now comes a thorny issue, because on line 6, Wessely wrote «λαμιο(υ)» (: lamio reconstituted as lamiu), and went on suggesting a unique term «χαρτα-λαμίου» (charta-lamiou). This is not attested in any other source. Λάμιον (lamium) is a genus of several species of plants, whereas Lamios (Λάμιος) is a personal name. About:
Also: (ἡμι-λάμιον) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dh(mila%2Fmion
But «χαρτα-λαμίου» (in Genitive declension) is a hapax. Still the opinion of the first explorer and publisher is always crucial; but as in many other cases, these people publish such an enormous volume of documentation that they do not have enough time to explain their suggestions and reason about their choices. To them, publishing hitherto unpublished material is undisputedly no 1 priority.
Other scholars attempted a different approach; they hypothetically added «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son», before λαμίου (Lamiou)
Personally, I find it highly unlikely. First, I most of the times support the first explorer’s / publisher’s approach.
Second, I believe that those, who add «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son» on line 6, are forced to reconstitute Βουλγαρικ̣[ὸς on line 5. This is most probably wrong.
But Wessely did not attempt something like that, preferring to leave the only saved word on line 5 as it is «Βουλγαρικ̣».
Now, what stands on lines 1 to 4 is really too minimal to allow any specialist to postulate or speculate anything. Perhaps there was something «big» mentioned on line 3 («-μεγ-»/«-meg-»), but this is only an assumption. Also, on line 4, we read that something (or someone) was (or was sent or was bought) from somewhere, because of the words «από της» (apo tis), i.e. «from the» (in this case, «the» being the feminine form of the article in Genitive declension).
IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)
Now, and this is the most important statement that can be made as regards this fragment of papyrus, the word that stands on line 5 is undoubtedly an adjective, not a substantive! This is very clear. This means that the word is not an ethnonym. In English, you use the word «Bulgarian», either you mean a Bulgarian man (in this case, it is a noun) or a Bulgarian wine (on this occasion, it is an adjective). Bulgarian is at the same time a proper noun and an adjective in English.
However, in Greek, there is a difference when it comes to names of countries and nations. When it is a proper noun (substantive), you say «Anglos» (Άγγλος), «Sikelos» (Σικελός), «Aigyptios» (Αιγύπτιος), etc. for Englishman, Sicilian man, Egyptian man, etc. But you say «anglikos» (αγγλικός), «sikelikos» (σικελικός), «aigyptiakos» (αιγυπτιακός), etc. for adjectives of masculine gender.
Discussing the word attested on line 5 of the papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII, I have to point out that in Ancient 'Greek' and in Alexandrine Koine, there is a vast difference between Βούλγαρος (Vulgaros) and βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos).
The first denotes a Bulgarian national, someone belonging to the ethnic group / nation of Bulgars and/or Bulgarians. At this point, I have to also add that these two words in English are a modern academic convention to distinguish Proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars) from the Bulgarians, who settled in the Balkan Peninsula. However, this distinction did not exist in Late Antiquity Greek texts and in Eastern Roman texts.
The second is merely an adjective: βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos), βουλγαρική (vulgariki), βουλγαρικόν (vulgarikon) are the three gender forms of the adjective: masculine, feminine and neutral.
So, as the preserved part of the word being «βουλγαρικ-» (vulgarik-), we can be absolutely sure that the papyrus text mentioned a Bulgarian item (a product typical of Bulgars or an imported object manufactured by Bulgars) — not a Bulgarian man.
All the same, it makes sure the following points:
a. in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt, people imported products that were manufactured by Bulgars in their own land (Bulgaria).
b. since the products were known, imported and listed as «Bulgar/Bulgarian», people knew the nation, which manufactured them, and its location.
c. considering the magnitude of the documentation that went lost, we can safely claim that there was nothing extraordinary in the arrival of Bulgar/Bulgarian products in in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt.
d. the papyrus in question presents the transaction in terms of «business as usual».
This is all that can be said about the papyrus text, but here ends the approach of the philologist and starts the viewpoint of the historian. However, before presenting the historical context of the transaction recorded in the fragmentarily saved papyrus from Fayoum, I have to also discuss another issue, which was mentioned in the blogger's interesting discussion.
V. Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks
Of course, as anyone could expect, several historians and philologists would try to find parallels to the mention of Bulgarian imports made in this papyrus fragment.
And they did. In his presentation, the blogger already mentioned several academic efforts. So, the following paragraphs, which are to be found almost in the middle of the article (immediately after the picture), refer to two scholarly efforts to establish parallels:
«Публикуван е за пръв път от SPP VIII 1124, Wessely, C., Leipzig 1908 и по - късно препубликуван от Diethart, в публикация с многозначителното заглавие „Bulgaren“ und „Hunnen“, S. 11 - 1921. Въпреки това папирусът не стига много бързо до родна публика.
"По пътя" един учен, Моравчик, стига и по - далеч при превода. Той разчита в откъсите и думата "Пояс" и включва в теорията ново сведение(Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303) , където се казва, че пехотинците трябвало да носят "ζωναρία bм λιτά, xal βουλγαρική cay ία" - т.е. смята, че става дума за носен в Египет от военните "български пояс"(сведенията за публикациите дотук са по Иван Костадинов).
Вдясно виждате лична снимка. Коптска носия от 4-ти век н.е. Пази се в етнографския музей на александрийската библиотека. По необходимост за пустинния климат е от лен. Оттам вече аналогиите оставям изцяло на вас.
Папирусът "идва в България" късно. По спомени казвам ,че мисля, че първият публикувал го е доста уважаваният Иван Дуриданов, който с радост представя на българската публика вече 4 деситилетия предъвкваният от западната лингвистика български папирус. Той публикува радостна статия, с която приветства откритието».
Certainly, Gyula Moravcsik (1892-1972) and Johannes Diethart (born in 1942) proved to be great scholars indeed. About:
The adjective Vulgarikos, -i, -on («Bulgarian» in three genders) is attested in a famous Eastern Roman text, which is rather known under the title «Maurice’s Strategicon»; this was a handbook of military sciences and a guide to techniques, methods and practices employed by the Eastern Roman army. It was written by Emperor Maurice (Μαυρίκιος- Mauricius /reigned: 582-602) or composed according to his orders. About:
I did not read Moravcsik’s article, but I read the Strategicon; it does not speak of «Bulgarian belts», but of «Bulgarian cloaks». In this regard, the blogger mentions a very old edition of the text, namely Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303). This dates back to 1664:
At those days, all Western European editions of Ancient Greek texts involved Latin translations. Scheffer's edition of the Strategicon can be found here:
https://books.google.ru/books?id=77NODQEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 303)
George T. Dennis' translation (1984) makes the text accessible to English readers:
In the 12th chapter, which is the last of the Strategicon, under the title "Mixed Formations, Infantry, Camps and Hunting", in part I (Clothing to be Worn by the Infantry), on page 138 (University of Pennsylvania Press), the word σαγίον (sagion) is very correctly translated as "cloak". The author refers to "βουλγαρικά σαγία" (Latin: sagia Bulgarica) in plural; this is rendered in English "Bulgarian cloaks", which are thought to be very heavy. Already, the word σαγίον (sagion) is of Latin etymology. About:
and https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100436640
Also: https://greek_greek.en-academic.com/151302/σαγίον
In that period and for more than 1000 years, what people now erroneously call «Medieval Greek» or «Byzantine Greek» (which in reality is «Eastern Roman») was an amalgamation of Alexandrine Koine and Latin. There were an enormous number of Latin words written in Greek characters and in Alexandrine Koine form. Indicatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
At this point, I complete my philological commentary on the topic. I read the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice when I was student in Athens in the middle 1970s.
I did not remember the mention of Bulgarian cloaks, but I know however that the Bulgars, who founded the Old Great Bulgaria, appear in Eastern Roman texts at least 100 years before the purported establishment and growth of that state (632–668). The academic chronology for the First Bulgarian Empire may be correct (681–1018), but the dates given for the Old Great Bulgaria and the Volga Bulgaria (late 7th c.–1240s) are deliberately false. General info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Etymology_and_origin
VI. Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars
It is now time for me to briefly discuss the historical context within which the aforementioned topics took place. Let’s first ask some questions:
Is it strange that a Fayoum papyrus of the 3rd-7th c. CE mentions Bulgarian products that arrived in Egypt?
Is it odd that in Emperor Maurice’s Strategicon we find a mention of Bulgarian cloaks used or not used by the Eastern Roman army?
In both cases, the response is «no»!
From where did these Bulgarian products come?
Where did Bulgars (or Bulgarians) live at the time?
My personal response is somehow vague: they came from some regions of today’s Russia’s European soil, either in the southern confines (the Azov Sea, the northern coast of the Black Sea, and the North Caucasus region) or in the area of today’s Tatarstan and other lands north-northeast of the Caspian Sea.
It is not easy to designate one specific location in this regard, and this is so for one extra reason: it seems that there were several tribes named with the same name, and they were distinguished among themselves on the basis of earlier tribal affiliations, which may go back to the Rouran Khaganate (330-555 CE). There are actually plenty of names associated with the early Bulgars, notably the Onogurs, the Kutrigurs, etc. About:
Many readers may be taken by surprise because I go back easily from the time of the Old Great Bulgaria (630-668 CE) to that of the Rouran Khaganate and the Huns. All the same, there is no surprise involved in this regard. Western European historians deliberately, systematically and customarily underestimate across the board the value of Oral History and attempt to dissociate Ethnography from History; these approaches are wrong. It is quite possible that, from the very beginning of the establishment of Rouran Khaganate, many tribes, clans or families (which later became nations) started migrating. The very first Bulgars (Bulgarians) may have reached areas north of the Iranian borders in Central Asia or in Northern Caucasus much earlier than it is generally thought among Western scholars. See indicatively:
Now, the reasons for which I intentionally date the first potential interaction of Bulgars/Bulgarians with other tribes (or nations) in earlier periods are not a matter of personal preference or obstinacy. There is an important historical text named «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans». It has not been duly comprehended let alone interpreted thus far. About:
Three Russian copies of the text have been saved (in Church Slavonic); they date back to the 15th and 16th c. They are generally viewed as later copies of a potential Old Bulgarian text of the 9th c. Other specialists also pretend that there may/might have been an even earlier text, in either Eastern Roman («Medieval Greek») or Bulgar, which was eventually a stone inscription.
In this document, the highly honorific title «Knyaz» (Князь) is given to Asparuh (ca. 640-700) and to his five predecessors. I must add that the said document was always an intriguing historical source for me due to two bizarre particularities to which I don't think that any scholar or specialist gave due attention, deep investigation, and persuasive interpretation.
First, the antiquity of the document is underscored by the fact that the early Bulgar calendar, which is attested in this text, appears to be an adaptation of the Chinese calendar. This fact means that the primeval Bulgars, when located somewhere in Eastern Siberia or Mongolia, must have had dense contacts with the Chinese scribal and imperial establishment; perhaps this fact displeased other Turanian-Mongolian tribes of the Rouran Khaganate and contributed to the emigration of those «Ur-Bulgaren». The next point is however more impactful on our approach to the very early phase of the Bulgars.
Second, although for most of the rulers immortalized in the historical document, the duration of their lifetimes or tenures are of entirely historical nature (involving brief or long periods of 5 up to 60 years of reign or lifetime), the two first names of rulers are credited with incredibly long lifetimes. This is not common; actually, it does not look sensible; but it is meaningful.
More specifically, Avitohol is said to have lived 300 years, whereas Irnik is credited with 150 years. But we know who Irnik was! Irnik or Ernak was the 3rd son of Attila and he is said to have been his most beloved offspring. Scholars fix the beginning of his reign in 437 CE, but this is still not the important point. The crucial issue with the partly «mythical» and partly historical nature of the text «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans» is the fact that the two early rulers, whom the Bulgarians considered as their original ancestors, are credited with extraordinarily long and physically impossible lives. General reading:
This can therefore imply only one thing: at a later period, when the earlier memories were partly lost for various reasons, eventually because of the new environment namely the Balkan Peninsula, in which the then Bulgars were finding themselves, Avitohol and Irnik were retained as the leading figures of ruling families, and not as independent rulers. Consequently, the dates given for their lives were in fact those of their respective dynasties. It was then that the very early period of Bulgar History was mythicized for statecraft purposes, mystified to all, and sanctified in the national consciousness.
Many Western scholars attempted to identify Avitohol with Attila, but in vain; I don’t think that this attempt can be maintained. So, I believe that the Bulgars were one of the noble families of the Huns (evidently involving intermarriage with Attila himself), and that before Attila, the very earliest Bulgars were ruled by another dynasty which had lasted 300 years. But if it is so, we go back to the times of the Roman Emperor Trajan (reign: 98-117 CE), Vologases III of Arsacid Parthia (110–147 CE) and the illustrious Chinese general, explorer and diplomat Ban Chao (32-102 CE) of the Eastern Han dynasty. About:
The latter fought for 30 years against the Xiongnu (Hiung-nu/匈奴, i.e. the earliest tribes of the Huns, consolidated the Chinese control throughout the Tarim Basin region (today's Eastern Turkestan or Xinjiang), and was appointed Protector General of the Western Regions. He is very famous for having dispatched Gan Ying, an envoy, to the West in 97 CE. According to the Book of the Later Han (Hou Hanshu/後漢書), which was compiled in the 5th c. CE by Fan Ye, Gan Ying reached Parthia (Arsacid Iran; in Chinese: Anxi, 安息) and gave the first Chinese account of the Western confines of Asia and of the Roman Empire. About:
It is n this historical environment that we have to place the very early ancestors of the Bulgars.
VII. Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt
Consequently, I believe that it is more probable that the Bulgarian products of those days were first appreciated by the Iranians and later sold to Aramaeans, Armenians, Iberians and other nations settled in the western confines of the Arsacid (250 BCE-224 CE) and the Sassanid (224-651 CE) empires, i.e. in Mesopotamia and Syria, and thence they became finally known in Egypt as well.
The incessant migrations from NE Asia to Central Europe and to Africa, as a major historical event, were not separate from the 'Silk Roads'; they were part, consequence or side-effect of that, older and wider, phenomenon. Actually, the term 'Silk Roads' is at the same time inaccurate and partly; the magnificent phenomenon of commercial, cultural and spiritual inter-exchanges, which took place due to the establishment (by the Achaemenid Shah Darius I the Great) of a comprehensive network of numerous older regional trade routes, is to be properly described as 'silk-, spice-, and perfume-trade routes across lands, deserts and seas'. About: https://silkroadtexts.wordpress.com/
It has to be said that, after the Achaemenid Iranian invasion, annexation and occupation of Egypt, Sudan and NE Libya (525-404 BCE and 343-332 BCE), Iranian settlers remained in Egypt; they were known to and mentioned by the Macedonian settlers, who manned the Macedonian dynasty of Ptolemies (323-30 BCE). General info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Achaemenid_conquest_of_Egypt
Those Iranian settlers were called 'Persai (ek) tis epigonis' (Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς), lit. 'Iranian settlers' descendants'. About:
Pieter W. Pestman, A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris II Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς
Xin Dai, Ethnicity Designation in Ptolemaic Egypt https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329265278_Ethnicity_Designation_in_Ptolemaic_Egypt
See a text from the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian (reign: 81-96) here: https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.athen;;23
See another text from the time of the Roman Emperor Nerva (reign: 96-98) here:
There were also in Egypt Jewish Aramaean descendants of the early Iranian settlers: "οἱ τρ(ε)ῖς | Ἰουδαῖοι Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς τῶν [ἀ]πὸ Σύρων κώ- | μης" (lit. Jewish Iranians, who were the descendants of an Aramaean town) - From: Database of Military Inscriptions and Papyri of Early Roman Palestine https://armyofromanpalestine.com/0140-2
Please note in this regard that the title given to the web page and the document is very wrong and extremely biased: "§140 Loan between Jews and Lucius Vettius"; the three persons who received the loan were not ethnic Jews. Their religion was surely Judaism, as it was the case of the renowned Samaritan woman with whom Jesus spoke according to the Gospels. Several other nations accepted Judaism, notably Aramaeans in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia (they were called 'Syrians' by the Macedonians and the Romans). It is well known that there were many clashes and strives between them and the ethnic Jews. The latter were few and lived either in Jerusalem (and its suburbs) or in Egypt (in Alexandria and many other locations) or in the centers of Talmudic academies in Mesopotamia (namely Nehardea, Pumbedita and Mahoze / Ctesiphon). About:
If I expanded on this topic, it is precisely because the merchants, who were most active across the Silk Roads, were the Aramaeans, and that is why Aramaic became almost an official language in the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, whereas at the same time it turned out to be the lingua franca alongside the trade routes. Furthermore, a great number of writing systems in Central Asia, Iran, India, and Western Asia were developed on the basis of the Aramaic alphabet. Last but not least, Arabic originates from Syriac, which is a late form of Aramaic. About:
It is therefore essential to state that the Bulgarian products, which (either from North Caucasus and the northern coastlands of the Black Sea or from the regions around the north-northeastern shores of the Caspian Sea) reached Egypt (via most probably North Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine), were transported on camels owned by Aramaean merchants and due to caravans organized and directed by Aramaeans.
It is also noteworthy that, during the Arsacid times, several buffer-states were formed between the eastern borders of the Roman Empire and the western frontiers of Parthia: Osrhoene, Sophene, Zabdicene, Adiabene, Hatra, Characene, Elymais, Gerrha (the illustrious port of call and major trade center of the Persian Gulf that rivaled with Alexandria in the Mediterranean), the Nabataean kingdom, and the short-lived but most formidable Tadmor (Palmyra). This situation favored the world trade between East and West, as well as North and South. General info:
The great rivalry and ferocious antagonism between the Romans (and later the Eastern Romans) and the Iranians after the rise of the Sassanid dynasty (224 CE) did not affect in anything the good relations and the trade among Egyptians, Aramaeans, and Iranians; there were numerous Aramaean populations in both empires, so, we feel safe to conclude that any products from lands north of Caucasus mountains and north of Iran were transported by Aramaeans via Palestine or Nabataea to Egypt.
There have been additional reasons for the good feelings of the Egyptians toward the Iranians, and they were of religious nature. The Christological disputes generated enmity and great animosity between
a) the Copts (: Egyptians) and the Aramaeans, who adopted Miaphysitism (also known as Monophysitism), and
b) the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans, who thought they preserved the correct faith (Orthodoxy).
One has to bear always in mind, that in order to define themselves, the so-called Monophysites (also known more recently as 'Miaphysites') used exactly the same term (i.e. 'Orthodox'), which means that they considered the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans as heretics. The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were split. Atop of it, other Aramaeans (mostly in Mesopotamia and Iran) accepted the preaching of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was also deposed as a heretic (in August 431). For the aforementioned religious reasons, the Eastern Roman armies were most loathed in Syria, Palestine, North Mesopotamia (today's SE Turkey), and Egypt as oppressors. About:
In addition, one has to take into consideration the fact that the Jews, who inhabited the eastern provinces of the Roman (and later the Eastern Roman) Empire, were also pro-Iranian and they expected that the Iranians would liberate them one day from the Roman yoke pretty much like the Achaemenid Iranian Emperor Cyrus delivered their exiled ancestors from the tyranny of Nabonid Babylonia (539 BCE).
The Axumite Abyssinian invasion of Yemen (ca. 530 CE; in coordination with the Roman Emperor Justinian I), the ensued Iranian-Axumite wars, the Iranian invasion of Yemen (570 CE; known as the Year of the Elephant among the Arabs of Hejaz), and the incessant battles and wars between the Eastern Roman and the Sassanid Iranian armies were closely watched by all populations in Egypt. The third Iranian conquest of Egypt (618 CE) was a matter of great jubilation for Copts and Jews; Egypt was annexed to Iran for ten (10 years), before being under Eastern Roman control again for fourteen years (628-642 CE) and then invaded by the Islamic armies. General info:
Indicative of the good Egyptian feelings for the Sassanid emperors and Iran is a tapestry weave found by Albert Gayet in his 1908 excavations in Antinoe (also known as Antinoöpolis, i.e. the town of Sheikh Ibada in today's Egypt); this is a textile fragment of legging that dates back to the late 6th and early 7th c. (Musée des Tissus, in Lyon-France; MT 28928). It features the scene of an unequal battle that has been identified as one of the engagements between the Sassanid and the Axumite armies in Yemen; Iranian horse-archers are depicted at the moment of their triumph over Abyssinian infantry opponents, who appear to be armed with stones. In the very center of the scene, an enthroned figure was often identified with the great Iranian Emperor Khosrow (Chosroes) I Anushirvan (Middle Persian: Anoshag ruwan: 'with Immortal Soul'), who was for Sassanid Iran as historically important as Justinian I, his early rival and subsequent peace partner, for the Roman Empire. About:
This was the wider historical context at the time of the arrival of the first Bulgarian exports to the Sassanid Empire of Iran, the Eastern Roman Empire, and Egypt more specifically. And the Bulgarian cloaks, as mentioned in Maurice’s Strategicon, make every researcher rather think of heavy winter cloaks, which were apparently not necessary for the Eastern Roman soldiers, who had to usually fight in less harsh climatological conditions. It is possible that those heavy cloaks were eventually used by the Iranian army when engaged in the Caucasus region, and thence they were noticed by the Eastern Romans.
With these points, I complete my philological and historical comments on the topic. However, the entire issue has to be also contextualized at the academic-educational level, so that you don't find it bizarre that not one average Bulgarian knew about the topic before the inquisitive blogger wrote his article and the YouTuber uploaded his brief video.
VIII. Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History
This part does not concern the Fayoum papyri and the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice; it has to do with what non-specialists, the average public, and various unspecialized explorers do not know at all.
This issue pertains to
i- the conceptualization of World History;
ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there;
iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years;
iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity, and last but not least; and
v- several points of
a) governance of modern states,
b) international alliances, and
c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it.
As you can guess, one can write an encyclopedia on these topics, so I will be very brief. Attention: only at the end, you will understand that all these parameters fully precondition the topic that we already discussed, and any other that we have not yet discussed, because simply it does not exist as a standalone entity but as a fact entirely conditioned by what I herewith describe in short.
What I want to say is this: if tomorrow another Fayoum discovery brings to light a 3rd c. BCE papyrus with the mention of something Bulgarian (Voulgarikon), this will not affect in anything the prevailing conditions of the so-called academic scholarship. In other words, do not imagine that with tiny shreds of truth unveiled here and there, you are going to change anything in the excruciatingly false manner World History was written.
i- the conceptualization of World History
It may come as a nasty surprise to you, but what we know now about History is not the conclusion or the outcome of additional discoveries made one after the other over the past 400-500 years. Contrarily, it was first preconceived, when people had truly minimal knowledge of the past, and after they had forged thousands of documents and manuscripts for at least 500-600 years, long before the early historiographical efforts were undertaken during the Renaissance.
After they destroyed, concealed and rewrote tons of manuscripts of Ancient Greek and Roman historiography from ca. 750 CE until 1500 CE, Western European monks and editors, philosophers and intellectuals, popes, scientists and alchemists started propagating their world view about the assumingly glorious past of their supposedly Greek and Roman ancestors – a nonexistent past that the Renaissance people were deliberately fooled enough to believe that they had lost and they had to rediscover it. In fact, all the discoveries made afterwards, all the decipherments of numerous ancient writings, and all the studies of original material from Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, Caucasus, Central Asia, China and India was duly processed and adjusted in a way not to damage or challenge in anything the preconceived scheme which was named 'World History' by the vicious and criminal Western European forgers.
This means that you should never expect 'new discoveries' to challenge the officially established dogma of the Western academia; it is not about Bulgars and the past of today's Bulgarians, Thracians, Macedonians, etc., etc., etc. It is about all. What type of position the Bulgarians, the Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, the Egyptians and all the rest occupy in today's distorted historiography had been decided upon long before the establishment of the modern states that bear those names.
ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there
Any finding unearthed by anyone anytime anywhere means nothing in itself; this concerns every historiographer, truthful or dishonest. What truly matters for all is contextualization. It so did for the original forgers. Theirs was an arbitrary attempt; they contextualized the so-called 'Ancient Greece' in a way that would have been fully unacceptable, blasphemous and abominable for the outright majority of all the South Balkan populations during the 23 centuries prior to the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great.
It was peremptory, partial and biased; according to the fallacious narratives of the forgers, centuries were shrunk and shortened in order to fit into few lines; moreover the schemers stretched geographical terms at will; they did not use various terms, which were widely employed in the Antiquity; they passed important persons under silence, while exaggerating the presentation of unimportant ones. This is what contextualization was for the forgers: they applied a Latin recapitulative name (Graeci) to a variety of nations, which never used this Latin term or any other recapitulative term for them; they applied a non-Ionian, non-Achaean, and non-Aeolian term (Hellenes) to them and to others; and after the decipherment of many Oriental languages, they did not rectify their preposterous mistakes, although they learned quite well that the two fake terms about those populations (Graecus and Hellene) did not exist in any other language of highly civilized nations (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, Hurrian, Canaanite, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Old Achaemenid Iranian).
Consequently, every other information, data and documentation pertaining to any elements of the said context was concealed, distorted or misinterpreted in order to be duly adjusted to the biased context that had been elaborated first.
iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years
Following the aforementioned situation, many dimensions of historical falsification were carried out and can actually be noticed by researchers, explorers, investigators and astute observers. The 'barbarian invasions' (or Migration Period) is only one of them; I mention it first because it concerns the Bulgars. Long before distorting the History of Great Old Bulgaria and that of Volga Bulgaria systematically, Western historical forgers portrayed Bulgars and many other highly civilized nations as barbarians. Why?
Because the historical forgers of the Western World hate nomads! This is an irrevocable trait of them; that's why they fabricated the fake term 'civilization' in their absurd manner: originating from the Latin word 'civitas', the worthless and racist term 'civilization' implies that you cannot be 'civilized' unless you are urban. This monstrous and unacceptable fact reveals the rotten roots of the hideous, vulgar, sick and villainous Western world and colonial academia.
In the Orient, there was never a cultural divide between urban populations and nomads; some nomadic tribes were considered as barbarians; that's true. But also settled populations and urban inhabitants were also considered as barbarians (like the Elamites, who were considered as inhuman by the Assyrians). The rule was that the settled nations were nomads in earlier periods. But the status of a society was irrelevant of the consideration and the esteem (or lack thereof) that others had about a certain nation. This started with the Romans and their interpretation of the South Balkan, Anatolian, and Cretan past. It was then re-utilized and modified by Western Europeans. To some extent, the papal approval was tantamount to acquisition of credentials and to promotion to 'civilized nation status'. Actually, this is today the nucleus of the whole problem concerning Ukraine.
That is why the so-called Migration Period was so terribly distorted by Western historians. Western historians deliberately preferred to stay blind and not to study the Ancient Mongol chronicles (notably the Secret History of The Mongols) in order to avoid assessing the Mongol-Turanian standards and principles of civilization. Had they proceeded in the opposite way, they would have discovered that, for the nomads, it is the settled people and the urban populations, who are barbarians, decayed and shameful.
The truth about the fallacious term 'Migration Period' is simple: there was never a migration period before 1500 CE (and certainly none afterwards), because every century was actually a migration period. Human History is a history of migrations.
The distorted linguistic-ethnographic division of the migrant nations helped forgers to dramatically increase the confusion level; as a matter of fact, there was no proper ethnic division (in the modern sense of the term) among Mongols, Turanians, Slavs and several other migrant nations. The languages change when people migrate and settle, resettle, move again, and end up in faraway places. For Muslim historians, the khan of the Saqaliba (: Slavs) was the strongest of all Turanian rulers. The arbitrary distinction of the migrant nations into two groups, namely Indo-European and Ural-Altaic/Turco-Mongolian nations was done deliberately in order to intentionally transform the face of the world and adjust it to the so-called Table of Nations, a forged text that made its way into the biblical book of Genesis in later periods (6th–4th c. BCE). General reading:
The Western academic tyranny is so deeply rooted that, irrespective of your political, ideological or philosophical affiliation (fascist, Nazi, communist, conservative, social-democrat, liberal, atheist, evolutionist, creationist, anarchist, etc.), you always have to adjust your seminars, courses, lectures, contributions, books and publications to the fallacy of Genesis chapter 10. The absurd logic of this system is the following: "since no Bulgars are mentioned in the Table of Nations, they must be a later tribe". Then, believe it or not, whatever documentation may be found in Aramaic, Middle Persian, Pahlavi, Brahmi, Kharosthi, Avestan, Sogdian, Tocharian, Chinese or other texts about the Bulgars will be deliberately presented as irrelevant to Bulgars. If a new Sogdian document is found in Central Asia (dating back to the middle Arsacid times: 1st c. CE) and there is a certain mention of Bulgars in the text, the criminal gangsters and the systematic fraudsters of the Western universities and museums will write an enormous amount of articles to stupidly discredit the document or attribute the word to anything or anyone else.
iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity
The above makes it clear that the foundations of today's Western academic life, historiographical research, sector of Humanities, and all the associated fields of study were laid by the Western European Catholic monks and only after the end of the Eastern Roman imperial control, appointment and approval of the Roman popes (752 CE).
This changes totally the idea that you and the entire world have of the History of Mankind because it means that the Benedictine-Papal-Roman opposition to and clash with the Eastern Roman Empire (and the subsequent schisms of 867 and 1054) were entirely due to the resolute papal attempt to forge the World History, to substitute it with a fake History, and to diffuse all the Anti-Christian schemes that brought the world to today's chaos. As the Muslims were totally unaware of the confrontation, the Crusades were undertaken against (not the Caliphate but) Constantinople. All the Christian Orthodox monasteries and libraries were controlled by Catholic monks, scribes, copyists and priests who had the time (from 1204 until 1261) to rob whatever manuscripts they had to rob, destroy whatever manuscripts they had to destroy, and leave all the rest as 'useless' to their enterprise.
That is why modern scholars are ordered to jubilate every time a papyrus fragment is found in Egypt with few lines of verses from Homer, Hesiod and the Ancient 'Greek' tragedians, historians or philosophers! They publicize these discoveries in order to make every naïve guy believe that the bulk of their forged documentation is genuine. But it is not.
v- and last but not least, several points of
a) governance of modern states
The consolidation of the historical forgery was top concern for the colonial puppets of the Western European powers and for the powers hidden behind the scenes. I still remember the blogger's comments about the late 19th and early 20th c. Bulgarian statesmen, politicians and academics, who were not so enthusiastic about the Fayoum papyrus! He made me laugh at; of course, he was very correct in writing what he did. Absolutely pertinent! But also very naïve!
He failed to remember that the top Ottoman military officer in Salonica during the First Balkan War, lieutenant general Hasan Tahsin Pasha (also known as Hasan Tahsin Mesarea; 1845-1918), as soon as he learned that the 7th Bulgarian Division was coming from the northeast, decided on his own to surrender the Salonica fortress and 26000 men to the Greek crown prince Constantine, being thus deemed a traitor and sentenced to death by a martial court.
No Bulgarian (or other) official had ever the authority to go beyond the limits specified as regards either borderlines or historical approaches and conclusions.
b) international alliances, and
The same is valid today; it would be bizarre for Bulgarian professors of universities and academics to teach, diffuse, publish and propagate ideas, concepts and interpretations that contravene the worldwide norm that the Western colonials imposed across the Earth. It is as simple as that: Bulgaria, as EU member state, participates in many academic projects like Erasmus, etc. The professor, who would challenge the lies and the falsehood, which are at the basis of the so-called European values, principles and standards, would automatically become a problem for his rector, who would be receiving most unpleasant if not threatening calls from every corner of the Earth, as well as demands to fire the uncooperative, 'controversial' professor.
c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it
Actually, it is not a matter of Bulgaria and how the true History of Bulgaria is hidden from the Bulgarians; the same is valid in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Israel, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, etc. As I lived in all these countries, I have personal experience and deep knowledge as regards their pedagogical systems and the contents of their manuals. In Egypt, schoolchildren study the History of Ancient Egypt down to Ramses III only (ca. 1200 BCE) and next year, they start with the beginning of Islam (642 CE). Why?
Because during the falsely called Roman times, Egyptian mysticisms, religions, spirituality, cults, sciences, arts, wisdom, cosmogony, cosmology, and eschatology flooded Greece, Rome, the Roman Empire, and even Europe beyond the Roman borders. The Egyptian pupil must not learn that the Greeks, the Romans, and the Europeans were dramatically inferior to his own cultural heritage. That's why stupid and illiterate sheikhs, ignorant imams, and evil theologians intoxicate the average Egyptians with today's fake Islam, which is not a religion anymore but a theological-ideological-political system at the antipodes of the true historical Islam. It cuts the average Egyptian from his own cultural heritage, thus making him stupidly care about the wives and the prematurely dead children of prophet Muhammad, as well as other matters of no importance for the spiritual-cultural-intellectual phenomenon of Islam.
Best regards,
Shamsaddin
The Fake Texts of Ancient Greek 'Historians': the Behistun Inscription, Ctesias, Diodorus Siculus, Darius I the Great, and Semiramis
In a previous article published under the title 'Aristotle as Historical Forgery, the Western World’s Fake History & Rotten Foundations, and Prof. Jin Canrong’s Astute Comments', I wholeheartedly supported the position taken by the prominent Chinese Prof. Jin Canrong about Aristotle and I explained why Aristotle never existed as he is known today and most of his texts were not written by him, but by the pseudo-Christian Benedictine monks of Western Europe for the purpose of the ferocious imperial and theological battle that Rome carried out against New Rome-Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. You can find the table of contents and a link to the publication at the end of the present article.
Contents
Introduction
I. A fictional concept: the origin of the fraud
II. A construct based on posterior textual sources
III. The deceitful presentation
IV. 5th century BCE texts found in 15th c. CE manuscripts do not make 'History'.
V. Abundant evidence of lies and deliberate distortions attested in the manuscript transmission
VI. Darius I the Great, the Behistun inscription, and Ctesias
VII. The historical Assyrian Queen Shammuramat and the fictional Queen Semiramis of the 'Ancient Greek sources'
VIII. The malignant intentions of the Benedictine liars: from the historical Darius I the Great to the fictional Semiramis
IX. The vicious distortions of the Benedictine liars: from Ctesias to Herodotus
The Behistun inscription
Introduction
In the present article, I will offer a typical example of text falsification carried out by the Catholic monks, who did not 'copy and preserve' manuscripts of ancient Greek and Latin texts, as it has been mendaciously said by Western European and North American academics and lying scholars, but they purposefully falsified, distorted, concealed, destroyed and/or contrived numerous texts.
This enormous forgery took place in Western Europe between the 2nd half of the 8th century and the 1st half of the 15th century; the colonial era was launched exactly afterwards. For this reason, few manuscripts with Ancient Greek and Roman texts date before the 8th c.; in fact, most of them have been either distorted and replaced or hidden in the vast libraries still owned, controlled and administered that the anti-Christian Roman Catholic Church.
The purpose of this devious and evil effort was the fabrication of a fake narrative about the forged antiquity and the supposed importance of the Western Europeans according to the needs of world conquest, prevalence and preponderance of the pseudo-Christian Roman Catholic Church; this bogus-historical dogma, as direct opposition to and ultimate rejection of Orthodox Christianity, would be initially imposed as the 'scientific discipline of History' in Western Europe and subsequently projected onto the rest of the world by means of colonial invasion, indigenous identity destruction, moral integrity demolition, cultural heritage disintegration, educational subordination, economic exploitation, military subjugation, and socio-political domination.
In other words, the monastical scribes and copyists created an entirely fake Euro-centric past, which became the rotten foundation of Western Europe. This fallacy became known as Judeo-Christian world and Greco-Roman civilization. However, the decipherment of ancient languages (Egyptian hieroglyphic, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Sumerian, Hurrian, Hittite, Urartu, Ugaritic, etc) and the study of millions of original texts, which were not copies of earlier sources but contemporaneous to the events that they narrated, sounded the death knell of the era of history fabrication programs.
With the post-Soviet rise of the great continental powers (China, India, Russia, etc.), the economic-military-political-ideological-educational-academic-cultural tyranny of the Western World started being overthrown throughout the earlier colonized world. The historical forgery that the colonial rulers imposed collapsed, the falsehood of the Eurocentric dogma of World History started being revealed and rejected, and an overwhelming project of total de-Westernization appeared as a prerequisite for the liberation of the Mankind from the lies of the European Renaissance, the Western Humanities, the White Supremacism, the Western European colonialism and racism, as well as from the falsehood of numerous subsystems of the construct, such as Classicism, Hellenism, Orientalism, etc.
In our days, it is imperative for anti-colonial scholars to unveil the distortions applied to Ancient Greek and Latin texts by the medieval monks. Consequently, historians from all over the world have to work together in order to denounce and obliterate the Western fraud and the fake History of the Western Man, which consists in arbitrarily taking 14th c. CE manuscripts as authentic narratives of Ancient History.
I. A fictional concept: the origin of the fraud
Apparently, the present brief article cannot be an exhaustive presentation of the Western fraud, and of the historical forgery that the Western monks, manuscript copyists, collectors, academics and propagandists attempted to impose worldwide through colonial conquests, massacres and tyrannies. However, I can still enumerate the major founding myths of the Western World.
Two thematic circles of historical distortions and fraudulent claims made by the Western academia revolve around the following two entirely fabricated entities, which have conventionally but erroneously been called
a) "the Greco-Roman world" and
b) "Biblical Israel" and "Judeo-Christian civilization".
These ahistorical entities never existed. The original concept of those notions is purely fictional, and it therefore remains always unquestioned in the fraudulent Western universities. In this regard, the sources that the Western academics evoke to support their claims are posterior, untrustworthy, forged and therefore worthless.
At times, some of those texts represent merely ancient authors' misperceptions of earlier texts and authors; however, more often, the ancient texts have been tampered with. On other occasions, ancient texts that refute the lies of other historical sources are hidden from the general public and conventionally discussed among the Western academic accomplices.
II. A construct based on posterior textual sources
The entire construct hinges on the deceitful presentation of several types of material forged, collected, concealed, interpreted, contextualized, narrated, repeatedly but intentionally discussed, supposedly questioned, and selectively popularized; this was due to the fact that the said material was incessantly utilized for the colonial needs and targets of the Western European powers (England, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and more recently the US). In fact, the Western World's fake History was created as the ultimate support of all colonial claims.
This process happened within a system in which posterior textual sources (preserved in medieval manuscripts) have occupied the central position, whereas the ancient epigraphic material, which was contemporaneous to the historical events under study, has been deliberately disregarded.
All later discovered data and pieces of information were either adjusted to the construct or methodically hidden; this is how the original concept, pathetically believed almost as a religious dogma, remained totally unchallenged down to our days.
III. The deceitful presentation
The quintessence of the deceitful presentation involves a vicious trick; people (pupils and students, but also scholars and intellectuals, as well as the general public) are taught and made accustomed to care mainly about the absolutely insignificant dates of birth and death of historical persons (authors, rulers, etc.), and not about the dates of the manuscripts in which these individuals are mentioned as supposed authors; this situation turns readers, students and scholars into pathetic idiots.
Subsequently, we cannot seriously afford to describe Herodotus as a 5th c. BCE writer, because there is no manuscript with texts attributed to him, dating before the 10th c. CE. In addition, if we take into account the enormous number of other ancient authors decrying, denigrating and rejecting Herodotus' absurdities and malignancy, we have to permanently and irrevocably obliterate Herodotus from the History of Mankind and consider his false, paranoid and racist texts as a double Crime against the Mankind:
first, with respect to the original narrative (to which we don't have access as it was distorted by medieval monastical scribes and copyists) because the author attempted to disparage the superior Iranian civilization and the majestic Achaemenid universalist empire, while undeservedly praising the South Balkan barbarians, and
second, as regards the currently available text, which was forged as per the discriminatory intentions of the monks who altered and distorted it in their effort to fabricate the fake, modern divide (or dichotomy) East-West, and to offer a shred of historicity to it.
IV. 5th century BCE texts found in 15th c. CE manuscripts do not make 'History'.
People get therefore addicted to considering as a true and original 'work' (of an ancient author) the manuscript (or manuscripts) in which the specific treatise, essay or book was copied perhaps 10 or 15 centuries after the author composed it. Due to a long chain of intermediaries (namely library copyists, librarians, scholars, monks, collectors, purchasers and/or statesmen), the transmitted text may have been partly or totally changed.
There is absolutely no guarantee as regards the honesty, the good intentions, the unbiased attitude, and the benevolent character of the perhaps 5, 10, 20 or 50 persons who -living in different eras and without knowing one another- may have constituted the chain of (unknown to us) intermediaries between the hand of the author and that of the last copyist whose manuscript was preserved down to our times.
Example: very little matters today whether the ancient author Diodorus Siculus or Siceliotes (西西里的狄奧多羅斯) actually lived in the 1st c. BCE or in the 3rd c. CE; quite contrarily, what is important for history-writing is the fact that the earliest known manuscript of his famous 'Bibliotheca Historica' (世界史) dates back to the 10th c. CE.
Consequently, the first piece of information that should be stated after the name of any 'ancient' Anatolian, Macedonian, Thracian, Greek, Roman and other author is the date of the earliest extant manuscript of his works.
V. Abundant evidence of lies and deliberate distortions attested in the manuscript transmission
An extraordinarily high number of original sources excavated in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Canaan, Iran and elsewhere, and subsequently deciphered, can be dated with accuracy; example: the Annals of great Assyrian emperor Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) were written during his reign. They are contemporaneous and therefore original.
However, in striking contrast to them, almost all the manuscripts with the works of ancient Greek and Roman authors whose texts have formed the backbone of the fraudulent historical dogma of the Western academia are not contemporaneous but posterior by, at times, 1500 or 2000 years.
Even worse, numerous ancient Greek authors' texts were not preserved through a manuscript tradition at all; they were saved as references in posterior authors' works. This concerns, for instance, Ctesias (克特西亞斯), an Ancient Carian (Anatolian) physician and erudite scholar, who lived and worked in the court of the Achaemenid Iranian emperor Artaxerxes II in the 5th c. BCE.
Later, willing to offer potential guidebooks to Iran and India for the use of various peripheral peoples and tribes of the Balkan region, Ctesias elaborated in Ancient Ionian (愛奧尼亞希臘語) two treatises to describe the state of things in Iran and in India. To the Western academic bibliography, his works are known (in Latin) as 'Persica' and 'Indica'.
These texts were not saved integrally in manuscripts copied for the purpose of preserving Ctesias' works, but they were preserved in Diodorus Siculus' 'Bibliotheca Historica'. Although he is not known through authentic and contemporaneous Iranian sources, we can deduce that Ctesias certainly spoke fluently the official language of the Empire and read Old Achaemenid cuneiform. Eventually, he may have also studied and learned Babylonian and Elamite cuneiform, namely two ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform languages and writings the use of which was maintained by Iranian scribes.
Apparently, Ctesias had a firsthand insight, as he lived for many years in Parsa (Persepolis), the capital of the Achaemenid Empire and he also traveled extensively along with the Iranian emperor. But, unfortunately, the following ordeal was produced.
VI. Darius I the Great, the Behistun inscription, and Ctesias
One century before Ctesias served Artaxerxes II, the empire of Iran was saved by Darius I the Great (大流士一世; reign: 522-486), who overthrew a usurper, namely the Mithraic (密特拉教祭司) magus Gaumata (高墨达), and by so doing, preserved on the throne a dynasty of faithful Zoroastrian (瑣羅亞斯德教徒) monarchs.
To commemorate his great victory and the consolidation of the his dynasty, Darius I the Great had an enormous rock relief and a monumental inscription (貝希斯敦銘文) engraved on the rocks of Mount Behistun (貝希斯頓山), at a distance of 150 km west of Hamadan (哈马丹; Ekbatana/埃克巴坦那) in Western Iran (15 m high by 25 m wide and 100 m up the cliff). As it can be easily understood, these events occurred after the assassination of Cambyses, at the very beginning of Darius I the Great's reign.
It goes without saying that the successors of Darius I the Great and the imperial Iranian administration knew perfectly well the historical details and were fully aware of the imperial inscription that immortalized the event, which had obviously become the cornerstone of the imperial education.
VII. The historical Assyrian Queen Shammuramat and the fictional Queen Semiramis of the 'Ancient Greek sources'
However, one century later, when Ctesias lived in Iran, served the Iranian Emperor, and spoke Old Achaemenid Iranian (and if not, he was surrounded by the Empire's top interpreters and advisers), something disastrously odd 'happened'.
According to Diodorus Siculus, who explicitly stated that he extensively quoted from Ctesias' text (Bibliotheca Historica, II 13), the imperial Carian physician and author appears to have attributed the Behistun inscription and the rock reliefs to none else than the Assyrian Queen Shammuramat (薩穆-拉瑪特), who was the queen consort of the Assyrian Emperor Shamshi Adad V (沙姆什·阿達德五世; reign: 824-811) and co-regent (811-805) during the first years of reign of her son Adad Nirari III (阿达德尼拉里三世; reign: 811-783)!
Furthermore, in the 'Ancient Greek' text of Diodorus Siculus, the monumental inscription was said to be written in Assyrian cuneiform (Συρίοις γράμμασιν)! Even worse, in the same text (as preserved today), it was also stated that, in the rock relief, there was also a representation of the Assyrian queen!
Ctesias' text, as preserved by Diodorus Siculus, is truly abundant in information, but it is historically impossible and therefore entirely forged. Due to this and many other texts, an enormous chasm was unnecessarily formed between
a) the historical queen Shammuramat of Assyria, whose historicity is firmly undeniable, due to the existence of several contemporaneous cuneiform sources excavated in Assyria, and subsequently deciphered and published,
and
b) the purely fictional Assyrian queen Semiramis (沙米拉姆) of the posterior Ancient Greek textual sources that were supposedly 'preserved' (but in reality deliberately distorted and forged) in the Benedictine manuscripts of Western Europe's monasteries.
However, if we examine closely the facts, we will surely understand what truly occurred in this case; then, we will be able to fathom how the fake History of the Western world was fabricated.
The Behistun inscription is trilingual, as it was written in Old Achaemenid Iranian (the earliest form of written Iranian languages), Babylonian, and Elamite; this was a very common practice during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE). The main figure of the associated rock relief is Darius I the Great, evidently the representation of a male royal.
One way or another, with respect to the Behistun inscription and rock relief, Ctesias certainly knew everything that we know today after the successive decipherments of the Old Achaemenid, Babylonian and Elamite cuneiform writings, or perhaps even more, due to the then extant oral tradition.
VIII. The malignant intentions of the Benedictine liars: from the historical Darius I the Great to the fictional Semiramis
The Behistun inscription is not Assyrian; the representation is not that of female royal; and the monument is totally unrelated to Shammuramat, who had lived 300 years before Darius I the Great and 400 years before Artaxerxes II's physician Ctesias. More importantly, by that time, the Assyrian Empire did not occupy the lands surrounding Behistun. Accompanied by Iranian imperial officers and his associates, Ctesias certainly learned all the details of the monumental inscription that we can now read in articles, courses, lectures, books and encyclopedias.
The narrative was a triumph for Darius I the Great and a spectacular rebuttal of the vicious Mithraic Magi who had supported the defeated evil sorcerer and villain Gaumata. Apparently, writing a guidebook for Iran to help marginal people of the Empire's Balkan periphery, Ctesias did not have any reason to say lies. Moreover, we don't have any reason to believe that Diodorus Siculus needed to distort the truth to that extent, when copying and thus preserving Ctesias' masterpiece for the posterity.
However, the transmission of the details about the Behistun inscription embarrassed the Benedictine copyists who wanted to denigrate Darius I the Great and to portray his great empire in a most derogatory manner. They had already proceeded in this manner, distorting other manuscripts, forging texts, and fabricating their pseudo-historical narratives at will.
That is why Ctesias' pertinent text, which had certainly been preserved in its original form within Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca Historica, was intentionally distorted by the Benedictine 'Holy Inquisition of Libraries', which fabricated the myths of today's Western world some time after the middle of the 8th c. CE. To be accurate, Ctesias' historical description was entirely replaced by a fictional and historically nonsensical account.
The unbelievable lies -invented and included in Diodorus Siculus' quotations from Ctesias- risked making of the fictional queen Semiramis a world ruler! Whereas the Assyrian Empire at the end of the 9th c. BCE did not control even the western half of today's Iranian territory, the unequivocally mythicized Semiramis had supposedly sent her armies up to India where those fictitious Assyrian soldiers were trampled by the elephants. This worthless narrative that replaced Ctesias' original text may very well have been invented as a 'historical' excuse for Alexander the Great's failure to advance deep inside India.
IX. The vicious distortions of the Benedictine liars: from Ctesias to Herodotus
But if the fictional Semiramis' Indian campaign is entirely false, so are then the preposterous narratives of Herodotus about Darius I the Great's and Xerxes I the Great's campaigns in the insignificant and barbarian circumference of South Balkans. These texts involved evil purposes, heinous anti-Iranian biases, fictional battles, racist discourses, vicious lies, incredibly large number of the Iranian armies, and absurdly high number of Iranian casualties.
The mendacious but idiotic Benedictine monks, who wrote those slander tales did not apparently expect that, sometime in the future, excavations would bring to light splendid Iranian antiquities, original cuneiform documentation, and trustworthy contemporaneous historical sources, whereas a systematic effort of decipherment would offer to people all over the world direct access to historical texts written in dead languages, thus irrevocably canceling Herodotus' nonsensical report and, even more importantly, the later distortions that the Benedictine monks made on their worthless manuscripts.
In any case, had those fictional campaigns against 'Greece' had a shred of truth to them, they would have certainly been documented one way or another in various Old Achaemenid, Babylonian, Elamite, Imperial Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphic or other sources; but they were not.
Even worse, the meaningless and ludicrous battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and their likes would have been commemorated by the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Attalids all the way down to the Romans and the Eastern Romans. But we know quite well that the nonexistent, fictional past of the so-called Ancient Greek world was absolutely irrelevant to them: precisely because it had not yet been fabricated.
===================
Aristotle as Historical Forgery, the Western World’s Fake History & Rotten Foundations, and Prof. Jin Canrong’s Astute Comments
Contents
I. Aristotle: a Major Founding Myth of the Western World
II. When, where and by whom was the Myth of Aristotle fabricated?
III. The Myth of Aristotle and its first Byproducts: Scholasticism, East-West Schism, the Crusades & the Sack of Constantinople (1204)
IV. Aristotelization: First Stage of the Westernization and the Colonization of the World
V. Aristotelization as Foundation of all the Western Forgeries: the so-called Judeo-Christian Heritage and the Fraud of Greco-Roman Civilization
VI. The Modern Western World as Disruption of History
VII. The Myth of Aristotle and the Monstrosity of Western Colonialism
======================
Download the article in PDF:
How the international community treated the Islamic Republic of Iran
Η διεθνής αντιμετώπιση της ισλαμικής Περσίας, του Κοσμά Μεγαλομμάτη: Εποπτεία 119, Ιανουάριος 1987, σελ. 38-48
How the international community treated the Islamic Republic of Iran, by Cosmas Megalommatis: Epopteia (‘Overview’) 119, January 1987, p. 38-48
Как международное сообщество относилось к Исламской Республике Иран, (автор:) Кузьма Мегаломматис: Эпоптея («Обзор») 119, январь 1987 г., стр. 38-48
================
Κατεβάστε το άρθρο σε PDF:
Η Πολιτική Ζωή στην Ισλαμική Περσία, του Κοσμά Μεγαλομμάτη-1987
Η Πολιτική Ζωή στην Ισλαμική Περσία, του Κοσμά Μεγαλομμάτη: Εποπτεία 119, Ιανουάριος 1987, σελ. 19-28
Political Life in Islamic Iran, by Cosmas Megalommatis: Epopteia (‘Overview’) 119, January 1987, p. 19-28
Политическая жизнь в исламском Иране, (автор:) Кузьма Мегаломматис: Эпоптея («Обзор») 119, январь 1987 г., с. 19-28
——————————–
Συνήθεις αναγνώστες μου θα παραξενευθούν επειδή χρησιμοποιώ τον όρο ‘Περσία’ αντί ‘Ιράν’ στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο, καθώς και σε πολλά άλλα άρθρα, εγκυκλοπαιδικά λήμματα, επιστημονικ΄ά άρθρα, και βιβλία δημοσιευμένα στην δεκαετία του 1980 και στις αρχές του 1990. Αυτό οφείλεται στο γεγονός ότι ο όρος αυτός είναι περισσότερο γνωστός και αγαπητός στο ελληνόφωνο αναγνωστικό κοινό, ενώ ο όρος ‘Ιράν’ ακούγεται μάλλον ξενικός. Τότε έγραφα για να πληροφορήσω και να κατατοπίσω σχετικά με θέματα ιστορικού, πνευματικού, θρησκευτικού και πολιτιστικού ενδιαφέροντος σχετιζόμενα με το Ιράν, καθώς και για υποθέσεις επιμελώς αποκρυμμένες σε όλο τον δυτικό κόσμο, όπως επίσης και για δημιουργήσω συμπάθεια προς το Ιράν εναντίον του οποίου στρέφονταν η Δυτική Ευρώπη, το σοβιετικό μπλοκ, οι ΗΠΑ, άλλες δυτικές χώρες, και τα τρισάθλια σκουπίδια των εθελόδουλων κυβερνητών του ανύπαρκτου και ανυπόστατου “αραβικού” κόσμου. Βεβαίως και τότε γνώριζα πολύ καλά ότι ο εξεπίτηδες προτιμώμενος από την μεροληπτική, αποικιοκρατική, δυτική βιβλιογραφία όρος ‘Περσία’ είναι ολότελα λαθεμένος, επειδή το Φαρς (Περσία) αποτελεί μόνον ένα μικρό τμήμα του ιστορικού Ιράν.
Several of my readers may be astounded because I use the term ‘Persia’ instead of ‘Iran’ in this article, as well as in many other articles, entries to encyclopedias, scholarly articles and books published in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This is due to the fact that this term is better known and preferred by the Greek-speaking readership, while the term ‘Iran’ sounds rather foreign to them. At the time, I was writing in order to inform and enlighten about historical, spiritual, religious and cultural topics pertaining to Iran, as well as about matters carefully hidden throughout the Western world, and in order to generate sympathy for Iran against which Western Europe, the Soviet bloc, the USA, other Western countries, and the wretched, docile and useless rulers of the non-existent “Arab” world had formed an alliance. Of course, even then, I was fully aware of the fact that the term ‘Persia’, which is intentionally supported by the biased colonial Western scholarship, is wrong; this is so because Fars (Persia) is only a small part of historical Iran.
Некоторые из моих читателей могут быть удивлены тем, что в этой статье, как и во многих других статьях, записях в энциклопедиях, научных статьях и книгах, изданных в 1980-х и начале 1990-х годов, я использую термин «Персия» вместо «Иран». Это связано с тем, что этот термин более известен и предпочитается грекоязычной читательской аудиторией, а термин «Иран» звучит для них довольно чуждо. В то время я писал, чтобы информировать и просвещать по историческим, духовным, религиозным и культурным темам, касающимся Ирана, а также по вопросам, тщательно скрываемым во всем западном мире, и чтобы вызвать симпатию к Ирану, против которой Западная Европа Советский блок, США, другие западные страны и жалкие, послушные и бесполезные правители несуществующего «арабского» мира образовали союз. Конечно, уже тогда я полностью осознавал тот факт, что термин «Персия», намеренно поддерживаемый предвзятой колониальной западной наукой, неверен; это так, потому что Фарс (Персия) — лишь малая часть исторического Ирана.
-----------------
----------------------
Κατεβάστε το άρθρο σε PDF:
Cosmas Megalommatis, World Politics in the 5th century: the Perso-Roman relations
Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, World Politics τον 5ο αιώνα: οι περσορωμαϊκές σχέσεις – περιοδικό Διαβάζω, 180, 9 Δεκεμβρίου 1987, σελ. 107-110
Cosmas Megalommatis, World Politics in the 5th century: the Perso-Roman relations – Diavazo magazine, 180, December 9, 1987, pp. 107-110
Кузьма Мегаломматис, Мировая политика в V веке: персидско-римские отношения – журнал Диавазо, 180, 9 декабря 1987 г., стр. 107-110.
======================
Скачать PDF-файл: / PDF-Datei herunterladen: / Télécharger le fichier PDF : / PDF dosyasını indirin: / :PDF قم بتنزيل ملف / Download PDF file: / : یک فایل دانلود کنید / Κατεβάστε το PDF:
Itinerary in Imam's Persia - by Cosmas Megalommatis
Οδοιπορικό στην Περσία του Ιμάμη – του Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτη
Το άρθρο αυτό δημοσιεύθηκε για πρώτη φορά στο περιοδικό Ανεξήγητο (Μάρτης 1986, σελ. 116-127). Για πρώτη φορά μεταφέρθηκε στο Ιντερνέτ από το σήμερα πλέον απενεργοποιημένο σάιτ technova: http://www.technova.gr/technova/index.php/2012-06-21-03-15-38/afieroma/1927-odoiporiko-stin-persia-tou-imam την Τετάρτη 19 Αυγούστου 2015. Ο φίλος κ. Νίκος Μπαϋρακτάρης αντέγραψε το κείμενο και με άφθονο φωτογραφικό, το οποίο συνέλεξε από το Ιντερνέτ, το ανέβασε ως βίντεο (σε δύο τμήματα) στο σήμερα απενεργοποιημένο ΥΤ κανάλι του. Η μουσική υπόκρουση ήταν δικής μου επιλογής. Χάρη στο υλικό που είχε ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης ετοιμάσει, ανέβασα το άρθρο σε δύο μορφές (σε Word doc η πρώτη και σε PowerPoint η δεύτερη) εδώ:
και
Τα βίντεο, τα οποία ετοίμασε ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης, μπορείτε να βρείτε εδώ:’
{Μουσική / Music accompaniment: Classical music from Iran – Great masters of the setar – Hossein Alizadeh (حسین علیزاده) 00:00 Mahtab 16:17 Avaz-e Abouata Masnavi} και
{Μουσική / Music accompaniment: Shahram Nazeri – Mystified (Sufi Music of Iran) 00:00 – Jewel of Love 10:09 – Desire}
Μπορείτε επίσης να τα βρείτε αντιστοίχως και εδώ:
Путеводитель по Ирану Имама / Itinerary in Imam’s Persia / Οδοιπορικό στην Περσία του Ιμάμη – του Μ. Σ. Μεγαλομμάτη https://ok.ru/video/333170084440
και
Путеводитель по Ирану Имама II / Itinerary in Imam’s Persia II / Οδοιπορικό στην Περσία του Ιμάμη II – του Μ. Σ. Μεγαλομμάτη https://ok.ru/video/333172181592
Σε αυτή την ηλεκτρονική αναδημοσίευση παρουσιάζονται για πρώτη φορά online οι ίδιες οι σελίδες του περιοδικού, αν και ασπρόμαυρες.
============
Κατεβάστε το άρθρο σε PDF:
Russia, China, the Decayed Muslim World, and the Crumbling, Savage Western World - I
By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Fake states of fake Arabs and fake Muslims
II. Turkey and Iran: the two exceptions
III. Unsophisticated, gullible and ignorant sheikhs and theologians
IV. How Turkey's and Iran's paranoid Islamists are manipulated by Western colonials
V. Russia, China, and the Utilization of the Muslim World by the Western Colonials
VI. What Russia and China must do
Introduction
Fourteen years ago, on 4th December 2007, I published an article under title 'Russia, Islam, and the West', which -within few days- was officially (ИноСМИ / Inosmi) translated into Russian (' Россия, ислам и Запад'). I wanted to briefly elaborate on how things would develop and to also identify possible allies for Russia within the so-called 'Islamic World'.
As the translated version of the article was extensively reproduced, I noticed that it was also well understood. Example: the great portal Centrasia (www.centrasia.org), while republishing the Russian translation, added an over-title for the use of its readers to state the following: "Экспансия западного мира не столько решала проблемы, сколько распространяла их вширь" (The expansion of the Western world did not so much solve problems as spread them in breadth). Indeed, there could not be better summary of my article's contents. The over-title was indeed an excellent reflection of my original perception and ultimate conviction, namely that the West wanted to use the senseless Islamic World against Russia.
Here you have the links:
In that article's last part, I put a title that appeared very odd, even to several Egyptian and other African friends of mine (at the time, I was living in Cairo): "Islam is Turkey and Iran". In that part, I explained why only these two countries could possibly be Russia's allies against the Western colonial contamination that threatens the entire world. The reason for this statement is that only these two countries had maintained until that time a correct sense of historical-cultural identity and an imperial-level establishment and diplomacy. As a matter of fact, the rest of the so-called Islamic world is constituted by fake states-puppets of the colonial powers (from Morocco and Nigeria to Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia); unfortunately, the uneducated, ignorant, and idiotic elites of these neo-colonial structures never realized what 'national integrity' means.
---------------------
Continue reading and download the article here:
Iran–Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu (Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
Pre-publication of chapter XVI of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XIV, XV and XVI belong to Part Five (Fallacies about Sassanid History, History of Religions, and the History of Migrations). The book is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.
------------------------
Hsiung-nu soldier from Saksanokhur, Tajikistan
However, soon afterwards, Europe faced two major threats that lasted many centuries: the Islamic armies and the Manichaean subversion. Despite their ferocity and their conquests, at a certain point the Islamic armies were stopped either in Western or in Eastern Europe. But the Manichaean tidal wave that hit Europe back was disproportional and beyond any expectation. Starting from the Eastern Roman Empire and the entire Caucasus region and as early as the 7th c. CE, the Paulicians triggered an enormous religious, social and imperial destabilization across vast lands. The famous Eastern Roman Akritai, i.e. the imperial Eastern Roman guards and frontal forces against the Islamic Caliphate, were – all – Paulicians, having rejected the Christian Orthodox Constantinopolitan theology. Digenes Akritas, the Eastern Roman Empire's greatest hero and Modern Greeks' most revered and foremost legendary figure was a Paulician, not an Orthodox.
Constantinopolitan patriarchs, emperors and theologians persistently described the Paulicians as Manichaeans; they used the same term also for the Iconoclasts. This does not mean that these religious, spiritual and esoteric systems of faith were 'Manichaean' stricto sensu, but they were definitely formed under determinant Manichaean impact. The same concerns the Bogomiles across the Balkans, Central and Western Europe, starting in the 10th c., the Cathars across Western Europe from the 12th c. onwards, and also many other religious, spiritual and esoteric systems that derived from the aforementioned.
The Muslim friends, partners and associates of the Paulicians were also groups formed under strong Manichaean impact and historically viewed as such; known as Babakiyah or Khurramites or Khorram-dinan, the 8th c. religious group setup by Sunpadh and led in the 9th c. by Babak Khurramdin made an alliance with the Eastern Roman Emperor Theophilos (829-842), an outstanding Iconoclast, and not only repeatedly revolted against the Abbasid Caliphate but also fought along with the Eastern Roman army in 837 in the Anti-Taurus Mountains to recapture Melitene (Malatya), and on many other occasions. The Khurramite commander Nasir and 14000 Iranian Khurramite rebels had no problem in being baptized Iconoclast Christians and taking Greek names (Nasir became then known as Theophobos), which shows the Manichaean origins and affinities of the Iconoclasts and the Khurramites.
The state of the Paulicians
The massacre of the Paulicians
Kale-ye Babak, the impregnable castle of the Babakiyah (or Khurramites) near Kaleybar – East Azerbaijan, Iran
Afshin brings Babak as captive in Samarra. from a manuscript miniature of the Safavid times
Babak Khorramdin statue from Babek city in Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan
Within the context of early Islamic caliphates, the Manicheans prospered, definitely marked by their superiority in terms of spirituality, letters, sciences, philosophy and cosmology. It was relatively easy for them to reinterpret the Quran as a Manichaean scripture; it was totally impossible for the uneducated and naïve early Muslims to oppose Manicheans in open debate or to outfox Manichaean interpretative schemes. Among the leading Muslim erudite polymaths, mystics, poets and translators of the early period of Islamic Civilization (7th – 8th c.), many defended all major pillars of the Manichaean doctrine and even the dualist dogma; Ibn al Muqaffa is an example. The illustrious translator of the Middle Persian literary masterpiece Kalila wa Dimna into Arabic was a crypto-Manichaean Muslim, and surely he was not the only. Ibn al Muqaffa was executed as per the order of Caliph al-Mansur (754-775), but the first persecution of the Manicheans started only under the Caliph al-Mahdi (775-785); however, this was the time many groups and movements or Manichean origin started openly challenging Islam and the Caliphate in every sense. However, it is noteworthy that the greatest Caliph of all times, Harun al Rashid (786-809), had a very tolerant and friendly stance toward Manicheans of all types.
Abu’l Abbas al-Saffah proclaimed as the first Abbasid Caliph: the Abbasid dynasty opened the door for a cataclysmic Iranian cultural, intellectual, academic, scientific and spiritual impact on the Muslim world.
However, it is only as late as the time of Caliph al-Muqtadir (908-932) that the Manicheans, persecuted in the Caliphate, left Mesopotamia in big numbers, making of Afrasiab (Samarqand) and Central Asia the center of their faith, life and activities. This was not a coincidence; many Turanians had already been long date enthusiastic Manichean converts and adepts, whereas several Manichaean monuments unearthed in Central Asia date back to the 4th c. At the time of al-Mansur, the Uyghur Khaqan (: Emperor) Boku Tekin accepted Manichaeism as official state religion in 763; the Uyghur Khaqanate stretched from the Tian Shan mountains and the Lake Balkhash (today's Kazakhstan) to the Pacific. For more than one century, Manichaeism was the state religion across the entire Northeastern Asia.
During the same time, Manichaeism was diffused in Tibet and China. Similarly with what occurred in the Islamic Caliphate, Manicheans in Tibet and China had it easy to reinterpret Buddhism in Manichaean terms. As a matter of fact, Chinese Buddhism is full of Manichaean impregnations. For this reason, several anti-Buddhist Chinese emperors (like Wuzong of Tang in the period 843-845) confused the Manicheans with the Buddhists and persecuted them too. However, Manichaeism was for many centuries a fundamental component and a critical parameter of all social, spiritual, intellectual and religious developments in China. And this was due to the incessant interaction of Turanians and Iranians across Asia. About:
During the Sassanid and early Islamic periods, the central provinces of Iran had to embrace many Turanian newcomers. This was one of the numerous Turanian waves that the Iranian plateau and its periphery had to welcome across the millennia. A vast and critical topic of the World History that was excessively distorted and systematically misrepresented across various disciplines of the Humanities is the chapter of the major Eurasiatic Migrations. Various distorting lenses have been used in this regard. It is surely beyond the scope of the present chapter to outline this subject, but I must at least mention it with respect to the persistent Orientalist efforts to divide and dissociate Iranian from Turanian nations across several millennia.
If one accepts naively the 'official' dogma of Western colonial historiography, one imagines that all the world's major civilizations (Sumerians, Elamites, Akkadians-Assyrians/Babylonians, Egyptians, Cushites-Sudanese, Hittites, Hurrians, Urartu, Phoenicians, Iranians, Greeks, Romans, Dravidians, Chinese, etc.) were automatically popped up and instantly formed by settled populations. Modern historians, who compose this sort of nonsensical narratives, are monstrous gangsters intending to desecrate human civilization and to extinguish human spirituality. All civilizations were started by nomads, and there was always a time when all indigenous nations (each of them in its own turn) were migrants.
But modern Western historians intentionally and criminally misrepresent the major Eurasiatic Migrations in a most systematic and most sophisticated manner, by only introducing - partly and partially - aspects of this overwhelming and continual phenomenon, like spices on gourmet dishes. I do not imply that the Eurasiatic Migrations were the only to have happened or to have mattered; there were also important migrations in Africa, the Pacific, and the continent of the Aztecs, the Mayas and the Incas. However, I limit the topic to the migrations that are relevant to the History of Iran and Turan. So, those who study Ancient Roman History are customarily told that, 'although everything was fine and civilized Romans prospered in peace', suddenly some iniquitous barbarians arrived to invade Roman lands and to embarrass the civilized settled populations altogether; this type of bogus-historical presentations is a Crime against the Mankind, because it distorts the foremost reality of human history, namely that we have all been migrants.
There is no worst bigotry worldwide than that of settled populations.
Yet, every manual of history would be easily rectified, if few extra chapters were added, at the beginning and during the course of the narration, to offer an outline of parallel developments occurred in the wider and irrevocbly indivisible Eurasia.
The discriminatory, truly racist, manner by which the civilized migrants are presented in various manuals of (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Cushitic, Anatolian, Roman, Greek, European, Russian, Iranian, Dravidian, and Chinese) History helps only reinstate the vicious and immoral axiom that 'History is written by the victors'. Every historian, who does not consciously write in an objective manner to reveal the truth and to reject the paranoia of the aforementioned adage, is an enemy of the Mankind.
Beyond the aforementioned points, many historians today will try to find an excuse, saying that, by writing about let's say the so-called 'barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire', they intentionally reflect the Roman viewpoint, because they rely on Roman historical sources. This could eventually be accepted, if stated in 1820, when the modern science of history had not advanced much, and only few archaeological excavations had taken place. But if this is seriously expressed as an apology today, it constitutes an outrage. The least one can say to these forgers is that they must first obtain an interdisciplinary degree, before publishing their nonsensical manual, or – alternatively - study several paperbacks on the History of the Migrant Nations (in this case: Huns, Vandals, Goths, etc.).
An even greater mistake that modern historians make is that they present the continual phenomenon of Eurasiatic migrations in a most fragmentary manner; this creates, by means of Nazi propaganda, the wrong idea and the distorted impression that all of a sudden, every now and then, new migrants appear in the horizon, coming out of the vast Asiatic 'nowhere'. This is an aberration and a fallacy. The absurd factoid, which is deceitfully called "Invasions of the Roman Empire" and is peremptorily dated between 100 CE and 500 CE, is merely an academic fabrication. Why?
First, there were incessant migrations before and after the said period.
Second, the aforementioned factoid is a fallacy due to the fact that, during the same period, other migrations took also place, but the specialists in Roman History do not mention (or even do not know) them; however, these migrations (that they fail to even name) constitute intertwined phenomena with those that they present in their manuals, and consequently their presentation is a conscious and plain distortion.
Third, the events are always portrayed as a menace of barbarism, as breach of Roman legitimacy, and as violation of a hypothetical right of the Roman Empire to exist. This is an outrage; the Roman Empire was not a sacrosanct institution. In many aspects, its lawless formation, barbaric expansion, and bloody wars constitute some of the World History's bleakest pages. But criminal colonial historians never discussed 'unpleasant' topics with the correct terminology; they did not write for instance about the barbarian Roman demolition of Carthage, the monstrous Roman sack of Corinth, the savage Roman invasion of Seleucid Syria or the lawless Roman annexation of Egypt.
This is the disgusting bias of the Western colonial historiographers: when a negative development takes place against Rome, it is 'bad'; and quite contrarily, when an undesirable occurrence happens to others, it is 'good'. And in order to represent this vicious bias as 'historical truth', they mobilize a great intellectual effort, involving many methods. In this regard, the Eurasiatic migrations are absurdly fractured into many parts, and many of these parts are deliberately concealed, when focus is made on only one of them. The pseudo-academic methods involved to disguise and conceal the topic are numerous.
First, some migrations are not presented as such, but named after the migrant nations; examples: Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts. And yet, these nations are basically known due to their migrations across vast lands.
Second, other migrations are not mentioned as such, but called after the name of the location where excavations brought to light the material remains of a migrant nation's civilization; example: Andronovo culture, Afanasievo culture, etc.
Third, several migrant nations of different origin are regrouped after the geography where they spread; this is totally paranoid, because no one can possibly 'regroup' the Vandals, who crossed Central and Western Europe, reached North Africa, settled in Hippo Regius and Carthage, and then attacked Greece, Sicily, Rome, Sardinia, Corsica and the Iberian coastlands, with the Huns, who crossed Siberia, Russia, and Ukraine, settled in Eastern Europe and attacked the Balkans, Italy and Gaul.
Fourth, several migrant nations are dissociated from one another migrant nation of the same ethnic origin (example: Huns and Turkic nations), whereas in cases of severe distortion, different names of the same nation, attested in diverse historical sources, are tentatively presented as names of two different nations (example: Huns and Hsiung nu whose name is erroneously spelled Xiongnu).
Fifth, several parts of migrant nations are arbitrarily dissociated from their ethnic counterparts and presented separately as settled nations (example: White Huns or Hephthalites).
Sixth, the ethnic origin of several migrant nations is confusingly presented (example: the Bulgars, who were a Turkic nation, are often included in Europe's 'Migration Period' and categorized along with Slavs, whereas they should have been mentioned in the 'Turkic migrations'!).
To the aforementioned inaccuracies, distortions and prejudices, a plethora of false maps is added to comfortably reduce the size of kingdoms, empires and nations whose existence did not happen to please the discriminatory minds of the perverse Anglo-French and American colonial historians.
The end result of this systematization of Western colonial falsehood is that great and highly civilized conquerors and emperors like Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, Kublai Khan, Timur Lenk and others appear as mysterious meteorites, who came from "nowhere", as barbarian invaders, and a "scourges of God", whereas in reality they all (and many others) were far more educated, more cultured, more competent and more heroic than any Greek, Macedonian, Roman or European king or general. To the aforementioned historical reality additional, deceitful tactics and insidious procedures have been added by the criminal, racist, Western European and North American 'historians': they definitely proved to be able to write 100000 words to deplore the destructions supposedly caused to the Human Civilization by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, and others, but when they happen to write about the fact that Alexander the Great burned Persepolis, they remain malignantly and partially silent, abstaining from any due criticism.
King Attila with the Turul bird in his shield (Chronicon Pictum, 1358)
It would be far easier for all to tell the truth: 'Asia is Turan' for most of its territory. And the moral lesson must be drawn: the existence of a 'state' is not a reason for anyone not to invade its lands. States are not sacrosanct; and in any case, the territory occupied by the nation that setup the local state, in all cases of historical states, was also invaded by the ancestors of that nation in the first place.
The biased Western colonial historians carry out all these distortions as tasks in order to promote the lawless interests of their own disreputable states; for this reason they always concealed the following unwavering reality: throughout World History, various fundamental concepts like 'land', 'state', 'nation', 'sacred place', etc. have had different connotations among nations of nomadic migrants and nations of settled populations.
Furthermore, several fundamental concepts, which are valid among settled nations, have no validity at all among nomads and migrant nations, and vice versa. In addition, some basic concepts that exist among nomads and migrant nations start being altered and becoming different if and when these nations happen to settle somewhere 'permanently'. The concept of 'universe' and the deriving imperative of 'universalism' are fundamental notions of nomads and migrant nations; notably, the Akkadians (early Assyrians – Babylonians), who first produced significant literary narratives to detail the concept, were also a migrant nation that had settled only few centuries before writing down in cuneiform texts their world views.
The History of Eurasiatic Migrations, in and by itself, highlights the extensive presence of Turanians in Iran since times immemorial. Thanks to the Turanians of the Achaemenid Empire, the Turkic nations of Central Asia, China and Siberia came to get detailed descriptions of faraway regions and lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, the Caucasus Mountains, the Anatolian plateau, the plains of Ukraine and Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, and Egypt. Consequently, further the interaction between Iran and Rome progressed, more details about the western confines of Europe reached the Turanian nomads who were moving around Lake Balkhash (Kazakhstan), Yenisey River and Baikal Lake (Siberia), Orkhon River (Mongolia), the Tarim Basin (China), the Oymyakon River (Yakutia, Eastern Siberia) and other circumferences. The incessant waves of migrations to the West and to the South were not blind and desperate movements of uninformed barbarians, who ran like crazy on their horses; only the distorted publications of Western colonial historians contain similar, nonsensical conclusions.
The pattern of the Turanian military horsemen and skillful soldiers is absolutely prominent and protruding in the History of the Early Caliphates; but it is merely the continuation of a millennia long tradition. This consists in a very embarrassing fact for all the Western Orientalists specializing in Early Islamic History, and more particularly with focus on the 8th c. CE, the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the rise of Abbasid Baghdad. They therefore constantly come up with incredible assumptions, farfetched arguments, nonsensical explanations, and sly innuendos to explain how and why so many Turanian soldiers and military heads appear in the Islamic Caliphate. In fact, without Turanian military skills, the Umayyad dynasty of Damascus may have not been overthrown.
It is well known that the early Islamic armies advanced up to Merv in today's Turkmenistan (651) and they stopped there. For the next hundred years, the only Islamic advance in Asia was effectuated only in today's Baluchistan province of Pakistan; only at the end of the 7th c. and the beginning of the 8th c., the Islamic armies reached the Indus Delta and Gujarat. But how the Islamic Caliphate started being flooded with Turanian soldiers as early as the last decades of the Umayyad rule, if there had not already been massive Turanian populations in the Sassanid Empire of Iran? If the Turanian nations were confined 'somewhere in Eastern Siberia and Mongolia' (as per the distortions of colonial Orientalists), why did they appear to be so deeply involved in battles and developments that took place in Mesopotamia and Syria during the first half of the 8th c.? The answer to this question is very simple: there were always massive Turanian populations in the Pre-Islamic Iranian empires.
---------------------------------------------------
Download the chapter in PDF here:
Stalin in Ottoman Anatolia: his Spiritual, Religious and Historical Quests
The Mithraic Trajectory of an Unknown Transcendentalist
Сталин в Османской Анатолии: его духовные, религиозные и исторические искания
Митраистская траектория неизвестного трансценденталиста
Table of Contents
I. The erroneous perception of Stalin among most people today
II. The erroneous perception of WW II by average people today
III. The true Yalta Conference
IV. The Big Game never ended
V. Good intentions and evil purposes
VI. Roosevelt & Stalin: like Abraham Lincoln & Alexander II
VII. The real, hidden Stalin: an experienced mystic
VIII. A Turkish ambassador speaks about Stalin living in Artvin and Istanbul
IX. Stalin in Ottoman Anatolia: 1911-1912
X. Turkish statesman Rıza Nur noted that Stalin understood Turkish
XI. Stalin's cultural background: distorted & unknown to most
XII. The Mithraic Iranian cultural heritage of Georgia & Stalin
XIII. The long, heavy shadow of the Sassanids
XIV. An indelible stamp on Islam: the Iranian Intermezzo
XV. The intertwined Islamic & Christian cultural heritage of Georgia, and Shota Rustaveli
XVI. Rustaveli's Russian translations and Stalin's pseudonyms
XVII. Archaeological excavations and Orientalist discoveries prior to Stalin's sojourn in Anatolia
XVIII. Stalin's textual sources of information about Mithra and the Mithraic mysteries
XIX. Spirituality, Religion, Eschatology, Soteriology, the Extinction of the Mankind, and Stalin
XX. Major themes of Stalin's spiritual quest in Anatolia – 1. Tauroctony and Crucifixion
XXI. Major themes of Stalin's spiritual quest in Anatolia – 2. Mithraic Trinity, Christian Trinity, Spirituality and Stalin
XXII. Major themes of Stalin's spiritual quest in Anatolia – 3. Solar nature of Mithraism / Immaculate birth from the rock
XXIII. How Stalin's Mithraic meditations in Anatolia formed his decision-making
1. Pontus' King Mithridates VI's wars with Rome
2. Cilicia's Mithraic Pirates in fight with Rome, the desecration of Greece, and Stalin
3. Did Stalin travel to visit the world's greatest Mithraic monument at Nemrut Dagh?
4. Stalin's Mithraic meditations and anti-sacerdotal stance
5. The Mithraic version of the Assyrian-Babylonian Gilgamesh: Verethragna, and his association with Heracles in Nemrut Dagh
6. Mithraic Anatolian Imperial Spirituality vs. Nordic Mythology: Stalin vs. Hitler
XXIV. Rome, New Rome, the Third Rome, and Stalin
XXV. Mithraism, Christianity, Stalin and the Antichrist
The idea that most of the people around the world have about Stalin is entirely false. This is due to the fact that atheists, materialists, Marxists-Leninists, liberal socialists, socialist-democrats, evolutionists and all the trash of Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi Khazarian pseudo-intellectuals and bogus-academics have first perceived, then interpreted, and last analyzed/presented Stalin and his historical role through the most erroneous, Trotskyist misunderstanding/distortion of the Georgian-origin Soviet statesman. But Stalin was an unconditional transcendentalist and a remarkable mystic.
Mithraic Tauroctony from a Mithraeum in Syria (currently in the Israel museum in Jerusalem): a mythical-religious topic early conceived by evil forces as purely eschatological symbolism
Human sacrifice: dead bodies wait for cremation in Dresden after the bombardment of the 'Allied' forces.
I. The erroneous perception of Stalin among most people today
According to this irrelevant story, Stalin (1878-1953) was a resolute materialist, a convinced Darwinist, a devoted Marxist-Leninist, and a heartless dictator who decimated entire nations, before purging the old guard of Communist-Bolshevik partisans, relocating populations, and sending millions to jail. There is only little truth in all this. In fact, Stalin was as realist as Kemal Ataturk; he therefore had to appear to others in the way he did in order to succeed Lenin and eliminate Trotsky. Many may agree with the last sentence, stating that this is part of the well-known History.
But there is also the 'Other History'; the one that is unknown, because it did not happen. This is, in other words, the negative reflection of the reality. All the same, because this 'other' or 'unknown' History did not happen, this does not mean that it was not attempted. And indeed many secret and known organizations and 'societies' tried to prepare several developments which finally did not occur. It is essential for a true Historian to know well these failed attempts; in fact, he only then understands History as the Absolute Sphere that contains the outcome of all the desires, feelings, thoughts and attempts of the humans.
---------------------
Continue reading the remaining 25700 words of the 30200-word article here:
Read and download the entire book in PDF here:
Iran 2022: Typical Freemasonic-Zionist Proxy War between Ayatollahs and Protestors at the Detriment of the Average Iranians
There is nothing Islamic in the Islamic Republic of Iran except the popular religion (attested in non-Westernized people) and the historical monuments. In Iranian provinces, the Muslim faith is alive, although this is not tantamount to direct support of the Qom / Tehran-based, absurd theological regime, which wastes the national resources in counter-productive manners.
The supporters of the Ayatollahs are mainly concentrated in major cities whereby the advanced technological Westernization produces a terrible ideological clash at the detriment of all Muslims. In the same social environment live also the 'pro-Western' opponents of the Ayatollahs.
Among these three categories of people, the cultural differences are enormous, the diverse purposes are centrifugal, and the socio-behavioral systems are opposite.
I. Traditional believers in Iranian provinces
The majority of the people in the provinces, living either in the villages, the towns and the cities or as nomads, live Islam as a popular religion; they cherish the related moral values, respect their traditions, and experience spirituality as traditional component of their culture. As they are distant from the capital, governance is not their concern. They may well observe the various wrongdoings of the government, but politics is not their affair, and they cannot see a trustworthy opponent anywhere in the horizon. Their attitude is therefore clearly neutral, anything between passive acceptance and passive resistance. I would also add that they are too innocent, too naïve and too benevolent to possibly fathom how their government and regime have been maneuvered by evil foreign forces without even knowing or sensing it. All the same, these people are the true, average Iranians. I would say that they represent ca. 50% of the population.
II. 'Religious' supporters of the Ayatollahs
The people in the cities and the big cities live in great tension; the supporters of the government are very fervent, but they confuse 'theology' with 'religion' and 'politics' with 'governance'. They have lost much of the Iranian culture to the benefit of the technological modernization. They cannot experience the popular religion in the way people customarily do in villages; to them 'religion' means 'rejection of the West' and celebrating the Mawlid un-Nabi today is for them an opportunity to reject the true, existing, evil plans of several Western countries against Iran. This is absurd. Religion is all about a person's contact with God; evil governments, regimes and secret organizations have no place in Faith. You cannot possibly believe a religion only to reject somebody else – however evil he/they may truly be; such an attitude is by all means sheer madness and utter disbelief. But these people cannot see that the hate of the other cannot be possibly associated with one's faith or with an entire nation's religion. Losing their popular religion and traditional culture, they get radicalized, they mistake theology and political ideology for religion, and they become appalling to the 'Westernized' Iranians. These people make big noise, but they do not constitute more than 25% of the entire population. Their success is that they appear to have the support of the silent majority (see previous unit) and they control the totality of the dictatorial mechanisms of the state (this is not typically Iranian: anywhere the state mechanisms are dictatorial).
III. 'Pro-Western' or 'Westernized' Iranians
This population, contrarily to the aforementioned two groups, is not homogeneous. This is critically calamitous to all foreign schemes and plans of utilizing them. This very fact consists also in a major stumbling block in their path to power. However, this situation is nothing new; it became crystal clear in the last years of Reza Pahlavi's reign and in the first years of the Khomeini oligarchical rule. At the time, a sizeable part of this population allied themselves with the supporters of Khomeini. Now they don't make the same mistake again! Leftist Iranians, who studied in Paris only to become Marxist-Leninist or social democrat of ideology, royalists who wish Reza Pahlavi's son to come back and reign, Iranians who lived abroad only to be impacted enough to become anything An-Iranian (the non-Iran is a historical term that goes back to pre-Islamic times), conservative people of the old upper middle class who desire to simply look like Westerners without truly being so, and few truly marginal groups of homosexuals and atheists, materialists and nationalists can be categorized as anti-Ayatollah opposition.
When it comes to this segment of Iranian society, their only chance is to sensitize the silent majority (see Unit I) in case the radicalization of the 'religious' supporters of the regime turns out to appear like brutalization of the rest. This can bring results and this is known to all the enemies of Iran: those who appear 'friendly' nowadays (England) and those who hate the Iranian Civilization that shaped the Western world against their will (Israel) and up to the point that they need to hide it (Vatican, France).
To close this brief introduction, I must say that the fragmentation of this part of the Iranian society is not the major problem that they have. There is a very serious issue, which is not known to most of these people, and still affects them terribly. This fact has to do with their own self-identification and description as 'Pro-Western' or 'Westernized'. Although these people think that they are so, in reality they are not.
Certainly they want to remove their hijab, but they don't want homosexual marriages in Iran.
Certainly they want to have a parliamentarian political system, which looks like that of a European country; but they don't want to pass lawless laws according to which the school teachers will demand from a 'court of Justice' to separate the children from their parents because the latter did not 'explain' to them at the age of 7 that they can change their gender.
Certainly they want to have free alcohol in Iran, but they don't want prostitution, fornication, and adultery, as well as premarital and extramarital relations to be considered as 'legal' activities in Iran.
Certainly they don't want a sectarian decision-making in Iran; but this is only due to their ignorance and lack of understanding of the Western world. What difference at this point would it make to abolish a pseudo-Islamist sectarian decision-making in Iran only to replace it by a Zionist sectarian decision-making?
Who said that Iran must be governed by filthy and criminal dictators, who would 'conclude' (only because they were heavily bribed) that "Iran does not need nuclear weapons", "Russia and China are a threat", "NATO is necessary for regional security" and "UK, France, Canada, Australia, US, New Zealand, and Israel" are 'normal' states?
No one needs beasts like that in Iran!
My simple and straightforward conclusion is that, in spite of all drawbacks and serious mistakes, oversights, and wrongdoings, Iranians do not need, do not want, do not deserve, and will not approve of a regime change geared -not out of love for the (deliberately misrepresented in, and concealed from, the Western world) Iranian nation and civilization but- because of an inhuman, vicious hatred for the holy land of Iran, which proved throughout the ages to be definitely more important than the Roman Empire, let alone South Canaan (fake Israel) and South Balkans (fake Greece).
I have an advice for all Iranian protestors: go to China!
Forget UK and US! These countries are impermissible to exist and they will cease to exist.
It is on this background that I received a comment about one of my articles on Iran, which was first published in 2007. I herewith publish the comment and my response. The old article concerned the Ayatollah regime of Iran and how it functioned to the benefit of Western colonial powers; it can be found here:
--------------------------
IV. A reader's comment on Western foreign involvement in Iran
Dear Shamsaddin,
With the ongoing social revolution in Iran, I also discovered the historic links between Freemasons and the Shiite clergy. I shall read your document with keen interest.
Best regards
------------------------------------
V. Response about the manifestations in Iran and evil agendas
Thank you for your interest and comment! Unfortunately, this article is an old publication which was first published in the American Chronicle, Buzzle and AfroArticles back in 2007, immediately reproduced in Fravahr, and later republished here. Of course, I did not change my mind over the past 15 years, but the presentation is very brief.
People did/do not understand the nature of Western colonialism and that is why great empires have been decomposed by the Western criminals. The Western world is a composite tyrannical regime ruled by elites that, while expanding worldwide and exploiting the rest of the world, fight against one another: Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists utilize every resource (i.e. every state) available, and in the process, other countries get destroyed, dismembered and ruined.
What various establishments, empires and kingdoms outside the Western world failed to understand is the following observation. When France became the ally of the Ottoman Empire and England supported Iran, the French and the English interests were protected, whereas Iran and the Ottoman Empire got dissolved. Why? Because both alliances were a scheme and a lie!
When a secret organization like the CIA places an ignorant and worthless soldier atop of a country (like Gamal Abdel Nasser), they also manage to put next to him a driver and a cook who are their own pawns (but the worthless soldier does not know it) and they can kill the 'important person' any time they receive the order to do this.
When Napoleon sent a special envoy to the Qajar Shah to ask permission that French soldiers cross Iran to attack the English criminals in India (and prevent the then forthcoming collapse of the Mughal), the English sent their own agent who managed to poison the French envoy in a public restaurant in Esfahan.
After the English made of a soldier (Reza Khan) the king of Iran (to turn an Oriental Empire into a weak and worthless nationalistic kingdom), they
- first, gave him his ... name (the poor guy did not have a clue what Pahlevi meant),
- second, prepared the opponent of his son {Khomeini was guided by English stooges as to what to study, what to write in his thesis, and what vision of possible 'Islamic' state to compose (the ridiculous Wilayat al Faqih serves only English interests in Islamic countries)}, and
- third, corrupted his son (when he was 'studying' in Switzerland in the 1930s) so that finally he deposed the idiotic Reza Khan, and he ruled until he was deposed too.
Look at this picture! Notice the position of the legs of both persons! It is quite telling - about who the teacher/master and who the pupil/student are!
So, what you call 'social revolution in Iran' is not a social revolution, but a well-prepared (by the Zionists) operation against the pathetic gang of the Ayatollahs who operated (without knowing it) as local stooges of the English Freemasonry. In other words, it is a proxy war between the secret services of England from one side (the silly Iranian government) and from the other side (fake manifestations organized by tele-guided protestors) the secret services of Israel (anti-Netanyahu side) and one part of the US establishment (anti-Trump side).
Today's stupid Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia fail to understand that, after the abolition of the caliphate, there is no Islam. To set up an empire, Muslims do not need the Hadith and the various Madhhab. They need the Art of the Empire. Timur (Tamerlane) is far more important than prophet Muhammad today. Not in order to start fighting stupidly and idiotically (like the idiotic Islamists here and there), but to make sense of Timur's mental skills, faculties, perceptual powers and instantaneous reflexes / reactions. That's why Sharaf al Din Ali Yazdi and his Zafarnameh are more important than the Quran - not as just a reading, but to first study and understand Timur's unmatched strategic capacities and later to reproduce them within the present context against all the enemies of the Islamic world.
The war is imperial, not religious. The Western enemies of the Muslims want to
a) divert all Muslims to fake theologies that have been deliberately and systematically presented to them as 'religion' (i.e. Islam),
b) engulf them in this idiocy, and
c) utilize them for their calamitous agendas.
A fake Mahdi and a fake prophet Jesus have been produced (with microchips in their stupid heads and without knowing it) and they may 'appear' in public, if some evil agendas are successfully advanced.
Who are today's best Muslims?
Putin and Xi Jinping!
The only who block the advance of the evil Western agendas.
Extra readings:
Published before 5 years:
Published before 11 years:
Notice the Al Qaeda Homunculi, the "front office" and the "back office"!
Best wishes for Mawlid un-Nabi,
Best regards,
Shamsaddin
------------------
Download the text in Word doc.:
Mithraism and Zoroastrianism in Northwestern Sassanid Iran
Μιθραϊσμός και Ζωροαστρισμός στη Βορειοδυτική Σασανιδική Περσία, in: Βυζαντινός Δόμος 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Митраизм и зороастризм в Северо-Западном Сасанидском Иране, в: Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Zoroastrismus und Mithraismus im nordwestlichen Iran während der Sassanidenzeit, in: Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Kuzeybatı Sasani İran'ında Mitraizm ve Zerdüştlük, bilimsel süreli Byzantinos Domos'ta 4 (1990), p. 13-52 Domos Byzantinos آیین میترا و زرتشت در شمال غربی ایران در دوره ساسانیان : در مجله علمی ( در صفحه 13 - 52 ) ,1990 (4) Mithraïsme et zoroastrisme dans le nord-ouest de l'Iran sassanide, dans le Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52 الميثرائية والزرادشتية في شمال غرب إيران خلال العصر الساساني : في المجلة العلمية (1990) 4 على الصفحة 13 - 52 ,Domos Byzantinos في المجلة العلمية Mithraism and Zoroastrianism in Northwestern Sassanid Iran, in: Byzantinos Domos 4 (1990), p. 13-52
------------------------
--------------
Download the article in PDF:
![Μιθραϊσμός και Ζωροαστρισμός στη Βορειοδυτική Σασανιδική Περσία - [PDF Document]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/c51c682b5071a922ce93b3f6a64e73f4/343eb72f2b179cdb-7f/s1280x1920/1bbef1c67fd45bb9e351306e8002b7986549c05d.jpg)
Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Greece: False History, Fake Religion and Worthless Education
Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Greece: False History, Fake Religion and Worthless Education lead to Disastrous Wars to fit an Evil Eschatological Agenda
Few days ago, I sent to a friend in Turkey a link to the Times of Israel; the feature presents new archaeological discoveries dating back to the time of Ramses II (who reigned from 1304 to 1235/or as per the lower chronological system, which is less probable, from 1279 to 1213). The article can be found here:
Frozen in time: 3,300-year-old burial cave from Ramses II era found at popular beach
I- The Calamitous Structure of Cultural Colonialism
My friend replied asking me to what extent we can trust Israeli scholars. His few words revealed an enormous ignorance, which -quite unfortunately- was personal and particular to him but prevails worldwide. This ignorance has to do with a very crucial issue, namely the fact that between the layer of Western (Israeli included) scholars and that of the average public, there are -across the Earth- several other layers through which the discoveries, data, explorations, info, investigations and conclusions of the various scholars are being distorted, altered and totally disfigured in order to keep the general readership in confusion, wrong conceptualization of the facts, and mistaken contextualization of the data. Of course, many scholars are known for carrying out biased research and for deliberately distorting the historical truth in order to promote preconceived schemes, fake ideologies, and personal misperceptions, but this layer is not always the main part of the problem.
Due to the aforementioned layers, the same original piece of info ends up multiply transfigured and ultimately misunderstood among various readers all over the world. These layers of catastrophic disinformation and premeditated misinformation have to do with the educational system of each and every country, the contents of the historical manuals, the publishing houses, the books published or not published, the effectuation or omission of translations (of books written in other languages), the press and the mass media in general, the different topics featured or avoided, the various issues discussed or not discussed, the frequency with which themes are presented, the circle of the Art and notably Cinematography, the movies and the documentaries released or not released, the local academic establishment in general, the religious establishment and the extent to which it influences (or it is allowed to influence) the entire nation, and -last but not the least- the political-governmental-administrative establishment.
At this point, it is essential to clarify that the political-governmental-administrative establishment in most of the countries of the world is not at all as powerful and as omnipotent as people erroneously think it is. This is so because of the fact that in most of the countries the ruling class is merely the product of the local 'system' (all the previous layers that I mentioned and viewed in historical perspective) and they therefore have tragically failed to even imagine that, in order to be real rulers, they have to first reject everything that they know, then examine, crosscheck, criticize and re-evaluate everything they had been taught, every single point that they had learned as hypothetically correct, and every single issue in life that they accepted thoughtlessly. Without an overwhelming, ongoing self-criticism, everyone can be mistaken at any possible moment. Permanent reassessment of everything is the clear condition that distinguishes the living from the dead.
Now, the above statement takes an even more nefarious turn if we take into consideration that in most of the cases a colonial interference took place locally involving extensive practices of educational, academic, intellectual, cultural, spiritual, ideological, political, economic and military intrusion, guidance and dictatorial decision-making in total opposition with the indigenous nation's spiritual integrity, moral decency, cultural integrity, and national coherence.
Quite unfortunately, the very maleficent reality is that at the origin of every political-governmental-administrative establishment that is virtually unable to ceaselessly perform austere self-criticism and reassessment are hidden the immutable successors of a colonially imposed administration, which had caused terrible bloodshed because it was (at least initially) rejected. These colonial pawns that were dictatorially placed atop of the local government implemented colonial choices against local traditions, options and concepts at all levels: governmental, political, military, intellectual, academic, religious, spiritual, educational, artistic, cultural, behavioral and economic.
The colonial powers of England, France and America did not implement the same policies and did not seek to get the same results everywhere; from place to place, they tried to produce a fake, colonial, reality that suits the eschatological agendas of the different parts (Jesuit, Freemasonic, Zionist) of their establishment and backstage.
Here, they gathered 4-5 different nations and they tried to build a new state (this is called 'Afghanistan'); there, they tried to divide a united nation (which has merely linguistic particularities from place to place, as it happens everywhere) and they created a fake nation out of thin air (this is named 'Ukraine'). Every single detail of the colonial policies and practices hinges on eschatological details of the different agendas of the-powers-that-be.
What follows is my response to my friend's question about the veracity of Israeli scholars' findings and conclusions.
-----------------------------------------
Dear Hakan,
Hope you are fine!
When it comes to the modern state of Fake Israel, I can tell you very easily that, in reality, today's fake Muslims, due to their ignorance and stupidity, created that state. They contributed to its success only due to their darkness. I will only give you few examples of what these Muslims did not know.
II- Southern Canaan: an Egyptian Territory
The entire southern Canaan was part of Egypt for many centuries. Few people (even in Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan) know that most of today’s Lebanon, the southern confines of Syria, the western part of Jordan, and all the land of Palestine belonged to Egypt for several hundreds of years in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE.
Of course, these lands were not inhabited by Egyptians but Canaanites, i.e. Semitic populations who were the ancestors of the Phoenicians. However, they were heavily Egyptianized culturally and in every major city there was a good scribe specialized in Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Egyptians allowed local chieftains and small kings to stay in and rule place, and they collected annual tribute. But Egyptian army was patrolling there, pretty much like throughout North Sudan (i.e. Ancient Cush) for more than 1000 km south of Wadi Halfa alongside the Nile (up to Abu Hamed).
Asiatic and Cushitic territories were in reality colonial provinces. That is why it is correct to divide Ancient Egyptian History into Ancient Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and New Empire (1580-1080 BCE), because the 18th-20th dynasties constituted an imperial force.
In the northern confines of their Asiatic territories, the Egyptians were constantly clashing with the North Mesopotamian Mitanni kingdom of the Hurrians and with the Anatolian Hittites in order to maintain their presence in Southern Canaan.
The most famous of those battles was at Kadesh (Ancient Canaanite term from which originates the Arabic word Quds), which was located 25 km SW of Homs (Emessa). The battle of Kadesh (nearby the Orontes River-Asi Nehri; the same river that crosses Antioch/Antakya) is the earliest war to be documented from two different historical sources (Cuneiform Hittite and Egyptian hieroglyphics) and, although Ramses II (fighting at very old age) risked being encircled, the battle ended with no real outcome. The two emperors realized that they were in a status of military parity and expressed a certain degree of reciprocal respect; they then concluded the World History’s earliest saved treaty: the Treaty of Kadesh (between Hattushili III and Ramses II) — of which a copy is present in the premises of UN in New York.
III. Wrong Education & Ignorance of Historical Identity can destroy entire countries
All this and much more should be on all historical manuals of the schoolchildren of Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. Publishing houses should translate to Turkish, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, Kurmanji, Zazaki, and Sorani books written by foreign scholars about these topics.
These topics should also be extensively and repeatedly discussed in the press and the TV, while great historical films and many documentaries should have been shot on similar historical events too. For a Turk today, Hattushili III and the Battle of Kadesh are more important than Mehmet II's conquest of the tiny city-state of Constantinople in 1453. Any stupid guy, who disagrees with my statement, will lose his stupid country that he -provenly- does not deserve.
Unfortunately, the local, ignorant and uneducated masses of these countries destroy themselves and compromise (or even endanger) their future with their false religion (on which they so excessively but so erratically, so purposelessly and so mistakenly focus). This is so, because their so-called religion has nothing to do with the historical faith preached by prophet Muhammad, but consists in an evil and execrable political ideology that keeps all the masses idiotic enough for England, France, America, Canada, Australia, Israel, Belgium, New Zealand and Holland to use them as they want. Why is this so? Because their fake religion prevents a proper nation building!
All the ignorant and idiotic sheikhs of today’s fake Islam are the best tools of Israel, UK, US, France and the Western World in general. You will see that Israel will sooner or later will expand its borders — not for any other reason but because all these idiots, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Iraqis and others never became real nations able to duly evaluate their own History and extract the correct conclusions as regards their political decision-making. For the time being, only Russia prevents Israel from occupying all lands between Euphrates and Nile.
People, who do not know their History, will therefore be erased by the criminal Zionists, Jesuits and Freemasons. These evil gangsters, who controlled the real power of the Western countries, imposed on the colonized populations of the detached provinces of the Ottoman Empire the existing, fake religious and political leaderships in order to deliberately make these populations permanently unable to become proper nations and fight for their lands.
IV. National History, not Religion, makes today's Nations Strong
The only, who understood the reality and imposed the correct measures and the suitable educational programs, was Kemal Ataturk; for today’s Turks, the History of the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Urartu, the Phrygians, the Ionians, the Romans, the Eastern Romans, the Aramaeans. the Iranians, the Turkmen and the Mongols is more important than the life of prophet Muhammad, the early Caliphates, and the failed Ottoman family rulers.
National History, National Education, National Identity and National Integrity have nothing to do with religion, but have much to do with culture. That is why at the level of the correct educational curriculum, there must not be a course of Religion, but a course of History of Religion. Consequently, for the National History of the Turks today, the Hittite religion, the Attalid religion (as documented on so many monuments of Pergamum/Bergama), Iranian Mithraism (as revealed in Nemrut Dagh, the illustrious peak sanctuary and tumulus of Commagene, and elsewhere), Manichaeism and Nestorian / Monophysitic Christianity are more important than the early History of Islam, which did not occur on Anatolian soil.
Either you like it or not, it is like this or ….. you then have
- Greeks asking Smyrna, Ikonion, Constantinople and Trabzon,
- Armenians demanding NE Anatolia (by using the Armenian names of the different locations),
- Syrians saying that Hatay province belongs to Damascus, and
- Kurmanji aspiring to their own «state»!
The only possible response to the racism, the irredentism and the revisionism that are promoted by the so-called 'Megali Idea' of the fake Greek state is the full public demonstration of the fact that today's Turks reflect the historical continuity of all nations and civilizations that existed in Anatolia. But this must be shown. The historical documentation must be evident in various festivals, special feasts, public spectacles, historical manuals, documentaries, movies, books, the press, the TV channels and the political discourses of the politicians and the statesmen. In other words, Turks must appear as representing the full historical continuity of Anatolia, Istanbul and Thrace. The only possible opposition to the racist version of History, which is supported by fake states fabricated by the West, is History of Cultural and National Continuity.
In a society of nations, there cannot be religious education or religion in Education; there has to be History of Religions. Not a fake version of History of Religions as it happens in the corrupt states of European Union, UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where the manuals include chapters about Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions that are totally unrelated to those lands! On the contrary, a true and pertinent manual of History of Religions for Turkey's secondary education will have to include chapters for
a) Manichaeism, which -preached from Mesopotamia- became the first religion in the World History to have adepts from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
b) Nestorian Christianity, which -preached by Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople- was diffused by the Aramaean merchants of Northern Mesopotamia as far as India, Central Asia, China and Siberia, becoming an important religion among Mongols as well, and making cities like Nusaybin, Urhoy (Urfa), and Mardin known to the easternmost confines of Asia,
c) Tengrism, which was the traditional monotheistic religion of all Turanian nations in Eastern Siberia, and
d) all the religions of nations that developed civilizations on Anatolian soil.
If you don’t develop your National History in a way that reconfirms the continuity that you represent, you simply don’t stand on your territory. Others will demand it. And this is the scope of the foreign involvement (I mean that of the colonial powers); they attempt to revive ancient conditions, situations and kingdoms.
V. What means National History for today's Turks?
Today’s Turks are an amalgamation of several Anatolian nations from the Hittites down to the Eastern Romans, with a minor component of various Turkmen tribes (Seljuk, Dânişmendliler, Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu, Ottomans, etc.), who arrived and settled in Anatolia over the past 1000 years. At the times of Kemal Ataturk, true and correct National History was developed and imposed; then the Greeks did not have to demand anything anymore.
The ominous «Megali Idea» was abolished because of the rise of Kemal Ataturk.
Why?
Because it had a certain value only when opposite the stupid Ottomans!
Why were the Ottomans stupid?
Because they wanted to live in an era of modern nations without developing their National History (if they ever could)!
The idiots thought that their fake religion was enough!
That's why they became a most ridiculed and ultimately windswept kiosk!!
When stupid politicians started coloring Turkey's cultural heritage as markedly Turkic / Turanian, the Greeks (guided by the French and other Westerners) started saying: «let's go back to Central Asia» or «prophecies announced our return to 'our' Constantinople»! They are technically right, although they were saying evident lies, because the stupid Pan-Turanians of Alparslan Türkeş are the mere fabrication of the English secret services.
Who is Alparslan Türkeş?
A Cypriot!
This means automatically «an agent of the English, who was sent to Turkey in order to destroy the state of Kemal Ataturk».
Türkeş’ stupid face is that of a Mediterranean; same for Bahçeli; if he walks in the streets of Ashgabat, Almaty or Bishkek they will take him for a European, a Pole or a Czech!!
And as you know, Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism were strictly prohibited in Turkey at the time of Kemal Ataturk.
Why?
Because they are a form of Trotskyism and false internationalism!
Why do I say that the Greeks, willing to return to Constantinople, are technically right, although they were saying evident lies?
This is so for the following reasons; a monument is a dead item. It becomes alive in the hearts and the minds of people, who are conscious of their association with this monument, feel what it represents to them as cultural heritage, and have a proper perception of the monument's value.
If for Turks Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia) Museum is more related to Mehmet II (1432-1481; reigned from 1444 to 1446 and from 1451 to 1481) than to Justinian I (482-565; reigned after 527), this means that they do not want to represent the Eastern Roman element or component of their identity. So, the Greeks are technically right, when saying that they feel attached to the value of the monument as a church. This situation generates apparently a clash (with one country reflecting one cultural-historical component of the monument, and the other expressing another component) that the Western powers will do their ingenious best to exploit.
The statu quo ante (when Ayasofya was exclusively a Museum) was a well-thought and balanced situation; it explicitly represented Modern Turkish equidistant stance towards the Eastern Roman and the Ottoman past (and cultural components of the monument); the only possible correct step beyond Kemal Ataturk's wise decision would be to open the monument to both cults of parity basis; 60 days (1/6 of the year) for each cult would be a realistic and well-considered approach. It would also reflect the historical reality as per which the ancestors of many of today's Turks were Eastern Roman Orthodox at the time of the conquest of Constantinople (1453).
What are the evident lies that the Greeks say?
This is simple to answer. In reality, they are very hypocritical about their claims on Hagia Sophia and Constantinople; this is so because of the lawless laws that they passed in order to be in harmony with those of the evil European Parliament and the biased pro-homosexual, pro-fornication and pro-Sodomy policies that the corrupt Western countries pursue.
You cannot evoke the last Eastern Roman king when you disreputably, criminally and inhumanly accept homosexual marriages; homosexuals and lesbians have no right to speak about Christian churches because by so doing, they desecrate them.
VI. Between Turkey and Greece, there can only be a Clash between Two Opposite Historical Models.
There cannot be opposition of the type «Islam vs. Christianity» or «Islam vs. West» in the clash between Turkey and Greece. This is what the Western colonial countries attempt to achieve via their local stooges; but it will be mutually calamitous. The only possible clash has to be that between two opposite historical models. This demands from the Turks a high level of national historical consciousness in order to demolish the bogus-historical dogma of the modern fake Greek state.
The only chance for any modern state to constitute a real modern nation is to consolidate its National History, National Education, National Identity and National Integrity; Turks do not need stupid and fake movies about the Ottoman family. They need movies about the Hittites, their enemy Troy, and their allies, i.e. the Achaeans of Mycenae. They need movies about the Attalids; they need movies about the Ionians of Smyrna who were very different from the Dorians of Sparta. They need movies about the kings of Pontus who were entirely Iranian Mithraic of culture. They need movies about the wars between the Eastern Romans and the Sassanid Iranians. They need movies about the Eastern Roman religious movements of Iconoclasm and Paulicianism.
The most important point in all the above is this: in these proposed movies that have to be released by Turkish Cinematography, the various Greek positions about these topics must be opposed and rejected. In all these proposed projects, the truth must be emphatically supported and propagated, and the lies of the Greek education, books, press, mass media, and documentary movies rejected.
In other words, the true opposition between today’s Turkey and today’s Greece cannot be a silly polarization of the type «Ottoman Empire» vs. «Eastern Roman Empire». It has to take another form; when releasing a documentary, writing a book, including a chapter in the manuals or arranging a seminar and an open lecture about the «Eastern Roman Empire» (for which today’s Greeks blindly support Iconolatry and Iconodulism), the Turkish authors, speakers, intellectuals or film directors must defend (in the manuals of National History, in the press and the mass media, in the publishing houses, and in the documentary movies) Iconoclasm and Iconomachy.
In Greece where there is no freedom to establish private universities, the various pseudo-professors of the state universities, the racist bogus-journalists, and the clownish diplomats, who are indoctrinated with the state’s fake historical dogma, say thousands of lies about Ancient Ionians, Aeolians, Asia Minor, Troy, Pontus, Cappadocia, and the Eastern Roman Empire.
Either Turkey will oppose all this filthy material point by point or Ankara will play stupidly the game of the French and the English with Erdogan’s silly Political Islam and then the country will be destroyed, because this is the existing English-French-American plan. Turkey will then look like another Palestine or Afghanistan.
This is the supreme reality in today’s world:
- if you don’t fully and comprehensively express the historical past and the cultural heritage of your land in the National History manuals of your high schools, others do not accept that your lands belong to you. This is common for all: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Yemen, etc.
VII. Muslim Countries without National History will disappear in the Forthcoming Reconquista
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Egypt the school children should study Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Coptic.
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan the school children should study Phoenician, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hurrian, Aramaic and Syriac (Suryani).
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Iraq the school children should study Assyrian-Babylonian and Sumerian.
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Turkey the school children should study Hittite, Assyrian-Babylonian, Ancient Greek and Latin.
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Iran the school children should study Old Achaemenid Cuneiform and Middle Persian (of the Sassanid times).
What you fail to understand that what is being undertaken by the Western colonial countries and the forces behind them (in addition to several other projects) consists in reality in another Reconquista.
What happened in 15th c. Spain (when the Catholic forces eradicated the local Muslim states), what took place in 16th c. Russia and Siberia (when the Orthodox forces gradually eliminated the local Muslim states), and what occurred in 19th c. Balkans (when the colonially fabricated fake states of Greece, Montenegro, Serbia and Romania terminated the Ottoman presence there) is now being attempted in several fronts from Morocco to Indonesia.
VIII. Religion does not liberate Nations! National History and Identity do!
In fact, all the fake professors of universities, fake sheikhs, fake politicians, fake journalists and even fake film directors in all the aforementioned countries worked in order to generate the Greater Israel, and when it will become a reality, all the people will stupidly ask «oh! How did it happen?»
I am not a fake historian, who got a position by saying «yes» to silly politicians, to trashy sheikhs and to fake (: crypto-homosexual) priests, who have been put in place by the English, the French and the Americans in order to destroy their own country.
I am a historian who learned and said always the truth.
You will soon see the terrible disaster that these ignorant, idiotic and cursed sheikhs of Hamas and Hezbollah, of Al Azhar and Medina proved to be able to bring on their peoples!
When did I come to know about it? In 2004! At the time, I was working in Cairo, but wanted to find a position in a university in another country. So, I checked online, found Birzeit University in Ramallah (later I understood that it was a CIA nest), noticed that they did not have a proper National History of the Palestinian Nation (from the Peleset of Crete and the Aegean to the Philistines to the Aramaization of the Roman times), and I wrote to them an email, attaching a long proposal and my curriculum.
After all, what is a nation without National History? A non-entity gone with the wind!
Result? No response! It was a very useful and rewarding experience for me! I then realized that all these fake professors of Palestinian (and other) universities are in fact on the payroll of the English and the American secret services (or merely depend on those who are), and they will consequently die like dogs before finally going to the bottom of the Hell where a position has been reserved for them.
This is the only truth: Israel was in reality created by all the stupid, uneducated and ignorant leaders of surrounding nations and by equally ignorant tribal chieftains of the Palestinians who did not know how to properly act and pertinently react.
All these stupid people did not have National History (: did not know their own National History) in order to effectively oppose and reject the lies of the Khazarians who were never Jewish but played a theater that not one Muslim mufti, qadi or sheikh was able to ever detect — let alone denounce and decry, proving the Khazarians’ claims on Palestine as entirely and definitely false.
Now, all the wars, which will soon explode, will be useful only to the various plans and agendas of the Zionist Khazarians, the Fake Freemasons of England, the other Fake Freemasons of France and America, and the Jesuits of Vatican.
Real faith has nothing to do with prayer or fasting; these are optional tools to consolidate the faith. Faith means -above all- pertinent use of every person’s intellect. This is God’s greatest present to Man.
Men have to use their intellect or they will face the consequences!
Best regards,
Shamsaddin
Το Πλοίο του Σουλεϋμάν – Εισαγωγή
Stohastis Publishing House, 1993
The Ship of Suleyman – Safinah-i Sulaymani / سفینه سلیمانی Introduction of the Greek edition of The Ship of Suleyman / Book review:
https://www.academia.edu/23396049/Safina_i_Sulaymani_Shah_Sulaymans_diplomatic_missions_deeds_in_Thailand_edition_M_S_Megalommatis Αυτό το κείμενο αποτελεί την Εισαγωγή της νεοελληνικής έκδοσης του συγγραφέντος από τον Ιμπν Μουχάμαντ Ιμπραήμ κειμένου – αναφοράς για τα πεπραγμένα της αποστολής στην οποία αυτός είχε συμμετάσχει. Ο Μουχάμαντ Ράμπια Ιμπν Μουχάμαντ Ιμπραήμ (محمد ربیع بن محمد ابراهیم/Muhammad Rabi` ibn Muhammad Ibrahim) ήταν ο επίσημος σαφεβιδικός γραφέας της αυτοκρατορικής αποστολ΄ής στο Σιάμ (Ταϋλάνδη). Υπέβαλε την αναφορά του αυτή στον Σάχη Σουλεϋμάν και ακριβώς γι’ αυτό ο τίτλος κάνει λόγο για το Πλοίο του Σουλεϋμάν. Ο Σάχης Σουλευμάν βασίλευσε από το 1668 έως το 1694. Η αποστολή στο Σιάμ ανεχώρησε την 27η Ιουνίου 1685 από το Μπαντάρ Αμπάς (ένα από τα λιμάνια του Ι΄ράν στον Περσικό Κόλπο) και επέστρεψε την 14η Μαΐου 1988. Η μετάφραση έγινε από την αγγλική έκδοση του John O’Kane, The ship of Sulaiman [by ibn Muhammad Ibrahim], London, Routledge & K. Paul [1972]. Η νεοελληνική έκδοση ακολουθεί την αγγλική στην διάρθρωση του κειμένου σε εισαγωγή, τέσσερα κεφάλαια (‘μαργαριτάρια’) και επιμύθιο. Είναι αναλυτικά σχολιασμένη και επεξηγημένη από τον μεταφραστή. Κυκλοφόρησε ως βιβλίο στις εκδόσεις Στοχαστής το 1993 (368 σελίδες). Το χειρόγραφο βρίσκεται στο Βρεταννικό Μουσείο. Περισσότερα για την αγγλική έκδοση: https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/496059 Σχετικά με το θέμα (σε φαρσί): https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/سفینه_سلیمانی_(کتاب)
Εδώ μπορείτε να κατεβάσετε μία από τις ιρανικές εκδόσεις (σε φαρσί): asmaneketab.ir/product/کتاب-سفینه-سلیمانی-محمدربیع-بن-محمداب/ Εκδόσεις Στοχαστής, Αθήνα 1993 - Stohastis Publishing House, Athens 1993
Neynava: a Contemporary Music Accompaniment or the Diachronic Echo of the Orient?
Нейнава: современное музыкальное сопровождение или диахроническое эхо Востока?
(чтобы прочитать русскоязычную версию, листайте вниз!)
107 Pictures in Album / 107 Фотографии в альбоме: https://vk.com/album429864789_285631354
Music / Музыка:
Back in the middle 1980s, Hossein Ali Zadeh's Neynava was, first and foremost, my constant music accompaniment from Nineveh, Assyria, Kalhu (Nimrud), Arbil and Kirkuk to Cizre, Hakkari, Van, Urmia, Tekab, Hamadan and Kermanshah, throughout all the valleys of the Anti-Taurus and Zagros.
In summer, spring, winter and autumn, in Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey or Western Iran, when I entered a bus, a minibus or a taxi, after resuming my seat, I always put the cassette in my tape recorder (Sony Walkman) and started playing the music. I saw interminable landscapes, traveling on the Neynava sound waves.
The years passed, the techniques changed, the exercises became more difficult, the explorations went back and forth, and the speed became comparable to the tempo of Ferdowsi's narratives. My inclination to these transcendental Russian Mountains, the constant roller coaster of my life, took me to different places in variable times.
Moving from Sargon of Akkad to Tamerlane, exploring the tellurian matter, discovering the aquatic undulations, and traveling on the aerial trajectories, I arrived in the Invisible Palace of Nezami Ganjavi.
And when the mysterious "Seven" became the ostensible "Eight", instead of me traveling, the various places and the diverse times came to visit me. Only then I discovered the radiation of the Tears of the Man, the vibration of the Blood of God, the blessings of Ludlul Bel Nemeqi, and the Truth of the Hidden Quran.
- Was I a soldier in the Battle?
- Where are the Mountains of the Ultimate Limit?
- What makes the inexorable strength of the Soft Waters?
- How long can an Army endure when crossing the sand of the desert, which is the Entrance to the Netherworld?
- Whom does the Sperm of God heal?
- Is the Fight of the Man always meant to entertain the Soul of a Mountain and the Heart of a River?
- Are all these inimical reflections truly real beings or did we all create them because of our fears?
- Will the 600 Anunnaki rise at last to greet us in a sign of approbation?
After I stayed long at the very bottom of the cylinders of these hitherto unanswered questions, I decided to rise and come back to my daily occupations. Through the myriad of corridors, across the innumerable pathways of atemporal existence, thanks to the absolute control of ethereal particles and to the balance of electromagnetic vibrations, when the velocity becomes infinite and the oscillation none, by means of spiritual anxiety, pulmonary benediction, mental supplication, cordial empathy and intestinal nihility, I crossed the nonexistent space of time and appeared at the peak of a mountain.
The Ardalani shepherd who was in the near slopes had two dogs, one male and one female. The male dog started to rub against my right leg, and the female against my left leg. The shepherd asked me how many years we were left with and I said how many millennia had passed.
The affinity of numbers is a joyful experience. Delighted because of our mutual nutritional abstinence, vitalized due to our reciprocal celibacy, electrified thanks to our mental chastity, empty of thoughts, free of desires, and clear of feelings, we embraced one another, heart on heart, as it happened since the times of Sargon of Akkad, paid tribute to one another, and returned to our respective times.
The number of affinities is a distressing experience. And the sole solace for me now is my Ardalani friend whom I so unexpectedly encountered and from whom I so much learned. I feel that you may perhaps wish to ask me why, willing to come back to my daily occupations, I inadvertently met the Ardalani shepherd. I thought you knew; sometimes, I make mistakes.
An echo was coming from the four corners of the Universe; it was an incredible resonance within the cylinders of these hitherto unanswered questions. The myriad of corridors only reinforced this echo; the innumerable pathways made it impossible for me to escape the enchanting echo. Then, when the velocity becomes finite and the oscillation begins, first the cordial empathy is held captive. With your feelings captive, you stop at an earlier moment. There I met the Ardalani shepherd.
He was not Ardalani or, if you prefer, he was as Ardalani as I am. We both had simply stopped at the time of the Ardalan Khan Helo. Enchanted by the same echo, we both made a mistake. The Ardalani shepherd was returning to his time, which has not yet come. To reach the antediluvian times that he wanted to explore he came out of the Sea of Glass. We spoke about our experience and he asked me whether I know the sublime echo. I replied positively; I knew the echo only too well. It was Neynava, my constant music accompaniment.
The Ardalani shepherd found it blissful and as ecstatic as every ascetic sound is. That's why finally my mistake was beneficial. Thanks to my sentimental ineptitude, I came to learn so much about the shepherds of the future, namely an epoch which is very close to us. In this forthcoming epoch, the Earth will be different, free of cities and villages, empty of buildings, and clean of things. The turquoise color of the sky will be due to the total absence of sea and salt waters. The few worthwhile men and women, who will survive, will not eat anything and will not copulate. It will be a free world with no thoughts, no feelings, and no desires; that's why there will be no wars, no killings, and no sicknesses.
Immaculate conception will be the majestic manner by which the life of forthcoming generations will be starting, and luminescent birth will the royal manner by which the activity of forthcoming generations will be beginning on the surface of the Earth, where there will be no more deserts.
My Ardalani friend travels always with his sheep and the two dogs; in his perfect, imperial world, all people are nomads. Their vestibular abilities are superior; their tactile functions are as subtle as the underlying force of Ether demands; their auditory duties are as harmonious as the Crystal Firmament; and their olfactory purposes are as angelic as the Frankincense of Punt-Somalia. Their formidable visual capabilities, as consequence of their luminescent birth, are unfathomable as they are able to turn their eyes into a Lighthouse of their bodies. And their Light is not darkness, as it happens in our ending times.
And despite the incessant echo of Neynava, I still remember the last reassuring and comforting words of my Ardalani friend. In the critical years of upheaval, when all the rulers of today's world and most of the worthless populations will perish in eternal fire, during the 1335 days of the darkness, two unexpected, divine presents will be offered to the worthwhile, moral and ascetic survivors:
- the invisible conduit -within which the Sun sails for all- will not be affected but perfectly protected, and
- the Moon will be the only luminary to shed ample light on a limited part of the Earth from where Life will restart. This will be the location where Gishgida, the Tree of Life, will appear among the Chosen People whom the Savior will drive back to their land.
East of Tigris River and around the Tree of Life a Luminous Cylinder will be the Sign of God's Everlasting Love - to the very few and most worthwhile ones.
These were the benefits of my attunement with Neynava.
----------------------------------------------
Нейнава: современное музыкальное сопровождение или диахроническое эхо Востока?
Еще в середине 1980-х Нейнава Хоссейна Али Заде была, прежде всего, моим постоянным музыкальным сопровождением от Ниневии, Ассирии, Калху (Нимруд), Арбиля и Киркука до Джизре, Хаккари, Вана, Урмии, Текаб, Хамадана и Керманшаха на протяжении всего долины Анти-Тавра и Загроса.
Летом, весной, зимой и осенью, в Северном Ираке, Восточной Турции или Западном Иране, когда я садился в автобус, микроавтобус или такси, после того, как занял свое место, я всегда вставлял кассету в свой магнитофон (Sony Walkman) и начал играть музыку. Я видел бесконечные пейзажи, путешествуя по звуковым волнам Нейнавы.
Шли годы, менялись техники, упражнения усложнялись, исследования шли вперед и назад, а скорость становилась сравнимой с темпом повествований Фирдоуси. Моя тяга к этим заоблачным русским горам, постоянным американским горкам моей жизни, приводила меня в разные места в разное время.
Двигаясь от Саргона Аккадского к Тамерлану, исследуя теллурическую материю, открывая водные волны и путешествуя по воздушным траекториям, я прибыл в Незримый Дворец Незами Гянджеви.
И когда таинственная «Семерка» стала мнимой «Восьмеркой», вместо меня в путешествии ко мне стали приходить разные места и переменные времена. Только тогда я обнаружил излучение Слез Человека, вибрацию Крови Бога, благословения Лудлул Бел Немеки и Истину Сокровенного Корана.
- Был ли я солдатом в битве?
- Где Горы Предельного Предела?
- В чем неумолимая сила Мягких Вод?
- Как долго может продержаться Армия, пересекая песок пустыни, являющейся Входом в Преисподнюю?
- Кого исцеляет Сперма Бога?
- Всегда ли Борьба Человека предназначена для того, чтобы развлечь Душу Горы и Сердце Реки?
- Действительно ли все эти враждебные отражения являются реальными существами или мы все создали их из-за наших страхов?
- Поднимутся ли, наконец, 600 аннунаков, чтобы поприветствовать нас в знак одобрения?
После того, как я долго пробыл на самом дне цилиндров этих до сих пор остававшихся без ответа вопросов, я решил встать и вернуться к своим повседневным занятиям. Мириадами коридоров, бесчисленными путями вневременного существования, благодаря абсолютному контролю над эфирными частицами и равновесию электромагнитных вибраций, когда скорость становится бесконечной, а колебание нет, посредством духовного беспокойства, легочного благословения, ментального мольбой, сердечным сочувствием и внутренним ничтожеством я пересек несуществующее пространство времени и оказался на вершине горы.
У пастуха Ардалани, который был на близлежащих склонах, было две собаки, самец и самка. Кобель начал тереться о мою правую ногу, а самка — о левую. Пастух спросил меня, сколько лет нам осталось, и я сказал, сколько тысячелетий прошло.
Близость чисел – это радостное переживание. Обрадованные нашим взаимным воздержанием от пищи, оживлённые нашим взаимным безбрачием, наэлектризованные благодаря нашему душевному целомудрию, пустые от мыслей, свободные от желаний и ясные от чувств, мы обнялись сердцем к сердцу, как это бывало издревле. Саргона Аккадского, отдали дань уважения друг другу и вернулись в наше время.
Количество сродств — удручающий опыт. И единственным утешением для меня теперь является мой друг Ардалани, с которым я так неожиданно столкнулся и от которого так многому научился. Я чувствую, что вы, возможно, захотите спросить меня, почему, желая вернуться к своим повседневным занятиям, я случайно встретил ардаланского пастуха. Я думал, вы знали; иногда я ошибаюсь.
Эхо шло из четырех уголков Вселенной; это был невероятный резонанс в цилиндрах этих до сих пор остававшихся без ответа вопросов. Мириада коридоров только усиливала это эхо; бесчисленные пути сделали невозможным для меня избежать чарующего эха. Затем, когда скорость становится конечной и начинается колебание, сначала пленяется сердечное сопереживание. Когда ваши чувства находятся в плену, вы останавливаетесь в более ранний момент. Там я встретил ардаланского пастуха.
Он не был Ардалани, или, если хотите, он был таким же Ардалани, как я.
Мы оба просто остановились во время Ардаланского хана Хело. Очарованные одним и тем же эхом, мы оба совершили ошибку. Пастух Арделани возвращался в свое время, которое еще не пришло. Чтобы достичь допотопных времен, которые он хотел исследовать, он вышел из Стеклянного Моря. Мы говорили о нашем опыте, и он спросил меня, знаю ли я возвышенное эхо. я ответил положительно; Я слишком хорошо знал эхо. Это была Нейнава, мое постоянное музыкальное сопровождение.
Пастух Ардалани находил его блаженным и таким же восторженным, как и каждый аскетический звук. Вот почему, наконец, моя ошибка пошла на пользу. Благодаря моей сентиментальной неумелости я так много узнал о пастухах будущего, именно об очень близкой нам эпохе. В эту грядущую эпоху Земля будет другой, свободной от городов и деревень, пустой от зданий и чистой от вещей. Бирюзовый цвет неба будет обусловлен полным отсутствием морской и соленой воды. Те немногие достойные мужчины и женщины, которые выживут, ничего не будут есть и не будут совокупляться. Это будет свободный мир без мыслей, без чувств и без желаний; поэтому не будет ни войн, ни убийств, ни болезней.
Непорочное зачатие будет величественным образом, которым будет начинаться жизнь грядущих поколений, а светоносное рождение будет царским образом, которым начнется деятельность грядущих поколений на поверхности Земли, где не будет больше пустынь.
Мой друг Ардалани всегда путешествует со своими овцами и двумя собаками; в его совершенном имперском мире все люди — кочевники. Их вестибулярные способности превосходны, их тактильные функции столь же тонки, как и основная сила эфира; их слуховые обязанности так же гармоничны, как Хрустальный Небесный свод; и их обонятельные цели столь же ангельские, как ладан Пунт-Сомали. Их огромные визуальные способности, как следствие их светящегося рождения, непостижимы, поскольку они способны превратить свои глаза в Маяк своих тел. И их Свет не тьма, как это бывает в наши последние времена.
И несмотря на непрекращающееся эхо Нейнавы, я до сих пор помню последние ободряющие и утешительные слова моего ардаланского друга. В критические годы потрясений, когда все правители сегодняшнего мира и большая часть никчемного населения погибнут в вечном огне, в течение 1335 дней мрака, два неожиданных божественных подарка будут предложены достойным, нравственным и аскетически уцелевшим:
- невидимый канал, по которому плывет Солнце для всех, не будет затронут, но полностью защищен, и
- Луна будет единственным светилом, проливающим достаточно света на ограниченную часть Земли, откуда возобновится Жизнь. Это будет место, где Гишгида, Древо Жизни, появится среди Избранного Народа, которого Спаситель вернет на свою землю.
К востоку от реки Тигр и вокруг Древа Жизни Светящийся Цилиндр будет Знаком Вечной Любви Бога - для очень немногих и самых достойных.
Таковы были преимущества моей настройки на Нейнаву.
Το Μιθραίο της Δούρας Ευρωπού: όπου Αραμαίοι, Έλληνες και Ρωμαίοι αποδέχθηκαν Μια Ιρανική Θρησκεία
The Mithraeum of Dura Europos: where Aramaeans, Greeks and Romans accepted an Iranian Religion
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 26η Νοεμβρίου 2019. Αποτελεί συνέχεια των προηγουμένων κειμένων του τα οποία έχουν ήδη αναδημοσιευθεί εδώ:
"Δούρα Ευρωπός, το Τέλειο Πρότυπο Πολυπολιτισμικότητας: Αραμαίοι, Έλληνες, Πάρθες, Ρωμαίοι και Πέρσες σε Μοναδικό Θρησκευτικό Συγκρητισμό δίπλα στον Ευφράτη" https://www.academia.edu/66009699/Έλληνες_Πάρθες_Ρωμαίοι_και_Πέρσες_σε_Μοναδικό_Θρησκευτικό_Συγκρητισμό_δίπλα_στον_Ευφράτη
και
"Δούρα Ευρωπός, οι Ιουδαίοι Αραμαίοι, η Συναγωγή και η Νεώτερη Ψευτοϊστορία των Σιωνιστών"
https://www.academia.edu/66138539/Δούρα_Ευρωπός_οι_Ιουδαίοι_Αραμαίοι_η_Συναγωγή_και_η_Νεώτερη_Ψευτοϊστορία_των_Σιωνιστών
--------------------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/11/26/το-μιθραίο-της-δούρας-ευρωπού-όπου-αρα/ ==================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Παιδιά ενός κατώτερου θεού και πολιτισμικά ασυγκρίτως κατώτεροι, οι απόγονοι των Ελλήνων και των Μακεδόνων των σελευκιδικών χρόνων, μαζί με τους ντόπιους Αραμαίους της Κεντρικής Μεσοποταμίας, και τους Ρωμαίους των αυτοκρατορικών χρόνων παράτησαν τους θεούς τους και λάτρευσαν τον Μίθρα, αφού ο μιθραϊσμός είχε ήδη κατακλύσει την Συρο-Παλαιστίνη, την Αρμενία, την Κομμαγηνή, τον Πόντο, την Καππαδοκία, την Μικρά Ασία, την Ελλάδα, την Ρώμη και όλη την Ευρώπη. Μαζί τους συλλειτουργούσαν Πάρθες και άλλοι Ιρανοί.
Μιθραϊστές ιερείς (: Μάγοι) ιερουργούν στον Ναό του Μπάαλ της Δούρας Ευρωπού όπως επήλθε αρχικά η ταύτιση του αραμαϊκού Μπάαλ με τον ιρανικό Μίθρα
Πολύ πριν αναγραφούν οι πρώτες από τις σωζόμενες επιγραφές και πολύ πριν φιλοτεχνηθούν τα πρώτα από τα σωζόμενα ανάγλυφα, αγάλματα και τοιχογραφίες του Μιθραίου της Δούρας Ευρωπού, Έλληνες μιθραϊστές πειρατές του 1ου προχριστιανικού αιώνα είχαν επιβάλλει τα Μυστήρια του Τριπλάσιου (: Τριαδικού) Μίθρα σε όλη την Ελλάδα, βεβηλώνοντας κι ακυρώνοντας την ιερότητα όλων των σημαντικών αρχαίων ελληνικών ιερών.
Ελληνικής καταγωγής βασιλείς του Πόντου και της Κομμαφηνής στον άνω ρου του Ευφράτη είχαν ήδη εδώ και αιώνες στεφθεί ως Ασιάτες πιστοί εν Μίθρα (: Μιθριδάτης) ηγεμόνες. Έτσι, κι οι Έλληνες της Συρίας, όπως λεγόταν παλιότερα η απέραντη σελευκιδική αυτοκρατορία που το δυτικό τμήμα της προσαρτήθηκε στην Ρώμη και το ανατολικό ενσωματώθηκε στο αρσακιδικό Ιράν, παράτησαν τον Δία και τον Απόλλωνα και γονάτισαν προ του Υπέρτατου Μίθρα.
Δεν το έκαναν τυχαία: είχαν δει την συντριπτική υπεροχή των Μάγων του Μίθρα οι οποίοι ως απόλυτοι πανεπιστήμονες εκείνων των χρόνων, τέτοιοι που δεν υπήρξαν ποτέ στην Αρχαία Ελλάδα, θεουργούσαν αποδεικνύοντας όλες τις δυνατότητες συνέργειας ψυχής και σώματος και στα τρία επίπεδα της ψυχικής ύπαρξης. Τέτοια ‘θαύματα’ μόνον Ιρανοί έκαναν στα χρόνια της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας.
Σχετικά:
Ταυροθυσίες και Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια στην Κορυφή του Ολύμπου – Η Απόλυτη Επιβολή του Περσικού Πνεύματος ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες & το Τέλος της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/06/ταυροθυσίες-και-μιθραϊκά-μυστήρια-στ/
(αναδημοσιευμένο εδώ: https://www.academia.edu/62212919/Ταυροθυσίες_και_Μιθραϊκά_Μυστήρια_στην_Κορυφή_του_Ολύμπου_Η_Απόλυτη_Επιβολή_του_Περσικού_Πνεύματος_ανάμεσα_στους_Έλληνες_and_το_Τέλος_της_Αρχαίας_Ελλάδας)
Μίθρας, Μιθραϊσμός & Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια: Όλα τα Αρχαία Ελληνικά και Λατινικά Κείμενα που αναφέρονται στον Μίθρα και τους Μιθραϊστές
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/μίθρας-μιθραϊσμός-μιθραϊκά-μυστήρι/
(αναδημοσιευμένο εδώ: https://www.academia.edu/62259348/Μίθρας_Μιθραϊσμός_and_Μιθραϊκά_Μυστήρια_Όλα_τα_Αρχαία_Ελληνικά_και_Λατινικά_Κείμενα_που_αναφέρονται_στον_Μίθρα_και_τους_Μιθραϊστές)
Η Απόλυτη Κυριαρχία των Μιθραϊστών Πειρατών στο Αιγαίο, την Ελλάδα και τον Θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο στον 1ο Αιώνα π.Χ. – Τι λέει ο Πλούταρχος
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/η-απόλυτη-κυριαρχία-των-μιθραϊστών-πε/
(αναδημοσιευμένο εδώ: https://www.academia.edu/62228155/Η_Απόλυτη_Κυριαρχία_των_Μιθραϊστών_Πειρατών_στο_Αιγαίο_την_Ελλάδα_και_τον_Θεσσαλικό_Όλυμπο_στον_1ο_Αιώνα_π_Χ_Τι_λέει_ο_Πλούταρχος)
Ο Σέλευκος Νικάτωρ ανήγειρε την Δούρα Ευρωπό ως μεγάλη στρατιωτική βάση και εμπορείο – καραβανούπολη πάνω στον δρόμο που οδηγούσε από την Αντιόχεια προς την Σελεύκεια. Όμως τελικά τα θρησκευτικά μνημεία που σώθηκαν στην τεράστια πολιτεία πάνω στον μέσο ρου του Ευφράτη, στα ανατολικά άκρα της σημερινής Συρίας, επεσκίασαν και την εμπορική – οικονομική σημασία της και την στρατιωτική χρησιμότητά της.
Ο Μιθραϊσμός ήταν η επίσημη θρησκεία (ως Sol Invictus) της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας πριν την άνοδο της Χριστιανωσύνης. Οι ομοιότητες ανάμεσα στην Επίσημη Χριστιανωσύνη και τον Μιθραϊσμό είναι πολλές και δεν είναι συμπτωματικές. Όμως αυτό δεν αποτελεί τίποτα το περίεργο. Πατέρες της Χριστιανικής Εκκλησίας έχουν αναφερθεί στο θέμα ήδη πριν από 1600=1700 χρόνια!
Αλλά η λειτουργικότητα ενός δογματικού στοιχείου κρίνεται από την ηθική των πιστών. Μπορεί και ο Μίθρας και ο Ιησούς να γεννιούνται κατά την επίσημη εκδοχή των δύο δογμάτων στις 25 Δεκεμβρίου, μπορεί αμφότεροι να θυσιάζονται, μπορεί αμφότεροι να αναλαμβάνονται, μπορεί να έχουν αμφότεροι ένα Μυστικό Δείπνο, μπορεί και οι δύο να προέρχονται από Άμωμη Σύλληψη, μπορεί και οι δύο να κάνουν θαύματα, μπορεί και οι δύο να είναι μέλη ενός Τριπλάσιου ή Τριαδικού Θεού, αλλά η αληθινή διάσταση μιας θρησκείας είναι πολύ πίσω, πολύ πέρα, και πολύ πάνω από αυτές τις ομοιότητες. Η στροφή των πιστών προς την Ηθική ή την Ανηθικότητα κρίνει τον ρόλο μιας θρησκείας.
Δεν υπάρχουν οι άνθρωποι για το Δόγμα αλλά το δόγμα για τους Ανθρώπους.
Και αν ακόμη πιστεύοντας δυο πανομοιότυπες θρησκείες οι μεν στρέφονται προς το Φως της Ηθικής και οι δε οδηγούνται στο Σκότος της Ανηθικότητας, οι ομοιότητες αποδεικνύονται επιφανειακές. Στο θέμα του Μιθραϊσμού, του δόγματός του, των μυστηρίων του, και της καταλυτικής παρουσίας του στην Ευρώπη θα επανέλθω. Στην συνέχεια αναδημοσιεύω άρθρα σχετικά με το Μιθραίο της Δούρας Ευρωπού το οποίο δεν είναι μόνον ένα κορυφαίο μνημείο της παγκόσμιας πολιτισμικής κληρονομιάς. Είναι επίσης η αφετηρία μιας νέας ερμηνευτικής προσέγγισης εντός του Ορεινταλισμού και της Ιστορίας των Θρησκειών. Άλλωστε, οι δυο πρώτοι ανασκαφείς ήταν κορυφαία πρόσωπα της επιστήμης του 20ου αιώνα: Franz Cumont και Michael I. Rostovtzeff.
Franz Cumont (αριστερά) και Michael I. Rostovtzeff (δεξιά) στην ανασκαφή του Μιθραίου της Δούρας Ευρωπού
———————————————————-
Διαβάστε:
Dura Europos
In February 1934 a Mithraeum was discovered on the N.W. side inside the rampart of Dura-Europos (Es-Sâlihiyeh) between gate 24 and 23. After the excavations it was transported to New Haven, Gallery of Fine Arts of Yale University.
Rostovtzeff in RM 49,1934, 180ff; cf. BCR 1934 (Not.) 121f; AJA XXXIX 1935, 4f; 147; 259f and 293ff; Mouterde in MUSJ XIX, 1935, 123f; Dussaud in Syria XVI, 1935, 313ff; Cumont in CRAI 1934, 90ff; Hopkins in ILN 8 Dec. 1934, 963ff; du Mesnil du Buisson in GBA 1935, 1ff; CRAI 1935, 275ff; Watzinger in die Welt als Geschichte II, 1936, 397ff; Rostovtzeff e.o. Report, 62ff; cf. P. Koschaker in OLZ 1941, 271ff; Merlin in JS 1940, 36ff. Professor C. B. Welles informs me of the fact, that a final report is in preparation. We have drawn our description from the preliminary report. See fig. 7.
We are highly indebted to Prof. C. B. Welles and Miss Ann Perkins for sending us photographs of the finds.
General plan and history of the Mithraeum.
Rostovtzeff in RM 1934, 180ff and fig. 1; D-E, Pl. II and fig. 6; CRAI 1934, 91ff; GBA 1935, 6ff and fig. 2; Report, 62ff and figs. 29-35, Pls. I and III, 1, from which our, figs. 8-9.
“When the Mithraeum was founded in about 168 A.D. (see inscr. No. 39) it consisted of three apartments (see plans 8, 9). Room A (L. 4.65 Br. 5.80), the Mithras shrine, was entered by an axial door through a partition separating it from a central chamberB (L. 5.75 Br. 3.50), originally a house diwan, that opened into a courtyard D to the south, and a small chamber C. (L. 3.50 Br. 3.50) to the east”.
A was divided into three parts: a paved passage with on either side the benches band c (H. 0.72 Br. 1.70), in which the columns 1 and 2 had been built to support the ceiling, which was approximately 1.65 high over their benches, but about 1.60 higher over the central aisle.
Via the stairs d a rectangular, raised platform a (H. 0.88), in which a round well 9 (diam. 0;32). In front of a stood the main altar with two smaller side-altars, whereas against the backwall two reliefs had been fixed (see infra).
About 210 A.D. (see inscr. No. 53) a first rebuilding took place, because in the general destruction of the quarter the early Mithraeum was also destroyed (see fig. 10). The entire sanctuary was enlarged considerably. “The new alterations consisted of adding an antechamber B to the Mithras shrine by taking out the dividing partition and adding two more columns 3 and 4 on the foundations ofthat wall (L. 10.90); of building a small room E (L. 5.60 Br. 1.65) on the south and a low bench on the north of this new addition (H. 0.40 Br. 1.70); of turning the east chamber C into a vestibule and porch; of constructing an arched niche back of the altar; and of redecorating the entire chamber”.
Opposite a rectangular recess (L. 1.25 Br. 0.75) in the new podium, there was a basin 10 in the middle of the paved floor (Diam. 0.32). another basin 11 was situated in the former room C. Underneath the columns 3 and 4 two altars e and t were placed.
Finally in ca. 240 A.D. a second reconstruction took place, which resulted in the definitive shape of the sanctuary (see fig. 11).
“It is probable that the roof was removed and altered for the construction of the new vaulted spelaeum and the additional columns (5, 6, 7, 8).
In the Late Mithraeum, the chamber of the south E was entirely removed and in its place was built a bench, probably low; the low bench on the north side was heightened to the level of the upper benches; two more columns were added to either side, making the chamber more symmetrical; two chambers F (L. 3.25 Br. 6.00) and G (L. 2.50 Br. 6.00) to the north of the building, the earlier history of which is obscure, were joined to the Mithraeum, a narrow passageway being cut through the benches leading to a newly pierced doorway.
For the new altar-table the aisle between the benches was filled up to the bench level as far as the first pair (I, 2) of columns and a stair of seven steps was built against the face of this platform. Between the first pair of columns and the wall were built partitions that supported a vault covering the new raised platform”.
When the walls behind the Mithraeum had to be strengthened against the impendency of the Persians under Sapor, the sanctuary got buried under the sand at the capture of the fortification in 256 A.D.
We now proceed to a detailed description of the most important part of the sanctuary; the elevated altar niche (see figs. 12 and 13).
Rostovtzeff in RM 1934, 184ff and Pl. 11; ILN 1934,963; AJA 1935, Pl. IV; GBA 1935, fig. 5; Report, 79 and Pl. II and fig. 36.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm34
Mithraeum at Dura-Europos
Originally an Iranian god, Mithras became especially popular in the Roman period among soldiers and the merchant class. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that he had a special status in the military garrison at Dura-Europos.
In 1933–34, during the seventh season of the excavations at Dura-Europos by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, a small shrine to Mithras was discovered along the western fortification wall in the northern part of the city. A dedicatory inscription found there, dated about A.D. 168–69, shows that the shrine was sponsored by Palmyrene archers who served in the Roman army.
There is no evidence of any earlier Mithraeum; it seems safe to assume that the god Mithras was not worshipped in Parthian Dura-Europos but came to the city with the Romans. The Mithraeum was rebuilt and augmented after the enlargement of the garrison in A.D. 209–11. An inscription from this phase shows that the dedicant of the renovation was a centurion named Antonius Valentius.
The building underwent yet another reconstruction and enlargement around A.D. 240. The decorations from this final phase were preserved by a defensive dirt embankment when the city was conquered by the Sassanians around A.D. 256 and are now part of the Yale University Art Gallery’s Dura-Europos Collection.
The cult of Mithras was a mystery religion that featured initiation, banquets, and the promise of salvation after death. Only men were allowed to join. Due to the exclusive nature of the cult, little is known about its rituals. There were seven levels, or grades, of initiation; graffiti at Dura-Europos listed names of initiates, given along with their Mithraic grade. Shrines dedicated to Mithras were generally located underground, commemorating the god’s birth in a cave; the Dura-Europos Mithraeum was unusual in that it was totally above ground.
The devotional focus of a Mithraic shrine was typically a cult relief showing Mithras slaying the Cosmic Bull (in a depiction known as the tauroctony), which symbolized the victory of light over primeval darkness.
While iconographic schemes varied among Mithraic shrines in different locations, this image was a constant. The Dura-Europos Mithraeum contained two such reliefs (at right). Their inscriptions show that they date from the earliest phase of the shrine. The only surviving elements of that phase, the reliefs were reused as cult images in each subsequent renovation. Both show Mithras and the Bull in characteristic fashion: Mithras, dressed in Persian costume, sits on the back of the Bull and pulls his head back with one hand while he stabs the animal in the neck with the other. A small dog drinks blood from the wound. In the larger of the two reliefs, the donors or dedicants of the relief are shown observing the scene. Mithraic iconography from this period generally omits donor images, so their presence here is another deviation for which the Dura-Europos shrine is notable.
A series of paintings are showing scenes from the life of Mithras (including the slaying of the Bull, this time in a landscape with trees and altars), as well as representations of the signs of the zodiac, surrounded the reliefs.
The reliefs were flanked on both left and right by single seated figures who, like Mithras, wear Eastern dress. Russian scholar and Yale professor in the 1920s Michael I. Rostovtzeff proposed that the two were members of the shrine’s Palmyrene congregation, although others have suggested that they are prophets or magi.
On the side walls of the niche were two virtually identical scenes of Mithras as a mounted archer hunting wild animals in a wood. These hunting scenes are particularly Iranian in character and display an Eastern sensibility unlike other depictions of Mithras in the western Roman Empire. They emphasize the god’s role as divine archer, one that would have carried special meaning for the Palmyrene archers who worshipped him at Dura-Europos.
https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/dura-mithraeum
Δούρα Ευρωπός, το Τέλειο Πρότυπο Πολυπολιτισμικότητας: Αραμαίοι, Έλληνες, Πάρθες, Ρωμαίοι και Πέρσες σε Μοναδικό Θρησκευτικό Συγκρητισμό δίπλα στον Ευφράτη
Dura Europos, the Perfect Model of Multiculturalism: Aramaeans, Greeks, Parthians, Romans and Persians in Unique Religious Syncretism by the Euphrates
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “Ρωμιοί και Ρωμανία στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 25η Νοεμβρίου 2019
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παρουσιάζει τα βασικά σημεία μιας ομιλίας μου στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 αναφορικά με τους Αραμαίους, κυριώτερο ιστορικό έθνος των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού, τα αραμαϊκά οικονομικά και πολιτισμικά κέντρα κατά μήκος των εμπορικών δρόμων μεταξύ της Ρ'ωμης και της Κίνας, και τον ρόλο τους στην διάδοση θρησκειών από την Ανατολή στην Δύση. Το κυρίως θέμα είναι εν προκειμένω η Δούρα Ευρωπός.
-------------------
https://silkroadorientalgreeks.wordpress.com/2019/11/25/δούρα-ευρωπός-το-τέλειο-πρότυπο-πολυπ/ ============================
Ρωμιοί και Ρωμανία στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού
Πολιτισμικές Ανταλλαγές κι Αδελφωσύνη ανάμεσα σε Ρωμιούς, Πέρσες, Τούρκους, Μογγόλους, Ινδούς και Κινέζους
Η Δούρα Ευρωπός (Δοῦρα Εὐρωπός, Dura Europos, Дура Эвропос) είναι ένας από τους σημαντικώτερους αρχαιολογικούς χώρους όλου του κόσμου. Βρίσκεται στα ανατολικά άκρα της Συρίας, ακριβώς πάνω στην αριστερή (δυτική) όχθη του Ευφράτη, λίγο πριν ο ποταμός μπει στο Ιράκ – κάτι που σημαίνει ότι κάνουμε λόγο για τον μέσο ρου του Ευφράτη. Ο αρχαιολογικός χώρος βρίσκεται κοντά στο χωριό Σαλχίγιε, όχι μακριά από την τελευταία μεγάλη πόλη της Ανατολικής Συρίας Αμπού Κεμάλ.
Όπως το όνομά της δηλώνει, η πόλη ήταν αρχικά ένα ασσυροβαβυλωνιακό κάστρο (Ντουρ) στα δυτικά άκρα της Κεντρικής Μεσοποταμίας. Δούρα είναι η εξελληνισμένη μορφή του Ντουρ. Η επιπρόσθετη ελληνική λέξη προσδιορίζει το τεράστιο οπτικό πεδίο που προσφέρει ο παρά τον Ευφράτη λόφος πάνω στον οποίο αρχικά οι Ασσυροβαβυλώνιοι είχαν ανεγείρει ένα φρούριο. Ο χώρος προσφέρει ευρύτατη δυναυτότητα εποπτείας, συνεπώς προσφερόταν για μια σημαντική οχυρωματική θέση.
Στην μακραίωνη ιστορία της η Δούρα Ευρωπός ήταν η πόλη όλων των ορίων: αρχικά ανάμεσα στους Ασσύριους και τους Βαβυλώνιους. Η πόλη είναι το νοτιοδυτικό άκρο της Ασσυρίας και το βορειοδυτικό άκρο της Βαβυλώνας κατά την 2η προχριστιανική χιλιετία. Στα τέλη αυτής της χιλιετίας και στις αρχές της επόμενης, η Ντουρ και ο τριγύρω χώρος κατακλύσθηκαν από τους Αραμαίους που διασπάρθηκαν από τα νότια άκρα της Βαβυλώνας και τις ακτές του Περσικού Κόλπου μέχρι την Δαμασκό, την Κιλικία ή ακόμη την Λυδία όπως τεκμηριώνουν δίγλωσσες λυδικές – αραμαϊκές επιγραφές που έχουν σωθεί.
Ωστόσο, σήμερα, η Δούρα Ευρωπός δεν είναι αντικείμενο έρευνας των Ασσυριολόγων. Ο χώρος, του οποίου η ακμή ανάγεται στα σελευκιδικά, αρσακιδικά, και ρωμαϊκά χρόνια, είναι αντικείμενο έρευνας πολλών και διαφορετικών επιστημόνων. Η ανεύρεση αραμαϊκών, ελληνικών, λατινικών, παρθικών και περσικών επιγραφών ελκύει το ενδιαφέρον σημιτολόγων, ελληνιστών, λατινιστών και ιρανολόγων. Η τεράστια σημασία της καραβανούπολης ως κομβικού σημείου στους Ιστορικούς Δρόμους του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Λιβανωτών την καθιστά αντικείμενο έρευνας όλων των ειδικών του Ρωμαϊκού Εμπορίου με την Κίνα.
Όμως περισσότερο από τα προαναφερμένα, η ιστορική σημασία της Δούρας Ευρωπού είναι ένα κάλεσμα για τους ιστορικούς θρησκειών, τους θρησκειολόγους που ειδικεύονται
1- στον Μιθραϊσμό και ιδιαίτερα στην αποδοχή του ανάμεσα στους Αραμαίους,
2- στην διάδοση ανατολικών θρησκειών, λατρειών, μυθολογιών, θεουργιών, μυστικισμών και επιστημών στην Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και την Μεσόγειο,
3- στον Ιουδαϊσμό και την διάδοση της αρχαίας ιουδαϊκής θρησκείας ανάμεσα στους Αραμαίους (που χαρακτηριστικά εκπροσωπεί η γνωστή Σαμαρείτιδα των ευαγγελικών περικοπών),
4- στην διατήρηση αρχαιοελληνικών και ρωμαϊκών θρησκειών και λατρειών ανάμεσα στις ελληνικές και ρωμαϊκές κοινότητες του σελευκιδικού και ρωμαϊκού κόσμου, και
5- στην διαμόφωση συγκρητικών μορφών θρησκειών με την ανάμειξη στοιχείων πολλών, διαφορετικής προέλευσης, δογμάτων.
Οι χρόνοι της ακμής της Δούρας Ευρωπού τοποθετούνται στην περίοδο από το 303 π.Χ., όταν ο Σέλευκος Νικάτωρ ανήγειρε εκνέου την πόλη ως κεντρικό σημείο στον δρόμο που συνέδεε την Αντιόχεια με την Σελεύκεια επί του Τίγρη (νότια της σημερινής Βαγδάτης), μέχρι την ιρανική σασανιδική επίθεση και καταστροφή της πόλης το 256 μ.Χ., όταν ο Σαπούρ Α’ μετώκισε το σύνολο του πληθυσμού στα ανατολικά κι άφησε την πόλη ως ερείπια να χαθεί κάτω από την άμμο της ερήμου για σχεδόν 1700 χρόνια.
Τα πολλά ευρήματα, τα τείχη, οι πύργοι, τα τεράστια κτήρια, οι πολλοί ναοί, το Μιθραίο, η Εκκλησία, η Συναγωγή, εντυπωσιακές τοιχογραφίες, οι πολλές επιγραφές και τα λοιπά κειμενικά τεκμήρια (περγαμηνές) που ανασκάφηκαν, ανασκάπτονται και θα ανασκαφούν στην Δούρα Ευρωπό κάνουν τον τόπο αυτό ένα από τα μοναδικά στην Παγκόσμια Ιστορία δείγματα αυθεντικής πολυπολιτισμικής κοινωνίας, η οποία αναπτύχθηκε από την εθελούσια συνεργασία και συμβίωση πολλών διαφορετικών εθνών, κι όχι από τυχον παράξενη υποκίνηση, τεχνητή υποδαύλιση, και υστερόβουλη επέμβαση. Ήταν μια φυσιολογική συνέπεια των γενικωτέρων εξελίξεων στον ευρύτερο χώρο κι όχι ένα προγραμματισμένο και προσχεδιασμένο τερατούργημα.
Στην Δούρα Ευρωπό ομιλήθηκαν διάφορες αραμαϊκές γλώσσες και διάλεκτοι, καθώς υπήρχαν ντόπιοι Αραμαίοι αλλά και Παλμυρηνοί και Χατραίοι (: από την Χάτρα, άλλη αραμαϊκή καραβανούπολη – κέντρο εμπορίου Δύσης – Ανατολής, στο σημερινό βορειοδυτικό Ιράκ). Επίσης ομιλήθηκαν αρχαία ελληνικά, λατινικά, παρθικά, ιουδαϊκά, μέσα περσικά, αρχαία υεμενικά, και αραβικά, καθώς από κει περνούσε το εμπόριο από την Μεσόγειο προς το Ιράν, την Ινδία και την Κεντρική Ασία, όπως επίσης και το εμπόριο από την Υεμένη και το Κέρας της Αφρικής προς τον Καύκασο και περιοχές της Κεντρικής Ασίας.
Η Ιστορία της Δούρας Ευρωπού τεκμηριώνει κάτι το πολύ σημαντικό: δεν χρειάζεται μια πόλη για να μείνει ως εξαιρετικά σημαντική στην Ιστορία να είναι πρωτεύουσα ενός ισχυρού κράτους. Κι έτσι ήταν η ιστορία αυτού του μοναδικού τύπου που λειτούργησε σαν χωνευτήρι πίστεων, παραδόσεων, δοξασιών και μυστικισμών σε βαθμό που την αποκάλεσαν Πομπηία της Ερήμου.
Η Δούρα Ευρωπός παρέμεινε σελευκιδική από το 303 π.Χ. μέχρι το 113 π.Χ. όταν την κατέκτησαν οι Πάρθοι, οι οποίοι την εκράτησαν μέχρι το 114 μ.Χ., όταν επελαύνοντας προς τα ανατολικά την κατέλαβε ο Τραϊανός, ο μόνος Ρωμαίος αυτοκράτορας που έφθασε στον μυχό του Περσικού Κόλπου και στα δυτικά παράλια της Κασπίας. Οι Πάρθοι ανακατέλαβαν την πόλη το 117 μ.Χ. και την διατήρησαν μέχρι το 165 μ.Χ. Τότε οι Ρωμαίοι την ανέκτησαν και την διατήρησαν, ως ‘Αποικία’ (Colonia) από το 211 μ.Χ., μέχρι την σασανιδική ιρανική κατάληψη του 256 μ.Χ. και καταστροφή της πόλης.
Έτσι, η Δούρα Ευρωπός υπήρχε πάντοτε μια πόλη ανάμεσα σε δυο κόσμους: του Σελευκίδες της Συρίας και τους Αρσακίδες του Ιράν πρώτα, και τους Ρωμαίους και τους Σασανίδες του Ιράν έπειτα. Με τους Ρωμαίους και Μακεδόνες κατοίκους της, η Δούρα Ευρωπός παρέμεινε το ανατολικώτερο σημείο όπου αρχαία ελληνικά και λατινικά ομιλούντο τον 3ο αιώνα στην Συρο-Μεσοποταμία.
Για την Δούρα Ευρωπό μπορούν να γραφούν εγκυκλοπαίδειες. Είναι ο χώρος όπου σώζονται η αρχαιότερη εκκλησία, η αρχαιότερη συναγωγή και το αρχαιότερο Μιθραίο δυτικά του Ιράν.
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Дура Эвропос: Многокультурный караванный город на берегу Евфрата: арамейцы, греки, римляне и иранцы
https://ok.ru/video/1581278431853
Περισσότερα:
Первоначально на месте Д.-Е. располагалась древнеассир. крепость. В 300-280 гг. до Р. Х. Селевк I Никатор основал там колонию македон. воинов, охранявших переправы через Евфрат на пути из 2 столиц гос-ва Селевкидов – Антиохии-на-Оронте и Селевкии-на-Тигре. Приблизительно после 113 г. до Р. Х. в составе Месопотамии Д.-Е. перешел под власть Парфии, став важным форпостом в Сирии. Население города к Iв. до Р. Х. было по преимуществу арамейским. В 116 г. Д.-Е. был оккупирован войсками рим. имп. Траяна, позже возвращен имп. Адрианом парфянам, в 165 г., во время парфянского похода имп. Луция Вера, завоеван римлянами и включен в состав рим. пров. Сирия, в 211 г. получил статус колонии. С рим. завоеванием Д.-Е. стал одним из форпостов в войнах с Парфией, его гарнизон был увеличен за счет войск, базировавшихся в Сев. Европе, было начато строительство оборонительных сооружений. С падением Парфии и усилением гос-ва Сасанидов город неоднократно переходил из рук в руки. В 256 или 257 г. крепость была разрушена войсками сасанидского царя Шапура I (сохр. следы разрушений, останки воинов, погибших в подстенных подкопах). В 260-273 гг. Д.-Е. входил в состав гос-ва Пальмира, позже стал местом поселений христ. отшельников, постепенно был поглощен пустыней.
В эпоху правления Селевкидов (возможно, раньше) город был окружен зубчатой стеной со сторожевыми башнями (сохр. остатки 26), разделен улицами на квадраты по античной Гипподамовой системе (судя по следам неоконченных строительных работ, первоначальный план не был осуществлен; основной план сохр. структуру эллинистического города). От главных Пальмирских ворот (17-16 гг. до Р. Х.) начиналась широкая улица, на к-рой находилась агора; по оси этой улицы в юго-вост. части города располагалась старая цитадель, основанная греками как стратегион (резиденция стратега), на северо-востоке – новая цитадель (времени Селевкидов, IIв. до Р. Х.; перестроена и достроена в парфянский период), у сев. оконечности города, у приречной стены,- резиденция начальника рим. гарнизона (после 227).
От парфянского времени в Д.-Е. сохранились руины цитадели и дворца, остатки жилых домов, руины храмов греч., местных вост. и синкретических греко-сир. и греко-иран. божеств: Баала-Бела, Артемиды, культ к-рой слился с культом иран. Нанайи (40-33 гг. до Р. Х., перестроен при парфянах из греч. храма, служил центром офиц. культа Д.-Е. в греч., парфянский и рим. периоды), сир. богини Атаргатис (31-2 гг. до Р. Х., к востоку от храма Артемиды-Нанайи, построен по сходному плану), Зевса Кириоса (Господа), Зевса Теоса (Бога) (114 г., к северу от кардо), Зевса Мегиста (Величайшего) (169 г., на месте древнего храма 95-70 гг. до Р. Х., имеет смешанные греко-парфянские черты), т. н. храма Пальмирских богов, или храма Гадде, посвященного 2 пальмирским божествам – Баалам (до 159, между храмом Атаргатис и агорой Д.-Е.), Адониса и др. Нек-рые из храмов были расписаны, в руинах обнаружены рельефы и статуи. К рим. времени относятся укрепления в военном квартале и возведенные на месте жилого квартала парфянского времени строения, предназначенные для гарнизона, занявшие 1/4 территории города, где располагались термы и храмы. В храмах Д.-Е. обнаружено множество вотивных рельефов, стилистически близких к пальмирским, при полном их отсутствии в погребальных комплексах.
Открытые в Д.-Е. жилые дома (по типу и архитектурному декору греч. или эллинизированные, рим. или отмеченные рим. влиянием – «дворец Лисия» с портиком на стороне террасы, обращенной к Евфрату; «дворец начальника пограничной стражи» в военном квартале) и многочисленные святилища имеют месопотамский облик – комплекс помещений вокруг главного двора, окруженного стеной. За стенами Д.-Е. расположены некрополи, представляющие собой подземные захоронения с неск. погребальными башнями.
В 256 г., видимо незадолго до осады армией Сасанидов, застроенный квартал шириной ок. 12-15 м, прилежащий к стене, высота к-рой составляла 10 м, был засыпан рим. солдатами битым кирпичом, благодаря чему до наст. времени сохранились храм Пальмирских богов, митреум (храм Митры), дом рим. типа с «домовой церковью», синагога (с 245).
Остатки крепости Д.-Е. были обнаружены 30 марта 1920 г., когда при рытье траншей брит. солдаты увидели росписи храма Пальмирских богов с изображением жрецов и римского легионера, приносящих жертвы богам. Эксперт археолог Дж. Г. Брестед, 1-м ознакомившийся с городищем, предположил, что оно известно по лит. источникам как Д.-Е. В 1922-1923 гг. раскопки Д.-Е. вела франц. экспедиция под рук. Ф. Кюмона (в публикации 1926 г. он подтвердил, что обнаруженный город является Д.-Е.), в 1928-1937 гг.- франко-амер. экспедиция под рук. М. И. Ростовцева из Йельского ун-та; раскопки были остановлены в связи с началом второй мировой войны. В сер. 80-х гг. раскопки возобновлены франко-сирийской экспедицией под рук. П. Лериша.
http://www.pravenc.ru/text/180593.html
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Дура Эвропос: Самый захватывающий мультикультурный караванный город в мире: арамейцы, греки, римляне и иранцы
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240370
Περισσότερα:
Ду́ра-Е́вропос [греч. Ϫοῦρα Εὔρωπος], древний город на берегу р. Евфрат, у одной из главных дорог, связывавших Дамаск с Месопотамией; в наст. время – городище близ дер. Эс-Салихия (Вост. Сирия); музей под открытым небом. Совр. название условно и образовано из слияния арам. duru – стена, крепость (название бытовало среди местного населения) и македон. топонима Europos(офиц. название в греко-рим. документах).
Памятники материальной культуры и эпиграфики, сохранившиеся в Д.-Е., доказывают, что в парфянский период его население было сирийским, арабским и иранским. Этническая картина усложнилась при Селевкидах с поселением греков и македонян, затем – с рим. завоеванием. Различные религии были принесены в Д.-Е. греками, рим. воинами (в основном германцами из Сев. Европы), арабами из Пальмирского оазиса, степными кочевниками, парфянами; население разделялось по вероисповеданию, о чем свидетельствуют надписи: в синагоге они выполнены на арам. языке, в «церкви» – на греческом.
http://www.pravenc.ru/text/180593.html
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Dura Europos: The World’s most Fascinating Multicultural Caravan City: Aramaeans, Greeks, Romans & Iranians
https://orientalgreeks.livejournal.com/1918.html
Περισσότερα:
Dura Europos (“Fort Europos”) is a ruined Hellenistic-Roman walled city built on cliff 90 meters above the banks of the Euphrates river. It is located near the village of Salhiyé, in today’s Syria. Destroyed by war and abandoned in the 3rd century AD, it lie hidden until its rediscovery in 1920. Excavations have revealed, among other important ruins, the oldest synaogogue and oldest church ever found. Due to its remarkable preservation and has sometimes been dubbed the “Pompeii of the Syrian Desert.”
Dura Europos was founded in 303 BC by the Seleucids (Alexander the Great’s successors) on the intersection of an east-west trade route and a north-south trade route along the Euphrates. The new city, named for the birthplace of Seleucus I Nicator, controlled the river crossing on the route between Antioch on the Orontes and Seleucia on the Tigris. Dura Europos was part of a network of military colonies intended to secure Seleucid control of the Middle Euphrates.
Dura was rebuilt as a great Hellenistic city in the 2nd century BC, with a rectangular grid of streets arranged around a large central agora, was formally laid out. Its location on a major crossroads made it a very cosmopolitan city: inscriptions in many languages have been found here and the religious buildings of pagans, Jews and Christians stand side by side.
Dura Europos later became a frontier fortress of the Parthian Empire and it was captured by the Romans in 165 AD. In the early 200s AD, the famed house-church and synagogue were built at Dura Europos. There was also a Mithraeum, a Temple of Bel and a Temple of Adonis in the multi-cultural city.
Dura Europos was abandoned after a Sassanian siege in 256-257. In a last-ditch attempt to save the city, the synagogue was filled in to make a fortress, thereby ensuring its preservation. The city eventually became covered in shifting sands and disappeared from sight.
Although the existence of Dura-Europos was long known through literary sources, it was not rediscovered until British troops under Captain Murphy made the first discovery during the Arab rebellion in the aftermath of World War I. On March 30, 1920, a soldier digging a trench uncovered beautifully preserved frescoes. The American archeologist James Henry Breasted, then at Baghdad, was alerted. Major excavations were carried out in the 1920s and 1930s by French and American teams.
The first excavations of the site, undertaken by Franz Cumont and published in 1922-23, identified the site as Dura-Europos and uncovered a temple before renewed hostilities in the area closed it to archaeology. Later, renewed campaigns directed by Michael Rostovtzeff funded by Yale University continued until 1937, when funds ran out with only part of the excavations published. World War II then interfered.
Since 1986 excavations have resumed. Not the least of the finds were astonishingly well-preserved arms and armour belonging to the Roman garrison at the time of the final Sassanian siege of 256. Finds included painted wooden shields and complete horse armours, preserved by the very finality of the destruction of the city that journalists have called “the Pompeii of the desert”.
The largely mud-brick architecture of Dura Europos does not compare to Palmyra visually, but the dramatic remains of the walls and siegeworks combined with precipitous views over the green valley of the Euphrates makes for a striking sight. And arguably, Dura surpasses Palmyra in historical and religious importance.
Dura-Europos was a cosmopolitan society: over a hundred parchment and papyrus fragments and many inscriptions have been discovered at the site, which include Greek, Latin, Palmyrenean, Hebrew, Hatrian, Safaitic, and Pahlavi.
Three of the covered homes in Dura Europos had been converted for use as religious buildings. One had become a Mithraeum, dedicated to the worship of the god Mithras, who was popular with Roman soldiers. Another had undergone structural modifications to become a Jewish synagogue. The third home had been converted to a Christian church. The synagogue and church are the oldest that have been found anywhere, and are also remarkable in that they were built very close to each other at virtually the same time.
The world’s oldest preserved Jewish synagogue in Dura-Europos has been dated by an Aramaic inscription to 244. It was preserved when it was filled with earth to strengthen the city’s fortifications against a Sassanian assault in 256. It was uncovered in 1935 by Clark Hopkins, who found that it contains a forecourt and house of assembly with frescoed walls depicting people and animals, and a Torah shrine in the western wall facing Jerusalem.
The synagogue’s painted walls and roof of baked-brick tiles were transported across the desert 300 miles away to Damascus, where it became the centrepiece of the National Museum built in 1934. Yale had to settle for a copy.
Dura-Europos also boasts the oldest known Christian church. It was dismantled and re-constructed at Yale University in the early 1930s, so there isn’t much to see at Dura-Europos but basic foundations.
The church occupied a typical Roman upper-class house centered around a columned courtyard with an open room (atrium). In the center of the courtyard was a pool (impluvium). At the opposite end from the entrance was a raised area (tablinum) containing a table and used by the family as a reception area and for ceremonial functions.
Scholars speculate that the congregation gathered around the pool, which was used for baptism. In the tablinum sat the bishop, who celebrated the Eucharist (communion) at the table. This arrangement provides a basis for the liturgical arrangement of later basilica churches.
The murals of the Dura Europos chuch were painted between 232 and 256 AD and are among the earliest examples of Christian art that survives today. The mural of the Healing of the Paralytic contains the earliest image of Jesus found anywhere.
In 1933, an important fragmentary text was unearthed at Dura Europos that contained a previously unknown Greek harmony of the gospels, dated to the late 2nd century. This has been important for early Christian studies, particular those of Tatian’s Diatessaron, a more well-known gospel harmony.
Excavations have also revealed the ruins of pagan temples dedicated to Greek, Roman and Palmyrene gods, including a Temple of Bel (a Semitic god) and a Temple of Adonis (a Greek god).
Preserved in the Temple of Adonis was a 2nd-century dedicatory inscription, which is now in the Louvre Museum. Other finds from Dura can be seen at the National Museum in Damascus and elsewhere.
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/syria/dura-europos
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Δούρα Ευρωπός: Το Μέγιστο Πολυπολιτισμικό Κέντρο της Ιστορίας – Αραμαίοι, Έλληνες, Ρωμαίοι, Ιρανοί
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0CYNFhXdYE
Περισσότερα:
Η Δούρα Ευρωπός είναι αρχαία πόλη, στις όχθες του ποταμού Ευφράτη, στα σύνορα μεταξύ Μεσοποταμίας και Συρίας. Ιδρύθηκε, ως στρατιωτική αποικία, μετά το πέρας του Βαβυλωνιακού πολέμου (311-309 π.Χ.) από τον στρατηγό Νικάνορα (λογικά είναι το ίδιο πρόσωπο που ίδρυσε την Έδεσσα και την Αντιόχεια Μυγδονική) για λογαριασμό του κυρίου του Σελεύκου Α΄ Νικάτορος (358-281 π.Χ.), ενός εκ των βασιλικών φίλων του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. Η ονομασία Ευρωπός προέρχεται από την ομώνυμη πατρίδα του Σελεύκου στην Μακεδονία.
Το 253 ή 256 μ.Χ. καταστράφηκε από τους Πέρσες και σκεπάστηκε από την άμμο. Όταν, στις δεκαετίες 1920 – 1930, η αρχαιολογική σκαπάνη την επανέφερε στο φως ο Mikhail Rostovtzeff την είχε αποκαλέσει «Πομπηία της ερήμου». Η ανακάλυψή της έγινε τυχαία από το βρετανικά στρατεύματα το 1920.
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δούρα_Ευρωπός
Dura-Europos (Greek: Δοῦρα Εὐρωπός), also spelled Dura-Europus, was a Hellenistic, Parthian and Roman border city built on an escarpment 90 metres (300 feet) above the right bank of the Euphrates river. It is located near the village of Salhiyé, in today’s Syria. In 113 BC, Parthians conquered the city, and held it, with one brief Roman intermission (114 AD), until 165 AD. Under Parthian rule, it became an important provincial administrative center. The Romans decisively captured Dura-Europos in 165 AD and greatly enlarged it as their easternmost stronghold in Mesopotamia, until it was captured by the Sasanian Empire after a siege in 256–57 AD. Its population was deported, and after it was abandoned, it was covered by sand and mud and disappeared from sight.
Dura-Europos is extremely important for archaeological reasons. As it was abandoned after its conquest in 256–57 AD, nothing was built over it and no later building programs obscured the architectonic features of the ancient city. Its location on the edge of empires made for a co-mingling of cultural traditions, much of which was preserved under the city’s ruins. Some remarkable finds have been brought to light, including numerous temples, wall decorations, inscriptions, military equipment, tombs, and even dramatic evidence of the Sassanian siege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos
Ду́ра-Эвропо́с (греч. Δοῦρα Εὐρωπός) — античный город на Евфрате (вблизи современного города Сальхиях в Сирии), существовавший примерно с 300 года до н. э. до 256 года. Получил известность в связи с археологическими находками и хорошо сохранившимися древними фресками. Дура на арамейском означает «крепость».
Город был основан царём Селевком IНикатором около 300 года до н. э. среди многих других и просуществовал более 550 лет. Примерно в 100 году до н. э. перешёл под власть Парфянского царства, а с 165 года — Римской империи. В римское время Дура-Европос был крупным торговым центром, и большинство археологических находок относятся к этому периоду времени. В 256 году захвачен войсками Сасанидов и заброшен.
Селевк, диадох Александра Македонского, выбрал для поселения своих солдат заброшенную ассирийскую крепость на дороге из Дамаска в Междуречье и дал ей имя «Дура». Римляне назвали город «Дура-Европос», потому что местная аристократия состояла из потомков македонцев, то есть они подчеркнули что город управляется «европейцами» из Македонии. Крепость стояла на высоком берегу среднего Евфрата, защищённая с трёх сторон крутыми обрывами, а четвёртая сторона, противоположная от реки и примыкающая к пустыне, была обнесена длинной прямой стеной с башнями. Размеры города составляют примерно 700 на 1000 м.
Город регулярно спланирован (прямо пересекающиеся улицы) в селевкидское время, к которому относятся агора, остатки храмов, цитадель. Со временем гражданское население стало превалировать, и крепость превратилась в захолустный городок, выросший вокруг рыночной площади. Однако население можно назвать гражданским лишь условно. В военное время земледельцы вставали в строй, образуя сословие так называемых клерухов. В социальном отношении жители делились по родам, как и в Македонии. Земля клерухам давалась в пожизненную аренду за их службу или службу их детей, оставаясь царской собственностью.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дура-Эвропос
———————————-
Περισσότερα:
Dura Europos, ruined city on the right bank of the Euphrates between Antioch and Seleucia on the Tigris, founded in 303 B.C.E. by Nicanor, a general of Seleucus I. It flourished under Parthian rule. The site is in modern Syria, on a plateau protected on the east by a citadel built on bluffs overlooking the river, on the north and south by wadis, and on the west by a strong rampart with powerful defensive towers. Its military function of the Greek period was abandoned under the Parthians, but at that time it was the administrative and economic center of the plain extending 100 km between the confluence of the Ḵābūr and Euphrates rivers and the Abū Kamāl gorge to the south.
I. Archaeology and History
Initial archeological exploration of the city took place in 1920-22, under the direction of Franz Cumont and the sponsorship of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in Paris. From 1929 to 1937 Yale University and the Académie sponsored excavations under the initiative of M. I. Rostovtzeff, who published Dura-Europos and Its Art, a synthesis of the history of the town and of its civilization, formed from Greek, Semitic, and Iranian components. This work has served as the basis for all subsequent studies of the site. In fact, however, understanding of Dura Europos depended mainly on written materials (parchments, papyri, inscriptions, and grafitti; see ii, below), paintings, tombs, and portable objects (e.g., coins, bronzes, and lamps) from the excavations, and very little attention has been paid to the architectural remains. Although nearly a third of the town has been excavated, a large number of buildings have been published only summarily or not at all. It therefore became necessary to resume the work of publication, and for this reason the Mission Franco-Syrienne de Doura-Europos was formed in 1986 under the joint direction of the author and Assad Al-Mahmoud; the major objectives are to reexamine the archeological data, to make available the entire mass of documentation from previous excavations, as well as to save the monuments from destruction.
Dura Europos was brought into the Iranian cultural sphere after the Parthian conquest in about 113 B.C.E. (Bellinger; Welles). This domination lasted three centuries, interrupted by a Roman occupation in 115-17 C.E., during Trajan’s expedition to Ctesiphon. In 165 Dura was conquered by Avidius Cassius and became a stronghold in the Roman defensive system along the eastern frontier of the empire. Nevertheless, despite an impressive effort to reinforce its defenses, the town was unable to withstand the great offensive launched by the Sasanian Šāpūr I (240-70) in 256; it was taken after a bitter siege, and the population was deported, thus putting an end to the town’s existence.
The Parthian period
According to recent discoveries, Dura Europos, originally a fortress, was constituted as a city only in the late Hellenistic period and had been only sparsely populated throughout the Greek period. It was under the Parthians, however, that the city assumed its essential aspect, as revealed by the excavations, a configuration only partly modified by the Roman occupation, except for transformation of the northern sector into a Roman camp. Recent work by the Mission Franco-Syrienne has permitted some refinement of this picture; certain buildings that had formerly been attributed to the Parthians can now be dated to the Hellenistic period. For example, according to Armin von Gerkan, the cut-stone fortifications of Dura Europos had been built by the Parthians, fearful that the Greek wall of unbaked bricks would be insufficient against a Roman attack. Only the northern section of the original western wall survived, which he took as proof that the project had been rendered unnecessary by the peace concluded between the Parthians and Augustus in 20 B.C.E. (pp. 4-51). This conclusion was based more on probabilities extrapolated from the reports of ancient historians than on archeological discoveries and has been contradicted by the results of recent soundings and clearing of earlier trenches. It is now clear that it was the Greeks themselves who built the stone fortifications, in the second half of the 2nd century B.C.E., and that the use of mud bricks resulted from the imminent threat from the Parthians, which forced the builders to finish the wall with more easily obtained material (Leriche and Mahmoud, l990). Similarly, the reconstruction of the palace of the strategus and its extension to the north, as well as construction of the second palace in the citadel, which shows a number of similarities, had been attributed to the Parthian period, but recent excavations in the interior and at the base of the facade of the former building have revealed that it belongs to the 2nd century B.C.E., that is, the Greek period. In a recent study Susan Downey (1988) has also called into question the restoration of one palace with an ayvān, which was suggested in the Yale publications and would imply a Parthian construction.
The Parthian period thus appears to have been primarily a phase of expansion at Dura Europos, an expansion favored by abandonment of the town’s military function. All the space enclosed by the walls gradually became occupied, and the installation of new inhabitants with Semitic and Iranian names alongside descendants of the original Macedonian colonists contributed to an increase in the population (Welles et al.). In his celebrated Caravan Cities Rostovtzeff had argued that this prosperity could have resulted from the town’s position as a trading center and caravan halt, but this hypothesis has been abandoned, for nothing uncovered by the excavations has confirmed it. Instead, Dura Europos owed its development to its role as a regional capital, amply illustrated by the contents of inscriptions, parchments, and papyri.
In the Parthian period Greek institutions remained in place (Arnaud), and the property-zoning scheme established in the Hellenistic period was respected in new construction; that is, buildings were kept within the limits of pre-existing blocks 35 x 70 m laid out uniformly over the entire surface of the plateau, even to a large extent in the interior wadis. The only exceptions were the quarter of the town southeast of the citadel, which had apparently already been occupied before the division into lots, and a sector of the agora that had been invaded by domestic buildings. The ramparts were neglected: Domestic trash accumulated along the periphery, finally forming a mass so thick that it prevented access to certain towers on the western wall.
The architecture of the Parthian period was characterized by a progressive evolution of Greek concepts toward new formulas in which regional traditions, particularly those derived from Babylonia, played an increasing role. These innovations affected both religious and domestic buildings. No secular public building is known to have been built during the Parthian period, with the possible exception of a bath constructed of cut stone in the northeast sector of the town. The evolved Parthian forms generally persisted into the Roman period, except for buildings in the Roman camp in the northern third of the town, for example, the palace of the Dux Ripae and the praetorium.
The architecture of private dwellings varied in detail according to the wealth of the owner. The systematic layout of the Greek city, in which each house was supposed to cover one-eighth of a block (ca. 300 m2), was abandoned or modified through subdivision and consolidation resulting from sales or inheritance (Saliou). The smallest houses covered one quarter or even less of a Greek lot whereas other more luxurious examples covered up to half a block. But the organizing principle of the house remained fundamentally the same: The street door, often situated at a corner of the house, opened onto a corridor leading into a central courtyard, which provided access and light to the various rooms of the house. The principal room, the andrón, was usually situated on the south side, opening to the north, and was surrounded on all four walls by a masonry bench; it served as a reception room (Allara). Some houses incorporated columns, but gabled roofs disappeared in favor of terraces, rooms became irregular in shape, and several houses had second stories.
Religious architecture underwent a comparable evolution, traceable through numerous excavated buildings: the temples of Artemis Nanaïa II and Zeus Megistos II, the necropolis temple, and the temples of Artemis Azzanathkona, Zeus Kyrios, Atargatis, Bel, Aphlad, Zeus Theos, Gad, and Adonis. This architecture diverged more and more from the hypothetical Greek model, if in fact such a model had ever been introduced at Dura Europos (Downey, 1988, p. 176). All the temples of the Parthian period have the same basic plan, with variations in detail. A generally square temenos is enclosed by a blank wall; the naos stands at the back of the interior courtyard facing the entrance. Against the interior face of the enclosure wall are a series of rooms for service or secondary cults, usually built by donors. When the naos is set against the back wall of the temenos, a narrow space is left between them to provide a separation of the cella from the exterior world. The building is small, usually square in plan, and raised on a podium of two or three steps, with one or more altars in front. The interior is divided in two: the pronaos, which occupies the full width of the building and is sometimes furnished with tiers of benches on either side of the entrance, and the cella, usually flanked by two chapels or lateral sacristies. The cult image on the wall opposite the entrance, either mounted on a pedestal or painted directly on the surface. All that remains from the Greek tradition is the occasional presence of a columned facade in front of the temple or porticoes along the sides of the courtyard, as at the temple of Bel.
It is thus clear that at Dura Europos entirely original architectural formulas were perfected during the Parthian period, in both religious and domestic constructions; the Babylonian element predominated, though with a certain Greek dressing, but no unequivocal Iranian influence appears. The formula for religious buildings was followed in all temples, whatever the form of worship to which they were consecrated, Greek or Semitic.
The only Iranian cult known at Dura Europos was that of Mithra, which paradoxically had been introduced into the city by Roman troops in 168. The mithraeum, located near the western wall in the Roman camp, belongs to the type dedicated to the cult throughout the Roman world and has no features in common with the other religious buildings at Dura Europos, except that it stands on a podium. It appears to have been a single room of modest dimensions with a bench on each of the longer sides; above the central aisle there was a raised ceiling with a clerestory. At the end of the room was a niche containing two cultic bas-reliefs with an altar before them. The entire surface of the room was covered with painted decoration: scenes from the life of Mithra, representations of magi and the zodiac around the bas-reliefs in the niche, and mounted hunting scenes on the side walls.
Although Iranian influence is difficult to find in the architecture of Dura Europos, in figurative art it is much more pronounced. In fact, owing to landfill that preserved religious buildings along the western wall (see below), Dura has provided the main evidence of a decorative art that seems to have developed in Parthian domains, reflecting a synthesis of the traditions of the ancient Near East (linear drawing, two-dimensional forms, stiff poses) and the Hellenic world (the use of architectural decoration and friezes, types of dress). Furthermore, in religious settings, those most fully represented, the principle of “Parthian frontality” prevailed. This convention, according to which all figures, human or divine, face directly forward, with eyes fixed on the spectator, made its appearance at Dura very early, in the oldest painting, of the sacrifice of Conon, in the temple of Bel (probably 1st century C.E.). It persisted until the destruction of the city, as attested in the frescoes of the synagogue, dating from 245. It was equally apparent in sculpture and terra-cottas (except for a statue of Artemis with the tortoise, which comes from a Hellenistic center) and, for example, in two reliefs of the Gads of Dura and Palmyra. On the other hand, in frequent narrative scenes of combat and hunting on horseback, like those in the mithraeum, the horses and wild beasts are portrayed in a flying gallop, a characteristic that was to be developed in Sasanian art.
The siege of Dura Europos
The Sasanian siege of Dura Europos in 256 brought an end to the town’s existence and immobilized Šāpūr’s army for several months. The determined resistance put up by the inhabitants forced the assailants to adopt various siege tactics, which eventually resulted in conquest of the city; the defensive system, the mines, and the assault ramp were left in place after the deportation of the population, which permits modern investigators to gain an exact idea of the military techniques of the Sasanians and the Romans in the mid-3rd century.
It is not known where the Sasanians located their camp, but traces of their operations against the city wall still survive (du Mesnil du Buisson). To guard against the attack, which was clearly expected from the time that the Sasanian empire was established, the Romans had heightened and reinforced the external faces of the western and northern ramparts by masking them with thick layers of fill covered by a mud-brick glacis and thus burying the buildings along the inside of the wall. The Persians undermined towers 19 and 14 on the western wall in order to bring them down, but, owing to the filling and the glacis, the towers were not really destroyed. At the southeast corner of the town they built an assault ramp 40 m long and 10 m high against the wall to permit troops to enter; it consisted of a mass of fill packed between two walls of brick and paved with baked bricks, which made it possible to move a siege machine close to the wall. Two tunnels, each wide enough to permit several men to advance abreast, were dug near the body of the ramp. There is no surviving textual description of the siege of Dura Europos, but Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the siege of Amida a century later, in which the same techniques were used, permits reconstruction of the operations at Dura; the main siege weapons were catapults, movable towers, and even elephants. Clearly the Sasanian armies had a sophisticated knowledge of siege techniques.
The discovery of the body of a Sasanian soldier in one of the trenches has also yielded precious information. He was equipped with a coat of mail, a sword ornamented with a jade disk of Central Asian type, and an iron helmet made in two halves with an iron crest running vertically down the center of the front, of clearly Mesopotamian and Iranian origin. This type of helmet served as a model for those adopted in the Roman empire in the 3rd century (James).
The chronology of the siege operations has given rise to a debate that is still far from having been resolved. The discovery of Pahlavi inscriptions on the frescoes of the synagogue does not prove that the town had first been occupied by the Sasanians during a campaign in 253, three years before the final siege. It is also improbable that a house near the triumphal arch on the main street, in which there was a fresco of Sasanian type showing a fight between cavalrymen, belongs to this putative first occupation. It seems now that this fresco, several ostraca in Pahlavi found in the palace of the Dux Ripae (Figure 30/13), and the tombs discovered in the town and along the river resulted from temporary installation of a small Persian detachment in the town after the victory of 256 (MacDonald; Leriche and Al Mahmoud, 1994).
Τις βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές μπορείτε να βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dura-europos
———————————————–
Γενικά:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm34
https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/dura-mithraeum
https://sergeyurich.livejournal.com/809515.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дура-Эвропос
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Синагога_Дура-Европос
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δούρα_Ευρωπός
https://artgallery.yale.edu/online-feature/dura-europos-excavating-antiquity
http://media.artgallery.yale.edu/duraeuropos/dura.html
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/syria/dura-europos
http://www.pravenc.ru/text/180593.html
https://www.livius.org/articles/place/dura-europos/
https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/6746
http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/DuraMithras.html
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/religion-society-and-culture-at-duraeuropos/mithraeum-of-duraeuropos/EC5B512F8931E969F185C033CB758FA2
—————————————–
Αρχική ανάρτηση του βίντεο:
Dura Europos – The Life, Death and Resurrection of an ancient city – Syria
I traveled to Dura Europos just before the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and were one of the last to see this magnificent site before it was destroyed.
Dura Europos was a Hellenistic, Parthian and Roman border city built on an escarpment above the Euphrates river in eastern Syria.
It was conquered in 114 AD and finally captured in 165 AD by the Romans (who greatly enlarged it as their easternmost stronghold in Mesopotamia) and destroyed after a Sassanian siege in 257 AD. After it was abandoned, it was covered by sand and mud and disappeared from sight.
Abandoned after its conquest in 256–7 AD, nothing was built over it and no later building programs obscured the architectonic features of the ancient city. Its location on the edge of empires made for a co-mingling of cultural traditions, much of which was preserved under the city’s ruins.
Some remarkable finds have been brought to light, including numerous temples, wall decorations, inscriptions, military equipment, tombs, and even dramatic evidence of the Sassanian siege during the Imperial Roman period which led to the site’s abandonment.
After it has been severely looted by the Islamic State in the ongoing Syrian Civil War, it was demolished by ISIS.
---------------------
Κατεβάστε το κείμενο σε Word doc.:
https://vk.com/doc429864789_625211299
https://www.docdroid.net/kyb9h2o/doura-efropos-to-teleio-protipo-polipolitismikotitas-docx
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/muhammad-shamsaddin-megalommatis-677982143_δούρα-ευρωπός-το-τέλειο-πρότυπο-πολυπολιτισμικότητας-activity-6880844641445400576-yo16/
Ισπαχάν: η Αυτοκρατορική Πρωτεύουσα των Σαφεβιδών (:των Σούφι Σάχηδων) που είναι ο Μισός Κόσμος
Esfahan: the Imperial Capital of Safavid dynasty (: the Sufi Shahs) which is already "Half the World"
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 22α Ιουνίου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παρουσιάζει τμήμα ομιλίας μου στην Νουρ-σουλτάν (πρώην Αστανά) του Καζακστάν τον Δεκέμβριο του 2018 με θέμα τις μεγάλες αυτοκρατορικές πρωτεύουσες της Ασίας και της Αφρικής, καθώς και την εμφανή κατωτερότητα και αθλιότητα των δυτικο-ευρωπαϊκών πρωτευουσών αποικιοκρατικών χωρών.
--------------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/ισπαχάν-η-αυτοκρατορική-πρωτεύουσα-τ/ ===============
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Όπως και στην περίπτωση της Σαμαρκάνδης, δεν υπάρχει καμμιά ευρωπαϊκή πόλη πλην της Σταμπούλ που να μπορεί να αντιπαραβληθεί με το Εσφαχάν σε αυτοκρατορικό μεγαλείο.
Μαζί με τις προαναφερμένες δύο πρωτεύουσες, καθώς και την Σαχ Τζαχάν Αμπάντ (το λεγόμενο Παλαιό Δελχί), πρωτεύουσα των Μογγόλων αυτοκρατόρων (Γκορκανιάν) της Ινδίας, και το Πεκίνο, το Εσφαχάν είναι μία από τις πέντε μεγαλύτερες και πιο εντυπωσιακές αυτοκρατορικές πόλεις και τις πέντε πιο σημαντικές πρωτεύουσες του Παγκόσμιου Πολιτισμού και της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας των τελευταίων δύο χιλιετιών.
Οι Ιρανοί το λένε πιο λακωνικά κι έχουν δίκιο: το Εσφαχάν είναι ο Μισός Κόσμος. Όλη η υπόλοιπη επιφάνεια της γης είναι το υπόλοιπο μισό του κόσμου.
—————————————————-
Το Τζαμί του Σάχη, Εσφαχάν
Το Τζαμί του Σεΐχη Λουτφολλάχ, Εσφαχάν
Ανακτορικό Περίπτερο Αλί Καπού, Εσφαχάν
Ανάκτορο των Σαράντα Κιόνων (Τσεέλ Σοτούν), Εσφαχάν
Ανάκτορο των Οκτώ Παραδείσων (Χαστ Μπεχέστ), Εσφαχάν
——————————————————————-
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Исфахан: имперская столица сефевидов (суфийской династии Ирана) – половина мира
https://www.ok.ru/video/1416652720749
Isfahan: the Imperial Capital of the Safavid (: Sufi) Dynasty of Iran is Half of the World
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240217
Ισπαχάν: η Πρωτεύουσα των Σαφεβιδών (της Δυναστείας των Σούφι) είναι ο Μισός Κόσμος
Περισσότερα:
Στα περσικά (φαρσί) λένε “Εσφαχάν νασφ-ε Τζαχάν”, δηλαδή ότι το Ισπαχάν είναι ο μισός κόσμος. Γνωστή ως Ασπάδανα στα αρχαία ελληνικά, το Ισπαχάν ήταν μια μικρή πόλη στα αχαιαμενιδικά (550-330), αρσακιδικά (250 π.Χ. – 224 μ.Χ.) και στα σασανιδικά (224-651) χρόνια. Όταν με την ισλαμική κατάκτηση (636-642-651), το Ισπαχάν έγινε πρωτεύουσα της χαλιφατικής επαρχίας Τζεμπάλ (: βουνά) που περιλάμβανε την οροσειρά του Ζάγρου και το δυτικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, άρχισε μία ανέλιξη που κορυφώθηκε στα σαφεβιδικά (1501-1736) χρόνια.
Το Εσφαχάν, όπως λέγεται στα περσικά, είναι μια από τις πιο εντυπωσιακές αυτοκρατορικές πρωτεύουσες του κόσμου. Επίκεντρο της σαφεβιδικής πρωτεύουσας ήταν η τεράστια πλατεία Νακς-ε Τζαχάν (εικόνα του κόσμου), όπου από το αυτοκρατορικό περίπτερο Αλί Καπού ο σάχης παρακολουθούσε τους αγώνες πόλο που λάμβαναν χώρα. Εκεί βρίσκονται και δυο από τα ωραιότερα τζαμιά του κόσμου: το Τζαμί του Σεΐχη Λουτφολάχ και το Τζαμί του Σάχη (σήμερα: ‘ταμί του ιμάμη’).
Για τους Ιρανούς από τα πρώιμα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια ‘κήπος’ σήμαινε ‘παράδεισος’ κι όλοι οι σάχηδες των προϊσλαμικών και των ισλαμικών χρόνων οργάνωσαν εντυπωσιακούς κήπους κι έκτισαν ανάκτορα μέσα σε κήπους με λίμνες. Το ανάκτορο Τσεέλ Σοτούν (των σαράντα κιόνων) και το ανάκτορο Χαστ Μπεχέστ (των οκτώ παραδείσων) είναι τα πιο εντυπωσιακά από όσα σώζονται.
Περισσότερα: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Jahan_Square
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80l%C4%AB_Q%C4%81p%C5%AB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chehel_Sotoun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasht_Behesht
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Lotfollah_Mosque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Mosque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Исфахан
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ισφαχάν
————————————————–
Διαβάστε:
Isfahan (اصفهان), ancient province and old city in central Iran (Middle Pers. “Spahān,” New Pers. “Eṣfahān”). Isfahan city has served as one of the most important urban centers on the Iranian Plateau since ancient times and has gained, over centuries of urbanization, many significant monuments; a number of Isfahan’s monuments have been designated by UNESCO as world heritage sites. Isfahan city, the capital of Isfahan Province, is located about 420 km south of Tehran, and is Persia’s third largest city (after Tehran and Mashad) with a population of over 1.4 million in 2004.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan
Isfahan v. Local Historiography
Isfahan is exceptional in the number and variety of works of local historiography; no other Persian city has attracted nearly as many such works. These works were written predominantly in two periods: the pre-Mongol (and in particular the pre-Saljuq) period and the 19th century; works written in the 20th century will not be dealt with extensively here. Works of local historiography about Isfahan can be classified into two distinct literary genres: the biographical dictionary and the adab-oriented local history.
Biographical dictionaries. Biographical dictionaries of local perspective were written for a large number of Persian cities in the pre-Mongol period, but only a fraction of them are extant in either the original Arabic or Persian renderings. Two biographical dictionaries about scholars from Isfahan, both written in Arabic, have come down to us. The earlier of these two, the Ṭabaqāt al-moḥaddeṯin be-Eṣfahān wa’l-wāredin ʿalayhā, by Abu’l-Šayḵ ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moḥammad (274-369/887-979), was probably written in the 350s/960s, since the latest dates mentioned do not relate to events far beyond 350 (ed. Baluši, IV, p. 230, dated 353).
The mention of dates as late as that seems to be exceptional, so they could have been added during the final stages of the process of completing the work. The second work of this genre is Ḏekr akbār Eṣfahān by the Hadith transmitter and historian Abu Noʿaym Eṣfahāni (q.v.; d. 430/1038). The latest dates in this work suggest that it was completed in the 410s/1020s.
Abu’l-Šayḵ was not necessarily the first author from Isfahan to write a biographical dictionary about the scholars who lived in, or had come to, his hometown. Among the many sources he quotes, the Hanbalite scholar Ebn Manda (d. 301/913-14) is the most prominent. On the basis of this and other later sources, it is almost certain that Ebn Manda wrote such a work. It seems that it was still known in the immediate pre-Mongol period, since the author of an analogous work on the scholars of Qazvin was apparently able to use it then (Rāfeʿi, I, p. 2).
Moreover, Abu’l-Šayḵ frequently mentions men who wrote their mašyaḵa (list of teachers with whom they studied Hadith and other Islamic sciences); thus, it would be reasonable to assume that he used a number of these in preparing his work. The transition from writing down one’s own mašyaḵa to compiling a book on the “categories” or “generations” of scholars is likely to have been a relatively smooth one.
Undoubtedly, Abu’l-Šayḵ was, in turn, one of the most important, perhaps even the single most important, source for Abu Noʿaym, who referred to him as Abu Moḥammad b. Ḥayyān. Except for a very few, all the scholars included in Abu’l-Šayḵ’s work are also mentioned by Abu Noʿaym. Abu Noʿaym did not, however, merely write a continuation (ḏayl) to Abu’l-Šayḵ’s work; rather, he used most of his material in a slightly abridged or otherwise adapted form; thus, any changes that Abu Noʿaym introduced into the text of his source can be taken to be intentional.
Other sources of comparable character were identified first by Sven Dedering in the introduction to his edition of Abu Noʿaym’s work, and have recently been discussed more comprehensively by Nur-Allāh Kasāʾi in the introduction to his Persian translation of the work. Kasāʾi also provides a detailed comparison between the respective works of Abu’l-Šayḵ and Abu Noʿaym. It is also worth mentioning that an important source for Abu Noʿaym was the (apparently lost) Ketāb Eṣfahān by Ḥamza Eṣfahāni (see below).
These two biographical dictionaries are similar in scope, but they offer a number of differences in form: Abu’l-Šayḵ arranged his entries according to the principle of ṭabaqāt (categories), whereas Abu Noʿaym adhered to alphabetical order (except for the Companions of the Prophet), using the ṭabaqāt principle only within larger groups made up of men who bore very common given names such as Aḥmad (I, pp. 77 ff.).
Both works start with an introductory chapter, that of the earlier work being much more concise. Abu Noʿaym places a perceptible stress on the good qualities of the Persians and their merits in contributing to the spread of Islam and the maintenance of its purity.
For instance, half of the section on the Companions of the Prophet is devoted to Salmān Fār(e)si (q.v.), and the stories about the Arab conquest of Isfahan provide unfavorable details about how the invaders proceeded. Both works link the early history of Isfahan back to the prophetic cycle of history by claiming that the people of Isfahan were the only ones who did not support Nimrod in his rebellion against God, but supported Abraham instead (Abu’l-Šayḵ, 1989, I, p. 150; 1987-92, I, p. 28, Abu Noʿaym, I, pp. 48 ff.).
The biographical parts of both of these works shed some light on institutions of learning and their development. The earlier work describes teaching activity taking place mainly in mosques and in private homes, whereas the later one refers to specialized institutions unknown to the earlier source, such as a “House of learning and transmission,” (bayt al-ʿlm wa’l-rewāya) mentioned in relation to someone who died in 363/973, as well as a “House of Hadith and transmission” (baytal-ḥadiṯ wa’l-rewāya )(ed. Dedering, I, pp. 156, 221).
Other matters for which contemporary scholars have found it useful to resort to using local biographical dictionaries in general, and in particular those written about Isfahan, include the office of the judge (Halm) and the spread of law schools (Melchert; Tsafrir). Scholars have also offered, on the basis of such sources, reconstructions of the rise of Sufism to a respected movement that managed to attract even some of the more prominent religious scholars (Paul, 2000a, using methods developed by Chabbi).
Both books discuss in their introductions the pleasant landscape and climate of Isfahan and its surroundings in a very similar way, thus apparently laying the foundation for further developments of the genre that treats local history and geography as closely related subjects.
Adab-oriented local historiography. Works of local historiography written in the pre-Mongol period mostly belong to the genre of biographical dictionaries. The only extant work of this genre about Isfahan is Māfarruḵi’s Maḥāsen Eṣfahān in Arabic, which was written probably some time between 464/1072 and 484/1092 (Bulliet), when Isfahan had become the capital of the Great Saljuq empire.
Māfarruḵi includes quotes from Ketāb Eṣfahān, the lost work of Ḥamza Eṣfahāni; thus it seems that in Isfahan there was something like a tradition of writing local history in both genres. It is, however, impossible to venture a reconstruction of Ḥamza’s work based on the rather short references in Abu Noʿaym and Māfarruḵi, but it seems likely that it had a part similar to a biographical dictionary (including not only scholars, but also men of letters) and another one on antiquities (Paul, 2000b).
Another such work on “the glories of Isfahan” (fi mafāḵer Eṣfahān) may have existed in the form of ʿAli b. Ḥamza b. ʿOmāra’s Qalāʾed al šaraf, which is mentioned by Mā-farruḵi (p. 27) and Yāqut (V. pp. 200 f.) but seems to be lost. Nevertheless, it is probable that there was a tradition of writing adab-oriented local histories of Isfahan as well as biographical dictionaries of scholars.
Māfarruḵi’s work was translated into Persian in the 14th century by Ḥosayn b. Moḥammad b. Abi’l-Reżā Āvi, who rearranged it by dividing the text into eight chapters and added further material in several places, in many cases poetry, as well as praise of the Il-khanid vizier who governed Isfahan in his time. Māfarruḵi’s work is a pleasantly arranged assortment of stories, including some about storytelling itself. It was written from the vantage point of the secretarial class that focuses on the rules of good governance, which are sometimes linked to the pre-Islamic past.
This is history as a means of conveying contemporary messages; the rules are set first in a distant past, and later cases are used to illustrate that they are still valid. In its historical parts, the text certainly does not aim to recount history “as it really happened,” but tells stories of a historical nature as exempla to illustrate general rules that mostly pertain to good governance. Since these rules are grounded in a common cultural code shared by the author and his audience (and, in fact, later generations as well), the work is permeated with the values that were characteristic of the author’s time and social background. This work’s overall message is that experience (tajreba) has shown time and again that successful rulers are those who heed the advice of secretaries, viziers, and even the ordinary public. It is irrelevant that some of the stories told to convey this point of view may be fictitious.
Works written in the later 19th century; No local history of Isfahan seems to have been written under the Safavids or in the period immediately following their downfall. Local historiography resumed only in the second half of the 19th century, particularly as a response to Nāṣer-al-Din Shah’s project for a general description of the regions of Persia called Merʾāt al-boldān. Thus geography, in particular historical geography, is the focus of interest in some of these works, which are a source of information about city quarters and even about individual buildings.
One of the works written for Nāṣer-al-Din Shah was Neṣf al-jahān fi taʿrif al-Eṣfahān (in classical Arabic, the name of the city did not bear the definite article) by Moḥammad-Mahdi b. Moḥammad-Reżā Eṣfahāni. The earliest extant manuscript of this work is dated 1287/1870, but additions and revisions were made, apparently, until 1303/1885. It continued the tradition of adab-oriented historiography from the earlier periods in that it also presented a mix of history and geography, as indeed would have been what the king wanted.
The historical part takes up almost half of the text, highlighting two periods. In the section dealing with early history (pp. 139-69), the author tried to link his understanding of the results of modern (Western) scholarship (archeology and research on cuneiform texts) to the Persian (Šāh-nāma) tradition. After the legendary kings of Persia and Babylon, most of ancient and medieval history is given short shrift; but the author still manages to quote Māfarruḵi a couple of times and refers to Jean Chardin (q.v.) and Engelbert Kaempfer as witnesses to the prosperity of the country under the Safavids (pp. 178-79).
The second period focuses on the conquest of Persia by the Afghans and the ensuing period of upheaval, which he pursues as far as the reign of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qājār (q.v.; pp. 180 ff.). In this part, he frequently refers to European writers, among whom Sir John Malcolm’s History of Persia (1829) holds a prominent place (the references to Chardin and Kaempfer are probably also taken from here). Whenever the author has to decide whether the chronicle written by Mirzā Mahdi Khan Estrābādi (certainly the Tāriḵ-e nāderi is intended) or the English work is more reliable, he opts for the latter work.
Ḥājj Mirzā Ḥasan Khan Jāberi Anṣāri (1870-1957) wrote a history of Isfahan, which is called Tāriḵ-e Eṣfahān in the latest edition. (An earlier version, shorn of the third volume, which is a collection of biographies, is known as Tāriḵ-e Eṣfahān wa-Ray wa hama-ye jahān; the first version, called Tāriḵ-e neṣf-e jahān wa hama-ye jahān, was published in lithograph edition in Isfahan in 1914.) This is also a combination of both geography and history, and it seems particularly valuable for its detailed description of the Zāyandarud river and the system through which its waters were distributed (Lambton).
In a section consisting of biographies, dates as late as 1350/1931 are given, thus reaching far into the 20th century. The author was one of the main proponents of the constitutional movement in Isfahan, and so his perspective is also partisan. He was well informed about questions of governance and administration, since he held posts in the provincial administration under Masʿud Mirzā Ẓell-al-Solṭān for long periods, so it is not surprising that his main categoried are ʿemārat (flourishing parts) and virāni/ḵarābi (ruinous state).
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan-v-local-historiography
Isfahan vii. Safavid Period
Isfahan came under Safavid rule in 1503 following Shah Esmāʿil’s defeat of Solṭān Morād, the Āq Qoyunlu (q.v.) ruler of Erāq-e ʿAjam, near Hamadān. No contemporary source describes the conquest of the city in any detail, but we do know that it was accompanied by great brutality. In retaliation for the killing of many Shiʿite inhabitants under the Āq Qoyunlu, Shah Esmāʿil caused a bloodbath among the city’s Sunnites. The Portuguese traveler, Tenreiro, visiting Isfahan in 1524, reports seeing mounds of dirt with bones sticking out that were reportedly the remains of 5,000 people killed by the Safavids (Tenreiro, pp. 20-21).
Following the conquest, Esmāʿil appointed Dormeš Khan Šāmlu governor. Mirzā Šāh-Ḥosayn, originally a builder (bannā, meʿmār) in Isfahan, at that point started his political career by serving Dormeš Khan as vizier of the dāruḡa (“mayor”; see below and CITIES ii) of the city. He was later promoted to the post of wakil (royal deputy, the highest subject of the king) of Shah Esmāʿil, and was so influential that his enemies finally assassinated him in 1523 (Rumlu, pp. 231-32). In fact, his case is not an exception. Beginning with the reign of Shah Esmāʿil, Isfahani families occupied high positions in the Safavid administration, and at least one Safavid grand vizier, Mirzā Salmān Jāberi, appointed by Moḥammad Ḵodābanda in 1578, hailed from an Isfahani family.
Isfahan continued to be a focus of Shah Esmāʿil even as he set out to conquer other parts of the Iranian plateau. Stopping at the city from time to time, he is said to have been keen to restore the city to its pre-Mongol significance and in this regard paid particular attention to the role and function of its squares. In 1509 he ordered the enlargement of the Meydān-e Naqš-e Jahān (Royal Square) to accommodate the playing of polo, qabāq-bāzi, and other games and forms of entertainment. He used the Old Meydān (Meydān-e kohna) as the place of execution of rebels. The building of Hārun-e Welāyat, the mausoleum of a saint, at the southern end of the Old Meydān, was completed by Mirzā Šāh-Ḥosayn in 1512 (Ḵᵛāndamir, IV, p. 500; Quiring-Zoche, p. 64).
Shah Ṭahmāsb (r. 1524-76), who was born in a suburb of Isfahan in 1514, added several other buildings, mostly mosques, to the city. He incorporated Isfahan into the royal domain in 1534, and the city’s status as crown land (ḵāṣṣa) remained largely unchanged until the end of the Safavid period (Röhrborn, p. 118). The only exception is the reign of Moḥammad Ḵodābanda (1577-87), who offered Isfahan as a revenue assignment (teyul) to Ḥamza Mirzā, one of his sons and his heir.
The de-facto ruler of Isfahan, however, became his plenipotentiary (ṣāḥeb-e eḵtiār), Farhād Khan (q.v.), who did much to secure the city from the Arašlu tribe, who had taken control of the environs and were moving into the city as well. Once in power, Farhād Beg built himself a fortified residence alongside the Bāḡ-e Naqš-e Jahān (Royal Garden) and designed a new garden around it, destroying the bāḡ itself and moving its trees in the process (Afuštaʾi Naṭanzi, pp. 339-40).
During the reign of Shah Ṭahmāsb, the city twice experienced wartime disorder. The first time was during the civil war between two Qezelbāš tribal leaders, Čoḡā Solṭān Takkalu and Ḥosayn Khan Šāmlu, in 937/1530. The latter attacked Čoḡā Solṭān in a suburb of Isfahan, and Čoḡā Solṭān took refuge in the royal tent located near his camp. Ḥosayn Khan managed to kill Čoḡā Solṭān but ultimately was defeated by Takkalu reinforcements. He retreated to Isfahan and then fled to Fārs. It seems that the city itself was not thrown into disarray during this conflict (Rumlu, pp. 308-10).
The revolt of Alqās Mirzā (q.v.), Ṭahmāsb’s brother, in 1548-49 represents the second period of disorder for Isfahan. After ravaging Hamadān, Ray, and Qom, Alqās Mirzā’s troops, supported by the Ottoman Sultan Solayman, came close to Isfahan. He believed that the citizens would open the city’s gate without fighting, because no substantial Safavid force was around. Instead, the people of Isfahan, led by Šāh Taqi-al-Din Moḥammad Mir-e Mirān, a community leader (naqib), and his brother Mir Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Moḥammad, shut the city gates and put up strong resistance, strengthened in their determination by the fact that the shah had sent his own harem to Isfahan (Navidi, p. 101).
Alqās, finding it difficult to subdue Isfahan, gave up on his attempt to take the city and left for Shiraz (Rumlu, p. 434). The event became certainly the turning point of Alqās Mirzā’s revolt, which ended with his arrest and confinement in Qahqaha castle the following year (Rumlu, pp. 437-38). Although Isfahan made a great contribution to Ṭahmāsb’s cause through its fierce resistance, it does not seem to have received any royal favors in return. We only know of an order by Ṭahmāsb to abolish various taxes imposed on guilds in 1563 (Honarfar, pp. 88-90). This may simply have been part of the exemption from the tax on commerce (tamḡā), which Ṭahmāsb offered throughout the kingdom in 972/1564. The measure was apparently taken after the oracle of Ṣāḥeb-al-Amir appeared in the ruler’s dream (Qāżi Aḥmad, p. 449).
After Ḥamza Mirzā’s death in 1586, Isfahan fell to his brother, Abu Ṭāleb Mirzā. Farhād Khan lost his post and was incarcerated. Ḡolām (slave) forces loyal to him revolted, however, and managed to take hold of the city fortress with their own hostages. Long negotiations with representatives of Shah Ḵodābanda, who had meanwhile arrived in Isfahan, led to the release of the hostages but not the freeing of Farhād Khan. The ḡolāms only surrendered after royalist forces threatened to bombard the citadel.
The structure was destroyed after the rebels had left it. Shortly thereafter Moḥammad Ḵodābanda died, and Isfahan opened up its gates to the forces of the new ruler, Shah ʿAbbās I, who proceeded to grant the city and its environs to his wakil, Moršedqoli Khan, as a teyul. As city mayor he appointed Yuli Beg. The latter set out to restore the Tabarak fortress but also showed signs of autonomy. The decision of Shah ʿAbbās to visit Isfahan in 1590 led to a confrontation, with Yuli Beg retreating into the fortress with his troops.
Ultimately the shah reconciled himself with Yuli Beg, although the post of senior governor (ḥākem) went to ʿAli Beg Ostājlu (Afuštaʾi Naṭanzi, pp. 33-35, 233-38; Quiring-Zoche, pp. 80-89). Shortly thereafter, in early 1590, Isfahan was made crown land again, with the post of vizier going to Mirzā Mo-ḥammad Nišāpuri (Ḵuzāni Eṣfahāni, fol. 39b).
Isfahan as the Safavid Capital
The idea of turning Isfahan into a new capital must have come to Shah ʿAbbās shortly after his accession in 1587, for the first mention of designs for the new Isfahan occurs under 998/1588 in the Afżal al-tawāriḵ (Ḵuzāni Eṣfahāni, fol. 38v). At that early date some changes were made, among them the beginnings of the ʿĀli Qāpu palace (q.v.), but an overall new design did not come to fruition, possibly because of opposition.
The choice of Isfahan as the new administrative and cultural center was based in part on the availability of water—in the form of the Zāyandarud—but was clearly politically motivated as well. The city was located deep into the interior and thus far less exposed to the Ottoman threat than Tabriz and even Qazvin had been. It was also well positioned vis-à-vis the Persian Gulf, and thus played a pivotal role in Shah ʿAbbās’s territorial and commercial designs in that direction, which he initiated shortly after Isfahan had become the new capital (Mazzaoui).
Both Eskandar Beg Torkamān and Mollā Jalāl Monajjem tell us that the royal household moved to Isfahan and that Shah ʿAbbās proclaimed the city his capital (maqarr-e dawlat) in 1006/1597-98, giving orders for the erection of “magnificent” buildings (Eskandar Beg, tr. Savory, pp. 724; Mollā Jalāl, p. 161). Most scholars in fact consider this year as the time of transfer of the Safavid capital from Qazvin to Isfahan.
Stephen Blake’s new interpretation, which attaches crucial importance to the mentioning of the older design, is convincingly refuted by Babaie (see Blake, and the review by Babaie, pp. 478-82; for the various phases of the new design, see also Haneda, 1990). It is true that, from 1590 onward, Isfahan was often called dār al-salṭana in the sources, but we have to realize that it was not the capital in the modern sense of the word. As had always been the case among rulers of nomadic background and as would be true until the 19th century in Persia, the capital really was where the ruler happened to be.
The Dutch noted how, in the later 17th century, Isfahan’s population would swell by some 60,000 whenever the shah returned to the city. Tabriz and Qazvin were still referred to as dār al-salṭana as well, after the “transfer” of the capital, and Shah ʿAbbās stayed in Isfahan less than two months a year on average throughout his reign, less than the three months he spent in Māzandarān as of 1619.
Shah Ṣafi was absent from Isfahan for a full five years between 1631 and 1636. Still, Isfahan played a central role from the inception of Safavid rule, with members of its prominent families heavily represented in key bureaucratic positions as early as Shah Esmāʿil I’s administration (Quiring-Zoche, pp. 252-52).
That the city grew in importance throughout the 1590s is suggested by the fact that Shah ʿAbbās made the trip to and from Qazvin at least eighteen times in this period and visited Isfahan every year between 1590 and 1603 (Melville, p. 200). After it became the capital, all coronation ceremonies were held in Isfahan. The city in the course of time also gained more of a central focus as later shahs lost their appetite for campaigning. Shah ʿAbbās II was the last Safavid monarch who spent considerable time on the battlefield, as well as in the royal residence in Māzandarān.
Especially the last two rulers, Solaymān and Solṭān-Ḥosayn, rarely left the confines of their palace, and Solṭān-Ḥosayn often resided at Faraḥābād, the pleasure garden built outside Isfahan (although between 1717 and 1721 the shah was absent from Isfahan, spending time in Kāšān and Qazvin and returning to the capital just a year before the fall of the capital to the Afghans; Floor, 1998, pp. 31, 36). In sum, it may be said that Isfahan gradually acquired the status of capital (Quiring-Zoche, p. 105).
Isfahan’s newly acquired status found expression in the construction of a new governmental and commercial center southwest of the existing one, in a shift in that direction that had begun under the Saljuqs (Gaube and Wirth, pp. 47, 54). A new royal square, the Meydān-e Naqš-e Jahān, measuring 524 x 158 m, formed the fulcrum of this development. The model for the meydān seems to have been the meydān of the old city, although it has been suggested that the meydān of Kermān, laid out by Ganj-ʿAli Khan in the late 16th century, served as a model as well (Galdieri, 1974, p. 385; Gaube and Wirth, p. 55).
The outline of the meydān and the adjacent Qay-ṣariya bazaar was begun in 1001—a one-year tax relief was granted for the purpose—and the Čahār Bāḡ as well as the Shaikh Loṭf-Allāh mosque were designed in 1002 (Ḵuzāni Eṣfahāni, foll. 61v, 74). In the year 1012/1603, the shops, the caravansaries, the bathhouses, and the coffeehouses around the meydān were completed (Jonā-bādi, pp. 759-60). The same year saw the first proposal to connect the waters of the Zāyandarud with those of the Kuhrang river.
This scheme came up again in 102930/161619-20 and in the 1680s, but would only be executed in the 19th century (Mollā Jalāl, p. 244; Eskandar Beg, pp. 1170-71, 1180 see i[2], above). The Masjed-e Šāh, anchoring the southern end of the square, was begun in 1020/1611. The mosque complex was virtually completed by the end of Shah ʿAbbās I’s reign, although additions and repairs continued to be made until 1078/1667 (Blake, p. 140).
Following the completion of the royal square, the Qayṣariya bazaar, with its entry gate at the north end of the square, gradually developed into a huge covered marketplace (for its development, see Gaube and Wirth, pp. 31 ff.; Blake, pp. 101 ff.). Henceforth this part of the city would be its preeminent commercial center, even if the old center continued to play an important role in social life (see x, below).
In later years more building activity took place, mostly involving palaces. A new royal palace took shape in the Naqš-e jahān garden, adjacent to the new meydān, which had been a garden retreat for Shah Esmāʿil I. The palace grew out a series of mansions, principally one owned by Farhād Khan (q.v.), but the exact stages of its construction remain unclear (Eskandar Beg, II, p. 780; tr., II, p. 977; discussion in Blake, pp. 58 ff.).
The same is true of the building of the ʿĀli Qāpu, the five-storey audience hall overlooking the meydān, which was begun under Shah ʿAbbās but not used until the reign of Shah Ṣafi (Galdi-eri, 1979). The Ṭālār-e Ṭawila, the Āyena-Ḵāna, and the Čehel Sotun (Forty columns), too, date from this period; they were all built in the period 1635-47, under the auspices and patronage of Moḥammad Sāru Taqi (Floor, 2002; Babaie, 1994, pp. 128-29; idem, 2002, pp. 23-24).
The Čehel Sotun was constructed in 1056/1646 or 1057/1647. It was rebuilt after it burned down in 1706, and the structure as it exists today dates from that time (Blake, pp. 66-69). The Pol-e Ḵᵛāju was erected under Shah ʿAbbās II as well (see x, below).
The wall that had surrounded Isfahan for centuries and that had always marked the boundary between the inner city and the suburbs continued to exist, but by the early 17th century it had lost its significance as a defense mechanism and thus was allowed to become dilapidated (Gaube and Wirth, p. 33; Haneda, 1996, pp. 370-72).
The old city anyhow was unable to accommodate ʿAbbās I’s designs for a new capital, and much of the new development took place beyond the perimeter of the wall. Southwest of the new royal palace and the area around the square, new quarters such as ʿAbbāsābād and Ḵᵛāju were developed in the western and southern suburb. Craftsmen and merchants from all over the country were urged to come to settle in Isfahan.
Most notably, the shah resettled craftsmen from newly conquered Tabriz to ʿAbbāsābād and had Armenian merchants from Julfa settle in New Julfa (Pers. Jolfā; see JULFA), which was specially built for them at the southern bank of the Zāyandarud. In the middle of these new quarters ran the long and straight avenue of Čahārbāḡ from a gate of the old city to the Hazār Jarib garden situated at the southern hill. Beautiful gardens were built at both sides of the avenue.
With its canals and their abundant water, the greenery of its parks, its wide and straight streets and its spacious layout, the urban plan of the new city suited the elite, government officials and the rich, who came to settle down there from outside of Isfahan. Thus, the character of the new city differed substantially from that of the old city, which maintained the character of a traditional Persian city with its winding streets, small houses, and little public greenery, and where most Isfahanis continued to live.
The building activities continued until nearly the end of the Safavid rule in the 18th century. Various shahs also built pleasure gardens across the Zāyandarud. Thus Shah ʿAbbās I had ʿAbbāsābād (Hazār Jarib) constructed as an extension of the Čahārbāḡ ʿAbbās II created Saʿādatābād in 1070/1659; and Shah Solṭān-Ḥosayn had Faraḥābād laid out in 1697, making further additions and embellishments in 1711 and again in the period 1714-17 (Ḵātunā-bādi, pp. 562-63; NA, VOC 1856, 15 April 1714, fol. 714; Darhuhaniyan, p. 146; VOC 1870, 9 March 1715, foll. 614-15; VOC 1870, 25 November 1714, fol. 495; VOC 1848, 13 April 1715, fol. 2280v; VOC 1897, 3 December 1716, fol. 247; Honarfar, pp. 722-25; Blake, pp. 74-81).
The Madrasa-ye Maryam Begom was built and turned into waqf (endowment) property by Maryam Begom, Shah Solṭān-Ḥosayn’s great aunt, in 1703 (Honarfar, pp. 662-67). The Madrasa-ye Čahārbāḡ, the blue, lofty dome of which can be seen from anywhere in Isfahan, was also built under the reign of Solṭān-Ḥosayn, begun in 1704-05 and finished in 1706-07 (Ḵātunābādi, p. 556; Herdeg). Isfahan and its buildings are always associated with the name of Shah ʿAbbās I. In reality, however, they are the cooperative work of many people, royal, religious, military and civil, throughout the Safavid period (see x, below).
Various Western observers claimed that 17th-century Isfahan was the largest city in all of Safavid Persia (Schillinger, p. 228). According to Jean Chardin (q.v.), Isfahan had 162 mosques, 48 madrasas, 1,802 caravansaries, 273 public baths, and 12 cemeteries within its walls (for an overview of the city’s caravansaries, see Vademecum of Caravanserais in Isfahan). The exact number of its population is not known, but clearly grew over time, especially after the city gained the status of capital.
Don Juan of Persia for the 1590s estimated 80,000 households and 360,000 inhabitants (Don Juan, p. 39). Thomas Herbert (q.v.), visiting in 1627-29, calculated 70,000 households and a total of 200,000 people (Herbert, p. 126). Adam Olearius in 1637 gives a figure of 500,000 inhabitants (Olearius, p. 553).
Chardin confirms this by suggesting that in the late 17th century the population of Isfahan was almost as numerous as that of London, then the biggest city in Europe with an estimated population of 500,000. Three-quarters of the population may have lived within the city walls, and one-quarter outside of them (Blake, p. 38). This would have made late Safavid Isfahan one of the biggest cities in the world, besides London, Istanbul, Šāhjahānābād (Delhi), Beijing, and Edo (Tokyo).
Administration
The post of ḥākem as the local governor of Isfahan goes back to the period before the Safavids. In the 16th century, the ḥākem was often an individual of high rank in the larger administration. Thus two of the ḥokkām were also preceptors of rulers, Durmiš Khan for Sām Mirzā, and Mohammad Khan for the young Moḥammad Ḵodā-banda. In the early reign of Shah ʿAbbās I, Farhād Khan served as ḥākem (Quiring-Zoche, p. 138). Another one of Isfahan’s principal administrators was the dāruḡa. In the 16th century the dāruḡa may have been appointed by the ḥākem, but later on it was the shah who appointed him, something that is reflected in the rather frequent mention of the position in the Persian chronicles.
In the European sources, the dāruḡa is often equated with the post of mayor (Chardin, X, p. 28; Fryer, III, p. 23; Kaempfer, p. 110). The jurisdiction is not always clear, but it seems that, as a rule, the dāruḡa was not in charge of fiscal matters. Initially the function may have had a military aspect, but, as it evolved in the 17th century, the dāruḡa mostly dealt with issues of law and public security (Fryer, III, p. 23; Minorsky, pp. 82, 149; Floor, 2001, p. 118). The association of the function of dāruḡa with crown domain (Floor, 2001, pp. 116-17) is not fully borne out by the evidence. Already in the 15th century we hear of a dāruḡa in Isfahan (Quiring-Zoche, pp. 130, 134).
In the Safavid period we have Mirzā Jān Beg, who was appointed dāruḡa in 1530-31, three or four years before the conversion of Isfahan to crown land (Haneda, p. 80). The appointment of Georgians to the post also goes back further than 1620, for Bižan Beg Gorji acceded to the post in 998/1590 and Kostandil (Constantine), the son of the Georgian King Alexander II, was appointed dāruḡa in 1602-03 (Ḵuzāni Eṣfahāni, foll. 40b, 148; Maeda, pp. 261-62). Still, several non-Georgians were appointed in later years, for instance, Tahtā Khan Beg and Bektāš Beg Ostājlu, and only in 1620 did the post become the prerogative of a son of the governor of Georgia, in an arrangement made by Shah ʿAbbās (Della Valle, II, p. 176; Chardin, X, p. 29; Kaempfer, pp. 110-11).
From that moment until the end of Safavid rule, the dāruḡa was always a Georgian. From the moment Isfahan turned into crown domain, a vizier was appointed as well (Quiring-Zoche, p. 145). Typically a ḡolām, this official was assigned to the divān-e ḵāṣṣa (office of the crown lands) and as such charged with the fiscal administration of the town. The vizier also had a judicial function in that, once a week, he had petitions read to him from people with grievances (Pacifique de Provins, p. 393).
However, the position was fluid. Thus in 1046/1636 the post of vizier was combined with that of the wazir-e mawqufāt (minister of property endowments) in the person of Moḥammad-ʿAli Beg Eṣfahāni, but the two were divided again two years later, when Mirzā Taqi Dawlatābādi became vizier and Mir Ṣafi-al-Din Mo-ḥammad was appointed wazir-e mawqufāt (Eskandar Beg, 1938, p. 296).
The kalāntar was another city official. He may have taken over from the raʾis in the 16th century as a representative of the local population, as part of a development whereby local notables made room for centrally appointed bureaucratic officials, who were often outsiders. He should not be confused with the Armenian kalāntar of New Jolfā. Although appointed by the shah, he was chosen in consultation with the people and served as an intermediary between them and the authorities.
One of his tasks was to defend the populace against tyranny, including the tyranny of unscrupulous vendors, examine their complaints and the grievances of merchants. He also acted as a mediator with the guilds, and appointed the heads of city wards, the kadḵodās. Collecting rent and taxes appears to have been among his responsibilities as well (Minorsky, p. 82; Rafiʿā, p. 73; Thevenot, p. 103; Fryer, III, p. 24; Sanson, p. 29; Quiring-Zoche, pp. 162-67; Aubin, p. 37; Floor, 2000, p. 46).
A Multi-lingual, Multi-ethnic City
In the course of Shah ʿAbbās I’s reign Isfahan developed into a lively, cosmopolitan city, home to Muslims, Armenians, Georgians, and Jews, Indians, as well as representatives of European religious orders and agents of trading companies. The center of town, the Meydān-e Naqš-e Jahān, was frequently the scene of popular games such as polo and qabāq-andāzi, an archery game; and there ram fighting, bull fighting, wolf baiting, and other forms of entertainment were performed (examples in Della Valle, I, pp. 709-10, 713-14; Chick, p. 184; Fi-gueroa, II, pp. 58 f.; Gaudereau, pp. 71-72).
Following a military victory, on holidays, and on the occasion of visits by important foreign envoys, the Meydān and the bazaar were illuminated and performances of jugglers and rope dancers staged (Jonābādi, pp. 805, 829-31; Della Valle, I, pp. 821, 829; II, pp. 7-8, 36; Chardin, IX, pp. 329-30). People mingled in the coffeehouses that flanked the square, lined the Čahār-bāḡ, and were also spread around various other neighborhoods, or sought oblivion in the many establishments concentrated around the Old Meydān that served an opium drink called kuknār (Matthee, 2005, p. 108). Seventeenth-century Isfahan was also home to reportedly 12,000 prostitutes, who occupied the porticos around the Meydān-e Naqš-e Jahān and also served their clientele in an area between the Madrasa-ye Ṣafaviya and the Fatḥ-Allāh mosque (Matthee, 2000).
By the middle of the 17th century, most people in Isfahan had become Shiʿite Muslim as a result of Safavid Shiʿite propaganda policy. They occupied without doubt the most important part of the urban society. There were two kinds of Shiʿite Muslims: Persian speakers and Turkic speakers.
People living in the old city of Isfahan were mostly Persian-speaking. Government officials and their servants, merchants, artisans and their apprentices, professors and students, all spoke Persian. Business and preaching were usually done in Persian. Persian was without doubt the most popular language in the city.
Turkic-speaking people were mainly found at the royal court. Even in the 17th century, when the influence of the turcophone Qezelbāš had diminished considerably, people at the court continued to speak in Turkic. In the 16th century, the wives and mothers of the king had usually been of Turkish origin. Therefore it is not surprising that people spoke Turkic there in and around the royal palace. However, in the 17th century, as most women in the harem were of Georgian origin, they still retained the habit of speaking in Turkic.
In the city itself, the use of Turkic must have been very limited. However, in caravansaries visited by people from Azerbaijan, for example, the common language was Turkic. Members of Turkish tribes coming to the city for commerce would have spoken Turkic as well. Thus, Turkic would have been the second popular language. It was, however, only a colloquial language and never was used as a literary language.
Isfahan was home to many Armenians as well. The city’s Armenians became concentrated in Jolfā as part of a resettlement under Shah ʿAbbās II. Jolfā had an estimated 20,000 inhabitants in the mid-17th century, a number that may have gone up to 30,000 by the end of the century (Herzig, p. 81). These spoke Armenian and for the most part belonged to the Armenian Orthodox church. Most of them were merchants engaged in the trade of Persian silk and precious metals. They had their own networks with compatriots in Europe and India. In their dealings with other merchants in Isfahan they must have spoken Persian.
Further, many of the city’s inhabitants were of Georgian, Circassian, and Daghistani descent. Engelbert Kaempfer, who was in Persia in 1684-85, estimated their number at 20,000 (Kaempfer, p. 204). Following an agreement between Shah ʿAbbās I and Taimuraz Khan, Georgia’s last independent ruler, whereby the latter submitted to Safavid rule in exchange for being allowed to rule as the region’s wāli and for having his son serve as dāruḡa of Isfahan in perpetuity, a Georgian prince converted to Islam served as governor (Chardin, X, p. 29; Kaempfer, pp. 110-11).
He was accompanied by a certain number of soldiers, and they spoke in Georgian among themselves. There must also have been some Georgian Orthodox Christians. The royal court had a great number of Georgian ḡolāms as well as Georgian women. Although they spoke Persian or Turkic, their mother tongue was Georgian.
Isfahan was home to a large Indian community as well. Their presence was particularly important from the commercial point of view. There were two kinds of Indians, Muslim and Hindu. Indians formed a large ethnic community in Isfahan, and their numbers is given as between ten and fifteen thousand (Tavernier, I, pp. 421-22; Thevenot, p. 217). Merchants were engaged in the trade of various Indian goods, such as textiles, indigo (a dyestuff, q.v.), sugar, and tobacco.
Hindu moneylenders had a good business, because Islamic law prohibits Muslims from lending money for interest. The moneylending business was almost an Indian monopoly. They spoke various languages, including Urdu (q.v. at iranica.com), Hindi, and Gujarati (q.v.). Insofar as commerce in Isfahan was concerned though, they certainly spoke in Persian. Hindus often served European companies as interpreters and as brokers (Dale, pp. 70 ff.).
Besides these large groups, there were small communities of Persian-speaking Zoroastrians and Jews. Catholics and Protestants, monks, merchants, and court artisans, were present in small numbers, too. Most of them came from Europe and returned there after several years. There were, however, several monks like Raphael du Mans of the Capuchin order, who lived in Isfahan almost fifty years and died there.
Social divisions were expressed in the distinction between the elite and the common people, but also found expression in traditional rivalries in the old city, where two groups, the Ḥaydari and Neʿmati (q.v.), representing the two quarters of the old city, Dardašt and Jubāra, periodically engaged in communal fighting (Chardin, VII, pp. 289-93; Perry, pp. 107-18).
Isfahan in Crisis
Isfahan’s population is said to have grown by one-fifth or even one-fourth between 1645 and 1665 (Richard, ed., II, p. 262). But thereafter, conditions grew worse for the city as part of an overall deterioration in political management and economic wellbeing in Safavid territory in the second half of the 17th century. In 1662, the city was struck by famine, causing people to assemble in front of the dawlat-ḵāna demanding measures against hoarding (Waḥid Qazvini, p. 307). In 1668-69, famine struck again.
Its main cause was a drought, but hoarding by bakers and grain merchants exacerbated the misery of Isfahan’s residents, and the situation got even worse when, following Shah Solaymān’s coronation, the court and its huge entourage returned to the city before adequate provisioning measures were taken (Chardin, IX, p. 571; X, pp. 2-4; NA, VOC 1266, 8 November 1668, foll. 155, 923v, 941; IOR, G/36/105, 14 August 1668, fol. 36). In the latter part of the 1670s the high cost of living and growing deprivation caused a bread riot in the city, with people pelting political officials with rocks. From early 1678 until mid-1679 in Isfahan alone, more than 70,000 people are said to have died from a terrible famine. In 1678 the common people of the city rose in revolt against inflation and famine (Matthee, 1999, p. 177).
In the second half of the 17th century, the position of religious minorities in the city also worsened. Clerically inspired campaigns put pressure on Jews to convert to Islam; the authorities took various measures to curb wine-drinking and vices associated with coffeehouses, and several decrees were issued restricting the activities of Armenian merchants and Catholic missionaries (Moreen; Matthee, 2006a, pp. 84-94; idem, 2006b). The local Armenian population was made more vulnerable to political and religious pressure by internal splits in the community between Catholics and Schismatics (Ghougassian, passim; Baghdiantz-McCabe, passim).
A new crisis hit Isfahan at the beginning of the 18th century as part of a deepening malaise that affected all of Persia. In 1713 the Isfahan region was made unsafe by Baḵtiāri and Lor brigands, so that no caravans could leave or enter the city unless accompanied by large contingent of soldiers (NA, VOC 1856, 9 October 1713, foll. 494-95). Too years later, famine struck again. Exacerbated by a grain monopoly by harem eunuchs and high-ranking clerics, this crisis pushed bread prices in the city so high that it caused people to riot on 20 February 1715. Cursing the shah and his ministers, the rioters threw rocks at the ʿĀli Qāpu and damaged the gate of the royal kitchen. They also assailed the residence of chief cleric Mollā Moḥammad Bāqer Majlesi.
The shah (Solṭān-Ḥosayn) thereupon dismissed the current city dāruḡa, Qurčišāh Beg, who combined his function with that of supervisor of the city’s victuals (moḥtaseb), and appointed Emāmqoli Khan Zangana, the amirāḵor-bāši and a son of grand vizier Šāhqoli Khan, in his stead. The monarch also had officials dispatched to the residence of Mir Moḥammad-Bāqer to order him to offer a large volume of grain on the royal square. This did not quell the unrest, however.
On 16 June 1715 the people forced the shah, who intended to leave Isfahan, to stay in the city, and the next day they crowded together in front of the royal palace and threatened to plunder and set fire to it (Floor, pp. 26-27; Matthee, 2004, pp. 187-88). From that moment until the fall of the city to the Afghans, the post of moḥtaseb was rotated with increasing speed, but to little avail. Food prices remained sky-high, and the misery in the city continued, with theft, burglaries, and murder becoming common (NA, VOC 1897, 14 November 1716, fol. 237; ibid., 3 December 1716, fol. 268). Beggars were said to be ubiquitous in the city and poverty had reached such levels that the poor would quickly strip the flesh of any dead camel, mule, or horse left out on the street (Worm, p. 293).
The Afghans arrived in Golnābād on 8 March 1722 and defeated the Persian army, which, at about 40,000 men and an additional 30,000 infantry troops, was at least twice as large as that of the Afghans. The Georgian contingent, the only one to fight, was decimated. Losing some 4,000 to 5,000 soldiers on the battlefield, the remainder of the Safavid army sought refuge in the city (Lockhart, pp. 130-43; Floor, 1998, p. 87).
Maḥmud Ḡilzāi with his Afghan tribal forces then moved to Faraḥābād, which he took without meeting any resistance. He next seized Julfa, where the inhabitants welcomed him with food and wine and accepted him as their new ruler. After a few days of panic in which the Afghans could have taken Isfahan proper, the inhabitants quickly reinforced the defenses, and a long siege ensued. The city soon ran out of food, and, especially toward the end of the summer, the misery grew to the point at which people first took to eating tree bark, leaves, and dried excrement and eventually resorted to cannibalism.
After a six-month siege, the city fell to Maḥmud on 23 October 1722 (IOR, G/29/15, 20 October 1722, fol. 80; 30 November 1722, fol. 83; diary of the siege in Floor, 1998, pp. 83-176). Isfahan suffered greatly during the assault and the ensuing occupation. It lost a large part of its population, many of its buildings lay in ruins, and its economy was destroyed. The city survived but its revival would take until the 19th century, and it never regained its former importance.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan-vii-safavid-period
-----------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250750290
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/esfahan.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_622448190
https://www.docdroid.net/EP63uxd/ispakhan-i-autokratoriki-proteuoysa-ton-safevidwn-docx
Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Φιλόσοφος, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Αυτοκράτορας, Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, Θεμελιωτής της Δυναστείας των Γκορκανιάν από την Κεντρική Ασία στην Ινδία
Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Philosopher, Poet, Historian, Emperor, Descendant of Tamerlane, Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty from Central Asia to Hindustan, Bengal and the Dekkan
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 18η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019.
Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης χρησιμοποιεί τμήμα ομιλίας μου, την οποία έδωσα στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 με θέμα τους παράλληλους βίους μεγάλων στρατηλατών και αυτοκρατόρων των Ακκάδων, των Χιττιτών, των Ασσυρίων, των Ιρανών, των Ρωμαίων, των Τουρανών-Μογγόλων, και των Κινέζων.
-------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/μπαμπούρ-1483-1530-στρατηλάτης-φιλόσοφος-πο/ =================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αρκετοί φίλοι με ρώτησαν τελευταία για το Τατζ Μαχάλ, για την Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Γκορκανιάν / Μουγάλ-Mughal) της Ινδίας, και τις σχέσεις των Σουνιτών Γκορκανιάν με τους Σιίτες Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν και τους Σουνίτες Οθωμανούς. Με δεδομένη την ιρανο-οθωμανική αντιπαλότητα (στην οποία αναφέρθηκα στα κείμενά μου σχετικά με την Μάχη του Τσαλντιράν το 1514), ένας φίλος με ρώτησε πως και δεν συμφώνησαν Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν να μοιράσουν το Ιράν ανάμεσα στην Σταμπούλ και την Άγκρα.
Η απάντηση είναι απλή: σε μια εποχή που δεν υπήρχαν εθνικισμοί και που η Πίστη αποτελούσε τον βασικό (αλλά όχι τον μόνο) δείκτη ταυτότητας, οι φυλετικές διαφορές βάραιναν σημαντικά. Αν ανάμεσα σε δυο κλάδους της ίδιας φυλής είχε χυθεί αίμα, αυτό θα ήταν πολύ δύσκολο να ξεχαστεί ακόμη και εκατό χρόνια αργότερα.
Οθωμανοί, Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν, και Γκορκανιάν της Νότιας Ασίας (όχι μόνον ‘Ινδίας’) ήταν όλοι τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.
Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν ήταν Σουνίτες, ενώ οι Σαφεβίδες ήταν Σιίτες.
Αλλά ο Ταμερλάνος, πρόγονος των Γκορκανιάν, είχε χύσει οθωμανικό αίμα το 1402 στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας. Αυτό ξεπεράστηκε σε κάποιο βαθμό αλλά δεν ξεχάστηκε ποτέ.
Η Ιστορία της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας της Νότιας Ασίας είναι γεμάτη από πλούτο, τέχνες, γράμματα, εντυπωσιακά μνημεία και μυστικισμό. Νομίζω ότι ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να την προσεγγίσει κάποιος είναι να μάθει μερικά βασικά στοιχεία για τον εντελώς ξεχωριστό άνθρωπο που ήταν ο ιδρυτής αυτής της δυναστείας. Παρά την μεταγενέστερη επέκταση των Γκορκανιάν, κανένας απόγονος του Μπαμπούρ δεν τον ξεπέρασε στην στρατιωτική τέχνη.
Έφηβος οδηγούσε εμπειροπόλεμα στρατεύματα στις μάχες. Για σχεδόν τρεις δεκαετίες διέσχισε όλα τα κακοτράχαλα βουνά ανάμεσα στο ιρανικό οροπέδιο, τις στέππες της Σιβηρίας, την Τάκλα Μακάν και τις κοιλάδες του Ινδού και του Γάγγη. Πριν κατακτήσει το Χιντουστάν (: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία), άλλαζε βασίλεια σχεδόν σαν τα πουκάμισα. Παράλληλα, συνέγραφε ιστορικά κείμενα και ποιήματα, έπινε, χαιρόταν την ζωή, και διερχόταν περιόδους ασκητισμού.
Παρά το ότι ο μεγάλος θρίαμβος ήλθε στο τέλος, ο Μπαμπούρ δεν ξέχασε ποτέ την γη που του συμπαραστάθηκε στα χρόνια των δοκιμασιών: την Καμπούλ του σημερινού Αφγανιστάν. Έτσι, αν και πέθανε στην Άγκρα της Ινδίας, θέλησε να ταφεί στην Καμπούλ. Ένας τεράστιος κήπος περιβάλλει το μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ και μπορείτε να το δείτε σε δυο βίντεο, στις εισαγωγές των οποίων δίνω ένα γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της ζωής και των ενδιαφερόντων, των κατορθωμάτων και των μαχών του Τίγρη (Μπαμπούρ σημαίνει Τίγρης στα τσαγατάι τουρκικά που ήταν η μητρική του γλώσσα κι αυτή των στρατιωτών του).
Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ στην Καμπούλ του Αφγανιστάν
Στο θέμα θα επανέλθω για να επεκταθώ στο Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ, το ‘Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’ το οποίο συνέγραψε ο ίδιος ο στρατηλάτης και αυτοκράτορας. Το αντίστοιχο θα υπήρχε, αν συγχωνεύονταν σε ένα πρόσωπο ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος και ο Αρριανός, ή ο Ιουστινιανός και ο Προκόπιος.
Μπορείτε να δείτε και αλλοιώς: το Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ είναι το ανατολικό, ασιατικό De Bello Civili και De Bello Gallico. Ή, πιο απλά, ο Μπαμπούρ είναι ο Μογγόλος Καίσαρ. Αλλά ο Καίσαρ είχε μόνιμο σημείο αναφοράς την Ρώμη. Ο Μπαμπούρ μετεκινείτο ως βασιλιάς από την Φεργάνα στην Σαμαρκάνδη, από κει στην Καμπούλ και τελικά στην Άγκρα. Δεν όριζε το στέμμα του το σπαθί του, αλλά το σπαθί του το στέμμα του.
Νόμισμα που έκοψε ο Μπαμπούρ το 1507-1508
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Кабул: Сады и Мавзолей Бабура, Могольского Императора (Горкани) Индии
https://www.ok.ru/video/1509854481005
Περισσότερα:
Баги Бабур (пушту باغ بابر, перс. باغ بابر; также встречаются названия сад Бабура и сады Бабура) — парковый комплекс в Афганистане, расположен неподалеку от города Кабула. Назван в честь своего владельца Бабура, основателя империи Великих Моголов. Бабур, помимо этого, увлекался разведением садов. Баги Бабур является одной из достопримечательностей страны. Отличается тщательной продуманностью посадок; в прошлом в нём выращивались многие уникальные растения. Среди них были различные сорта фруктов, бахчевых и многое другое, что ранее вовсе не встречалось на данной территории.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур
The Garden of Babur (locally called Bagh-e Babur, Persian: باغ بابر/ bāġ-e bābur) is a historic park in Kabul, Afghanistan, and also the last resting-place of the first Mughal emperor Babur. The garden are thought to have been developed around 1528 AD (935 AH) when Babur gave orders for the construction of an “avenue garden” in Kabul, described in some detail in his memoirs, the Baburnama.
The original construction date of the gardens (Persian: باغ – bāġ) is unknown. When Babur captured Kabul in 1504 from the Arguns he re-developed the site and used it as a guest house for special occasions, especially during the summer seasons. Since Babur had such a high rank, he would have been buried in a site that befitted him. The garden where it is believed Babur requested to be buried in is known as Bagh-e Babur. Mughul rulers saw this site as significant and aided in further development of the site and other tombs in Kabul. In an article written by the Aga Khan Historic Cities Programme, describes the marble screen built around tombs by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1638 with the following inscription:
“only this mosque of beauty, this temple of nobility, constructed for the prayer of saints and the epiphany of cherubs, was fit to stand in so venerable a sanctuary as this highway of archangels, this theatre of heaven, the light garden of the god forgiven angel king whose rest is in the garden of heaven, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur the Conqueror.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur
Ένα από τα πιο ενδιαφέροντα μνημεία της Καμπούλ είναι οι τεράστιοι κήποι και το μαυσωλείο του απογόνου του Ταμερλάνου βασιλιά της Φεργκάνα (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), ο οποίος αφού κατέκτησε την Σαμαρκάνδη, το σημερινό ανατολικό Ιράν και την Καμπούλ, κατέλαβε την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και όλη την Ινδία (Χιντουστάν: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία).
Εκεί κατέλυσε το ισλαμικό Σουλτανάτο του Δελχίου, θεμελίωσε την Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ – Mughal, όπως είναι γνωστοί στις δυτικές γλώσσες) την οποία οι ίδιοι αποκαλούσαν Γκορκανιάν.
Η λέξη αυτή (گورکانیان, Gūrkāniyān) είναι περσική και σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’. Έτσι ονόμαζαν τους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους της Νότιας Ασίας οι Ιρανοί στα φαρσί (περσικά) επειδή οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι διατήρησαν την μογγολική παράδοση να ανεβαίνει στον θρόνο και γενικώτερα στην ιεραρχία της αυτοκρατορίας ένας ταπεινής καταγωγής αλλά γενναίος στρατιωτικός μετά από τον γάμο του με μια από τις κόρες ενός ευγενή ή ενός αυτοκράτορα.
Ο Μπαμπούρ ήταν μια στρατιωτική μεγαλοφυία, ένας πολυμαθής φιλόσοφος, ένας ποιητής και ιστορικός που άφησε ένα τεράστιο βιογραφικό ιστορικό έργο γραμμένο σε τσαγατάι τουρκικά με αρκετούς περσισμούς που λέγεται Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ (το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ).
Η Ισλαμική (Σουνιτική) Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων ήταν συχνά ισχυρώτερη και πλουσιώτερη από την Σαφεβιδική (Σιιτική) Αυτοκρατορία του Ιράν και την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, συνένωσε εκτάσεις από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι την Ινδονησία, προξένησε μια μεγάλη μετανάστευση τουρκομογγολικών πληθυσμών στην Ινδία και στο Ντεκάν, κι αποτελεί την περίοδο της μεγαλύτερης ανάπτυξης Γραμμάτων, Τεχνών και Πολιτισμού στην Ινδία, το Ντεκάν, και γενικώτερα στην Νότια Ασία.
Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν είχαν έντονα επηρεαστεί από τον ιρανικό πολιτισμό.
Στην αυτοκρατορία τους, τα περσικά ήταν η γλώσσα της τέχνης και της λογοτεχνίας, τα αραβικά η γλώσσα των επιστημών, και τα ουρντού η γλώσσα του στρατού.
Τα ουρντού είναι στη βάση τους μια τουρκική γλώσσα (σήμερα στα τουρκικά της Τουρκίας ordu σημαίνει ‘στρατός’) μεικτή με ινδοευρωπαϊκό λεξιλόγιο.
Αν και πέθανε και τάφηκε στην βόρεια Ινδία ο Μπαμπούρ (στα τουρκικά το όνομά του σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’), ζήτησε να ταφεί σε μια πόλη που του χρησίμευσε ως βάση για την κατάκτηση της βόρειας Ινδίας.
Γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της πορείας του Μπαμπούρ από την Κεντρική Ασία προς την Ινδία
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Kabul: Gardens and Mausoleum of Babur, Mughal Emperor (Gorkani) of India
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240305
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Καμπούλ: Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ, Μεγάλου Μογγόλου (Γκορκανιάν) Αυτοκράτορα της Ινδίας
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Бабур (1483-1530): военный гений, поэт, историк и император, основатель Горканской династии (Великих Моголов) Индии
https://www.ok.ru/video/1510072388205
Περισσότερα:
Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель.
Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.
Бабур — основатель династии, выходец из города Андижан. Родным языком Бабура был турки (староузбекский). Писал в своих мемуарах: “Жители Андижана — все тюрки; в городе и на базаре нет человека, который бы не знал по-тюркски. Говор народа сходен с литературным”. “Мемуары Бабура написаны на той разновидности тюркского языка, которая известна под названием турки, являющегося родным языком Бабура”, — писал английский востоковед Е. Дениссон Росс.
За свою 47-летнюю жизнь Захириддин Мухаммад Бабур оставил богатое литературное и научное наследие. Его перу принадлежит знаменитое «Бабур-наме», снискавшая мировое признание, оригинальные и прекрасные лирические произведения (газели, рубаи), трактаты по мусульманскому законоведению («Мубайин»), поэтике («Аруз рисоласи»), музыке, военному делу, а также специальный алфавит «Хатт-и Бабури».
Бабур переписывался с Алишером Навои. Стихи Бабура, написанные на тюркском, отличаются чеканностью образов и афористичностью. Главный труд Бабура — автобиография «Бабур-наме», первый образец этого жанра в исторической литературе, излагает события с 1493 по 1529 годы, живо воссоздаёт детали быта знати, нравы и обычаи эпохи. Французский востоковед Луи Базан в своём введении к французскому переводу (1980 г.) писал, что «автобиография (Бабура) представляет собой чрезвычайно редкий жанр в исламской литературе».
В последние годы жизни тема потери Родины стала одной из центральных тем лирики Бабура. Заслуга Бабура как историка, географа, этнографа, прозаика и поэта в настоящее время признана мировой востоковедческой наукой. Его наследие изучается почти во всех крупных востоковедческих центрах мира.
Можно сказать, что стихи Бабура — автобиография поэта, в которых поэтическим языком, трогательно излагаются глубокие чувства, мастерски рассказывается о переживаниях, порожденных в результате столкновения с жизненными обстоятельствами, о чём красноречиво говорит сам поэт:
Каких страданий не терпел и тяжких бед, Бабур?
Каких не знал измен, обид, каких клевет, Бабур?
Но кто прочтет «Бабур-наме», увидит, сколько мук
И сколько горя перенес царь и поэт Бабур.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Poet, Historian and Emperor, the Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty (Great Mughal) of India
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240306
Περισσότερα:
Babur (Persian: بابر, romanized: Bābur, lit. ‘tiger’] 14 February 1483 – 26 December 1530), born Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad, was the founder and first Emperor of the Mughal dynasty in South Asia. He was a direct descendant of Emperor Timur (Tamerlane) from what is now Uzbekistan.
The difficulty of pronouncing the name for his Central Asian Turco-Mongol army may have been responsible for the greater popularity of his nickname Babur, also variously spelled Baber, Babar, and Bābor The name is generally taken in reference to the Persian babr, meaning “tiger”. The word repeatedly appears in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and was borrowed into the Turkic languages of Central Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur#Ruler_of_Central_Asia
Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель. Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Πρώτος Αυτοκράτορας των Γκορκανιάν της Ινδίας
Περισσότερα:
Ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους στρατηλάτες όλων των εποχών, ένας από τους ελάχιστους ηγεμόνες που δεν έχασαν ποτέ μάχη, ένας στρατιωτικός με μεγάλη μάθηση, γνώση και σοφία, συγγραφέας ενός μεγαλειώδους ιστορικού έργου (Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ: ‘το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’), ποιητής και μυστικιστής, με ενδιαφέρον για την καλοζωΐα σε σύντομα όμως χρονικά διαστήματα αλλά και με ασκητικές τάσεις, ήταν ο θεμελιωτής της μεγάλης μογγολικής δυναστείας της Νότιας Ασίας που οι δυτικοί αποκαλούν Μουγάλ (Μεγάλους Μογγόλους).
Όταν ο Μπαμπούρ γεννήθηκε στο Αντιτζάν της Κοιλάδας Φεργάνα της Κεντρικής Ασίας (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), τίποτα δεν έδειχνε ότι θα γινόταν ό ίδιος ο ιδρυτής μιας τεράστιας αυτοκρατορίας.
Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, ήταν γιος του ηγεμόνα ενός μικρού από τα πολλά τιμουριδικά βασίλεια των χρόνων του.
Έμεινε ορφανός και συνεπώς ηγεμόνας ενός μικρού βασιλείου στα 11 του χρόνια. Ακολούθησαν τρεις τρομερές δεκαετίες στην διάρκεια των οποίων ο Μπαμπούρ άλλαξε τον χάρτη της Κεντρικής και της Νότιας Ασίας.
Ήταν μια σειρά πολέμων, κατακτήσεων και διαδοχικών βασιλείων από τα οποία ο ίδιος με τους στρατιώτες του μετεκινούνταν, συχνά εν μέσω φονικών μαχών, τρομερών κακουχιών και φυσικών αντιξοοτήτων.
Μόνον στα 43 του, το 1526, κατάφερε ο Μπαμπούρ επιτέλους να επιβληθεί στην βόρεια Ινδία και να θεμελιώσει την δυναστεία – θρύλο της Νότιας Ασίας.
Έτσι, ο Μπαμπούρ διαδοχικά χρημάτισε:
1494-1497: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα
1497-1498: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1498-1500: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα
1500-1501: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1504-1530: βασιλιάς της Καμπούλ
1511-1512: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1526-1530: αυτοκράτορας του Χιντουστάν (πρωτεύουσα: Άγκρα)
Οι μάχες του Πανιπάτ (1526), της Χάνουα (1527), και του Τσαντερί (1528) στερέωσαν την κυριαρχία του στην βόρεια Ινδία (Χιντουστάν).
Μέχρι τότε, αν και σουνίτης μουσουλμάνος, δεν δίστασε να συνεργαστεί με τους Κιζιλμπάσηδες (όταν ο Οθωμανός Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ προτίμησε να συνεργαστεί με τους Ουζμπέκους εχθρούς του), με τον Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ (βασ. 1501-1524), και στην συνέχεια (μετά το 1513) με τον Σελίμ Α’ (βασ. 1512-1520), ο οποίος νωρίς κατάλαβε ότι ο Μπαμπούρ θα μπορούσε να στήσει ό,τι χρειαζόταν η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: μια μεγάλη σουνιτική ισλαμική αυτοκρατορία από την άλλη, ανατολική, πλευρά των συνόρων της σιιτικής ισλαμικής ιρανικής αυτοκρατορίας των Σαφεβιδών.
Αυτό ήταν μεγάλος ρεαλισμός: το 1402 (ένα αιώνα νωρίτερα) ο Βαγιαζίτ Α’, πρόγονος του Σελίμ Α’, είχε συλληφθεί αιχμάλωτος από τον Ταμερλάνο (πρόγονο του Μπαμπούρ), ο οποίος είχε χύσει άφθονο οθωμανικό αίμα στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας.
Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν (όπως αποκαλούνταν οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι οι ίδιοι στα περσικά) κράτησαν μια ισορροπία στις σχέσεις τους ανάμεσα σε Σαφεβίδες και Οθωμανούς.
Πριν από 500 χρόνια, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ (1470-1520), ο Σάχης Ισμαήλ Α’ (1487-1524), και ο Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530) ήταν οι τρεις ισχυρώτεροι αυτοκράτορες του κόσμου.
Και ήταν, ασχέτως θρησκευτικών διαφορών, και οι τρεις τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.
Με περισσότερη κλίση στην θεολογία και στην στρατιωτική πειθαρχία ο πρώτος, με έντονη τάση στην ποίηση και την συγγραφή οι άλλοι δύο που επίσης διέπρεπαν και στον έκλυτο βίο – ο Ισμαήλ Α’ συνεχώς κι ο Μπαμπούρ περιστασιακά.
Ο Μπαμπούρ θυμίζει τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο: αλλού γεννήθηκε (Φεργάνα), αλλού πέθανε (Χιντουστάν), αλλού τάφηκε (Καμπούλ).
-------------------------------
Διαβάστε:
Bābor, Ẓahīr-al-dīn Moḥammad
(6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530) Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India
His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.
Bābor’s father, ʿOmar Šayḵ Mīrzā (d. 899/1494), ruled the kingdom of Farḡāna along the headwaters of the Syr Darya, but as one of four brothers, direct fifth-generation descendants from the great Tīmūr, he entertained larger ambitions. The lack of a succession law and the presence of many Timurid males perpetuated an atmosphere of constant intrigue, often erupting into open warfare, between the descendants who vied for mastery in Khorasan and Central Asia, but they finally lost their patrimony when they proved incapable of cooperating to defend it against a common enemy.
It was against that same enemy, namely, the Uzbeks under the brilliant Šaybānī Khan (d. 916/1510), that Bābor himself learned his trade as a military leader in a long series of losing encounters. Bābor’s mother, Qotlūk Negār Ḵanūm, was the daughter of Yūnos Khan of Tashkent and a direct descendant of Jengiz Khan. She and her mother, Aysān-Dawlat Bēgam, had great influence on Bābor during his early career. It was his grandmother, for instance, who taught Bābor many of his political and diplomatic skills (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 43), thus initiating the long series of contributions by strong and intelligent women in the history of the Mughal Empire.
Ο Μπαμπούρ (δεξιά) με τον γιο και διάδοχό του Χουμαγιούν
Bābor presumed that his descent from Tīmūr legitimized his claim to rule anywhere that Tīmūr had conquered, but like his father, the first prize he sought was Samarqand. He was plunged into the maelstrom of Timurid politics by his father’s death in Ramażān, 899/June, 1494, when he was only eleven. Somehow he managed to survive the turbulent years that followed. Wars with his kinsmen, with the Mughals under Tanbal who ousted him from Andijan, the capital city of Farḡāna, and especially with Šaybānī Khan Uzbek mostly went against him, but from the beginning he showed an ability to reach decisions quickly, to act firmly and to remain calm and collected in battle. He also tended to take people at their word and to view most situations optimistically rather than critically.
In Moḥarram, 910/June-July, 1504, at the age of twenty-one, Bābor, alone among the Timurids of his generation, opted to leave the Central Asian arena, in which he had lost everything, to seek a power base elsewhere, perhaps with the intention of returning to his homeland at a later date.
Accompanied by his younger brothers, Jahāngīr and Nāṣer, he set out for Khorasan, but changed his plans and seized the kingdom of Kabul instead.
In this campaign he began to think more seriously of his role as ruler of a state, shocking his troops by ordering plunderers beaten to death (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 197).
The mountain tribesmen in and around Farḡāna with whom Bābor had frequently found shelter had come to accept him as their legitimate king.
He had no such claims upon the loyalty of the Afghan tribes in Kabul, but he had learned much about human nature and the nomad mentality in his three prolonged periods of wandering among the shepherd tribes of Central Asia (during 903/1497-98, 907/1501-02, and 909/1503-04).
He crushed all military opposition, even reviving the old Mongol shock tactic of putting up towers of the heads of slain foes, but he also made strenuous efforts to be fair and just, admitting, for instance, that his early estimates of food production and hence the levy of tributary taxes were excessive (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 228).
At this point Bābor still saw Kabul as only a temporary base for re-entry to his ancestral domain, and he made several attempts to return in the period 912-18/1506-12. In 911/1505 his uncle Sultan Ḥosayn Mīrzā of Herat, the only remaining Timurid ruler besides Bābor, requested his aid against the Uzbeks—even though he himself had refused to aid Bābor on several previous occasions.
His uncle died before Bābor arrived in Herat, but Bābor remained there till he became convinced that his cousins were incapable of offering effective resistance to Šaybānī Khan’s Uzbeks.
While in Herat he sampled the sophistication of a brilliant court culture, acquiring a taste for wine, and also developing an appreciation for the refinements of urban culture, especially as exemplified in the literary works of Mīr ʿAlī-Šīr Navāʾī.
During his stay in Herat Bābor occupied Navāʾī’s former residence, prayed at Navāʾī’s tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet’s vast corpus of Torkī verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be “flat and poor” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 272).
Navāʾī’s pioneering literary work in Torkī, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Bābor’s own efforts to write in that medium.
In Rajab, 912/December, 1506, Bābor returned to Kabul in a terrible trek over snow-choked passes, during which several of his men lost hands or feet through frostbite. The event has been vividly described in his diary (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 307-11). As he had foreseen, the Uzbeks easily took Herat in the following summer’s campaign, and Bābor indulged in one of his rare slips from objectivity when he recorded the campaign in his diary with some unfair vilification of Šaybānī Khan, his long-standing nemesis (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 328-29).
Bābor next consolidated his base in Kabul, and added to it Qandahār. He dramatically put down a revolt by defeating, one by one in personal combat, five of the ringleaders—an event which his admiring young cousin Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥaydar Doḡlat believed to be his greatest feat of arms (Tārīḵ-erašīdī, tr., p. 204).
Here again it seems that Bābor acted impetuously, but saved himself by his courage and strength; and such legend-making deeds solidified his charismatic hold on the men whom he had to lead in battle. Uncharacteristically, Bābor withdrew from Qandahār and Kabul at the rumor that Šaybānī Khan was coming.
It was apparently the only time in his life when he lost confidence in himself. In fact, the Uzbek leader was defeated and killed by Shah Esmāʿīl Ṣafawī in 916/1510, and this opened the way for Bābor’s last bid for a throne in Samarqand.
From Rajab, 917 to Ṣafar, 918/October, 1511 to May, 1512, he held the city for the third time, but as a client of Shah Esmāʿīl, a condition that required him to make an outward profession of the Shiʿite faith and to adopt the Turkman costume of the Safavid troops.
Bābor’s kinsmen and erstwhile subjects did not concur with his doctrinal realignment, however much it had been dictated by political circumstances. Moḥammad-Ḥaydar, a young man indebted to Bābor for both refuge and support, exulted at the Uzbek defeat of Bābor, thus demonstrating how unusual in that time and place were Bābor’s breadth of vision and tolerance, qualities that became crucial to his later success in India. Breaking away from his Safavid allies, Bābor dallied in the Qunduz area, but he must have sensed that his chance to regain Samarqand was irretrievably lost.
It was only at this stage that he began to think of India as a serious goal, though after the conquest he wrote that his desire for Hindustan had been constant from 910/1504 (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 478). With four raids beginning in 926/1519, he probed the Indian scene and discovered that dissension and mismanagement were rife in the Lodi Sultanate. In the winter of 932/1525-26 he brought all his experience to bear on the great enterprise of the conquest of India. With the proverb “Ten friends are better than nine” in mind, he waited for all his allies before pressing his attack on Lahore (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 433).
His great skills at organization enabled him to move his 12,000 troops from 16 to 22 miles a day once he had crossed the Indus, and with brilliant leadership he defeated three much larger forces in the breathtaking campaigns that made him master of North India. First he maneuvered Sultan Ebrāhīm Lōdī into attacking his prepared position at the village of Panipat north of Delhi on 8 Rajab 932/20 April 1526. Although the Indian forces (he estimated them at 100,000; Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 480) heavily outnumbered Bābor’s small army, they fought as a relatively inflexible and undisciplined mass and quickly disintegrated.
Bābor considered Ebrāhīm to be an incompetent general, unworthy of comparison with the Uzbek khans, and a petty king, driven only by greed to pile up his treasure while leaving his army untrained and his great nobles disaffected (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 470). Yet Bābor ordered a tomb to be built for him.
He then swiftly occupied Delhi and Agra, first visiting the tombs of famous Sufi saints and previous Turkish kings, and characteristically laying out a garden.
The garden provided him with such satisfaction that he later wrote: “to have grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindustan filled my measure of content” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 686).
His new kingdom was a different story. Bābor first had to solve the problem of disaffection among his troops.
Like Alexander’s army, they felt that they were a long way from home in a strange and unpleasant land.
Bābor had planned the conquest intending to make India the base of his empire since Kabul’s resources proved too limited to support his nobles and troops.
He himself never returned to live in Kabul.
But, since he had permitted his troops to think that this was simply another raid for wealth and booty, he had to persuade them otherwise, which was no easy chore (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 522-35).
The infant Mughal state also had to fight for its life against a formidable confederation of the Rajput chiefs led by Mahārānā Sangā of Mewar.
After a dramatic episode in which Bābor publicly foreswore alcohol (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 551-56), Bābor defeated the Rajputs at Khanwah on 13 Jomādā I 933/17 March 1527 with virtually the same tactics he had used at Panipat, but in this case the battle was far more closely contested.
Bābor next campaigned down the Ganges River to Bengal against the Afghan lords, many of whom had refused to support Ebrāhīm Lōdī but also had no desire to surrender their autonomy to Bābor.
Even while rival powers threatened him on all sides—Rajputs and Afghans in India, Uzbeks at his rear in Kabul—Bābor’s mind was turned to consolidation and government.
He employed hundreds of stone masons to build up his new capital cities, while winning over much of the Indian nobility with his fair and conciliatory policies.
He was anxiously grooming his sons to succeed him, not without some clashes of personality, when his eldest son Homāyūn (b. 913/1506) fell seriously ill in 937/1530.
Another young son had already died in the unaccustomed Indian climate, and at this family crisis his daughter Golbadan wrote that Bābor offered his own life in place of his son’s, walking seven times around the sickbed to confirm the vow (Bābor-nāma, translator’s note, pp. 701-2).
Bābor did not leave Agra again, and died there later that year on 6 Jomādā I 937/26 December 1530.
Bābor’s diary, which has become one of the classic autobiographies of world literature, would be a major literary achievement even if the life it illuminates were not so remarkable. He wrote not only the Bābor-nāma but works on Sufism, law and prosody as well as a fine collection of poems in Čaḡatay Torkī. In all, he produced the most significant body of literature in that language after Navāʾī, and every piece reveals a clear, cultivated intelligence as well as an enormous breadth of interests.
His Dīvān includes a score or more of poems in Persian, and with the long connection between the Mughals and the Safavid court begun by Bābor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Bābor-nāma translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty’s founder.
Bābor did not introduce artillery into India—the Portuguese had done that—and he himself noted that the Bengal armies had gunners (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 667-74). But his use of new technology was characteristic of his enquiring mind and enthusiasm for improvement. His Ottoman experts had only two cannons at Panipat, and Bābor personally witnessed the casting of another, probably the first to be cast in India, by Ostād ʿAlīqolī on 22 October 1526 (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 536-37).
The piece did not become ready for test firing till 10 February 1527 when it shot stones about 1,600 yards, and during the subsequent campaigns against the Afghans down the Ganges, Bābor specifically mentions Ostād ʿAlīqolī getting off eight shots on the first day of the battle and sixteen on the next (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 599). Quite obviously then it was not some technical superiority in weaponry, but Bābor’s genius in using the discipline and mobility which he had created in his troops that won the crucial battles for him in India.
Bābor, however, was generally interested in improving technology, not only for warfare but also for agriculture. He tried to introduce new crops to the Indian terrain and to spread the use of improved water-lifting devices for irrigation (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 531). His interest in improvement and change was facilitated by his generous nature. Though he had faults, they were outweighed by his attractive personality, cheerful in the direst adversity, and faithful to his friends.
The loyalties he inspired enabled the Mughal Empire in India to survive his own early death and the fifteen-year exile of his son and successor, Homāyūn. The liberal traditions of the Mughal dynasty were Bābor’s enduring legacy to his country by conquest.
Τις βιβλιογαφικές παραπομπές του κειμένου θα βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din
==============================
Επιπλέον:
Μπαμπούρ και Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Империя_Великих_Моголов
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур
Οικογενειακό υπόβαθρο:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Shaikh_Mirza_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutlugh_Nigar_Khanum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sa%27id_Mirza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate
Τοπογραφικά για την καταγωγή του Μπαμπούρ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana_Valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhsikath
Ιστορικό υπόβαθρο:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khanid_Khanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Ilkhanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalairid_Sultanate
-----------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/14831530
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/babur.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_622328060
https://www.docdroid.net/JWgxJAd/mpampour-1483-1530-stratilatis-filosofos-poiitis-istorikos-autokratoras-apoghonos-toy-tamerlanoy-docx
Μίθρας, Μιθραϊσμός & Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια: Όλα τα Αρχαία Ελληνικά και Λατινικά Κείμενα που αναφέρονται στον Μίθρα και τους Μιθραϊστές
Mithras, Mithraism & Mithraic Mysteries: All Ancient Greek and Latin Texts Relating to Mithras and the Mithraists
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 7η Μαΐου 2019.
Αναδημοσίευση από το https://www.tertullian.org/ όλων των αρχαιοελληνικών και λατινικών κειμενικών αναφορών στον Μίθρα. Οι αρχαίες ιρανικές ιστορικές πηγές των αχαιμενιδικών, αρσακιδικών και σασανιδικών και οι αναφορές των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και Ρωμαίων στον Μίθρα μας βοηθούν τόσο στην ανασύσταση της τρομερής θρησκευτικής διαπάλης των αχαιμενιδικών χρόνων (550-330) ανάμεσα στον Ζωροαστρισμό και τον Μιθραϊσμό, όσο και στην κατανόηση της μεγάλης άγνοιας των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και Ρωμαίων σχετικά με τις θρησκείες του Ιράν. Με άλλα λόγια, οι Αρχαίοι Έλληνες και Ρωμαίοι δεν στάθηκαν ικανοί να διακρίνουν την τρομερή αντιπαλότητα των Ζωροαστριστών και Μιθραϊστών Ιρανών με τους οποίους συνδιαλέγοντο. Έτσι, η τεράστια σύγχυση σχετικά με το αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν διατηρήθηκε επί μακρόν και επέδρασε αρνητικά στις ρωμαιοϊρανικές σχέσεις κατά τα αρσακιδικά και τα σασανιδικά χρόνια. Αυτή η σύγχυση βρήκε την συνέχειά της στα χριστιανοϊσλαμικά χρόνια, όταν οι Ρωμιοί ιστορικοί δεν μπορούσαν να εννοήσουν τις θρησκευτικές, ψυχικές-πνευματικές, μυστικιστικές και θεολογικές έριδες οι οποίες εκδηλώθηκαν εντός του ισλαμικού χαλιφάτου.
-----------------------------------------
http://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/μίθρας-μιθραϊσμός-μιθραϊκά-μυστήρι/ ====================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Ύστερα από το μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον που προκλήθηκε σχετικά με την διάδοση του Μιθραϊσμού ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες, τους Ρωμαίους, την Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη εξαιτίας δύο πρώτων κειμένων μου σχετικά, δημοσιεύω σήμερα ένα πλήρη κατάλογο (στα αγγλικά) όλων των αποσπασμάτων αρχαίας ελληνικής και ρωμαϊκής γραμματείας που αναφέρονται στον Μίθρα και στους Μιθραϊστές.
Η επιστημονική εργασία αυτή δεν έχει βεβαίως γίνει από μένα, ούτε κι η ηλεκτρονική παρουσίαση του θέματος είναι δική μου. Παραθέτω τον σύνδεσμο. Είμαι όμως σίγουρος ότι όσοι ενδιαφέρονται σοβαρά θα βρουν εδώ όσα τους χρειάζονται για να κάνουν μόνοι τους την δική τους έρευνα.
Αποσπάσματα από τον Ηρόδοτο και τον Ξενοφώντα μέχρι τον Θεοφάνη και τον Φώτιο, περνώντας από τους Δίωνα Χρυσόστομο, τον Λουκιανό, τον Δίωνα Κάσσιο, τον Ψευδο-Καλλισθένη, τον Γρηγόριο Ναζιανζηνό, τον Ιουλιανό Παραβάτη, τον Ιερώνυμο, τον Κοσμά Ινδικοπλεύστη, τον Κοσμά Μελωδό, και πολλούς άλλους δείχνουν σε ποιον βαθμό είχε προχωρήσει ο πολιτισμικός εκπερσισμός των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και των Ρωμαίων. Οι φιλολογικές μαρτυρίες παρουσιάζονται καταταγμένες χρονολογικά.
Εννοείται ότι δεν περιλαμβάνονται εδώ οι επιγραφικές μαρτυρίες: οι χιλιάδες επιγραφών σε αρχαία ελληνικά και λατινικά που έχουν ανασκαφεί κι ανευρεθεί από την Κομμαγηνή και τον Πόντο μέχρι την Γερμανία και την Βρεταννία κι από την Αλγερία και την Ιβηρική μέχρι τις στέππες της Ουκρανίας.
Επίσης δεν περιλαμβάνονται εδώ κατάλογοι αναγλύφων, αγαλμάτων, μνημείων, ναών του Μίθρα (: ‘Μιθραίων’) και γενικώτερα αρχαιολογικών χώρων που έχουν εντοπισθεί δυτικά του Ιράν και μέχρι τον Ατλαντικό, ή από την Βόρεια Ευρώπη μέχρι το Σουδάν.
Τα τρία πρότερα κείμενά μου για το θέμα βρίσκονται εδώ:
Οι Ατελείωτες Επελάσεις του Μίθρα προς την Δύση κι ο Πολιτισμικός Εξιρανισμός Ελλήνων, Ρωμαίων κι Ευρωπαίων
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/οι-ατελείωτες-επελάσεις-του-μίθρα-προ/
(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/58627059/Οι_Ατελείωτες_Επελάσεις_του_Μίθρα_προς_την_Δύση_κι_ο_Πολιτισμικός_Εξιρανισμός_Ελλήνων_Ρωμαίων_κι_Ευρωπαίων)
Ταυροθυσίες και Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια στην Κορυφή του Ολύμπου – Η Απόλυτη Επιβολή του Περσικού Πνεύματος ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες & το Τέλος της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/06/ταυροθυσίες-και-μιθραϊκά-μυστήρια-στ/
(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/62212919/Ταυροθυσίες_και_Μιθραϊκά_Μυστήρια_στην_Κορυφή_του_Ολύμπου_Η_Απόλυτη_Επιβολή_του_Περσικού_Πνεύματος_ανάμεσα_στους_Έλληνες_and_το_Τέλος_της_Αρχαίας_Ελλάδας)
και
Η Απόλυτη Κυριαρχία των Μιθραϊστών Πειρατών στο Αιγαίο, την Ελλάδα και τον Θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο στον 1ο Αιώνα π.Χ. – Τι λέει ο Πλούταρχος
http://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/η-απόλυτη-κυριαρχία-των-μιθραϊστών-πε/
(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/62228155/Η_Απόλυτη_Κυριαρχία_των_Μιθραϊστών_Πειρατών_στο_Αιγαίο_την_Ελλάδα_και_τον_Θεσσαλικό_Όλυμπο_στον_1ο_Αιώνα_π_Χ_Τι_λέει_ο_Πλούταρχος)
Για όσους έχουν δυσκολία στα αγγλικά, τονίζω ότι θα επανέλθω συχνά-πυκνά εστιάζοντας σε πολλά από τα παρακάτω κείμενα.
—————————————————-
Ο Μίθρας στο Ιράν, Ανάγλυφο του Ταγ-ε Μποστάν (Taq-e_Bostan): στέψη του Αρντασίρ Β’ 379-383 μ.Χ. (αριστερά, κραδαίνοντας το μπαρσόμ)
Ο Μίθρας στο Ιεροθέσιον Κορυφής (Νέμρουτ Νταγ) και άλλα μνημεία της Κομμαγηνής
Ο Μίθρας στην Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και την Ευρώπη
Ο Μίθρας στην Αυτοκρατορία της Μερόης (‘Αιθιοπία’: Αρχαίο Σουδάν), Αναπαράσταση των χρόνων του βασιλέως Σορκάρορ (Shorkaror – 20-30 μ.Χ.) από το Τζέμπελ Κέιλι (Jebel Qeili), ανατολικά του Χαρτούμ
——————————————————–
Mithras: all the passages in Graeco-Roman literature
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/literary_sources.htm
This page contains a list of all the passages in Greek or Latin literature that refer to “Mithra(s)”, in English translation. This includes all the material for both the ancient Persian cult of Mitra, and the Roman cult of Mithras, as it is sometimes not clear which is intended here, and the Romans themselves tended to suppose that Mithras and Mithra were the same, and used the same word for each.
I have indicated in each case, where possible, which is intended: the Persian cult by P, the Roman one by R. and those which could be either as ?.
The material here has mainly been gathered as follows:
· Use the bibliography from Manfred Clauss The Roman cult of Mithras.
· Use Geden Select passages illustrating Mithraism
· Use Cumont, Textes et Monuments 2. A number of passages which don’t mention Mithras, or else are from late saints’ lives, are omitted.
I have tried to link to complete English translations online where possible, and to indicate where the original language text can be found using {}. In some cases where more than one translation was available to me, I give both. Dates given for the works are approximate, for the convenience of the reader.
I have excluded Persian and Armenian material, which presumably would be inaccessible in the Greek and Roman world anyway. Geden translates a small selection of this.
· Herodotus (5th c. BC) P
· Ctesias (4th c. BC) P
· Xenophon (4th c. BC) P
· Duris of Samos (4th c. BC) P
· Strabo (20 BC) P
· Pliny the Elder (ca. 50 AD) P
· Quintus Curtius (40-50 AD) P
· Plutarch (c. 100 AD) P
· Dio Chrysostom (50-120 AD) P
· Statius (80 AD) R
· Justin Martyr (150 AD) R
· Lucian (120-200 AD) P
· Zenobius the Sophist (2nd century AD) ?
· Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) R
· Cassius Dio (ca. 200 AD) P
· Origen (200-254 AD) R
· Ps.Clement (200 AD) ?
· Porphyry (ca.270 AD) R
· Commodian (3rd c. AD) R
--------------------------
· Arnobius the Elder (295 AD) ?
· P.Oxy.1802 (2-3rd c. AD) P
· Ps.Callisthenes (300 AD) P
· Greek Magical Papyri (3rd c. AD) ?
· Acts of Archelaus (Early 4th c. AD) R
· Firmicus Maternus (350 AD) R
· Gregory Nazianzen (370 AD) R
· Julian the Apostate (361-2 AD) R
· Himerius (ca. 362 AD) R
· Libanius (ca. 362 AD) R
· Epiphanius (late 4th c.)
· Jerome (ca. 400 AD) R
· Eunapius (late 4th c. AD) R
· Augustan History (late 4th c. AD) R
· Ambrose of Milan (late 4th c. AD) P
· Claudian (ca. 400 AD) P
· Prudentius (ca. 400 AD) ?
· Ps.-Paulinus of Nola / Carmen ad Antonium (ca. 400 AD) R
· Carmen ad Flavianum / contra Paganos (ca. 400 AD) R
· Augustine (early 5th c. AD) R
· Ambrosiaster (5th c. AD) R
· Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th c. AD) P
-------------------------
· Martianus Capella (5th c. AD) ?
· Socrates Scholasticus (early 5th c. AD) R
· Sozomen (5th c. AD) R
· Proclus (5th c. AD) P
· Hesychius (ca. 400 AD) P
· Zosimus the alchemist (300 AD) ?
· Zosimus (6th c. AD) ?
· Nonnus of Panopolis (ca. 400 AD) P
· Lactantius Placidus (5th century AD) R
· John the Lydian (6th c. AD) R
· Damascius (6th c. AD) ?
· Cosmas Indicopleustes (ca. 550 AD) P
· Maximus the Confessor (7th c. AD) P
· Nonnus the Mythographer (6th or 7th c. AD) R
· John the Lydian (6th c. AD) R
· Theophylact Simocatta (ca. 600 AD) ?
· Cosmas of Jerusalem (ca. 750 AD) R
· Theophanes (650+ AD) R
· The Suda (9-10 c. AD) R
· Photius (9 c. AD) R
· Panegyrici Latini (9th c. AD) ?
================================
Herodotus (5th c. B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.16-17}
Histories, book 1, ch. 131 (Geden p.24):
Others are accustomed to ascend the hill-tops and sacrifice to Zeus, the name they give to the whole expanse of the heavens. Sacrifice is offered also to the sun and moon, to the earth and fire and water and the winds. These alone are from ancient times the objects of their worship, but they have adopted also the practice of sacrifice to Urania, which they have learned from the Assyrians and Arabians. The Assyrians give to Aphrodite the name Mylitta, the Arabians Alilat and the Persians Mitra.
Cumont notes that Ambrose of Milan also calls Mithra female.
————————————————–
Ctesias (after 398 B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.10}
Quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book 10, ch.45 (2nd c.). Geden p.25:
Ktesias reports that among the Indians it was not lawful for the king to drink to excess. Among the Persians however the king was permitted to be intoxicated on the one day on which sacrifice was offered to Mithra.
Cumont adds that the passage from Athenaeus is reproduced in part by Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey, XVIII, 3, p.1854; and Commentary on the Iliad, p.957.
—————————————————–
Xenophon (ca. 397-340 B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.51}
Oeconomicus, IV. 24. Cyrus the Younger, addressing Lysander:
Do you wonder at this, Lysander? I swear to you by Mithra that whenever I am in health I never break my fast without perspiring. (Geden)
Cyropaedia, VII. 5. Spoken by Artabazus to Cyrus the Elder.
By Mithra I could not come to you yesterday without fighting my way through many foes. (Geden)
———————————————————–
Duris of Samos (Mid. 4th c. B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.10}
Quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book 10, ch.45, immediately after the quote from Ctesias above. (2nd c. A.D.) Geden p.26.
In the seventh book of his Histories Duris has preserved the following account on this subject. Only at the festival celebrated by the Persians in honour of Mithra does the Persian king become drunken and dance after the Persian manner. On this day throughout Asia all abstain from the dance. For the Persians are taught both horsemanship and dancing; and they believe that the practice of these rhythmical movements strengthens and disciplines the body.
Cumont adds that the passage from Athenaeus is reproduced in part by Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey, XVIII, 3, p.1854; and Commentary on the Iliad, p.957.
——————————————————–
Strabo (20 B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.49}
Geographica, XI. 14:
The country (i.e. Armenia) is so excellently suited to the rearing of horses, being not inferior indeed to Media, that the Nisaean steeds are raised there also of the same breed that the Persian kings were wont to use. And the satrap of Armenia used to send annually to Persia twice ten thousand colts for the Mithraic festivals. (Geden)
Geographica, XV. 3:
The Persians therefore do not erect statues and altars, but sacrifice on a high place, regarding the heaven as Zeus; and they honour also the sun, whom they call Mithra, and the moon and Aphrodite and fire and earth and the winds and water. (Geden)
Cumont notes that the second passage reproduces Herodotus.
—————————————————–
Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.32}
Natural History, book 37, chapter 10: (Jewels derived from the name)
Mithrax is brought from Persia and the hill-country of the Red Sea, a stone of varied colours that reflects the light of the sun. … The Assyrians prize Eumitren the jewel of Bel their most honoured deity, of a light-green colour and employed in divination. (Geden)
—————————————————–
Quintus Curtius (40-50 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.10}
Geden p.27. History of Alexander, book 4, chapter. 13. The scene is before the battle of Arbela.
The king himself with his generals and Staff passed around the ranks of the armed men, praying to the sun and Mithra and the sacred eternal fire to inspire them with courage worthy of their ancient fame and the monuments of their ancestors.
Cumont adds that there is a variant here: mithrem rather than mithram.
—————————————————–
Plutarch (ca. 100 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.33-36}
De Iside et Osiride, ch. 46. Theopompus lived in the 4th c. B.C.
The following is the opinion of the great majority of learned men. By some it is maintained that there are two gods, rivals as it were, authors the one of good and the other of evil. Others confine the name of god to the good power, the other they term demon, as was done by Zoroaster the Magian, who is said to have lived to old age five thousand years before the Trojan war. He calls the one Horomazes, the other Areimanius. The former he assserts is of all natural phenomena most closely akin to the light, the latter to darkness, and that Mithra holds an intermediate position. To Mithra therefore the Persians give the name of the mediator. Moreover he taught men to offer to Horomazes worthy and unblemished sacrifices, but to Areimanius imperfect and deformed. For they bruise a kind of grass called molu in a trough, and invoke Hades and Darkness; then mixing it with the blood of a slaughtered wolf they carry it to a sunless place and throw it away. For they regard some plants as the property of the good god, and some· of the evil demon; and so also such animals as dogs and birds ,and hedgehogs belong to the good deity, and the water rat to the evil. Of these last therefore it is meritorious to kill as many as possible.
They have also many stories to relate concerning the gods, for example that Horomazes was born of the purest light, Areimanius of the darkness, and these are hostile to one another. The former created six gods, the first three deities respectively of good-will, truth, and orderliness, the others of wisdom, wealth, and a good conscience. By the latter rivals as it were to these were formed of equal number. Then Horomazes extended himself to thrice his stature as far beyond the sun as the sun is beyond the earth, and adorned the heaven with stars, appointing one star, Sirius, as guardian and watcher before all. He made also other twenty-four gods and placed them in an egg, but Areimanius produced creatures of equal number and these crushed the egg . . . wherefore evil is mingled with good.
At the appointed time however Areimanius must be utterly brought to nought and destroyed by the pestilence and famine which he has himself caused, and the earth will be cleared and made free from obstruction, the habitation of a united community of men dwelling in happiness and speaking one tongue. Theopompus further reports that according to the magi for three thousand years in succession each of the gods holds sway or is in subjection, and that there will follow on these a further period of three thousand years of war and strife, in which they mutually destroy the works of one another. Finally Hades will be overthrown, and men will be blessed, and will neither need nourishment nor cast a shadow. And the deity who has accomplished these things will then take rest and solace for a period that is not long, especially for a god, and moderate for a sleeping man. To this effect then is the legendary account given by the magi.
Life of Alexander, c. 30:
If thou art not false to the interests of the Persians, but remainest loyal to me thy lord, tell me by thy regard for the great light of Mithra, and the royal right hand ….
Life of Artaxerxes Memnon, c.4:
Presenting a pomegranate of great size a certain Omisus said to him: By Mithra you may trust this man quickly to make an insignificant city great.
Vita Pompei (Life of Pompey) c.24, 5, 632CD. (This is often quoted as if it had some connection with Mithras of the legions; but surely relates to Mithridates and Persian Mithra in Asia Minor?).
There were of these corsairs above one thousand sail, and they had taken no less than four hundred cities, committing sacrilege upon the temples of the gods, and enriching themselves with the spoils of many never violated before, such as were those of Claros, Didyma, and Samothrace; and the temple of the Earth in Hermione, and that of Aesculapius in Epidaurus, those of Neptune at the Isthmus, at Taenarus, and at Calauria; those of Apollo at Actium and Leucas, and those of Juno in Samos, at Argos, and at Lacinium. They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them. (Dryden)
They were accustomed to offer strange sacrifices on Olympus and to observe certain secret rites, of which that of Mithra is maintained to the present day by those by whom it was first established. (Geden)
(Ps.Plutarch) De fluviis, XXIII. 4.
Clauss says that the story is that Mithras spilled his seed onto a rock, and the stone gave birth to a son, named Diorphos, who, worsted and killed in a duel by Ares, was turned into the mountain of the same name not far from the Armenian river Araxes.
Near it also (i.e. the Araxes) is a mountain Diorphus, so called from the giant of that name, of which this story is told: Mithra being desirous of a son, and hating the female race, entered into a certain rock; and the stone becoming pregnant after the appointed time bore a child named Diorphus. The latter when he had grown to manhood challenged Ares to a contest of valour, and was slain. The purpose of the gods was then fulfilled in his transformation into the mountain which bears his name. (Geden)
———————————————–
Dio Chrysostom (ca. 50-120 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.60-64}
Oration 36. Marked as doubtful by Cumont.
In the secret mysteries the magi relate a further marvellous tradition concerning this god (Zeus) that he was the first and faultless charioteer of the unrivalled car. For they declare that the car of the sun is more recent, but on account of its prominent course in the sky is familiar to all. Whence is derived, it would seem, the common legend adopted by almost all the leading poets who have told of the risings and settings of the sun, the yoking of the steeds, and his ascent into the car. But of the mighty and perfect car of Zeus none of our writers hitherto has worthily sung, not even Homer or Hesiod, but the story is told by Zoroaster and the descendants of the magi who have learnt from him.
Of him the Persians relate that moved by love of wisdom and righteousness he separated himself from men and lived apart on a certain mountain, that fire subsequently fell from heaven and the whole mountain was kindled into flame. The king then with the most illustrious of the Persians approached wishing to offer prayer to the god. And Zoroaster came forth from the fire unharmed and gently bade them be of good courage and offer certain sacrifices, since it was the divine sanctuary to which the king had come.
Afterwards only those distinguished for love of the truth and who were worthy to approach the god were permitted to have access, and to these the Persians gave the name of magi, as being adepts in the divine service; differing therein from the Greeks who through ignorance of the name call such men wizards. And among other sacred rites they maintain for Zeus a pair of Nisaean steeds, these being the noblest and strongest that Asia yields, but one steed only for the sun. Moreover, they recount their legend not like our poets of the Muses who with all the arts of persuasion endeavour to carry conviction, but quite simply. For without doubt the control and government of the Supreme are unique, actuated always by the highest skill and strength, and that without cessation through endless ages.
The circuits then of the sun and moon are, as I said, movements of parts, and therefore readily discernible; most men however do not understand the movement and course of the whole, but the majestic order of its succession removes it above their comprehension. The further stories which they tell concerning the steeds and their management I hesitate to relate; and indeed they fail to take into account that the nature of the symbolism they employ betrays their own character. For it may be that it would be regarded as an act of folly for me to set forth a barbarian tale by the side of the fair Greek lays.
I must however make the venture. The first of the steeds is said to surpass infinitely in beauty and size and swiftness, running as it does on the outside round of the course, sacred to Zeus himself; and it is winged. The colour also of its skin is bright, of the purest sheen. And on it the sun and the moon are emblematically represented; I understand the meaning to be that these steeds have emblems moon-shaped or other; and they are seen by us indistinctly like sparks dancing in the bright blaze of a fire, each with its own proper motion. And the other stars receive their light through it and are all under its influence; and some have the same motion and are carried round with it, and others follow different courses. And the latter have each their own name among men, but the others are grouped together, assigned to certain forms and shapes.
The most handsome and variegated steed then is the favourite of Zeus himself, and on this account is lauded by them, receiving as is right the chief sacrifices and honours. The next to it in rank bears the name of Hera, being tractable and gentle, greatly inferior however in strength and swiftness. Its colour is naturally black, but that which is illuminated by the sun is always resplendent, while that which is in shadow during its circuit reveals the true character of the skin. The third is sacred to Poseidon, and is slower in movement than the second. His counterpart the poets say is found among men, meaning I suppose that which bears the name of Pegasus; a spring, according to the story, breaking forth in Corinth when the ground was opened.
The fourth is the strangest figure of all, fixed and motionless, not furnished with wings, named Hestia; but they do not hesitate to declare that this also is yoked to the car, remaining however in its place champing a bit of steel. And the others are on each side closely attached to it, the two nearest turning equally towards it, as though assailing it and resenting its control; but the leader on the outside circles constantly around it as though around a fixed centre post. For the most part therefore they live in peace and amity unhurt by one another, but eventually after a long time and many circuits the powerful breath of the leader descends from above and kindles into flame the proud spirit of the others, and most of all of the last.
His flaming mane then is set on fire, in which he took especial pride, and the whole universe. This calamity which they record they say that the Greeks attribute to Phaethon, for they refuse to blame Zeus’ driving of the car, and are unwilling to attach fault to the circuits of the sun … and again when in the course of further years the sacred colt of the Nymphs and Poseidon rouses itself to unaccustomed exertion, and incommoded with the sweat that pours from it drenches its own yokefellow, it gives rise to a destruction the contrary of the preceding, a flood of water. This then is the one catastrophe of which the Greeks have record owing to their recent origin and the shortness of their memory, and they relate that Deucalion reigned over them at that time before the universal destruction.
And in consequence of the ruin brought upon themselves men regard these rare occurrences as taking place neither in harmony with reason nor as a part of the general order, overlooking the fact that they occur in due course and in accordance with the will of the preserver and ruler of all. For it is just as when a charioteer chastises one of his steeds by checking it with the rein or touching it with the whip; the horse gives a start and is restless before settling down into its accustomed order. This earlier control then of the team they say is firm and the universe suffers no harm; but later a change takes place in the movement of the four, and their natures are mutually altered and interchanged, until they are all subdued by the higher power and a uniform character is imposed on all.
Nevertheless they do not hesitate to compare this movement to the conduct and driving of a car, for lack of a more impressive simile. As though a clever artificer should fashion horses out of wax, and should then smooth off the roughnesses of each, adding now to one and now to another, finally reducing all to one pattern, and forming his whole material into one shape. This however is not the case of a Creator fashioning and transforming from the outside the material substance of things without life, but the experience is that of the very substances themselves, as though they were contending for victory in a real and well-contested strife; and the crown of victory is awarded of right to the first and foremost in swiftness and strength and in every kind of virtue, to whom at the beginning of our discourse we gave the name of “chosen of Zeus.”.
For this one being the strongest and naturally fiery quickly consumed the others as though they had been really wax in a period not actually long, though to our limited reasoning it appears infinite; and absorbing into himself the entire substance of all is seen to be far greater and more glorious than before, having won the victory in the most formidable contest by no mortal or immortal aid, but by his own valour. Raised then proudly aloft and exulting in his victory, he takes possession of the widest possible domain, and yet such is his might and power that he craves further room for expansion. Having reached this conclusion they shrink from describing the nature of the living creature as the same; for that it is now no other than the soul of the charioteer and lord, or rather it has the same purpose and mind. (Geden)
————————————————–
Statius (ca. 80 A.D.) [=Mithras] {Cumont, ii, p.46}
Thebaid, book 1, v.719-20:
(Mithras) ‘twists the unruly horns beneath the rocks of a Persian cave’ (Clauss)
717 …… seu te roseum Titana vocari Gentis Achaemeniae ritu, seu praestat Osirim Frugiferum, seu Persei sub rupibus antri Indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram.
Or:
Whether it please thee to bear the name of ruddy Titan after the manner of the Achaemenian race, or Osiris lord of the crops, or Mithra as beneath the rocks of the Persian cave he presses back the horns that resist his control. (Geden)
Geden suggests the horns must be those of the bull.
The scholia on Statius are attributed to a certain Lactantius Placidus.
—————————————————–
Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) [=Mithras] {Cumont, ii.20-21}
1st Apology, ch. 66
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; “and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; “and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (ANF)
Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 70
70. And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah’s words? For they contrived that the words of righteousness be quoted also by them. But I must repeat to you the words of Isaiah referred to, in order that from them you may know that these things are so. They are these: `Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might.
The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water [shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counsellors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,-the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not.
The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were foreknown to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding.
And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, “that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this. (ANF)
78. … I have repeated to you,” I continued, “what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.” Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. … (ANF)
Geden (p.39-40) renders these passages as:
(Apol. 1, 66) Accordingly in the mysteries of Mithra also we have heard that evil spirits practise mimicry. For at the initiatory rites bread and a cup of water are set out accompanied by certain formulae, as you know or may ascertain.
(Dial. 70) And when in the tradition of the Mithraic mysteries they relate that Mithra was born of a rock, and name the place where his followers receive initiation a cave, do I not know that they are perverting the saying of Daniel that “a stone was hewn without hands from a great mountain,” and likewise the words of Isaiah, all whose sayings also they endeavour to pervert? Noteworthy sayings too besides these they have artfully contrived to use.
(Dial. 78) According to the tradition of the Mithraic mysteries initiation takes place among them in a so-called cave, … a device of the evil one.
———————————————–
Lucian (120-200 A.D.) [=?] {Cumont, ii.22}
The Gods in Council, chapter 9.
Momus. Ah; and out of consideration for him I suppose I must also abstain from any reference to the eagle, which is now a God like the rest of us, perches upon the royal sceptre, and may be expected at any moment to build his nest upon the head of Majesty?–Well, you must allow me Attis, Corybas, and 9 Sabazius: by what contrivance, now, did they get here? and that Mede there, Mithras, with the candys and tiara? why, the fellow cannot speak Greek; if you pledge him, he does not know what you mean. The consequence is, that Scythians and Goths, observing their success, snap their fingers at us, and distribute divinity and immortality right and left; that was how the slave Zamolxis’s name slipped into our register. However, let that pass. But I should just like to ask that Egyptian there–the dog-faced gentleman in the linen suit — who he is, and whether he proposes to establish his divinity by barking?
Or:
And Attis too, by heaven, and Korybas and Sabazius with what a flood have these deluged us, and your Mithra with his Assyrian cloak and crown, maintaining even their foreign tongue, so that when they give a toast no one can understand what they say. (Geden)
The Tragic Zeus, ch. 8:
There is Bendis herself and Anubis yonder and by his side Attis and Mithra and Men, all resplendent in gold, weighty and costly you may be sure.
Menippus, ch. 6:
Once as with these thoughts I was lying awake I determined to go to Babylon and there make inquiry of one of the magi, the disciples and successors of Zoroaster. I had heard that by incantations and magic rites they open the gates of Hades, and lead thither in safety whom they will, and restore him again to the upper world . . . so I arose at once, and without delay set out for Babylon.
On arrival I betook myself to a certain Chaldaean, a man skilled in the art of the diviner, grey-haired and wearing an imposing beard, whose name was Mithrobarzanes. With much trouble and importunity I won his consent, for whatever fee he liked to name, to be my guide on the way. He took me under his charge, and first for twenty-nine days from the new moon he conducted me at dawn to the Euphrates and bathed me, reciting some long invocation to the rising sun, which I did not fully understand; for like the second-rate heralds at the games he spoke in obscure and involved fashion. It was clear however that he was invoking certain deities.
Then after the invocation he spat thrice in front of me and conducted me back without looking in the face of any whom we met. For food we had acorns, and our drink was milk and honey-mead and the waters of the Choaspes, and we made our couch upon the grass in the open air. These preliminaries concluded he took me about midnight to the Tigris, cleansed and rubbed me down and purified me with resinous twigs and hyssop and many other things, reiterating at the same time the previous invocation. Then he threw spells over me and circumambulated me for my defence against the ghosts and led me back to the house, as I was, on foot; and the rest of the journey we made by boat. He himself put on some sort of a Magian robe, not unlike that of the Medes. And he further equipped me with the cap and lion’s skin and put into my hands the lyre, and bade me if I were asked my name not to answer Menippus, but to say Herakles or Odysseus or Orpheus ….
Arrived at a certain place, gloomy and desolate and overgrown with jungle, we disembarked, Mithrobarzanes leading the way, and dug a pit, and sacrificed the sheep, pouring out the blood over it. Then the Magian with lighted torch in his hand, no longer in subdued tones but exerting his voice to the utmost, invoked the whole host of demons with the Avengers and Furies, “and Hecate the queen of night and noble Persephone,” joining with them some foreign names of inordinate length. (Geden)
Cumont adds that the name of Mithras is explained in two of the scholia on Lucian. The second is similar to Hesychius. Scholia, c. 1. 1 (p.173 ed. Jacobitz), Cumont p.23. Translated by Andrew Eastbourne:
Cumont cites two scholia on Lucian which discuss Mithra(s), from the edition of Jacobitz. For a more recent edition, see Rabe, Scholia in Lucianum (1906).[1]
Scholion on Lucian, Zeus Rants / Jupiter tragoedus 8 [cf. Rabe, p. 60]
This Bendis…[2] Bendis is a Thracian goddess, and Anubis is an Egyptian [god], whom the theologoi[3] call “dog-faced.” Mithras is Persian, and Men is Phrygian. This Mithras is the same as Hephaestus, but others say [he is the same as] Helios. So then, because the barbarians would take pride[4] in wealth, they naturally also outfitted their own gods most expensively. And Attis is revered by the Phrygians…
Scholion on Lucian, The Parliament of the Gods / Deorum concilium 9 [cf. Rabe, p. 212]
Mithrês [Mithras]… Mithras is the sun [Helios], among the Persians.[5]
[1] I have noted points where Rabe’s edition differs in substance from the text printed by Cumont. Rabe’s edition is available online at http://www.archive.org/details/scholiainlucianu00rabe
[2] Lucian’s text here mentions Bendis, Anubis, Attis, Mithrês [Mithras], and Mên.
[3] The Greek term normally refers to poets who wrote about the gods, like Hesiod or Orpheus. Note that this is an emendation; the mss. read logoi (“words / discourses / accounts”), which Rabe adopts in his edition.
[4] Gk. ekômôn; lit., “wore their hair long / let their hair grow long.”
[5] Rabe’s text: “Mithras is the same as Helios, among the Persians.”
——————————————————–
Zenobius the Sophist (2nd century A.D.) [=?]
A Greek sophist of the reign of Hadrian. His collection of proverbs is partly extant.
Proverbia, book 5, 78 (in Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum vol. 1, p.151). Quoted in Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin literature, p.309:
Evander said that the gods who rule over everything are eight: Fire, Water, Earth, Heaven, Moon, Sun, Mithras, Night.
Not in Geden or Cumont.
Clauss p.70 n.84 also mentions literary evidence of syncretism of Mithras with the Orphic creator-god Phanes (no citation). This refers to a similar list from Iranian sources appearing in Theon of Smyrna’s Exposition of mathematical ideas useful for reading Plato, ch. 47 (from Exposition des connaissances mathematiques utiles pour la lecture de platon, J. Dupuis in 1892, p.173):
47. The number eight which is the first cube composed of unity and seven. Some say that there are eight gods who are masters of the universe, and this is also what we see in the sayings of Orpheus:
By the creators of things ever immortal, Fire and water, earth and heaven, moon, And sun, the great Phanes and the dark night.
And Evander reports that in Egypt may be found on a column an inscription of King Saturn and Queen Rhea: “The most ancient of all, King Osiris, to the immortal gods, to the spirit, to heaven and earth, to night and day, to the father of all that is and all that will be, and to Love, souvenir of the magificence of his life.” Timotheus also reports the proverb, “Eight is all, because the spheres of the world which rotate around the earth are eight.” And, as Erastothenes says,
“These eight spheres harmonise together in making their revolutions around the earth.”
The real basis for identification of Mithras and Phanes is some inscriptions.
........
Continue in the Word doc. that you can download (see below!)
---------------------------
Bibliography
· Manfred CLAUSS, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries. Edinburgh University Press (2000). Tr. Richard GORDON.
· Franz CUMONT, The Mysteries of Mithra. London: Kegan Paul (1910). Tr. Thomas J. McCORMACK from the second French edition.
An Image of the Tauroctony
[Museo Nazionale, Roma. Photographed by R.Pearse, February 2004]
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/literary_sources.htm
--------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250716152
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/mithra_mithraism_and_mithraic_mysteries.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621839366
https://www.docdroid.net/5YzE1Mw/mithras-mithraismos-mithraika-mistiria-docx
Η Απόλυτη Κυριαρχία των Μιθραϊστών Πειρατών στο Αιγαίο, την Ελλάδα και τον Θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο στον 1ο Αιώνα π.Χ. – Τι λέει ο Πλούταρχος
The Overwhelming Prevalence of the Mithraic Pirates throughout the Aegean Sea, Greece and the Thessalian Olympus in the 1st c. BCE: what Plutarch states!
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 7η Μαΐου 2019.
Στηριζόμενος σε πολλές συζητήσεις μας και σε στοιχεία που παρέθεσα σε ένα σεμινάριο (τον Δεκέμβριο του 2018 στην Μόσχα) αναφορικά με την ψευδέστατη δυτική, αποικιοκρατική και ρατσιστική, 'Ιστορία ' της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αναφέρεται σε μένα και σε ιστορικές πηγές (και πιο συγκεκριμένα τον Πλούταρχο), τις οποίες άθλιοι Άγγλοι ψευτο-επιστήμονες και αγύρτες εξεπίτηδες διεστρέβλωσαν για να παρουσιάσουν διεθνώς το αρχαιοελληνικό εξάμβλωμα ως δήθεν πολιτισμό, και μάλιστα 'δυτικό'. Τόσο ασήμαντο περιθώριο ήταν η Αρχαία Ελλάδα που τελικά κατέληξε παράρτημα ιρανικού, ανατολιακού, μεσοποταμιακού και αιγυπτιακού πολιτισμού. Για τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες του 1ου προχριστιανικού αιώνα, τόσο ο δώδεκα 'θεοί' (και οι γελοίοι ψευτο-ιερείς τους) όσο και οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες φιλόσοφοι ήταν άχρηστα απόβλητα ανίκανα να ιερουργήσουν, να θεουργήσουν, και να μιμηθούν την απέραντη ψυχική ισχύ ή να επιτελέσουν, κατά τα Μυστήρια του Μίθρα, τα μεγαλουργηματικά επιτεύγματα των Ιρανών Μάγων του Μίθρα.
------------------------------------
http://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/η-απόλυτη-κυριαρχία-των-μιθραϊστών-πε/ ==========================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Όταν οι Μακεδόνες κι οι Έλληνες στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου έφθασαν στην Ανατολή κατάλαβαν πόσο βάρβαροι κι απολίτιστοι ήταν οι ίδιοι κι εξανατολίσθηκαν: στην Περσία εκπερσίσθηκαν, στην Αίγυπτο εξαιγυπτίσθηκαν και σε πολλά άλλα σημεία επηρεάσθηκαν καταλυτικά από τους ποιοτικά ανώτερους ανατολικούς πολιτισμούς: στην Βαβυλώνα, στην Φοινίκη, ανάμεσα στους Αραμαίους της Συρο-Παλαιστίνης, και στην ήδη έντονα εξιρανισμένη Ανατολία: στην Καππαδοκία και στον Πόντο. Στην Βακτριανή (Αφγανιστάν) μάλιστα πολλοί Μακεδόνες κι οι Έλληνες στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου προσχώρησαν στον ήδη αφιγμένο εκεί Βουδισμό.
Οι μεικτοί γάμοι τους οποίους έκαναν δεν ήταν ηλίθιοι πολιτικοί γάμοι, όπως οι κρετίνοι Νεοέλληνες κι οι άλλοι άπιστοι λαοί της αντίχριστης Δύσης συνηθίζουν να κάνουν μέσα στον παρανοϊκό βούρκο του υλισμού και στην παράνοια του αριστοτελισμού, αλλά ιερά μυστήρια. Όλοι οι γάμοι ήταν μυστήριο στην Αρχαιότητα και οι γάμοι των Μακεδόνων κι Ελλήνων στρατιωτών με γυναίκες καταγόμενες στους πολλούς και διαφορετικούς λαούς της απέραντης Ιρανικής Αυτοκρατορίας ήταν εμφανέστατο δείγμα επιβολής του Ιρανικού Πνεύματος και Πολιτισμού ανάμεσα στους Μακεδόνες κι Έλληνες, Αυτό φάνηκε πολύ σύντομα και πρώτα απ’ όλα στον Πόντο. Σαράντα χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Μεγάλου Αλεξανδρου, ο Μιθριδάτης Α’ Κτίστης του Πόντου ήταν ένας ελληνικής και ιρανικής καταγωγής βασιλιάς που ήταν πιστός στον Μίθρα κι όχι στον Δία.
Η επιβολή του Μιθραϊσμού επί του Ζωροαστρισμού ήταν καταλυτική σε όλο το Ιράν κατά την διάρκεια των αχαιμενιδικών χρόνων (550-330 π.Χ.). Αυτής έπεται η διάδοση του Μιθραϊσμού ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες ήδη από τον 3ο προχριστιανικό αιώνα. Δεν υπάρχουν ούτε ‘ελληνιστικοί χρόνοι’, ούτε ‘ελληνιστικά βασίλεια’: όλα αυτά είναι διαστρεβλωτικά παρασκευάσματα των ρατσιστών, αποικιοκρατών ελληνιστών κι οριενταλιστών της Γαλλίας, της Αγγλίας και της Αμερικής.
Τα βασίλεια των Σελευκιδών, των Πτολεμαίων, των Ατταλιδών, των ηγεμόνων του Πόντου και της Βακτριανής ήταν ολότελα ανατολικά βασίλεια, όπως το Αρσακιδικό Ιράν, η Καρχηδόνα, η Μεροϊτική Αιθιοπία (στον χώρο του σημερινού Σουδάν), τα υεμενικά βασίλεια Σαβά, Χιμυάρ, Καταμπάν και Χαντραμάουντ, κα. Κι αντί να διαδοθεί ο ελληνικός πολιτισμός ανάμεσα στα πολιτισμικά ανώτερα ανατολικά έθνη, διαδόθηκαν ανατολικές θρησκείες, λατρείες, κοσμολογίες, μυστήρια, κοσμογονίες, μυστικισμοί και παραδόσεις ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες – είτε αυτούς που είχαν εγκατασταθεί στην Ανατολή, είτε εκείνους που παρέμειναν στην Μικρά Ασία, τα νότια Βαλκάνια και την Μεγάλη Ελλάδα.
Αυτή την ιστορική αλήθεια, οι ρατσιστές αποικιοκράτες ιστορικοί προσπάθησαν και προσπαθούν ν’ αποκρύψουν. Δεν είναι αυτό ένα θέμα μόνον ελληνικών πανεπιστημίων. Το ψέμμα του ‘ελληνισμού’ ξεκινάει από την Δυτική Ευρώπη και την Βόρεια Αμερική. Και τμήμα της ιστορικής διαστρέβλωσης γίνεται στις μεταφράσεις αρχαίων κειμένων. Στο επίμαχο απόσπασμα του Πλουτάρχου (από τον Βίο Πομπήιου) που παρέθεσα σε πρότερο κείμενό μου έχουν γίνει παραχαρακτικές μεταφράσεις επειδή διεστραμμένοι, ανώμαλοι, σατανιστές ψευτο-ιστορικοί της Γαλλίας, της Αγγλίας και των ΗΠΑ δεν θέλουν να δεχθούν ότι
1) Μιθραϊστές επιτελούσαν ταυροθυσίες και μυστικές τελετουργίες στην κορυφή του θεσσαλικού Ολύμπου,
2) το Περσικό Πνεύμα επικράτησε του Αρχαίου Ελληνικού Πνεύματος όταν οι Αρχαίοι Έλληνες αποδέχθηκαν την φυσική ανωτερότητα των αρχαίων ανατολικών πολιτισμών και προσχώρησαν σε ανατολικών θρησκειών μυστήρια και τελετουργίες,
3) η Αρχαία Ελληνική Ιερότητα έσβυσε όταν ο κύριος ιερός χώρος των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων (η κατοικία των ‘θεών’) μεταλλάχθηκε υποτασσόμενος στην περσική μιθραϊκή ιερότητα κι απαλλοτριώθηκε από κάθε αρχαίο ελληνικό πολιτιστικό στοιχείο,
4) οι ίδιοι οι Αρχαίοι Έλληνες προθύμως αποδέχθηκαν τον Μιθραϊσμό και τα Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια.
Έτσι λοιπόν υπάρχουν ρατσιστές κι αποικιοκράτες, δυτικοί ψευτο-ιστορικοί που παρερμηνεύουν το κείμενο του Πλουτάρχου, λέγοντας ότι δεν αναφέρεται στον θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο αλλά στον Όλυμπο της Λυκίας – επειδή τάχα εκείνο το βουνό βρισκόταν κοντά στην Κιλικία, δηλαδή το ορμητήριο των πειρατών που ο Πομπήιος δυσκολεύθηκε πολύ να υποτάξει επειδή τους βοηθούσε πλουσιοπάροχα ο εκπερσισμένος Έλληνας βασιλιάς Μιθριδάτης ΣΤ’ του Πόντου (: ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους ηγεμόνες όλων των εποχών που στο σάπιο κράτος ‘Ελλάδα’ καθόλου δεν μνημονεύουν στην Μέση Εκπαίδευση μόνο και μόνο για να παρουσιάζουν σκουπίδια του τύπου Θουκυδίδη, Περικλή, Δημοσθένη, κοκ).
Ποια είναι όμως η ιστορική αλήθεια που τα ίδια τα συμφραζόμενα του κειμένου αποδεικνύουν, έτσι γελοιοποιώντας τους δυτικούς ελληνιστές κι οριενταλιστές.
Παραθέτω εδώ και πάλι ένα ευρύτερο απόσπασμα (σε αρχαίο ελληνικό κείμενο και σε σωστή αγγλική μετάφραση) και στην συνέχεια θα το σχολιάσω απαριθμώντας τις αναφορές του Πλούταρχου μία – μία.
Αρχαίο ελληνικό κείμενο
ἐγένοντο δ’ οὖν αἱ μὲν λῃστρίδες νῆες ὑπὲρ χιλίας, αἱ δὲ ἁλοῦσαι πόλεις ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τετρακόσιαι. τῶν δὲ ἀσύλων καὶ ἀβάτων πρότερον ἱερῶν ἐξέκοψαν ἐπιόντες τὸ Κλάριον, τὸ Διδυμαῖον, τὸ Σαμοθρᾴκιον, τὸν ἐν Ἑρμιόνῃ τῆς Χθονίας νεὼν καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τὸν Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ Καλαυρίᾳ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος, τοῦ δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος τὸν ἐν Ἀκτίῳ καὶ Λευκάδι, τῆς δὲ Ἥρας τὸν ἐν Σάμῳ, τὸν ἐν Ἄργει, τὸν ἐπὶ Λακινίῳ. ξένας δὲ θυσίας ἔθυον αὐτοὶ τὰς ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ, καὶ τελετάς τινας ἀπορρήτους ἐτέλουν, ὧν ἡ τοῦ Μίθρου καὶ μέχρι δεῦρο διασώζεται καταδειχθεῖσα πρῶτον ὑπ’ ἐκείνων.
Και η σωστή αγγλική μετάφραση:
There were of these corsairs above one thousand sail, and they had taken no less than four hundred cities, committing sacrilege upon the temples of the gods, and enriching themselves with the spoils of many never violated before, such as were those of Claros, Didyma, and Samothrace; and the temple of the Earth in Hermione, and that of Aesculapius in Epidaurus, those of Neptune at the Isthmus, at Taenarus, and at Calauria; those of Apollo at Actium and Leucas, and those of Juno in Samos, at Argos, and at Lacinium. They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them.
Σχολιασμός των ενεργειών των πειρατών (πριν τους αντιμετωπίσει ο Πομπήιος):
1) Κατέλαβαν όχι λιγώτερες από 400 πόλεις
2) Επιδόθηκαν σε ιεροσυλία αρχαίων ελληνικών ναών
3) Βεβήλωσαν τα ιερά της Κλάρου (του Απόλλωνα: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claros), των Διδύμων (του Απόλλωνα και της Άρτεμης: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didyma), και της Σαμοθράκης (το ιερό των Καβείρων ήταν το κεντρικό μυστηριακό ιερό των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samothrace_temple_complex)
4) Βεβήλωσαν τον ναό της Χθωνίας στην Ερμιόνη (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermione_(Argolis) / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonia)
5) Βεβήλωσαν τον ναό του Ασκληπιού στην Επίδαυρο (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Asclepius,_Epidaurus)
6) Βεβήλωσαν τους ναούς του Ποσειδώνα στον Ισθμό, στο Ταίναρο και στην Καλαυρεία, δηλαδή τον Πόρο (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Isthmia / http://www.poros.com.gr/poseidonas/?lang=en)
7) Βεβήλωσαν τους ναούς του Απόλλωνα στο Άκτιο (http://www.academia.edu/958256/Octavian_and_the_thunderbolt_The_temple_of_apollo_palatinus_and_roman_traditions_of_temple_building) και στην Λευκάδα (https://www.britannica.com/place/Leucas-island-Greece)
8) Βεβήλωσαν τους ναούς της Ήρας στην Σάμο, το Άργος και το Λακίνιο (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capo_Colonna).
9) Μόνον μετά από τις παραπάνω βεβηλώσεις αρχαίων ελληνικών ναών από τους Έλληνες Μιθραϊστές σημειώνει ο Πλούταρχος την κυριαρχία τους και την επιβολή μιθραϊκών μυστηριακών τελετουργιών και ιερότητας στον θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο. Η περιγραφή του Πλούταρχου κάνει ένα κρεσέντο. Και δεν θα είχε νόημα να αναφέρει ένα δευτερεύον σημείο αρχαίας ελληνικής ιερότητας που βεβηλώθηκε από τους Έλληνες Μιθραϊστές, όπως ο Όλυμπος της Λυκίας. Όλοι οι ιεροί χώροι της Μικράς Ασίας, των νοτίων Βαλκανίων και της Μεγάλης Ελλάδας (νότιας Ιταλίας) εκμηδενίσθηκαν κι εκμιθραΐσθηκαν γύρω στο 70 π.Χ. Αυτή είναι η ιστορική αλήθεια.
Διάλογος: ο Πλούταρχος δεν αναφέρεται στον Όλυμπο της Λυκίας αλλά στον Θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο
———— Σχόλιο από αναγνώστη ————
Νομίζω είναι απαραίτητη μια αναγκαία διευκρίνιση: πρόκειται για τον Όλυμπο της Λυκίας (έναν από τους περίπου 20 Ολύμπους της αρχαιότητας) και όχι για τον θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο. Υπήρχε πόλη στην Λυκία που ονομαζόταν επίσης Όλυμπος. Η Λυκία και η Παμφυλία ήταν γειτονικές περιοχές με την Κιλικία, την έδρα των πειρατών. Η δε μανία των πειρατών κατά των θεών του Ολύμπου προφανώς είχε ανθελληνικά και αντιρωμαϊκά κίνητρα. Δείτε κι εδώ:
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/m_m/pt2.htm
——— Δική μου απάντηση —————
Τρομερό λάθος, φίλε μου! Η μόνη αναγκαία διευκρίνιση είναι ότι δεν διαβάζεις σωστά κι ότι παραπέμπεις σε πολύ λάθος βιβλιογραφία για να υποστηρίξεις κάτι που αποτελεί βίαιη, επιτηδευμένη και κακουργηματική παραποίηση της Ιστορίας.
Πρώτον, δεν διαβάζεις σωστά. Αυτό ισχύει επειδή
1) δεν διάβασες το αρχαίο ελληνικό κείμενο του Πλούταρχου που παραθέτω και που μόνο του θέτει εκτός πάσης αμφιβολίας ποιον Όλυμπο νοεί ο ιερέας του Μαντείου των Δελφών και συγγραφέας του κειμένου,
2) δεν διάβασες την σωστή (αν και αρχαιότερη) αγγλική μετάφραση που επίσης παραθέτω και η οποία δεν περιλαμβάνει το οικτρό λάθος εκείνης της κατάπτυστης και παρερμηνευτικής, οριενταλιστικής διαστροφής στην οποία κακώς παραπέμπεις, και
3) δεν διάβασες όλο μου το κείμενο για να αντιληφθείς ότι στο τέλος, όπως αλλωστε συχνά κάνω, παραθέτω μια σειρά από συνδέσμους ανάμεσα στους οποίους περιλαμβάνεται κι αυτός στον οποίο αναφέρεσαι.
Εννοείται ότι προσφέρω στους αναγνώστες μου πάντοτε πολλούς συνδέσμους με την προτροπή ‘περισσότερα’, ή ‘γενικά’, ή ‘διαβάστε’ – κι όχι ‘αποδεχθείτε στα τυφλά σαν ζωντόβολα’!
Είναι ευνόητο ότι σε πολλά από τα κείμενα στα οποία παραπέμπω υπάρχουν λάθη, ενίοτε σημαντικά, οικτρές αλλοιώσεις και παραποιήσεις, ή ακόμη και ολότελα διαστρεβλωτική αναπαράσταση της ιστορικής αλήθειας.
Αλλοίμονο αν θα περίμενα να βρω ένα ολόσωστο κείμενο για να παραπέμψω. Τότε, θα παρέπεμπα συνέχεια μόνον στις Δέκα Εντολές, στους Κατά Ιουδαίων Λόγους του Ιωάννου Χρυσοστόμου, και στον Ιωάννη της Κλίμακος….
Όταν παραθέτω ένα σύνδεσμο, θεωρώ αυτονόητο ότι εκθέτω τον παραπεμπόμενο σε πολλά λάθη από τα οποία, ακόμη κι αν αυτός είναι ανειδίκευτος (όπως άλλωστε και γω), η σωστή του κρίση θα τον προστατέψει, αν εκείνος βάλει το μυαλό του να δουλέψει. Αλλά αυτό έχει δυστυχώς εξαφανιστεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό από την Ελλάδα κι από την διεσταμμένη Δύση, η οποία τώρα βουλιάζει και σε λίγο θα εξαφανιστεί – όπως της αξίζει – στον παγκοσμίως μοναδικό βόθρο των κατά συρροήν κι εξεπίτηδες παρασκευασμένων επιστημονικών ψευδών που παρασκεύασε τους τελευταίους αιώνες.
Τώρα όποιος προσέξει τον σύνδεσμο, βλέπει κατ’ ευθείαν ότι πρόκειται για αναρτήσεις της School of Oriental and African Studies, δηλαδή ενός από τα προπύργια του δυτικού οριενταλισμού που αποτελεί πυλώνα παραποίησης της ιστορικής αλήθειας, όπως άλλωστε οι δυτικοί ελληνιστές, οι βιβλιστές, κι οι λατινιστές που συστάθηκαν νωρίτερα.
Ευτυχώς,υπήρξα τυχερός στην ζωή μου να γνωρίσω ένα εξαιρετικό ανατολιστή (οριενταλιστή) με ειδίκευση σε αρχαίες γλώσσες, θρησκείες, ιστορία και πολιτισμούς της Ανατολής, με τεράστια επιτόπια έρευνα, με ατελείωτες δημοσίευσεις, και – κυρίως – με τρομερό κριτικό πνεύμα που του επέτρεψε να διακρίνει και να ανακαλύψει σε όλο τους το εύρος, πλάτος, βάθος και ύψος τις ανακρίβειες, τις αποκρύψεις, τις παραποιήσεις και τις διαβολές (κατά ιστορικών πηγών) των καθηγητών του και άλλων οριενταλιστών κι ακόμη περισσότερο τις εγκληματικές, αποικιοκρατικές, ρατσιστικές και σατανικές προθέσεις τους – εκείνες που ήταν ο κινητήριος μοχλός των a priori ‘γνωμών’, ‘απόψεων’, δημοσιεύσεων και τερατουργημάτων τους.
Έτσι, αυτός ο φίλος και με ξύπνησε σχετικά με το απάνθρωπο, κτηνώδες, διαστρεβλωτικό και δαιμονικό περιεχόμενο των λεγομένων ‘ανθρωπιστικών επιστημών’ και μου έδωσε την σωστή μέθοδο να εξετάζω θέματα και να κρίνω αξιόπιστες ιστορικές πηγές κι αναξιόπιστη σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία.
Αλλά όλα αυτά είναι εισαγωγικά. Στην σύντομη, πρώτη παράγραφο της απάντησής μου τόνισα επίσης ότι παραπέμπεις σε πολύ λάθος βιβλιογραφία για να υποστηρίξεις κάτι που αποτελεί βίαιη, επιτηδευμένη και κακουργηματική παραποίηση της Ιστορίας.
Σε ποιο απόσπασμα από το κείμενο στο οποίο παραπέμπει ο σύνδεσμος αναφέρομαι;
Στο εξής:
In his biography of this skilful general, Plutarch writes of the pirates: ‘They brought to Olympus in Lycia strange offerings and performed some secret mysteries, which still in the cult of Mithras, first made known by them [the pirates]’.
Στο κατάπτυστο αυτό απόσπασμα, ο παραχαράκτης της Ιστορίας κι απατεώνας συγγραφέας παρουσιάζει (στις 2 από τις 3 γραμμές του σύντομου αποσπάσματος) μια διαστρεβλωτική αγγλική μετάφραση του αρχαίου ελληνικού κειμένου.
Το αρχαίο ελληνικό κείμενο έχει στο σημείο αυτό ως εξής:
ξένας δὲ θυσίας ἔθυον αὐτοὶ τὰς ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ, καὶ τελετάς τινας ἀπορρήτους ἐτέλουν, ὧν ἡ τοῦ Μίθρου καὶ μέχρι δεῦρο διασώζεται καταδειχθεῖσα πρῶτον ὑπ’ ἐκείνων.
Και η σωστή αγγλική μετάφρασή του που παρέθεσα είναι η εξής:
They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them.
Βεβαίως, όπως λες, πολλά βουνά έφεραν το όνομα του Ολύμπου, και θεωρητικά, για κάποιον άσχετο κι ανειδίκευτο, θα μπορούσε στο σημείο αυτό ο Πλούταρχος να αναφέρεται στον Όλυμπο της Λυκίας, αλλά βεβαίως δεν το κάνει.
Δεν μπορώ να σε κακίσω για το ότι δεν είσαι ιστορικός, δεν έχεις ειδικευθεί σε Ιρανολογία ή στην κατακλυσμική διάδοση ανατολικών, περσικών, αραμαϊκών, φοινικικών, καππαδοκικών κι αιγυπτιακών θρησκειών, λατρειών, κοσμογονιών, μυστικισμών, κοσμολογιών και θεουργιών στην Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και στην Ευρώπη. Ούτε εγώ είμαι ειδικός σ’ αυτά. Ούτε ξέρω ό,τι ξέρω επειδή κάθισα δίπλα σε εξαιρετικό δάσκαλο. Αλλά μπορώ να κρίνω και ξέρω να κρίνω όταν διαβάζω.
Αλλά σε κακίζω επειδή εσύ, ενώ επίσης μπορείς να κρίνεις, δεν το κάνεις όντας τυφλωμένος από το σατανικό πάθος του ελληνοκεντρικού ψέμματος και την χολέρα του ιστορικού ψεύδους ‘ελληνισμός’ – ενός ανύπαρκτου στοιχείου στις διαστάσεις που το παρασκεύασαν και το διέδωσαν δυτικοί ιστορικοί.
Πως φαίνεται ότι δεν κρίνεις;
Πρώτον, επειδή θα έπρεπε να διαβάσεις το αρχαίο ελληνικό κείμενο του οποίου πέταξε τα μάτια έξω ο κακουργηματικός παραχαράκτης της μετάφρασης της School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘Δεν μπορείς να προσθέτεις κείμενο στην μετάφραση που κάνεις’: αυτός είναι κανόνας. Το κείμενο δεν αναφέρει ‘Όλυμπο της Λυκίας’ αλλά ‘Όλυμπο’.
Δεύτερον και κυριώτερον, θα έπρεπε να διαβάσεις πολύ περισσότερο αρχαίο ελληνικό κείμενο για να καταλάβεις από τα συμφραζόμενα – κι αυτό δεν το έκανες, ενώ μας το μάθαιναν οι δάσκαλοί μας στο εξατάξιο γυμνάσιο που τελείωσα και όπου ήμουν άριστος και σε Αρχαία Ελληνικά και σε Λατινικά, γιατί δεν είχαμε την χολεριασμένη ψευτο-επιστήμη της κοινωνιολογίας που θέλουν τα βάλουν τώρα τα σκουπίδια που οι αφιονισμένοι (και από την αρχαιολατρία) Νεοέλληνες δέχονται να τους κυβερνάνε.
Κι αυτή είναι η ουσία της απάντησής μου: από τα συμφραζόμενα συνάγεται πολύ εύκολα το συμπέρασμα ότι οΠλούταρχος δεν εννοεί τον Όλυμπο της Λυκίας αλλά τον Όλυμπο της Θεσσαλίας. Διάβασε όλο το επίμαχο σημείο και θα καταλάβεις! Έχω προσθέσει πολλές παραγράφους στο κείμενό μου αλλά αρκεί μία. Αυτή:
ἐγένοντο δ’ οὖν αἱ μὲν λῃστρίδες νῆες ὑπὲρ χιλίας, αἱ δὲ ἁλοῦσαι πόλεις ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τετρακόσιαι. τῶν δὲ ἀσύλων καὶ ἀβάτων πρότερον ἱερῶν ἐξέκοψαν ἐπιόντες τὸ Κλάριον, τὸ Διδυμαῖον, τὸ Σαμοθρᾴκιον, τὸν ἐν Ἑρμιόνῃ τῆς Χθονίας νεὼν καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τὸν Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ Καλαυρίᾳ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος, τοῦ δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος τὸν ἐν Ἀκτίῳ καὶ Λευκάδι, τῆς δὲ Ἥρας τὸν ἐν Σάμῳ, τὸν ἐν Ἄργει, τὸν ἐπὶ Λακινίῳ. ξένας δὲ θυσίας ἔθυον αὐτοὶ τὰς ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ, καὶ τελετάς τινας ἀπορρήτους ἐτέλουν, ὧν ἡ τοῦ Μίθρου καὶ μέχρι δεῦρο διασώζεται καταδειχθεῖσα πρῶτον ὑπ’ ἐκείνων.
Και η σωστή αγγλική μετάφραση:
There were of these corsairs above one thousand sail, and they had taken no less than four hundred cities, committing sacrilege upon the temples of the gods, and enriching themselves with the spoils of many never violated before, such as were those of Claros, Didyma, and Samothrace; and the temple of the Earth in Hermione, and that of Aesculapius in Epidaurus, those of Neptune at the Isthmus, at Taenarus, and at Calauria; those of Apollo at Actium and Leucas, and those of Juno in Samos, at Argos, and at Lacinium. They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them.
Επίμετρο
Ολόκληρο το κείμενο του οποίου παρέθεσα τον σύνδεσμο και στο οποίο αναφέρεται ο αναγνώστης – σχολιαστής (υπάρχουν πολλές ιστορικές ανακρίβειες και το κείμενο έχει γραφεί με στόχο την ιστορική διαστρέβλωση και την εξαπάτηση των μη ειδικευμένων):
MITHRA & MITHRAISM
The arrival of Mithras in Europe
The circumstances which brought the god at last to Europe after hundreds of years are indeed strange. According to the historian Plutarch, who lived in the first century A.D., the Romans became acquainted with Mithras through pirates from Cilicia, a province of Asia Minor. These were the pirates who constituted such a threat to Rome until Pompey drove them from the seas.
In his biography of this skilful general, Plutarch writes of the pirates: ‘They brought to Olympus in Lycia strange offerings and performed some secret mysteries, which still in the cult of Mithras, first made known by them [the pirates]’. In the middle of the second century A.D. the historian Appian adds that the pirates came to know of the mysteries from the troops who were left behind by the defeated army of Mithridates Eupator. It is well established that all kinds of Eastern races were represented in that army.
There are some well-known monuments associated with Mithras in the pirates’ homeland in the mountainous religions of Cilicia, and recently an altar was discovered in Anazarbos which had been consecrated by Marcus Aurelius as ‘Priest and Father of Zeus-Helios-Mithras’. The god was also worshipped in Tarsus, the capital of the province, as we know from coins of the Emperor Gordian III which bear a picture of the bull-slayer (Fig. 1.). One of the greatest campaigns against the Persians took place during the reign of Gordian III; the coin has propaganda value as Ernest Will has pointed out: ‘ L’hommage rendu au dieu perse adopte par Rome, au moment de la campagne contre sa patrie premiere, revet une valeur politique particuliere.’
But can this evidence from the second and third centuries A.D. be taken as a confirmation of Plutarch’s remarks about the Cilician pirates of the first century B.C.? Probably it can. The fact that representation of the bull-slayer occur on coins from Tarsus, through which Gordian III almost certainly passed on his way to battle, is evidence that Mithras was worshipped in this town in particular. Since Tarsus was situated at a road junction it is probable that its citizens became acquainted with the Mithraic cult at quite an early date. Plutarch, moreover, relates that the pirates committed outrages against the gods on Olympus where Hephaistos was worshipped. As devotees of the Eastern god they apparently felt little respect for the gods of the Greeks.
The pirates, a group of drifting adventures and, occasionally, fallen noblemen, conducted a communal worship of Mithras, whose cult was an exclusively made one. It is quite possible that these pirates introduced the Mithraic mysteries into Italy after their defeat and subsequent transportation there by Pompey. This event then offers a terminus post quem for the spread of the Mithras mysteries. Other early evidence of the first decades B.C. refers only to the reverence paid to Mithras without mentioning the mysteries; examples which may be quoted are the tomb inscriptions of King Antiochus I of Commagene at Nemrud Dagh, and of his father Mithridates at Arsameia on the Orontes. Both kings had erected on vast terraces a number of colossal statues seated on thrones to the honour of their ancestral gods. At Nemrud we find in their midst King Antiochus (69-34 B.C.) and in the inscription Mithras is mentioned together with Zeus-Ahura-Mazda, Hermes, Apollo-Helios and Herakles-Verethraghna. Thus Persian gods were invoked as protectors of the royal house. Both Mithridates and his son were represented in reliefs clasping hands with Mithras. Yearly feasts were held in honour of the deceased kings. But the inscriptions do not say anything about a secret cult of Mithras; the god simply takes his place beside the acknowledged state gods.
Though Plutarch’s information is important, it must be borne in mind that the historian wrote his life of Pompey at the end of first century A.D. and it is not until then that we actually find in Rome the characteristic representation of Mithras as bull-slayer. The poet Statius (A.D. 80) describes Mithras as one who ‘twists the unruly horns beneath the rocks of a Persian cave’. One other point worthy of note is that no Mithraic monument can be dated earlier than the end of the first century A.D., and even the extensive investigations at Pompey, buried beneath the ashes of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, have not so far produced a single image of the god. There is therefore a complete gap in our knowledge between 67 B.C. and A.D. 79. The earliest datable monument is a statue from Rome, now in the British Museum; the inscription mentions a certain Alcimus, who calls himself the servant of T. Claudius Livianus, and, if the identification of this Livianus with the commander of the Praetorian Guard under the emperor Trajan is correct, then the figure must date from the beginning of the second century A.D. From this period onwards, the trail blazed by Mithras is broad and clear; the god’s cult becomes firmly established and traces are found even on the Capitol and the Palatine, the heart of Imperial Rome.
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/m_m/pt2.htm
--------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250712118
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/the_overwhelming_prevalence_of_the_mithraic_pirate
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621819723
https://www.docdroid.net/6ZKxSHy/h-apoliti-kiriarkhia-ton-mithraistwn-peiratwn-sto-aighaio-tin-ellada-kai-ton-thessaliko-olimpo-docx
Το Ιράν των Αγιατολάχ: ένα Μασωνικό Παρασκεύασμα - αποκαλύπτει ο Έλληνας Ιρανολόγος καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτης
Ayatollahs' Iran: A Freemasonic Fabrication, reveals the Greek Iranologist Prof. Mohammad Samsaddin Megalommatis
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 27η Σεπτεμβρίου 2018.
----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/το-ιράν-των-αγιατολάχ-ένα-μασωνικό-παρ/ =============================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αναδημοσιεύω εδώ ένα εντυπωσιακό άρθρο του Έλληνα ανατολιστή ιστορικού και πολιτικού επιστήμονα, καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτη, ο οποίος διαλύει πολλούς μύθους που υπάρχουν στην κοινή γνώμη σχετικά με το Ιράν ως τάχα ‘αντίπαλο’ της δυτικής Νέας Τάξης Πραγμάτων.
Αρχικά δημοσιευμένο το 2007, το ανατρεπτικό άρθρο αναδημοσιεύθηκε σε πολλά ιρανικά πόρταλς της Διασποράς επειδή οι Ιρανοί κατάλαβαν εύκολα το τι έλεγε για την χώρα τους ο εξαίρετος Έλληνας ιρανολόγος, ο οποίος έχει μελετήσει την ιστορία του Ιράν και έχει περιπλανηθεί στην χώρα εκείνη όσο ελάχιστοι άλλοι ειδικοί.
Ayatollahs’ Iran: a Nationalistic Theocracy as Freemasonic Machination
By M. Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Saturday 22 December 2007
http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article411
and https://www.academia.edu/24267250/Ayatollahs_Iran_a_Nationalistic_Theocracy_as_Freemasonic_Machination
======================
The current theocratic and utterly unrepresentative regime of Iran was not the choice of the peoples and nations of Iran. The events that triggered the fall of Shah and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini were all machinated by an Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that controls part of the French and the English establishments and through them part of the American establishment.
The danger that the late Shah of Iran represented for their eschatological plans was absolutely tremendous. This does not imply that they intended to help establish a pseudo-Shia theocracy in Iran; simply they were not able to completely control the developments. As a matter of fact, the late Shah intended to modernize, industrialize and westernize Iran in the 70s; one could compare his attempt to that of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, 50 years earlier.
A strong Iran next to a strong Turkey is enough to make the Anglo-French colonial establishments spend years without an easy sleep. Although this would look good for Western geo-political and geo-strategic interests, particularly in containing Tsarist Russia / USSR / Putin’s oligarchy, in real terms of Western Freemasonic conspiracy in the Middle East it is abominable because it would hinder all Freemasonic plans and projects for the Middle East, the area of their primary concern par excellence.
Mossadegh received by Truman
Mossadegh was a Freemason Islamist. His supporters became later the supporters of Khomeyni and founders of the Islamic regime.
It sounds awkward but it is absolutely real: the late Shah of Iran tried with a delay of 17 years (as of 1970) to implement the basic concepts of the Iranian nationalistic policies of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, a great Iranian statesman whom the Freemasonic mass media of the West did their ingenious best to defame and ridicule, while falsely portraying him as … related to the Iranian Communist party!
[In fact, Mohamad Mossadegh was himself a Freemason and an Islamist. His so-called nationalism was no more than an International-Islamism inspired by Freemasonry — Fravahr]
When Madeleine Albright, decades later, admitted that the Eisenhower administration was involved in the Operation Ajax that ended with the Mossadegh’s removal, she did not state any other reason except geopolitical considerations. In fact, these considerations were Freemasonic eschatological approaches to the Middle East, covered by English economic interests, and involved volumes of falsified information produced in order to mislead the gullible and deeply unaware American establishment — through use of pro-English agents who were active in Washington D.C.
The Shah himself must have felt in the early and mid 70s how right Mohammed Mossadegh was. In his last days in Tehran, the Shah must have also remembered his father’s last days in the throne, when in September 1941 the English had forced him to abdicate in favour of his young son, as they could not accept Iran’s neutrality in WW II.
The Freemasonic anti-Iranian conspiracy played on the Iranian peoples’ feelings against the Shah, and involved the return of Ayatollah Khomeini who had spent some months in France. In fact, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge pushed to the political forefront Iranians who had already lived and studied in France where they had become Freemasons, like Mehdi Bazargan, Khomeini’s first Prime Minister, and Abolhassan Banisadr, the first Iranian President.
They were joined in their effort to canalize the Iranian Revolution by Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who had studied in America, and had travelled with Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Tehran on February 1st 1979 to become later Foreign Minister (after Banisadr) and then be arrested and executed (September 1982) as betrayed by President George H. W. Bush. After 1983, Freemasonic influence on Iranian policies has been indirect.
Indirect manipulation involves the mental, spiritual, philosophical, ideological, and therefore political engulfment of the targeted establishment into erroneous perception of the present realities and the future targets of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge within a context that can be rather parallelized with an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Shia Eschatology in contrast with Freemasonic Messianism
Worship of Isis
Freemasonic ritual as on the walls of the Isiac Freemasonic Lodge (Temple of Isis) at Pompeii
The worship of Isis is depicted in this wall-painting from Herculaneum. The high priest stands at the entrance to the temple and looks down on the ceremony beneath him, which is supervised by priests with shaven heads. In the case of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Freemasonic establishment’s arsenal reaches its limits. Drawing from a late Sassanid Zervanism that survived within Shia Islam since the early days of the Islamic conquest of Iran (636: Sassanid defeat at Qadisiyah, 641 Sassanid defeat at Nihavent, 651: arrival of Islamic armies at Merv in Central Asia), Shia Eschatology revolves around the prevalence of Time as determinant element in the Mystic History of the Mankind; this is utterly alien to Western Freemasonic dogmas and doctrines that draw from Late Antiquity’s Gnosticisms, Hermetism, and Messianic Isidism.
With Khomeini’s doctrine based on the termination of the Ghaybah (“Occultation”) of the Shia Islamic Twelfth Imam (the Shia version of the Messiah) by means of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we reach one step closer to what is called in Islam Al Yom al Ahar (“the End of Time”).
Despite the fact that Iran and most of the Islamic World are engulfed in ignorance and confusion due to the academic systems that Freemasonic Europe produced to facilitate the advent of the Freemasonic Messianic, namely the Hellenism, the Orientalism, the Pan-Arabism, and the (Sunni) Islamism, the Shia establishment of Iran, sticking to the completion of the work initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini, have little chance to be misguided and deceived.
Contrarily to the Freemasonic concept of a Horus — Messiah, creation of Isis (as Freemasonry is symbolized within the Freemasonic eschatological doctrine), a Zervan — Twelfth Imam hinges on the absorption of all into a New Aeon with little concern about an Elected People to be saved.
Contrarily to a Horus — Victorious King and Pacifier, the concept of Zervan — Twelfth Imam involves the liberation of every person from the negative energy therein encrusted through various ways; as Zervan Akarana promises a monstrous appearance, yet able to embody the Loftiest of the Divine, the Shia Islamic Twelfth Imam promises no peace and no return for any elected people, but heralds the miraculous transformation of the miserable into luminous sources in the present world (after Al Yom al Ahar) and the Hereafter (Al Yom al Qiyamah).
There is certainly a Manichaean influence on the late Sassanid Zervanism (and through this system on the Shia Islam) but the Western stern rejection of Manichaeism proliferated only confusion and dire practices among the Apostate Freemasons. In fact, the Freemasonic Apostasy is a repetition of an earlier Apostasy that took place in the Late Antiquity, and caused the disastrous descent into the Middle Ages.
Unable to transcend, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge seems set for disastrous developments that will now cover the entire surface of the Earth. Determined to continue an evil process started by Napoleon and sped up by Edmund Allenby, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge seems today unable to perceive the impending domino effect that will ensue from an attack on Iran. The Apostate Lodge machinated the Anglo-French colonialism in order to create a false and precarious Israel (for Jews, not Israelites), thus exterminate both Jews and Palestinians (after a supposed final peace), and then set up a true Israel able to accommodate the migrating — because of expected ominous natural phenomena — English, Irish, Scots, French, Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavians (namely the true descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel). That final Israel that would span between the rivers Euphrates (Assyria) and Nile (Egypt) may simply never come to existence because of the rise of a New Era for the Middle East triggered by an attack on Iran.
The Advent of the End of Time
If Ahmadinejad referred to Mahdi’s advent (which means automatically the End of Time) already in his first speech at the UN (in September 2005), what happened meanwhile that indicates that by now an apocalyptic scenario would follow an American attack on Iran? Why what could happen in March 2006 should not occur in December 2007?
The answer to such a question is at the same time a full response to a great number of eschatological interpretations. The History of the Mankind can also be viewed as a History of missed opportunities. More recently, after 2001, to give an example, the US could have pacified Iraq, if they had the knowledge and the courage to do what it would take. Simply, they were either unaware or misled. Usually, to know how a solution can be found to a historical — political problem, one has to transcend; this mainly means that one has to see the problem in question as a non-problem, or place it within wider frame, or view it through different standpoints, or apply all these methods. Basically, a historical — political problem’s solution involves the non-consideration of a part’s interests.
An answer to the aforementioned question is at the same time a complete rejection of numerous approaches to historical texts of eschatological contents. As a matter of fact, there has always been a vast interpretational literature of the Prophetic books of the Bible, of the Revelation, of the Apocalyptic Hadith, and of the eschatological traditions of various peoples from India to Mexico. With the inception of the web, and the rise of spiritual interest in a post-Communist world, the interpretational interest only multiplied. Specifications and clarifications about the time of the arrival of Mahdi, the Messiah, Jesus as Islamic Prophet, Jesus as Christ of the Christian religion, etc. can be found in great number.
All these approaches emanate from a world plunged into the swamp of Time, a world whereby all people take for granted that Time exists. Yet, the Mankind existed for several thousands of years without shaping the concept of Time. For many great thinkers and wise elders in Sumer, Akkad, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, Hittite Anatolia, and Biblical Israel, Time simply did not exist. The interaction of Being and Becoming was perceived completely differently, particularly by peoples who used the same word for “day” and “time” (e.g. umu in Assyrian — Babylonian). In a world viewed, perceived, sensed, and experienced diachronically, there is little place for fanaticism and empathy, as all reflect an eternal recapitulation of everything.
In that world, great diachronic (and therefore apocalyptic and eschatological) Epics were compiled for a first and original occasion, and their elements, data, concepts and details were later diffused among later epics, mythical texts and apocalyptic literature. As a matter of fact, there is nothing original that was not already said before Moses. To give an example, it is sheer ignorance for anyone to believe that the concept of the Antichrist goes as back as the Revelation and Daniel.
More than 1500 years before the Revelation, for the Anatolian Hittites the Antichrist (Ullikummi) would rise from the Sea. The author of the Revelation reassessed the same topic, adding only an effort of identification of the Messiah (Tasmisu for the Ancient Hittites — Jesus as Christ for the Christians). More than 2000 years before Isaiah, the concept of the Messiah existed in the Egyptian Heliopolitan Doctrine.
Viewing the present world through the eyes of an Egyptian, Assyrian or Hittite erudite scholar would offer a completely different perspective, and certainly more authoritative as emanating from a diachronic consideration of the Mankind’s and the World’s existence. In most of the cases, this was avoided because of the salacity of Western Orientalists, who instead of serving truth, did promote preconceived ideas either of Freemasonic or Christian Catholic nature. What would destroy pillars of their false faiths had to be covered by silence; this is the “veracity” of the Western universities’ professors.
2007: A Changed World and Iran
In fact, many things have changed over the past 21 months; they are not easily visible to average people and supposed leaders. Even worse, it seems that they are not ostensible to panicked establishments and elites either.
Losing a unique opportunity to be the sole superpower and thus accomplish the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the US will have to become familiar with the reality of a multi-polar world.
If we exclude the nonsensical nuclear mutual destruction, which will be always a possibility, as long as nuclear weapons exist, America’s interests can be hit at any moment. America lost considerably because America allied itself with the only country they should never work together: England.
Discrediting America, exposing the US, while mobilizing others’ forces to contain America and finally avert a long perspective Pax Americana, England convinced the US leadership to pursue the only way that can truly damage the US interests: action against the Moral Principles that the Founding Fathers stipulated so clearly for the then young and promising, Anti-Colonial, nation that would diffuse Freedom, Justice and Democracy to the rest of the world.
The US leadership failed to assess that it would be detrimental to pursue after 1991 immoral practices employed at the times of the Cold War. The policy of double standards (two measures and two weights) would convince all possible adversaries that the US represents a threat, and would mobilize many against America. The enumeration could be very long.
Vice-president Cheney’s trip to Saudi Arabia in November 2006 was certainly taken very seriously by the Iranians — within eschatological context, I mean. The Islamic Messiah will certainly exterminate a cursed, Satanic regime in charge of Haramayn, the two holy cities of Mekka and Madinah.
One would not ask America to believe the Islamic eschatological literature; but one would anticipate America to take it into account, and shape its policy accordingly. The rest is just inane.
Saudi Arabia cannot exist — if Israel is to survive!
It was a pathetic American effort to continue English Colonial policies of division and strife in the Middle East; these policies targeting the existence of the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Iran, if pursued by America, against Turkey and Iran, can guarantee the total disaster of America.
Yet, Prof. Huntington, in a moment of truth, exposed the truth plainly, when he attributed the Islamic Extremism and Terrorism to the lack of a core State for the Muslim world. This was precisely the work of the Anglo-French Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that we already mentioned. America should not be confused with the Anglo-French secondary conflicts, as highlighted by the San Remo arguments between Clemenceau and Lloyd George.
For America’s interests to prevail, for the present state of Israel to survive, for a solution of the quasi-permanent Palestinian problem to be found, America should avoid any direct interference in the affairs of the Muslim World.
Any US attack against Iran would trigger an unexpected and unsuspected reaction that would certainly have a lot to do with Islamic eschatological expectations.
The explosion would immediately bring in other, sizeable, non-Islamic countries that are ready for a severe collapse of the present global economic structures, as their economies are better suited for barter trade. These countries would not necessarily help Iran militarily; they would simply make impossible for America to sustain the cost of a conflict spanning from Yemen and Israel to Afghanistan and Pakistan, at a moment Saudi and Emirati oilfields would not be anymore functional.
America should keep itself outside the Muslim World, and following the instructions of Prof. Huntington, help (with the cooperation of Israel) the rise of a core Muslim country in the Middle East that would eradicate the nefarious colonial deeds of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge.
This country should be a secular and humanist, democratic country that would be committed to the elimination of Pan-Arabism and Islamic Extremism. To support the rise of a vast Oriental State, America should fervently oppose France and England.
This would redraw the map of the Middle East, but ultimately save the present state Israel, offer peace to the Palestinians, and grant concord to the other Middle Eastern countries. Only a vast Oriental State would have no problem in containing Iran and outmanoeuvring the Ayatollah regime.
Otherwise the Death will hit America — in an irrevocable and precipitated way.
Europe would be affected too; and that Apostate Freemasonic Lodge would be severely persecuted in a new — unrecognizable — Europe ruled by a new Iron Man of the North.
---------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250701066
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/iran_of_the_ayatullahs.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621631094
https://www.docdroid.net/HEpNSXC/to-iran-ton-aghiatolakh-ena-masoniko-paraskeuasma-docx
Από τον Αφρασιάμπ στον Μιρζιγιόγιεφ: το Ουζμπεκιστάν Επίκεντρο Επενδύσεων στον Νέο Δρόμο του Μεταξιού
From Afrasiab to Mirziyoyev: Uzbekistan as the Epicenter of Foreign Investment in the New Silk Road
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 16η Απριλίου 2019. Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παρουσιάζει στοιχεία, προσεγγίσεις και επισημάνσεις από τμήμα διάλεξής μου, η οποία δόθηκε στο Καζακστάν τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 σχετικά με τους αρχαίους και νέους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού, την Κεντρική Ασία, και την αξία της ως κομβικού σημείου της Παγκόσμιας Οικονομίας.
---------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/από-τον-αφρασιάμπ-στον-μιρζιγιόγιεφ-τ/ ===============
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Ανάμεσα στις πέντε παλιές σοβιετικές κεντρασιατικές (Ουζμπεκιστάν, Καζακστάν, Τουρκμενιστάν, Κιργιζία και Τατζικιστάν), η χώρα των Ογούζων (Ογούζ και Ουζ) Τούρκων είναι αναμφίβολα η κεντρική δύναμη.
Χρειάστηκε να χρησιμοποιήσει όλη του την ευφυΐα ο ιδρυτής και πρώην πρόεδρος του Καζακστάν Νουρσουλτάν Ναζαρμπάγιεφ, ώστε να ανατραπεί αυτό το δεδομένο.
Ο Αφρασιάμπ σε απεικόνιση χειρογράφου
Και χρειάστηκε επίσης να ακολουθήσει τον δρόμο της απομόνωσης και της υπανάπτυξης ο επί 25 χρόνια (1991 – 2016) πρώην πρόεδρος του Ουζμπεκιστάν, Ισλάμ Καρίμοφ, ώστε να μετατραπεί το Καζακστάν στην μεγαλύτερη και πιο αναπτυγμένη κεντρασιατική οικονομία. Μετά την άνοδο του πρώην πρωθυπουργού Σεφκάτ Μιρζιγιόγιεφ (Shavkat Mirziyoyev) στην προεδρία του Ουζμπεκιστάν, η Τασκένδη άρχισε την προσπάθεια να προλάβει τον βόρειο γείτονα από κάθε άποψη.
Σεφκάτ Μιρζιγιόγιεφ
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι, αν και με μικρότερη έκταση (450000 τχ αντί 2750000 τχ), το Ουζμπεκιστάν έχει διπλάσιο πληθυσμό του Καζακστάν (35 εκ. έναντι 18 εκ.). Αυτά τα δεδομένα δεν δίνουν την πλήρη εικόνα ωστόσο.
Πρέπει να προστεθεί ότι στο Ουζμπεκιστάν οι Ουζμπέκοι αποτελούν το 84% του πληθυσμού, ενώ στο Καζακστάν οι Καζάκοι δεν ξεπερνάνε το 66% του πληθυσμού της χώρας). Το Ουζμπεκιστάν έχει σχεδόν τον ίδιο πληθυσμό με το Αφγανιστάν – το κατ’ εξοχήν παράδειγμα προς αποφυγήν στην περιοχή.
Ισλάμ Καρίμοφ: 25 χρόνια απραγίας, κεντρικού ελέγχου κι απομονωτισμού
Εξάλλου, ιστορικά, στην τεράστια έκταση από την Κασπία Θάλασσα μέχρι το Ξιάν, την πιο σημαντική αυτοκρατορική πρωτεύουσα της Κίνας, ο χώρος που επέχει σήμερα το Ουζμπεκιστάν αποτελεί τον πιο κεντρικό πολιτισμικά χώρο.
Στην επικράτεια της Τασκένδης περιλαμβάνονται εκτάσεις της Βακτριανής (που αντιστοιχεί κυρίως με το βόρειο Αφγανιστάν), της Σογδιανής, των Τοχάρων (Τούρκων γνωστών ως Γιουεζί στα κινεζικά κείμενα που έστησαν την αυτοκρατορία του Κουσάν), και της Υπερωξειανής (των εκτάσεων ανατολικά του Ώξου).
Και στα ισλαμικά χρόνια καμμιά άλλη κεντρασιατική χώρα δεν ανέπτυξε παγκοσμίως κορυφαία πολιτισμικά κέντρα τόσο σημαντικά όσο η Σαμαρκάνδη, η Μπουχάρα ή η Χίβα.
Ανάμεσα στην Κασπία και την Ανατολική Σιβηρία, το μόνο πολιτισμικό αντίβαρο στο Ουζμπεκιστάν ήταν το Ανατολικό Τουρκεστάν (δηλαδή η τεράστια βορειοδυτική επαρχία Σινκιάν της σημερινής Κίνας): οι Ουϊγούροι είναι άλλωστε το πιο κοντινό φύλο στους Ουζμπέκους, όπως η πρώτη συλλαβή των δυο εθνικών ονομάτων εμφαντικά δείχνει.
Δίπλα τους οι Τουρκμένοι ή οι Κιργίζιοι ή οι Καζάκοι δείχνουν λίγο ‘χωριάτες’.
Ακόμη και σήμερα, όπου και να βρεθεί κάποιος στην Κεντρική Ασία εκτός του Ουζμπεκιστάν, στην Αλμάτυ (την παλιά πρωτεύουσα του Καζακστάν) ή στην Νουρσουλτάν (όπως πλέον λέγεται η νέα πρωτεύουσα του Καζακστάν, γνωστή μέχρι προ τινος ως Αστάνα στα ρωσσικά και Αστανά στα καζακικά), στην Ασγκαμπάτ (Τουρκμενιστάν) ή στην Μπισκέκ (Κιργιζία), στην Ντουσαμπέ (Τατζικιστάν) ή στην Καμπούλ (Αφγανιστάν), πολιτισμός σημαίνει (ανάμεσα σε πολλά άλλα) κορυφαία μαγειρική, και αναμφίβολα όλοι θα τρέξουν σε ένα ‘ουζμπεκικό εστιατόριο’.
Και με το δίκιο τους.
Αντίθετα από το Καζακστάν που απέκτησε την νέα πρωτεύουσά του στα τέλη του 20ου αιώνα, το Ουζμπεκιστάν την απέκτησε στις αρχές του αιώνα!
Η Τασκένδη έγινε το 1918 πρωτεύουσα της Αυτόνομης ΣΣΔ του Τουρκεστάν, επειδή η Σαμαρκάνδη, αν και απείρως πιο σημαντική, είχε θεωρηθεί περισσότερο ως τόπος ισλαμικών αναμνήσεων κι αντίδρασης στο τότε νεοπαγές σοβιετικό καθεστώς.
Ό,τι ήταν η Άγκυρα για την Τουρκία του Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ, ήταν η Τασκένδη για το σοβιετικό καθεστώς.
Ωστόσο, η Τοσκέντ (Ташкент / Toshkent) έχει μια μεγάλη ιστορία και ως Λίθινος Πύργος αναφέρεται από τον Πτολεμαίο Γεωγράφο ως καθοριστικό σημείο στους αρχαίους δρόμους του Μεταξιού (και ως Turris Lapidea από τους Ρωμαίους ιστορικούς και γεωγράφους).
Οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού ήταν ένα περίπλοκο σύστημα εναλλακτικών δρόμων διά ξηράς και δι’ ερήμου που συνέδεαν την Μεσοποταμία με την Κίνα ακόμη και σε πρώιμες εποχές, τότε που δεν είχαν αναπτυχθεί ως πολιτισμοί οι Χιττίτες, οι Χαναανίτες κι οι Μυκηναίοι της 2ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας ή οι Φοίνικες, οι Έλληνες, οι Ρωμαίοι, οι Πέρσες κι οι Ινδοί της 1ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας.
Ευρήματα κι ανασκαφές στο Τεπέ Σιάλκ του σημερινού βόρειου Ιράν δείχνουν ότι Σουμέριοι κι Ελαμίτες της 4ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας και των αρχών της 3ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας βρίσκονταν ήδη σε ανταγωνισμό για το ποιος θα ελέγξει τον διά της Κεντρικής Ασίας δρόμο προς την Κίνα.
Ο ανταγωνισμός στο ελεύθερο εμπόριο έφερε τους πολλούς εναλλακτικούς δρόμους. Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepe_Sialk
Μετά τα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια και την σύσταση από το Ιράν της πρώτης πραγματικά αχανούς αυτοκρατορίας από τα Βαλκάνια και την Ουκρανία μέχρι το Σουδάν κι από την Μεσόγειο μέχρι τα δυτικά άκρα του Ανατολικού Τουρκεστάν και την Βόρεια Ινδία, δόθηκε η δυνατότητα για ακόμη περισσότερους εναλλακτικούς δρόμους, εφόσον για πρώτη φορά αναμείχθηκαν οι χερσαίοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού με τους διά ξηράς, ερήμου και θαλάσσης Δρόμους των Μπαχαρικών και των Αρωμάτων (: λιβανωτών).
Όλοι οι πολιτισμοί που αναπτύχθηκαν στην Κεντρική Ασία σχετίσθηκαν με το Εμπόριο μεταξύ Δύσης και Ανατολής, και όσο οι αιώνες κι οι χιλιετίες περνούσαν, τόσο οι δρόμοι μεγάλωναν και οι απολήξεις του εμπορίου κατέληξαν να είναι τα ευρωπαϊκά και βορειο-αφρικανικά παράλια του Ατλαντικού στην μια περίπτωση και τα κινεζικά, ινδοκινεζικά κι ινδονησιακά παράλια του Ειρηνικού στην άλλη.
Σήμερα, η νέα πολιτική ηγεσία του Ουζμπεκιστάν έχει πάρει και ήδη εφαρμόζει την απόφαση εκμετάλλευσης προς όφελος της χώρας του τεράστιου κινεζικού προγράμματος Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού (New Silk Road), γνωστού και ως The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ή και One Belt One Road (OBOR).
Και αυτό έχει ήδη σημειωθεί από πολλούς επενδυτές σε πολλά μήκη και πλάτη της γης.
Σημειώνεται πλέον διεθνώς το Ουζμπεκιστάν ως προτιμώμενη χώρα για επενδύσεις σε πολλούς και ποικίλους τομείς.
Η επενδυτική ομάδα του σάιτ http://www.sovereignman.com μόλις σήμερα δημοσίευσε τις σχετικές δραστηριότητές της ενόψει μιας γενικώτερης στροφής των ιδρυτών και των συνεταίρων της προς την ανερχόμενη κεντρασιατική χώρα.
Δεν είναι η μόνη περίπτωση αλλά είναι ενδεικτική. Στο τέλος του κειμένου αναδημοσιεύω το σημερινό newsletter τους.
Έτσι, η εξαιρετική, φιλελεύθερη, οικονομική πολιτική του Σεφκάτ Μιρζιγιόγιεφ τον έχει μετατρέψει σε ένα νέο Αφρασιάμπ.
Αυτό το όνομα είναι το ιστορικό τουρκικό όνομα της Σαμαρκάνδης.
Αλλά είναι επίσης το όνομα του κορυφαίου Τουρανού ήρωα του ιρανικού έπους Σαχναμέ που συνέγραψε τον 10ο αιώνα ο Φερντοουσί.
Μένει να αποδειχθεί κατά πόσον θα μπορέσει ο νέος Αφρασιάμπ να φθάσει και να ξεπεράσει τον βαθμό οικονομικής ανάπτυξης και προόδου του γειτονικού Καζακστάν.
Για όσους ξέρουν την Κεντρική Ασία, όλα τα στοιχήματα είναι ανοικτά.
Τοιχογραφία από την Αφρασιάμπ στα χρόνια του Βαρχουμάν, βασιλιά της Σογδιανής γύρω στο 650 μ.Χ.
Σας προτείνω να ενημερωθείτε πριν ξαφνικά ακούσετε ότι η Τασκένδη είναι το δεύτερο κεντρασιατικό Ντουμπάι μετά την Νουρσουλτάν!
Οι εξελίξεις θα είναι τάχιστες – κάπως σαν τα κινεζικά τραίνα που θα εκμηδενίσουν την απόσταση ανάμεσα στην Κεντρική Ευρώπη και τα ασιατικά παράλια του Ειρηνικού.
Διαβάστε:
Strategic partnership between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in context of region-wide development of Central Asia
https://astanatimes.com/2019/04/strategic-partnership-between-uzbekistan-and-kazakhstan-in-context-of-region-wide-development-of-central-asia/ (του Αμπντουλαζίζ Καμίλοφ, υπουργού Εξωτερικών του Ουζμπεκιστάν / 5-4-2019)
Uzbekistan Re-Energizing as Central Asia’s Traditional Hub for the Silk Belt and Road
https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2018/07/05/uzbekistan-re-energizing-central-asias-traditional-hub-silk-belt-road/
Silk Road Fund to support Uzbek oil and gas projects
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201806/09/WS5b1bd84fa31001b82571f188.html
This is the Right Time to invest in Uzbekistan
https://www.chuhai.edu.hk/sites/default/files/MrKhamraevUZAF.pdf
Uzbekistan’s investment program for 2019 includes projects $ 16.6B
https://www.azernews.az/region/143757.html
https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2019/04/15/silk-road-development-weekly-april-15-2019/
Γενικώτερα:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavkat_Mirziyoyev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Karimov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan
http://www.uzbekembassy.in/presentation-of-the-project-on-the-great-silk-road-pearls-of-uzbekistan-in-almaty/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
Ιστορικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Tower_(Ptolemy)
https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/countries-alongside-silk-road-routes/uzbekistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria
https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Asia201/links201.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transoxiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarkand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiyab_(Samarkand)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdowsi
Ταξιδιωτικά:
https://caravanistan.com/transport/train/
-----------------------------------
Astonishing opportunities in one of the oldest cities in the world
By the time Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army conquered the city of Samarkand in 329 BC, the city had already existed for centuries.
Samarkand had been a prominent, vibrant regional capital in the Persian Empire prior to the Macedonians’ arrival.
And under Alexander the city flourished even more. He declared it one of the most majestic places he had ever been, and the city served as a critical outpost for his conquests in the region.
Even after Alexander’s death and the fall of the Macedonians, Samarkand retained its influence, serving for centuries as the epicenter of the trade between Eastern Asia and Europe.
It was conquered by a succession of Turks, Persians and Mongols before falling under the serfdom of Imperial Russia, and then the Soviet Union.
And after the fall of the USSR, Samarkand became part of Uzbekistan.
Granted, a lot of people don’t have a clue where Uzbekistan is, or much less care. But I’ll tell you– the country is on the verge of some very exciting (and rapid) changes.
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan had been ruled by a corrupt dictator who isolated the country from the rest of the world.
(I know it’s hard to imagine a former Soviet republic being ruled by a corrupt dictator… but bear with me.)
His name was Islam Karimov. And, coincidentally, he died on September 2, 2016– exactly 25 years to the day that he initially took office as the first President of Uzbekistan in 1991.
After Karimov’s death, there was some speculation that his successor (Shavkat Mirziyoyev) would engage in the same corrupt, isolationism.
That turned out to be wrong.
President Mirziyoyev surprised everyone by establishing free-market reforms, floating the currency, and opening up the country to foreign investment.
I’ve been following the changes in the country over the past few years, and what I’m seeing is quite exciting.
Uzbekistan recently issued its first local hard currency bond – and it was multiple times oversubscribed.
So last month, I sent one of my top analysts over to the capital Tashkent to have a look at how we could get in on the ground floor of this change.
And his verdict is clear: Uzbekistan is ripe with opportunities.
The export sector is booming, due primarily to rock bottom labor costs and a government willing to play ball. So there are a lot of companies that are setting up manufacturing operations in the country.
And due to how isolated Uzbekistan had been for the past 25+ years, there are a lot of new products and services available in the local market for the first time ever.
It’s a bit like Myanmar– that country was isolated for decades, and its people had never even seen Coca Cola up until a few years ago.
Uzbekistan is in a similar position (though not as extreme), so a number of foreign products are being imported into the country and selling like hotcakes.
And for investors, valuations are quite inexpensive.
My analyst toured a number of companies (including some listed on the local stock market) and was amazed to find profitable, rapidly-growing, well-managed businesses that pay STRONG dividends that are selling for between 2-3 times their net income.
That’s practically unheard of, especially in the West where companies that lose billions of dollars each year trade for record sums.
As an example– one company my analyst looked at was in agriculture production.
Investors are currently able to buy shares at less than 3x earnings. And the company just landed a new deal with a large Russian conglomerate that will 10x their revenue over the next 12-24 months.
Buying this company at three times earnings would be an obvious bargain, especially when accounting for the immediate growth trajectory.
We aren’t just looking at public stocks and private businesses by the way. Newly built commercial real estate yields over 10% net cashflow without a penny of debt financing, there’s a lot of reason to expect prices will grow steadily for years.
There are also very compelling lending opportunities in the country.
When the government floated the currency three years ago, it led to a temporary spike in inflation.
To fight it, the Central Bank raised interest rates to 16%. And that’s where interest rates still sit today. And for businesses and individuals, borrowing rates can often reach 25%!
Naturally, the cost of borrowing money at those rates can be hard to justify for any business, so most transactions are done entirely in cash, without any debt.
Generally, the banking sector is still very underdeveloped, and financing is scarce.
That leaves a huge opportunity for outsiders to provide capital for growing businesses in the country – with sufficient downside protection.
Clearly, it is a unique idea to invest in a country undergoing potentially revolutionary positive changes. But looking at the past, countries that have taken similar steps, like Georgia, the Baltic countries, or even Singapore, have come out way ahead, and greatly rewarded early movers.
I’ll be talking a lot more about Uzbekistan, and what we find there, in the weeks and months to follow.
https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/astonishing-opportunities-in-one-of-the-oldest-cities-in-the-world-24951/
----------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250693324
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/from_afrasiab_to_mirziyoyev.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621500849
https://www.docdroid.net/CTdD2wM/apo-ton-afrasiamp-ston-mirzighioghief-to-oyzmpekistan-epikentro-ependyseon-ston-neo-dromo-toy-metaksiou-docx
20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει το Δελχί, Βαθύπλουτη Πρωτεύουσα των Γκορκανιάν, Πανίσχυρων Μογγόλων της ‘Ινδίας’
March 20, 1739: The Turkmen Nader Shah of Iran occupies Delhi, the Opulent Capital of the Gorkanian, i.e. the Formidable Mongols of ‘India’
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 20η Μαρτίου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης ενσωματώνει τμήματα δύο ομιλιών μου, οι οποίες δόθηκαν τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 στο Πεκίνο σχετικά με την γεωστρατηγική του αφρο-ευρασιατικού χώρου, την πτώση των μεγάλων ιστορικών αυτοκρατοριών, και την δυναμική μιας αυτοκρατορικής-οικουμενιστικής επιστροφής στην Γη.
-----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/20-μαρτίου-1739-ο-τουρκμένος-ναντέρ-σάχης-το/ ====================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Μια φορά όταν είπαν στον Ναντέρ ότι δεν υπάρχει πόλεμος στον Παράδεισο, λέγεται ότι ρώτησε: “Μπορεί να υπάρχει ευχαρίστηση εκεί”;
Πριν από 280 χρόνια, το αδιανόητο έγινε γεγονός! Το (σιιτικό) Ιράν κατέλαβε την (σουνιτική) Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ), η οποία ήταν ένα πολύ μεγαλύτερο, πολυπληθέστερο και πλουσιώτερο κράτος. Καμμιά χώρα στον κόσμο δεν είχε ποτέ κατακτήσει την Κοιλάδα του Γάγγη. Αλλά για τον Αφσάρ Τουρκμένο γεωργό – πολεμιστή Ναντέρ όλα ήταν δυνατά!
Οι Αχαιμενιδείς είχαν κατακτήσει όλες τις εκτάσεις από την Μακεδονία μέχρι την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού, από τα βόρεια παράλια της Μαύρης Θάλασσας μέχρι το Σουδάν, κι από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι το Ομάν. Αλλά εκεί που τελειώνει η Πενταποταμία (Παντζάμπ: ‘Πέντε Ποτάμια’ στα φαρσί και στα ουρντού) τερματίζονταν και τα ανατολικά όρια του Ιράν.
Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος που άτρομος διεξήγαγε και νικούσε σε μάχες έναντι συντριπτικά υπερτέρων δυνάμεων δεν κατέλαβε ‘πολλές’ χώρες! Αυτό είναι κάτι που πολλοί ξεχνούν στην Ελλάδα. Ουσιαστικά , ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος κατέκτησε μία χώρα: το Ιράν. Απέραντη, τεράστια, με πολυπληθή στρατεύματα, ναι! Αλλά μία. Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος προχώρησε πέραν της Πενταποταμίας και νίκησε τον Πώρο, βασιλιά ενός βόρειου ινδικού βασιλείου. Και θα προχωούσε περισσότερο αλλά ξεσηκώθηκαν οι στρατιώτες του και τον απέτρεψαν.
Ι. Δεν υπάρχει ‘Ινδία’: είναι ένας ψεύτικος, αποικιοκρατικός, οριενταλιστικός όρος
Υπάρχει στο σημείο αυτό μια σύγχυση που δημιουργήθηκε από αρχαίους Έλληνες και Ρωμαίους συγγραφείς: προερχόμενος από το όνομα του Ινδού ποταμού, ο όρος ‘Ινδία’ (Χεντ και Σιντ) απέκτησε σιγά-σιγά μια τεράστια ασάφεια, ακριβώς επειδή η γνώση για εκτάσεις πέραν του ποταμού ήταν μικρή.
Τα βασίλεια ανατολικά του Ινδού αποτελούσαν βέβαια την Ινδία και ήταν εθνοφυλετικά συγγενή προς τους Πέρσες και τους Άρειους, αλλά πιο πέρα στα ανατολικά και στα νότια εκτείνονταν δραβιδικά βασίλεια που δεν είχαν καμμιά συγγένεια – εθνική, γλωσσική, πολιτισμική – με τους πραγματικούς Ινδούς των βασιλείων αμέσως ανατολικά του Ινδού. Οι Δραβίδες είναι τόσο διαφορετικοί από τους Ινδούς όσο οι Έλληνες από τους Κινέζους.
Στα χρόνια της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας, ο αρχαιοελληνικός όρος ‘Ινδία’ απέκτησε τόση ασάφεια και γενίκευση όση κι ο όρος ‘Αιθιοπία’, ο οποίος περιέγραφε αρχικά το σημερινό Σουδάν (όχι την Αβησσυνία που σήμερα ψευδώς ονομάζεται Αιθιοπία). Οι δυο όροι τελικά αλληλο-επικαλύφθηκαν και ουσιαστικά κατάντησαν συνώνυμα του ‘Νότου’ κατά τους πρώτους χριστιανικούς αιώνες.
Όλα αυτά μας οδηγούν στο συμπέρασμα ότι σήμερα η χρήση της λέξης ‘Ινδίας’ – είτε για αναφορά στην Αρχαιότητα και στα Ισλαμικά Χρόνια, είτε για περιγραφή του συγχρόνου κράτους – είναι λαθεμένη και βεβαρυμένη με πολιτικές, αποικιοκρατικές κι οριενταλιστικές, σκοπιμότητες. Άλλωστε κι η περσική και ουρντού λέξη ‘Χιντουστάν’ σήμαινε και σημαίνει βασικά την περιοχή του Ινδού ποταμού, της Πενταποταμίας και ομόρων περιοχών.
Σχεδόν οι μισοί κάτοικοι του ψευτοκράτους ‘Ινδία’ είναι δραβιδικοί και δεν μιλούν ινδικά (χίντι). Η σημερινή Ινδία μπορεί να είναι μεγάλη αλλά αποτελεί κατ’ ουσίαν ένα νεο-αποικιακό ψευτοκράτος, όπως η Νιγηρία, η Αλγερία ή η Αίγυπτος, που δεν αποτελεί ‘έθνος’ αλλά απαρτίζεται από πολλά και διαφορετικά μεταξύ τους έθνη.
Κλείνω αυτή την αναφορά προσθέτοντας ότι η παραπάνω εθνοφυλετική και γεωγραφική διαφορά είναι ολότελα άσχετη από την θρησκευτική διαφορά Ισλάμ – ‘Ινδουϊσμού’ (μουσουλμάνων – ‘ινδουϊστών’), δεδομένου ότι μουσουλμάνοι υπάρχουν και ανάμεσα στους Ινδούς (: ‘ινδο-ευρωπαίους’) του Βορρά και ανάμεσα στους Δραβίδες του Ντεκάν, όπως είναι το όνομα του νότιου μισού της λεγόμενης ‘Ινδίας’.
Αν, τέλος, θέτω εντός εισαγωγικών τους όρους ‘Ινδουϊσμός’ και ‘ινδουϊστές’, αυτό οφείλεται στο γεγονός ότι είναι τόσο ψεύτικοι και λαθεμένοι όσο κι ο όρος ‘Ινδία’. Κατ’ ουσίαν δεν υπάρχει ‘ένας’ Ινδουϊσμός αλλά πολλοί (όπως κι η Χριστιανωσύνη δεν είναι μία, το Ισλάμ δεν είναι ένα, ο Βουδισμός δεν είναι ένας, κοκ). Κι επιπλέον υπάρχουν κι άλλες θρησκείες είτε στο Ντεκάν είτε στην βόρεια Ινδία. Γενικώτερα, στην ψευδή, αποικιοκρατική, οριενταλιστική Ιστορία της ‘Ινδίας’ θα επανέλθω με πολλά κείμενα.
Ό,τι ξέρει ο σημερινός κόσμος για την Ινδία είναι μια αγγλογαλλική παραχάραξη της Ιστορίας: για παράδειγμα, υπάρχουν αρχαιοελληνικά κείμενα του 1ου χριστιανικού αιώνα, όπως ο Περίπλους της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης, που αναφέρουν τα πολλά και διαφορετικά κράτη, τα οποία βρίσκονταν τότε στον χώρο που στρεβλά σήμερα αποκαλούμε ‘Ινδία’, και όμως δεν τα αποκαλούν ‘ινδικά βασίλεια’, επειδή δεν ήταν ινδικά βασίλεια.
ΙΙ. Κοιλάδα του Ινδού, Πενταποταμία και Κοιλάδα του Γάγγη από τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο στους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους Αυτοκράτορες
Μετά τον θάνατο του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου και μέχρι τα χρόνια της μογγολικής κατάκτησης της Κοιλάδας του Ινδού και της Κοιλάδας του Γάγγη, καμμιά ξένη δύναμη δεν κατέκτησε εκτάσεις που σήμερα ανήκουν στην χώρα που συμβατικά ονομάζεται Ινδία. Μόνον οι Ιρανοί Σασανίδες (Σασανιάν: 224-651) έφθασαν τα ανατολικά σύνορά τους τόσο μακριά όσο οι Αχαιμενιδείς κι ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος. Αλλά και εκείνοι σταμάτησαν εκεί.
Όταν οι Επίγονοι Σελευκιδείς και οι Πάρθες Αρσακιδείς (Ασκανιάν: η πιο μακραίωνη ιρανική δυναστεία – 250 π.Χ.-224 μ.Χ.) βρίσκονταν σε αδυναμία, πολλά αυτόνομα βασίλεια σχηματίζονταν από τα έθνη που κατοικούσαν στις ανατολικές επαρχίες τους, δηλαδή τον χώρο όπου σήμερα βρίσκονται το Πακιστάν, το Αφγανιστάν, το Ουζμπεκιστάν, το Τατζικιστάν, η Κιργιζία, οι ανατολικές εσχατιές του Ιράν και τα βορειοδυτικά άκρα της Ινδίας: η Σογδιανή, το ελληνιστικό κράτος της Βακτριανής, το ινδοπαρθικό κράτος, το ινδοσκυθικό κράτος, το κάποτε πανίσχυρο Κουσάν, οι Τόχαροι, και άλλα κεντρασιατικά τουρκόφωνα ή ινδοευρωπαϊκά κράτη.
Το τι αποκαλείται ‘αυτοκρατορία’ στην Αρχαία Ιστορία της ‘Ινδίας’, όπως την έχουν παρασκευάσει Άγγλοι, Γάλλοι, Ολλανδοί κι Αμερικανοί οριενταλιστές ‘Ινδολόγοι’, είναι βασικά μικρά κράτη (για τα μέτρα των Αχαιμενιδών, των Σελευκιδών και των Σασανιδών) που εκτείνονται κυρίως ανάμεσα στην Πενταποταμία και το Δέλτα του Γάγγη: το βασίλειο των Μαουρύα (322–185 π.Χ.) ή το βασίλειο των Γκούπτα (319-543 μ.Χ.). Αυτά ήταν όντως ινδικά – ινδοευρωπαϊκά βασίλεια. Όμως τα περισσότερα άλλα βασίλεια στα νότια δεν μπορούν να ονομασθούν ινδικά γιατί ήταν δραβιδικά. Και ήταν όλα πάντοτε μικρά τοπικά βασίλεια: όλη η Νότια Ασία ήταν κατά κανόνα πάντοτε κατακερματισμένη.
Οι πρώιμοι μουσουλμάνοι κι οι ισλαμικές στρατιές των μέσων του 7ου αιώνα που έφθασαν στο Πεντζάμπ και τα βορειοδυτικά άκρα της σημερινής Ινδίας ουσιαστικά επανέλαβαν την Ιστορία: εκμεταλλεύθηκαν κάτι το οποίο ‘είχαμε’ ξαναδεί! Όπως ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος, καταλύοντας το αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν, βρέθηκε σχεδόν ‘αυτόματα’ κυρίαρχος των ανατολικών σατραπειών κι εκτάσεών του, έτσι κι οι ισλαμικές στρατιές μετά τις μάχες στην Καντισίγια (636), Νεχαβέντ (642) και Μερβ (651) βρέθηκαν κυρίαρχοι των ανατολικών σατραπειών κι εκτάσεων του σασανιδικού Ιράν.
Ανάποδα, η Ιστορία επαναλήφθηκε και πάλι λίγους αιώνες αργότερα: στους χρόνους της αργής παρακμής και βαθμιαίας αποδυνάμωσης του αβασιδικού χαλιφάτου της Βαγδάτης. Ό,τι χαρακτήρισε τους Σελευκιδείς και τους Αρσακιδείς, συνέβη και τότε: πολλά μικρότερα ισλαμικά βασίλεια ξεφύτρωσαν κι αλληλοδιαδέχθηκαν το ένα το άλλο στην περιοχή ανάμεσα το κεντρικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, την Αράλη στην Κεντρική Ασία και την Πενταποταμία.
Η μογγολική κατάκτηση της σημερινής βόρειας Ινδίας πιστοποιεί διαχρονικά ότι όλος ο χώρος ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη καταλαμβάνεται πιο εύκολα από τον βορρά παρά από τα δυτικά. Και δεν αναφέρομαι σε στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις μόνον. Από τον 8ο αιώνα, με την διάδοση του Ισλάμ στην Κεντρική Ασία, πολλά τοπικά τουρκόφωνα φύλα αποψιλώνονταν από τους πιο ικανούς πολεμιστές τους, οι οποίοι έβλεπαν ότι, αν αποδέχονταν το Ισλάμ, θα μπορούσαν να έχουν μια πολύ επιτυχημένη σταδιοδρομία ως στρατιωτικοί σε μια τεράστια αυτοκρατορία.
Έτσι, πολλοί ευχαρίστως προσέρχονταν για να προσλήφθούν ως δούλοι-πολεμιστές. Στο αβασιδικό χαλιφάτο υπήρχαν ήδη πολυάιθμοι και για όλους τους εχρησιμοποιείτο η αραβική λέξη ‘ιδιοκτησία’, διότι ως σκλάβοι αποτελούσαν την ιδιοκτησία (‘μαμλούκ’ / πληθυντικός: μαμαλίκ) των κυρίων τους. Αυτοί είναι οι Μαμελούκοι.
Μαμελούκοι υπήρχαν παντού: στην Κεντρική Ασία, στην Πενταποταμία, στις κεντρικές περιοχές του χαλιφάτου, στην Αίγυπτο, και στην βορειοδυτική Αφρική. Η κατά τόπους ιστορία τους είναι απλή: πρώτα ήταν σκλάβοι-πολεμιστές, έπειτα απελεύθεροι, ύστερα παράκλητοι ως εμπειροπόλεμοι, και τελικά κυρίαρχοι ηγεμόνες.
Αλλά δεν υπήρχε πουθενά ένας εθνικού χαρακτήρα συντονισμός. Και δεν μπορούσε να υπάρχει, επειδή οι ‘μαμελούκοι’ ανήκαν σε διαφορετικές τουρκόφωνες φυλές, μιλούσαν σχετικά διαφορετικές γλώσσες, κι ενθυμούνταν τις πάντοτε υπαρκτές ενδοτουρκικές εχθρότητες κι αντιπαλότητες. Όποιοι πετύχαιναν σε ένα κάποιο τόπο κυριαρχούσαν εκεί. Δεν υπήρχε δυναστεία Μαμελούκων μόνον στην Αίγυπτο, όπως είναι περισσότερο γνωστό στην Ελλάδα.
Υπήρχαν πολλές κατά τόπους δυναστείες Μαμελούκων που όλοι τους ήταν τουρκόφωνοι – αν κι αυτό δεν σημαίνει την ίδια γλώσσα, εφόσον άλλα τα Κιπτσάκ, άλλα τα Τσαγατάι, άλλα τα τουρκμενικά, άλλα τα των Ογούζων (ή Ούζων – Ουζμπέκων), κοκ.
Αλλά τα φαρσί ήταν πάντοτε η γλώσσα της λογοτεχνίας και της ιστορίας και τα αραβικά η γλώσσα της επιστήμης και της θρησκείας.
Μετά την πρώιμη ισλαμική επέλαση μέχρι την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και την Πενταποταμία, η διάδοση του Ισλάμ στην Νότια Ασία (βόρεια Ινδία: ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη / Ντεκάν: το κατοικούμενο από μη Ινδούς, Δραβίδες, νότιο ήμισυ της σημερινής Ινδίας) δεν ήταν ποτέ θέμα του Ισλαμικού Χαλιφάτου της Δαμασκού (661-750) και της Βαγδάτης (750-1258), όπως συχνά σήμερα Ινδουϊστές εθνικιστές εσφαλμένα ισχυρίζονται.
Αντίθετα, ήταν υπόθεση πολέμου ανάμεσα σε ινδικά ινδουϊστικά βασίλεια της Κοιλάδας του Γάγγη και σε μικρότερα ισλαμικά βασίλεια που ξεφύτρωσαν κι αλληλοδιαδέχθηκαν το ένα το άλλο στην περιοχή ανάμεσα το κεντρικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, την Αράλη στην Κεντρική Ασία και την Πενταποταμία, όπως προανέφερα, εξαιτίας της βαθμιαίας αποδυνάμωσης του αβασιδικού χαλιφάτου της Βαγδάτης.
Αυτά τα ισλαμικά βασίλεια, όπως οι Γαζνεβίδες (977–1186 / το Γαζνί βρίσκεται στο σημερινό Αφγανιστάν), είτε διέθεταν Μαμελούκους είτε είχαν συσταθεί από Μαμελούκους.
Οι πόλεμοι αυτών των βασιλείων με τα ινδικά ινδουϊστικά βασίλεια απέληξαν στην διάδοση του Ισλάμ στον ευρύτερο χώρο της Νότιας Ασίας.
Έτσι, αυτό που αποκαλούμε ‘Σουλτανάτο του Δελχί’, ουσιαστικά αποτελεί μια διαδοχή πέντε διαφορετικών δυναστειών που προέρχονται από Μαμελούκους, δηλαδή διάφορα τουρκόφωνα αλλά και άλλα κεντρασιατικά φύλα.
Αυτές οι πέντε ισλαμικές δυναστείες με βάση το Δελχί (: το Παλαιό Δελχί) διεξήγαγαν πολέμους με τα ινδικά και τα δραβιδικά βασίλεια είτε του χώρου ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη είτε του Ντεκάν.
Οι πέντε δυναστείες καλύπτουν ένα διάστημα άνω των τριών αιώνων: Μαμελούκοι (1206–1290), Χάλτζι (Khalji: 1290–1320), Τούγλακ (Tughlaq: 1320–1414), Σαγίντ (Sayyid: 1414–51), και Λόντι (Lodi: 1451–1526).
Αυτοί μάλιστα ήταν ικανοί να σταθούν με επιτυχία απέναντι στον Χουλάγκου και να αποκρούσουν τις πρώτες μογγολικές επελάσεις (1221-1327), ενώ η Βαγδάτη κατέρρευσε το 1258.
Τότε διαμορφώθηκε μια κοσμοπολίτικη και πολύ ανεκτική κοινωνική κατάσταση που προσέλκυσε Ιρανούς, Κεντρασιάτες, Τουρκόφωνους και Μογγόλους που ελάχιστη σημασία απέδιδαν σε θρησκευτικές διαφορές – σιίτες ή σουνίτες, μουσουλμάνους, χριστιανούς (Νεστοριανούς), μανιχεϊστές, βουδιστές ή ινδουϊστές.
Η εθνοφυλετική σύνθεση των Ινδο-Ευρωπαίων Ινδών του χώρου της σημερινής βόρειας Ινδίας άλλαξε ολότελα και δημιουργήθηκε ένα τουρκο-μογγολο-κεντρασιατο-ιρανο-ινδικό εθνογλωσσικό μείγμα, το οποίο φτάνει μέχρι τις μέρες μας: η επίσημη γλώσσα του Πακιστάν (ουρντού) είναι μια τουρκική λέξη (ordu) που σημαίνει ‘στρατός’.
Αυτή είναι μια μεικτή τουρκική (Turkic), περσική, αραβική κι ινδική γλώσσα, στην οποία το ινδικό λεξιλόγιο (που προέρχεται από αρχαίες ινδικές – ινδο-ευρωπαϊκές γλώσσες όπως τα σανσκριτικά και τα πρακριτικά) είναι σχετικά μικρό.
Η ίδια γλώσσα είναι επίσημη και στην Ινδία, πλην όμως εκεί λέγεται χίντι, γράφεται σε Ντεβαναγκάρι σύστημα (οφειλόμενο σε αρχαία Μπραχμί γραφή) και όχι σε φαρσί (όπως τα ουρντού που έχουν μερικά επιπλέον γράμματα για φθόγγους ανύπαρκτους στα φαρσί), και απλώς δεν έχει τους ισλαμικούς όρους που έχει κάθε γλώσσα μουσουλμάνων. Αλλά κατ’ ουσίαν ουρντού και χίντι είναι μία γλώσσα και με εκτεταμένο τουρκικό (Turkic) λεξιλόγιο.
Αν το Σουλτανάτο του Δελχί γλύτωσε από τον Τσενγκίζ Χαν, δεν απέφυγε τον Ταμερλάνο. Το 1398 ο στρατός του Τιμούρ Λενγκ κατέλαβε το Δελχί κι επακολούθησε μια απερίγραπτη λεηλασία και σφαγή. Η πόλη εκθεμελιώθηκε. Στην συνέχεια αναθεμελιώθηκε και το Σουλτανάτο συνεχίστηκε αν και ιδιαίτερα αποδυναμωμένο.
Το τέλος της τελευταίας δυναστείας του Δελχί δόθηκε από τον Μπαμπούρ (στα περσικά σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’) απόγονο του Ταμερλάνου, ο οποίος ήταν γιος του κυβερνήτη της Φεργάνα του Τουρκεστάν (σήμερα στο ανατολικό Ουζμπεκιστάν).
Μετά από πολλές πολεμικές κατακτήσεις στην Κεντρική Ασία, στράφηκε στην Ινδία και μετά από τη νίκη στην μάχη του Πανιπάτ θεμελίωσε το 1526 την δυναστεία που αποκαλείται Μουγάλ (Mughal) στην διεθνή βιβλιογραφία.
Ουσιαστικά, ο όρος Μογγόλος σήμαινε στρατιωτική βαθμίδα στα Τσαγατάι τουρκικά, την σήμερα νεκρή πλέον γλώσσα του Ταμερλάνου. Το πραγματικό όνομα, με το οποίο οι ίδιοι οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι αυτοκράτορες (‘σάχηδες’) αποκαλούσαν τους εαυτούς τους και το κράτος τους, ήταν η περσική λέξη Γκουρκανιάν που (στον πληθυντικό) σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’.
Ο όρος κατάγεται από πολεμικές – βασιλικές πρακτικές τουρκόφωνων φύλων από τα χρόνια του Τσενγκίζ Χαν (και ίσως και πιο πριν, αλλά τουλάχιστον τότε έγινε γνωστός στους Ιρανούς κι άρχισαν να τον χρησιμοποιούν).
Κατ’ αυτές τις πρακτικές, ένας πολύ γενναίος στρατιώτης – πολεμιστής από μια μάλλον κατώτερη τουρκόφωνη φυλή, αφού επιδείξει ανδρεία σε μια ή περισσότερες μάχες, ζητάει να παντρευτεί την κόρη ενός στρατιωτικού ηγέτη από μια άλλη, ανώτερη τουρκόφωνη φυλή, κι αφού αυτό γίνει, αποκτάει ο ίδιος μεγαλύτερη σημασία και κοινωνική, δηλαδή στρατιωτική, υπόσταση.
Μετά τον Μπαμπούρ (1504 – 1530), οι Γκορκανιάν κυριάρχησαν σε όλες τις εκτάσεις ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και το Δέλτα του Γάγγη, επέκτάθηκαν τόσο προς Αφγανιστάν και Κεντρική Ασία (από όπου κατάγονταν) όσο και προς τα νότια στο Ντεκάν, κι αναγνωρίστηκαν ως σύμμαχοι από τους Ιρανούς Σαφεβίδες που δεν ήταν Πέρσες αλλά Τουρκμένοι.
Και έτσι δημιουργήθηκε μια εκπληκτική τουρκόφωνη κυριαρχία από την Αλγερία και την Δυτική Μεσόγειο μέχρι την Μυανμάρ, Ταϋλάνδη και την Κίνα, κατά την οποία τρεις τουρκόφωνοι μουσουλμάνοι αυτοκράτορες, ένας Οθωμανός, ένας Σαφεβίδης κι ένα Γκουρκανί, έλεγχαν το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα του τότε γνωστού κόσμου.
Η κοινή καταγωγή και η κοινή θρησκεία δεν εξασφάλισαν ωστόσο καμμία ενότητα.
Οι Σαφεβίδες θεμελίωσαν το πρώτο σιιτικό κράτος στην Παγκόσμια Ιστορία και κατασφάζονταν ασταμάτητα με τους σουνίτες Οθωμανούς από την σημερινή νότια Ρωσσία μέχρι το Ομάν, ενώ οι επίσης σουνίτες Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι Γκουρκανιάν παρέμειναν ως επί το πλείστον ουδέτεροι.
Σάχης Ταχμάσπ Α’ του Ιράν, στα αριστερά, και Σάχης Χουμαγιούν των Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλη Μογγολική Αυτοκρατορία της ‘Ινδίας’), στα δεξιά
Μάλιστα μερικές φορές οι Γκουρκανιάν είχαν και καλές σχέσεις με τους Σαφεβίδες, όπως τεκμηριώνει η επίσκεψη (1544) του Χουμαγιούν (γιου του Μπαμπούρ) στο Εσφαχάν του Ιράν και οι απίστευτες ευωχίες και συμπόσια που έλαβαν χώραν εκεί με τον Σάχη Ταχμάσπ Α’ (1524-1576), ο οποίος βοήθησε τον Μεγάλο Μογγόλο να εξαφανίσει την απειλή που ήταν για τον θρόνο του ο Σερ Σάχης Σουρί (Sher Shah Suri), ένας Παστούνος που είχε στήσει μια εξουσία στην Βεγγάλη.
Οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι συσσώρευσαν τεράστιο πλούτο, τον οποίο όμως δεν χρησιμοποίησαν για κάτι το συγκεκριμένο. Μετά τον Αουράνγκζεμπ (1658-1707) άρχισε η παρακμή. Η κατάσταση στο Ιράν ήταν παράλληλη: το 1736 η σαφεβιδική δυναστεία έπαιρνε ένα τέλος.
Ήταν η ώρα για τον Δεύτερο Μεγαλέξανδρο, όπως τον αποκαλούσαν οι σύγχρονοί του Ιρανοί, Κεντρασιάτες, Οθωμανοί κι άλλοι ή τον Ναπολέοντα της Ασίας, όπως τον επονόμαζαν αργότερα Ευρωπαίοι συγγραφείς: τον Ναντέρ Σάχη. Γνωρίζουμε ότι στην εξορία του ο Ναπολέων διάβαζε συγγράμματα Ευρωπαίων που αναφέρονταν στους πολέμους και στις τακτικές του Ναντέρ Σάχη.
ΙΙΙ. Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης (1736-1747) κι η Κατάληψη του Δελχίου (1739)
Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης ήταν μια από τις πάμπολλες περιπτώσεις που πιστοποιούν την υπεροχή των γεωργών προ όλων των άλλων τομέων ανθρώπινης εργασίας και δραστηριότητας.
Μια από τις αναρίθμητες περιπτώσεις που βεβαιώνουν ότι οι άνθρωποι των πόλεων είναι καθοριστικά κι απόλυτα κατώτεροι από τους ανθρώπους που δουλεύουν την γη. Γεννήθηκε σε μια μικρή πόλη του Χορασάν (σήμερα ΒΑ Ιράν) σε μια φτωχή οικογένεια Τουρκμένων αγροτών της φυλής Αφσάρ (افشار / Afshar). Το όνομα αυτό απαντάται σήμερα ακόμη ως επώνυμο σχεδόν σε όλα τα μήκη και πλάτη του μουσουλμανικού κόσμου, ιδιαίτερα βέβαια από την Τουρκία μέχρι την Κίνα.
Αφού πέρασε μια παιδική και νεανική ζωή με πολλές δοκιμασίες (έχασε τον πατέρα του, αιχμαλωτίσθηκε με την μητέρα του, κλπ) κι αφού έγινε Κιζιλμπάσης (‘Ερυθρίνος’), συνέχισε να ζει μια απλή ζωή στρατιώτη μέχρι τα 30 του. Είχε έτσι πάρει ένα πολύ σπάνιο μάθημα από την ζωή, το μόνο απαραίτητο για να γίνει κάποιος άνθρωπος ένας πραγματικά κορυφαίος αυτοκράτορας: περιφρονούσε τα πλούτη, τα αξιώματα, την χλιδή και την πολυτέλεια των ανακτόρων. Ζούσε στα τελευταία σαφεβιδικά χρόνια.
Η αδύναμη εξουσία των τελευταίων σάχηδων του Εσφαχάν ήταν αιτία απόσχισης τοπικών κυβερνητών (στο Αφγανιστάν), ρωσσικών κατακτήσεων στον Καύκασο, οθωμανικής επιθετικότητας και γενικευμένου χάους από την απόπειρα των Αφγανών επαναστατών υπό τον Μαχμούντ Χοτακί να ανατρέψει τον Σουλτάν Χουσεΰν, τελευταίο Σαφεβίδη.
Από το 1722 μέχρι το 1736 (δηλαδή σε ηλικία 34-48 ετών), ο Ναντέρ πολέμησε σε πολλές μάχες για να καταστείλει την αφγανική εξέγερση, να εκδιώξει τους επαναστάτες από την πρωτεύουσα Εσφαχάν και να την αποδώσει στον νόμιμο σάχη Ταχμάσπ Β’, πριν οριστεί διοικητής των ανατολικών επαρχιών και συνενώσει όλες τις ανατολικές επαρχίες της χώρας.
Επίσης πολέμησε ενάντια στους Οθωμανούς, έσπευσε στο Αφγανιστάν για να καταστείλει νέα εξέγερση, υποχρέωσε τον Ταχμάσπ Β’ να παραιτηθεί, όταν ο ανήμπορος σάχης από ζήλεια είχε επιχειρήσει μόνος του μια αποτυχημένη εκστρατεία στον Καύκασο, κι ορίστηκε αντιβασιλέας του γιου του Ταχμάσπ Β’ Αμπάς Γ’.
Μετά από μια σειρά σημαντικών μαχών και νικών κατά των Οθωμανών στον Καύκασο και μετά την εκ μέρους του κατάληψη της Βαγδάτης, υποχρέωσε τους Οθωμανούς να παραχωρήσουν τα ιρανικά εδάφη που είχαν παλαιότερα κατακτήσει στον Καύκασο (Γεωργία και Αρμενία). Και στις 8 Μαρτίου 1736 στέφθηκε σάχης από μια γενική συνέλευση στρατιωτικών, ευγενών και κληρικών που καταλάβαιναν ότι ο μικρός Αμπάς Γ’ ήταν ανίκανος να βασιλεύσει.
Η εκπληκτική ικανότητα του Ναντέρ να ηγείται αριθμητικά μικρότερων στρατευμάτων και να σημειώνει σημαντικές νίκες εναντίον εχθρών – με υπέρτερες δυνάμεις χάρη σε εντυπωσιακούς αιφνιδιασμούς και τεχνικές, απατηλές κινήσεις και πλευροκοπήματα – χαρακτήρισε την περίοδο των έντεκα ετών κατά την οποία βασίλευσε. Σε μια εποχή χωρίς τανκς και μηχανοκίνητες μονάδες, στρατεύματα μετακινούνταν με εκπληκτικές ταχύτητες μέσα από πολύ δύσβατες και δυσπρόσιτες περιοχές, από τον Καύκασο στον Ινδό, από την Κεντρική Ασία στη Μεσοποταμία, κι από το Αφγανιστάν στον Περσικό Κόλπο.
Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης γεννήθηκε σε μια σιιτική οικογένεια αλλά σε μεγαλύτερη ηλικία έδειξε συμπάθεια προς το σουνιτικό Ισλάμ και προσπάθησε να οργανώσει μια σύνθεση και συνένωση των δύο θεολογιών.
Ως άτομο ήταν ίσως ο πιο ανεξίθρησκος ηγεμόνας του Ιράν και η φιλία του προς χριστιανικούς πληθυσμούς ήταν τέτοια που συμπεριέλαβε συχνά Γεωργιανούς κι Αρμένιους στο στράτευμά του.
Θα μπορούσε κανείς εύκολα να τον περιγράψει και ως ένα Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ πριν τον Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ, επειδή καμμιά στρατιωτική του επιχείρηση δεν είχε θρησκευτικά κίνητρα ή σκοπιμότητες.
Όπου έκρινε κι αποφάσιζε ο Ναντέρ Σάχης, η θρησκεία δεν είχε θέση κι όλοι οι άνθρωποι ήταν ίσοι και κρίνονταν με βάση τις ικανότητές τους.
Οι σιίτες μολάδες κι αγιατολάδες κι ο σεϊχουλισλάμης της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας είχαν βρει τον μπελά τους μαζί του.
Η κατάκτηση του Δελχί κι η εκτεταμένη λαφυραγώγηση του πλουσιώτατου γείτονα του Ιράν δεν έγιναν ούτε με σκοπό το κέρδος ούτε για να προσπορισθεί ο Ναντέρ Σάχης φήμη και δόξα.
Απλώς του χρειάζονταν έσοδα για τους πολέμους κατά των Οθωμανών που προετοίμαζε στο μυαλό του.
Ο ετήσιος προϋπολογισμός του κράτους του Αουράνγκζεμπ μόλις 25 χρόνια πριν καταλάβει το Δελχί ο Ναντέρ Σάχης ήταν δεκαπλάσιος εκείνου της Γαλλίας του Λουδοβίκου ΙΔ’ (‘βασιλιά ήλιου’)!
Η στρατιωτική τεχνική του Ναντέρ Σάχη στην μάχη του Καρνάλ (13 Φλεβάρη 1739) ήταν εκπληκτική.
Και η λαφυραγώγηση των ανακτόρων των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων στο Δελχί ξεπερνάει κάθε ιστορική αναφορά και κάθε τρελή φαντασία.
——————————————–
Οι Ατελείωτες Μάχες του Ναντέρ Σάχη
Πρώτη εκστρατεία στο Αφγανιστάν – 1729
Η Μάχη στο Μαλαγιέρ, στην οροσειρά του Κεντρικού Ζάγρου, κατά των Οθωμανών – 1730
Η Μάχη στο Μπαγκαβάρντ του Καυκάσου κατά των Οθωμανών – 1735
Μάχη στα Στενά Χάυμπερ, στα βουνά μεταξύ των σημερινών Πακιστάν κι Αφγανιστάν, στην πορεία για κατάληψη του Δελχί – 1738. Πολέμησαν 10000 Ιρανοί υπό τον Ναντέρ Σάχη και νίκησαν 70000 στρατιώτες της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας των Γκορκανιάν της ‘Ινδίας’.
Η μάχη του Καρνάλ όπου ο Ναντέρ Σάχης πολέμησε εναντίον εξαπλασίων στρατευμάτων (55000 κατά 300000) και νικώντας τα εβάδισε εναντίον του Δελχί – 1739. Οι αντίπαλοι υποστηρίζονταν από 2000 εκπαιδευμένους για πόλεμο ελέφαντες και 3000 κανόνια.
Η μάχη του Καρς: 80000 Ιρανοί κατά 140000 Οθωμανών – 1745. Ιρανική νίκη με νεκρούς και τραυματισμένους 8000 Ιρανούς και Οθωμανούς 12000 νεκρούς, 18000 τραυματισμένους και 5000 αιχμαλώτους
———————————————
Κι όμως ο συνεχώς μάχιμος αυτός γεωργός – στρατιώτης – σάχης δεν θεώρησε αυτή την ιστορική νίκη γεγονός άξιο για να πανηγυρίσει κι αμέσως στράφηκε σε άλλους πολέμους.
Επιστρέφοντας όμως από το Δελχί πήρε τους στρατηγούς του (που ήταν όλοι τους Ιρανοί ευγενείς) και τους οδήγησε στο μικρό χωριό του Χορασάν όπου είχε γεννηθεί. Εκεί τους είπε:
– Βλέπετε σε τι ύψη εξυψώνει ο Μεγαλοδύναμος αυτούς που επιλέγει; Γι’ αυτό, ποτέ μην περιφρονείτε ένα άνθρωπο με ταπεινή καταγωγή και με ελάχιστη περιουσία!
Μετά από άλλα οκτώ χρόνια γεμάτα πολέμους κατά της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας στην αραβική χερσόνησο, την Μεσοποταμία και τον Καύκασο, μετά από εκστρατείες στην Κεντρική Ασία και στα παράλια του Ομάν, ο Ναντέρ Σάχης είχε το τέλος που οι ήρωες αντιμετωπίζουν στα χέρια δειλών συνωμοτών (εκτός κι αν συνωμοσίες δεν υπάρχουν!).
Δολοφονήθηκε όταν κοιμόταν από δέκα πέντε συνωμότες την 20 η Ιουνίου 1747.
Στην συνέχεια θα βρείτε μια σειρά από διαφωτιστικές δημοσιεύσεις σχετικά με την ζωή, το έργο, τις στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις και την κοσμοαντίληψη του πιο τρομερού Ιρανού της δεύτερης χιλιετίας.
Ο Σάχης Ναντέρ κάθεται στον Θρόνο του Παγωνιού, τον μυθικής αξίας χρυσοποίκιλτο κι εμβληματικό θρόνο των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων Αυτοκρατόρων Γκορκανιάν του Δελχί τον οποίο λαφυραγώγησε μαζί πολλά άλλα αμύθητα πλούτη και πετράδια.
Αποσπάσματα από Ιστορικά Κείμενα-Quotes
Afterwards Nadir Shah himself, with the Emperor of Hindustan, entered the fort of Delhi. It is said that he appointed a place on one side in the fort for the residence of Muhammad Shah and his dependents, and on the other side he chose the Diwan-i Khas, or, as some say, the Garden of Hayat Bakhsh, for his own accommodation. He sent to the Emperor of Hindustan, as to a prisoner, some food and wine from his own table.
One Friday his own name was read in the khutba, but on the next he ordered Muhammad Shah’s name to be read. It is related that one day a rumour spread in the city that Nadir Shah had been slain in the fort. This produced a general confusion, and the people of the city destroyed five thousand men of his camp. On hearing of this, Nadir Shah came of the fort, sat in the golden masjid which was built by Rashanu-d daula, and gave orders for a general massacre.
For nine hours an indiscriminate slaughter of all and of every degree was committed. It is said that the number of those who were slain amounted to one hundred thousand. The losses and calamities of the people of Delhi were exceedingly great….
After this violence and cruelty, Nadir Shah collected immense riches, which he began to send to his country laden on elephants and camels.
Tarikh-i Hindi
by Rustam ‘Ali
In: The History of India as Told by its own Historians
The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot
John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 22, pp. 37-67
When the Shah departed towards the close of the day, a false rumour was spread through the town that he had been severely wounded by a shot from a matchlock, and thus were sown the seeds from which murder and rapine were to spring. The bad characters within the town collected in great bodies, and, without distinction, commenced the work of plunder and destruction….
On the morning of the 11th an order went forth from the Persian Emperor for the slaughter of the inhabitants. The result may be imagined; one moment seemed to have sufficed for universal destruction. The Chandni chauk, the fruit market, the Daribah bazaar, and the buildings around the Masjid-i Jama’ were set fire to and reduced to ashes.
The inhabitants, one and all, were slaughtered. Here and there some opposition was offered, but in most places people were butchered unresistingly. The Persians laid violent hands on everything and everybody; cloth, jewels, dishes of gold and silver, were acceptable spoil….
But to return to the miserable inhabitants. The massacre lasted half the day, when the Persian Emperor ordered Haji Fulad Khan, the kotwal, to proceed through the streets accompanied by a body of Persian nasakchis, and proclaim an order for the soldiers to resist from carnage. By degrees the violence of the flames subsided, but the bloodshed, the devastation, and the ruin of families were irreparable. For a long time the streets remained strewn with corpses, as the walks of a garden with dead flowers and leaves.
The town was reduced to ashes, and had the appearance of a plain consumed with fire. All the regal jewels and property and the contents of the treasury were seized by the Persian conqueror in the citadel. He thus became possessed of treasure to the amount of sixty lacs of rupees and several thousand ashraf is… plate of gold to the value of one kror of rupees, and the jewels, many of which were unrivalled in beauty by any in the world, were valued at about fifty krors.
The peacock throne alone, constructed at great pains in the reign of Shah Jahan, had cost one kror of rupees. Elephants, horses, and precious stuffs, whatever pleased .the conqueror’s eye, more indeed than can be enumerated, became his spoil. In short, the accumulated wealth of 348 years changed masters in a moment.
About Shah’s sack of Delhi
Tazrikha by Anand Ram Mukhlis
A history of Nâdir Shah’s invasion of India
In The History of India as Told by its own Historians
The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot.
John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 22, pp. 74-98.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
Ανδριάντας του Ναντέρ Σάχη σήμερα στο Ιράν
Nāder Shah
Nāder Shah, ruler of Iran, 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.
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 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.
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), 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) Afghans near Herat in May 1729, then achieved victory over the Ḡilzi 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.
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 of Imam ʿAli al-Reżā (d. ca. 818). 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 / 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).
There followed another series of Ottoman-Persian battles in the Caucasus, and Nāder’s capture of Ganja, 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.
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, to replace the Qezelbāš turban cap, 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.
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).
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).
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) 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 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 Moḥammad 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).
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, and of Abu’l-Fayż (r. 1711-47), the Toqay-Timurid khan of Bukhara. 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 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 Ottoman legal 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). 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), 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.
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.
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).
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 in Iran.
Text and bibliography in detail:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nader-shah
-------------------------------------
Koh-i-Noor and Nadir Shah’s Delhi loot
The legendary treasure trove of Hindustan has changed hands en masse on two occasions, once in 1739, when it was taken by Nadir Shah, and then again in 1857, by the prize agents of the East India Company. Apart from these two conquests, a great many priceless gems and jewels were acquired by the early European traders in India and sold in Europe. Today, many of the world’s famous diamonds have been attributed conclusively to the 1739 sack of Delhi. The most well-known jewels and artifacts among them are listed below—the little compressed and crystallized charcoal that have wended their way through a labyrinth of mankind’s violent history.
During Nadir Shah’s homeward march from Delhi to Persia, he ordered all the acquired jewels to be decorated on a tent. The tent is described in great details by an eyewitness Abdul Kurreem, who accompanied Nadir Shah on his return journey, in his memoir:
“The outside was covered with fine scarlet broadcloth, the lining was of violet coloured satin, upon which were representations of all the birds and beasts in the creation, with trees and flowers, the whole made of pearls, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, amethysts, and other precious stones: and the tent poles were decorated in like manner.
On both sides of the Peacock Throne was a screen, upon which were the figures of two angels in precious stones. The roof of the tent consisted of seven pieces, and when it was transported to any place, two of these pieces packed in cotton, were put into a wooden chest, two of which were a sufficient load for an elephant; and the screen filled another chest.
The walls of the tent, the tent poles and the tent pins, which latter were of massy gold, loaded five more elephants; so that for the carriage of the whole required seven elephants. This magnificent tent was displayed on all festivals in the Dewan Khaneh at Heart, during the remainder of Nadir Shah’s reign. After his death, his nephew Adil Shah, and his grandson Shahrokh, whose territories were very limited, and expenses enormous, had the tent taken to pieces, and dissipated the produce.”
In the well-known book ‘The History of Nadir Shah’ published in the 18th century from London, James Fraser estimates that 70 crores of wealth was carried away by Nadir Shah from Delhi:
Jewels from emperors and amirs: 25 crores
Utensils and handles of weapons set with jewels, with the Peacock Throne, etc.: 9 crores
Money coined in gold and silver coins: 25 crores
Gold and silver plates which he melted into coins: 5 crores
Fine clothes and rich stuff, etc.: 2 crores
Household furniture and other commodities: 3 crores
Weapons, etc.: 1 crore
Peacock Throne
Ten years after Nadir Shah returned from India with unimaginable treasure in 1739, he was assassinated by his own guards. Immediately, the famed Peacock Throne was dismantled, and its gems and stones were cut out and dispersed in the world market, though the entire lot can never be accounted for.
The Peacock Throne or the Mayurasan has been described by many, including historians Abdul Hamid Lahori, Inayat Khan, and French travellers Bernier and Tavernier, but Tavernier’s account can be considered the most authentic as he was officially allowed to inspect it in the Mughal court by Aurangzeb.
Tavernier was a French gem merchant who travelled between Persia and India six times between 1630 and 1668. According to him, the throne was of almost the size of a bed, being 6 ft x 4 ft in dimension. There were four horizontal bars connecting its four legs, upon which 12 columns stand to hold a canopy. At the centre of each of the 12 columns, a cross design was made of a ruby surrounded by four emeralds.
There were 108 large rubies (100-200 carats), 116 large emeralds (30-60 carats), innumerable diamonds and gemstones studded in the throne made of solid gold. Its paraphernalia included cushions, swords, a mace, a round shield, and umbrellas—all studded with gemstones and pearls. The underside of the canopy was covered with pearls and diamonds. Besides, Abdul Lahori describes the throne and its well-known stones, including Koh-i-Noor, the Akbar Shah diamond, the Shah diamond, the Timur Ruby, and the Shah Jahan diamond.
Koh-i-Noor
This diamond—known as ‘Babur’s Diamond’ before 1739—was acquired from the Kakatiya dynasty by Allauddin Khilji. When Ibrahim Lodi was defeated by Babur, it was apparently handed over to Humayun by the mother of Ibrahim Lodi to guarantee the family’s safety. However, other sources say that it was gifted to Humayun by the Gwalior Royal Family.
Thereafter, it was presented by Humayun to the Persian Shah Tamasp (to garner his support to regain Hindustan), who then gave it to the Deccan Kingdom as a gift. It came back to the Mughals during Shah Jahan’s reign, via a Persian diamond dealer Mir Jumla, and remained with the Mughal emperors until 1739.
It is rumoured that Nadir Shah was tipped off that the emperor Muhammad Shah was hiding the diamond in his turban. Nadir Shah then invited the emperor to a customary turban-exchange ceremony to foster eternal supportive ties between the two empires. He could not believe his eyes when he found the diamond concealed within the layers of the turban, and exclaimed, ‘Koh-i-Noor!’ (‘Mountain of Light!’). Since then, it has been known by that name.
After Nadir Shah was assassinated, the diamond fell into the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdali of Kabul. After Abdali, it was ceded by the Afghans to Sikh King Ranjit Singh of Punjab. On his death-bed in 1839, Ranjit Singh willed the Koh-i-Noor to the Jagannath Temple at Puri. The British East India Company acquired it from his son (Duleep Singh) in 1843.
It is said that the diamond was kept by John Lawrence, who had absent-mindedly put the box in his coat pocket. When Governor General Dalhousie asked for it to be sent from Lahore to Mumbai, Lawrence asked his servant to find it; while rummaging through his wardrobe, the servant replied, “there is nothing here, Sahib, but a bit of glass!”
The Koh-i-Noor was transported to England aboard HMS Madea, with Dalhousie carrying it personally. It was cut and put in a crown by the crown jewellers Garrard & Co.; Queen Mary wore this crown to the Delhi Coronation Durbar in 1911.
The Orloff
Prior to 1739, this unusual half-egg shaped diamond was known as the Great Mogul. After Nadir Shah’s murder, one of his soldiers sold it to an Armenian merchant, and it was acquired subsequently by the Russian nobleman Grigorievich Orlov. The nobleman presented it to his lover, the Grand Duchess Catherine, who mounted it in the Imperial Sceptre during her reign between 1762 and 1796.
Another version of the diamond’s history states that it was one of the eyes in a temple in South India, which was stolen by a French army deserter who had converted to Hinduism solely to gain access to the sanctum sanctorum of the temple to steal the diamond.
The Shah Diamond
This diamond remained in Iran for nearly a century until 1829, when the Russian diplomat and writer, Alexandr Griboyedov, was murdered in Tehran. Fearing a backlash from Russia, the grandson of Shah visited Moscow and presented the diamond as a gift to Russian Tsar Nicholas I.
The Great Table Diamond
Jean Baptiste Tavernier, a French traveller to India, mentioned a huge diamond of more than 400 carats that was set in the Peacock Throne, and called it the Diamanta Grande Table.
After Nadir Shah’s murder, the diamond was cut many times and distributed throughout the world. Researchers are still trying to locate all the pieces of this diamond, but only three have been confirmed to date—Darya-i-Noor (Sea of Light), Noor-ul-Amin (Light of the Eye), and Shah Jahan Table Cut.
The former two are among the Iranian Crown Jewels, as confirmed by a Canadian team from the Royal Ontario Museum that conducted a study on Iranian Crown Jewels in 1965.
The Darya-i-Noor is the most celebrated diamond among the Iranian Crown Jewels, and has a status similar to that of the Koh-i-Noor in the British Crown Jewels. The Shah Jahan Table Cut appeared mysteriously at a Christie’s auction in 1985, and was acquired by H.H.Sheikh Naseer Al-Sabah of Kuwait. It is assumed that it was not sold thereafter and remains in his family.
Timur Ruby
After Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali of Kabul acquired a huge ruby along with the Koh-i-noor diamond, and later the Afghans ceded it to the Sikh King Ranjit Singh.
The British later acquired this mammoth 361 carat ruby from Maharaja Duleep Singh of Punjab. The names and dates of its six original owners are inscribed on the stone, as follows—Timur, Akbar (1612), Jahangir (1628), Aurangzeb (1659), Farrukhsiyar (1713), and Ahmad Shah Durrani (1754).
The ruby may be the one that was mentioned in Jauhar-i-Samsam while describing its acquisition by Nadir Shah from Muhammad Shah as “his majesty bestowed on Nadir Shah, with his own munificent hand, as a parting present, the peacock throne, in which was set a ruby upwards of a girih (three fingers’ breadth) in width, and nearly two in length, which was commonly called khiraj-i-alam or the tribute of the world”.
Below is a list of those few translucent rocks that are sprinkled around the world, of whose heritage we know about, thanks to the researchers and historians.
Till date, these are the only jewels that could have been conclusively traced back to Nadir Shah’s sack of Delhi in 1739. An unknown vast majority of the precious stones that Nadir Shah took with him is simply untraceable and most are probably lost in the passage of time.
Few may be lying in private collections, and then also, it is doubtful if their historicity is known even to their owners.
In this context, it does not really matter in which museum, or which city of the world these are located and preserved.
The important thing is that they are well conserved by experts to be passed down to future generations to cherish and appreciate these priceless items.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/koh-i-noor-and-nadir-shahs-delhi-loot/as49934879.cms
---------------------------------
Afsharid Dynasty (Nader Shah)
Nader Shah or King Nader (1688-1747), the founder of Afsharid Dynasty, an enigmatic figure in Iranian history ruled from 1736 – 1747 A.D.
Nader Shah, or Nader Qoli Beg was born in Kobhan, Iran, on October 22, 1688, into one of the Turkish tribes loyal to the Safavid shahs of Iran. He was the son of a poor peasant, who lived in Khorasan and died while Nader was still a child. Nader and his mother were carried off as slaves by the Ozbegs, but after death of his mother in captivity Nader managed to escape and became a soldier. Soon he attracted the attention of a chieftain of the Afshar in whose service Nader rapidly advanced. Eventually, the ambitious Nader fell out of favour. He became a rebel and gathered a substantial army.
In 1719 the Afghans had invaded Persia. They deposed the reigning Shah of the Safavid dynasty in 1722. Their ruler, Mahmoud Ghilzai (±1699-1725), murdered a large number of Safavid Princes, hacking many of them to death by his own hand. After he had invited the leading citizens of Esfahan to a feast and massacred them there, his own supporters assassinated Mahmoud in 1725. His cousin, Ashraf (±1700-1730), took over and married a Safavid princess.
At first, Nader fought with the Afghans against the Ozbegs until they withheld him further payment. In 1727 Nader offered his services to Tamasp II (±1704-1740), heir to the Safavid dynasty. Nader started the reconquest of Persia and drove the Afghans out of Khorasan. The Afghans suffered heavy losses, but before they fled Ashraf massacred an additional 3000 citizens of Esfahan. Most of the fleeing Afghans were soon overtaken and killed by Nader’s men, while others died in the desert. Ashraf himself was hunted down and murdered.
By 1729 Nader had freed Persia from the Afghans. Tamasp II was crowned Shah, although he was little more than a figurehead. While Nader was putting down a revolt in Khorasan, Tamasp moved against the Turks, losing Georgia and Armenia. Enraged, Nader deposed Tamasp in 1732 and installed Tamasp’s infant son, Abbas III (1732-1740), on the throne, naming himself regent. Within two years Nader recaptured the lost territory and extended the Empire at the expense of the Turks and the Russians.
In 1736 Nader evidently felt that his own position had been established so firmly that he no longer needed to hide behind a nominal Safavid Shah and ascended the throne himself. In 1738 he invaded Kandahar, captured Kabul and marched on to India. He seized and sacked Delhi and, after some disturbances, he killed 30000 of its citizens.
He plundered the Indian treasures of the Moghal Emperors, taking with him the famous jewel-encrusted Peacock Throne and the Koh-i Noor diamond. In 1740 Nader had Tamasp II and his two infant sons put to death. Then he invaded Transoxania. He resumed war with Turkey in 1743. In addition, he built a navy and conquered Oman.
Gradually Nader’s greedy and intolerant nature became more pronounced. The financial burden of his standing armies was more than the Persians could bear and Nader imposed the death penalty on those who failed to pay his taxes. He stored most of his loot for his own use and showed little if any concern for the general welfare of the country. Nader concentrated all power in his own hands.
He was a brilliant soldier and the founder of the Persian navy, but he was entirely lacking any interest in art and literature. Once, when Nader was told that there was no war in paradise, he was reported to have asked: “How can there be any delights there?”.
He moved the capital to Mashhad in Khorasan, close to his favourite mountain fortress. He tried to reconcile Sunnism with Shi’itism, because he needed people of both faiths in his army, but the reconciliation failed.
In his later years, revolts began to break out against his oppressive rule. Nader became increasingly harsh and exhibited signs of mental derangement following an assassination attempt.
He suspected his own son, Reza Qoli Mirza (1719-1747), of plotting against him and had him blinded. Soon he started executing the nobles who had witnessed his son’s blinding.
Towards the end, even his own tribesmen felt that he was too dangerous a man to be near. In 1747 a group of Afshar and Qajar chiefs decided “to breakfast off him where he should sup off them”. His own commanders surprised him in his sleep, but Nader managed to kill two of them before the assassins finished him off.
Nader was Persia’s most gifted military genius and is known as “The Second Alexander” and “The Napoleon of Persia”.
Although he restored national independence and effectively protected Iran’s territorial integrity at a dark moment of the country’s history, his obsessive suspicions and jealousies plunged Iran into political turmoil.
Little is known about Nader’s personal life. His grandiosity, his insatiable desire for more conquests and his egocentric behaviour suggest a narcissistic personality disorder and in his last years he seems to have developed some paranoid tendencies.
Nader was married four times and had 5 sons and 15 grandsons.
Afsharid Kings:
Nader Shah 1737 – 1747
Ali Gholi 1747 – 1748
Ebrahim 1748 – 1749
Shahrokh 1748 – 1749
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/afsharids/afsharids.php
-------------------------------
Nader Shah in Iranian Historiography
Warlord or National Hero?
By Rudolph Matthee · Published 2018
Western—European and North American—historiography generally portrays the years between the death of Louis XIV in 1715 and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 as having given birth to the modern world—a republican world founded on rational discourse and popular sovereignty, an empirically grounded, industrializing world built on progress and productivity, an aggressive, market-driven world espousing expansion as agenda and organizing principle.
In the traditional interpretation of Islamic Middle Eastern history, the “eighteenth century” projects an entirely different image. Rather than evoking energy and innovation, it conjures up stasis, decline and defeat. It speaks of exhausted, mismanaged empires that either succumbed to regional competitors or proved too weak to resist the juggernaut of European imperialism. Examples abound.
The state that had ruled Iran since the early sixteenth century, the Safavids, in 1722 collapsed under the onslaught of Afghan insurgents from the tribal periphery. The Ottomans, having failed to take Vienna in 1683, subsequently retreated against the Austrians and the Russians in the Balkans and later lost Egypt, first to the French and then to the Albanian warlord, Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha. In the Indian Subcontinent, meanwhile, the once mighty Mughal Empire disintegrated and was brought into the British orbit.
Iran was doubly disadvantaged in this process of “regression.” The Ottomans suffered defeat and lost territory yet maintained military, diplomatic and commercial contact with the nations of Western Europe, the source of most of what was new at the time. The so-called Tulip Period of the early eighteenth-century reflects a fascination with things European among the ruling classes of Istanbul.
The Mughal state became tributary to the English East India Company and then was absorbed into the expanding British Empire. Yet that same process caused its elite gradually to become familiar with the ways and means of the new colonizers, creating models and generating ideas that helped the country keep in touch with developments in the wider world.
Iran, by contrast, in this period not just fell precipitously from stability to chaos, but in the process it became disconnected from the world in ways not experienced by the other “gunpowder empires.” Until the late seventeenth century the Safavids had been roughly on par with the Ottomans and the Mughals in their projection of wealth, power and cultural prestige.
Sophisticated Europeans knew Iran as the legendary land of the Sophy, a term personified by the most dynamic ruler of the dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I (r. 1587–1629). Shah ‘Abbas had connected his country to the world in unprecedented ways. After proclaiming Isfahan his capital and endowing it with a newly designed awe-inspiring center, he had turned this centrally located city into a nexus of trade links between Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and India—and a favored destination for European traders and travelers, who saw in it a latter-day reflection of the Persian Empire as they imagined it from reading Herodotus, Strabo, and Pliny.
All this energy and efflorescence had come crashing down with the fall of Isfahan in 1722. The Afghan tribesmen who brought down the Safavid state failed to build their own on its ruins and were soon swept aside. What followed was seventy-five years of chaos and anarchy during which the Iranian plateau became remote and forbidding territory, run by warlords and mostly shunned by Westerners.
As the world was radically reconfigured in this period, Iranians continued to live in a rather self-congratulatory, inward-looking mode, secure in the knowledge that their country was, if no longer the center of the world, a place of consequence. In reality, Iran in this period rapidly “retreated” from the global scene as its ties with the outside world diminished in frequency and intensity. Iran’s short “eighteenth century,” the roughly seventy-five years that separate the fall of the Safavids from the rise of the Qajars, thus runs contrary to the perceived “global eighteenth century” and its presumed new level of (elite) connectivity.
This relative insularity was shattered in the early nineteenth century as the newly acceded Qajar regime (r. 1796–1925) with its largely tribally organized and poorly disciplined army suffered several terrible defeats against the well-equipped Russians, people the Iranians had always thought of and dismissed as bibulous, thick-skulled barbarians. As the Russians occupied large swaths of Iranian territory in the north—much of the southern Caucasus, comprising the modern countries of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan—the British intruded from the other side, the Persian Gulf.
Historians of late have turned away from this type of narrative with its focus on a golden age followed by decline and on great rulers and their deeds as organizing principles, to call for contingency, indeterminacy and attention to the common man. Yet, modern nationalism demands linearity and purposefulness, and shows little patience for revisionist complication.
Faced with the flux and reflux of history, nationalism likes to tell a story of loss and regeneration through resilience, of foreign-inflicted defeat followed by phoenix-like resurgence. It is therefore hardly surprising that modern Iranian historiography—and certainly the Iranian popular imagination—tends to portray the Safavids and the Qajars in starkly contrasting terms—the first symbolizing pride and glory, the second representing fecklessness and submissiveness.
Iranians have come to look back at the Safavid period nostalgically, as the last time their country was proud, independent, and the envy of the world. The Qajars, by contrast, the dynasty that would bring the country to the threshold of the modern age, count as spineless, corrupt rulers who blithely led the country into defeat and humiliation at the hand of foreigners, and who facilitated the country’s creeping incorporation into a Western-dominated imperialist network, preventing it from regaining its “natural” greatness.
The period in between is not so easily classified, for it seems neither a glorious moment in national history nor a century of potential splendor snatched away by foreign powers. Dark, seemingly directionless, and relatively short on written sources, the eighteenth century in Iranian history remains an awkward interlude.
Modern Iranian historians have nevertheless sought to weave this period into a continuous national narrative by adopting a Carlylean “great man” view of history, highlighting the stature of the two rulers who created identifiable albeit short-lived states and thus present a semblance of coherence and direction to Iranian history in an otherwise tumultuous period: Nader Shah (r. 1736–47) and Karim Khan Zand (r. 1763–69).
Both stand out, not just as the only two rulers who defied the period’s centrifugal forces, but as national heroes who revived Iran’s genius. The first, a brilliant warrior, redeemed the nation by restoring the honor it had lost with the fall of Isfahan to foreign tribesmen. The second represents the quintessentially Iranian search for justice.
The first also stirred the Western imagination in ways the second never did—especially after he marched into India in 1739, ransacked Delhi and returned home with fabulous treasures. Indeed, the reception of Nader Shah in eighteenth-century Europe was as swift and dramatic as it was complex. The image it created, half brutal warlord, half national liberator, would significantly contribute to the image modern Iranians would construct of him.
Nader Shah: Scourge of God or National Hero?
The portrayal of Nader in the eighteenth-century West was the combined outcome of eyewitness accounts, Persian-language sources, and Enlightenment anxieties. Europeans, still puzzled by the sudden fall of the Safavids, learned of him even before he took power in 1736 as the warrior who reconquered Isfahan from the Afghans in 1729.
The Mercure de France of November 1731 contained an “eyewitness report” that portrayed Tahmasp Quli Khan, as Nader Shah was still called at the time, as a savior, a man of valor and fidelity, brave and full of esprit. His stature as the dynamic warlord who might rescue his nation by liberating it from the barbarians who had invaded this old, sophisticated land—the Afghans, the Ottomans, and the Russians—only grew with time.
In 1738 a huge tome appeared in Germany depicting Nader as the divinely inspired savior of a collapsed nation. The notion of Nader the savior resonated with the political philosophy of the Enlightenment as articulated by Montesquieu, Diderot and Holbach, who distinguished between the legitimate right to defend and recover one’s home country, and illegitimate wars of conquest.
A rather different Nader burst onto the European scene soon thereafter, with his defeat of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah at Karnal in 1739 and his subsequent sack of Delhi. News of these exploits spread quickly, carried by missionaries and agents of the European maritime companies, and soon gave rise to numerous pamphlets and books.
The earliest narrative about Nader’s Indian exploits seems to have been a report written in 1739 by Dutch East India Company agents in Bengal. Published in Holland in 1740, this report may have been the source of the anonymous two-volume work that came out in Amsterdam a year later as Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan Sophi de Perse, a text that subsequently was translated into English, Italian, and Spanish.
In the next few years the Asian warlord was the subject of a number of articles in the British press, some of which have plausibly been attributed to Samuel Johnson. Two years later the Anglo-Saxon world became thoroughly acquainted with Nader through James Fraser’s History of Nader Shah, which was mostly based on reports by William Cockell, an agent of the English India Company who had served in Iran while Nader was in power.
In the same year, 1742, James Spilman, a Russia Company merchant, published an account of a journey he had undertaken to Iran in 1739 and to which was appended a brief account of the rise of Nader Shah. In 1743 André de Claustre published Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, roi de Perse. A generation later the French reading public was reminded of Nader through the translation the famous Orientalist William Jones made of a Persian chronicle written in Nader Shah’s orbit, Mirza Mohammad Mahdi Astarabadi’s Tarikh-e Naderi.
A fictionalized Nader quickly followed. The first novel—in which a young Swiss man sets out on an Asian adventure that includes his participation in Nader’s Indian campaign—appeared in 1754. A second, presented as the memoirs of Shah Tahmasp II, Nader’s protégé until he deposed him, followed in 1758.
Both reflect the spirit of a relatively pacific European age in search of a heroic cause in their portrayal of young, poor, and intelligent men who in Europe find no outlet for their martial inclinations. They also reflect the prevailing notion that the East, unfettered by feudal stratification, was open to talent. The same theme appears in the contemporaneous theatrical representation of Nader Shah in Holland, France, and Italy.
The way Nader was in Europe represented varied by context. In the Dutch setting, he became an emblem of republicanism, a “protagonist of lowly origins whose right to the throne sprang from his desire to serve his subjects.” Yet a more common theme in the earliest European references to him was the image of the disciplined warrior, the type Europe lacked until the appearance of Frederick the Great on the European scene in 1740.
As in the case of Alexander the Great, to whom he was sometimes likened, the more negative aspects of Nader’s career over time received ample attention as well. Several authors highlighted his rapaciousness and linked the vast treasure he bought back from India to the typical Oriental despot who plunders and hoards rather than builds.
Nader’s cruelty and growing madness, as the ultimate symbol of the descent into violence and cruelty of a land previously known for its humanism, tolerance and sophistication, did not go unnoticed either; the English merchant-traveler Jonas Hanway, for instance, who in 1743 had visited Nader’s army camp, at once presented the ruler’s appearance as punishment for Iranian sloth and dissolution and painted a lurid portrait of a usurper driven by greed and brutality.
Contemporary Iranian sources evince a similar ambivalence. The chroniclers writing in Nader Shah’s immediate orbit naturally hedge their bets and defuse the ruler’s obvious ruthlessness and gathering madness by turning a blind eye to these uncomfortable facts or by blaming the victims. They generally portray Nader as a ruler of military virtue and sound lineage, hail him as a strongman who had restored order, and defend him against the indictment of having usurped power. The afore-mentioned Astarabadi set the tone for an enduring narrative by lauding Nader for expelling all foreign occupiers from Iranian soil. At pains to rationalize the ruler’s growing craziness and cruelty, he claimed that Nader changed only after his expedition to the Caucasus, eventually bringing ruin to his country.
As a new dynasty of questionable roots and legitimacy, the Qajars had to expunge the legacy of those who came before them—other than the Safavids, to whom they paid allegiance on account of the Shi‘i credentials they themselves so sorely lacked. Nader Shah was one of those.
Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of the Qajar dynasty and a ruthless warlord himself, chose to distance himself from Nader for having deviated from the Shi‘i foundations laid by the Safavids and invoked by Agha Mohammad Shah to buttress his own legitimacy.
Yet the first Qajar ruler must have been impressed by his forebear as well, for he had two figures added to the two huge battle scenes adorning the walls of the Chehel Sotun palace in Isfahan, one of which represents Nader’s defeat of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Khan at Karnal in 1739. Nader also figured in the one of the main halls of the Golestan palace that was built in the newly chosen capital Tehran and renovated in 1806—in a pose of returning the crown of India to the Mughal king.
A More Complex Nader Shah
The early nineteenth century saw two developments that helped shape a new or at least a more complex image of Nader Shah. The first was the string of humiliating military defeats the Qajars suffered against their most formidable enemies, the Russians. The second was the meteoric rise of Napoleon followed by a career that affected the world from the East Coast of the United States to the shores of the Indian Ocean.
The military weakness of the Qajars against the Russians and the tremendous loss of land their defeats entailed quickly detracted from the new dynasty’s aura and made the Iranian public long for a success story. A direct relationship can be discerned between these defeats and the continuing, indeed growing popularity of Nader Shah among Iranians, as exemplified in the more than fourteen editions that appeared of Astarabadi’s popular account of Nader’s life and exploits, the Jahan-gosha-ye Naderi.
The relationship between the reputation of Napoleon and that of Nader Shah in Iran—and Europe—seems something like a dialogic engagement: Napoleon saw himself as a latter-day Nader. Iranians, in turn, came to admire Napoleon as the strongman they themselves so sorely missed in the nineteenth century. Nader in due time and in good Orientalist fashion became known, first in Europe, then in Iran, as the Asian or Persian Napoleon; and, completing the cycle in an anti-Orientalist manner, Napoleon is now often called the European Nader Shah.
All indications are that Napoleon was greatly impressed with Nader Shah. It is almost certain that, as a young man, Napoleon read about Nader’s exploits, and it is likely that he identified with the story of a lad of humble origins who had risen to great heights through sheer will power and energy.
His Asian dreams—his own search for a heroic cause—are neatly summed up in his famous exclamation before a group of bickering German princes in 1804 to the effect that Europe had no longer anything to offer ambitious men, that only in the Orient great prestige and wealth could be acquired.
That Napoleon greatly admired Nader emerges from the record of Amédée Jaubert, the French Orientalist who in 1807 visited Iran to conclude a Franco-Iranian alliance. Jaubert carried a letter from Napoleon with him in which the French emperor, somewhat injudiciously in front of the rather sedentary Fath ‘Ali Shah, praised Nader Shah as a “great warrior, who was “able to conquer a great power,” who “struck the insurgents with terror and was fearsome to his neighbors, while he “triumphed over his enemies and reigned gloriously.”
It is also surely no coincidence that ‘Askar Khan Afshar, Fath ‘Ali Shah’s envoy to Paris in 1808, presented a copy of the Jahangosha-ye Naderi to the Imperial Library in Paris when he came to Paris the following year. L’Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, finally, was one of the books available to Napoleon during in years in exile on Saint Helena between 1815 and 1821.
Napoleon, in turn, made quite an impression in Iran—and a lasting one at that. He became and long remained a familiar figure in part because the country was part of his strategic vision, making him deal directly with its rulers by way of diplomacy. But the main reason for his enduring fame and popularity may have been the same as what made eighteenth-century Europeans look up to Nader Shah—because his strong character spoke to the imagination of the Iranians and projected something that they found missing in their own rulers. Mir ‘Abd al-Latif Khan Shushtari, an Iranian who seems to have imbibed some anti-French sentiments during his long stay in British India, nevertheless called Napoleon a leader who stood out for his organizational skills, his wisdom and his sophistication.
In Iran, meanwhile, the admiration for the French strongman was no less strong. John Malcolm, Britain’s first ambassador to Iran and the author of the first modern history of the country, relates how in 1810, Napoleon’s “name was familiar to numbers in Persia, and some few understood the character of his power.” An “old friend” of his, a poet and a philosopher, told Malcolm that, in his opinion, “this Buonaparte…is a wonderful man; he wields empires as if they were clubs.” Speculating that, after coming to terms with the Ottomans, this Western Chengiz Khan might take on Iran and Russia and then, “make use of both to overthrow your [British] power in India.”
Other Iranian officials were great admirers of Napoleon as well. ‘Abbas Mirza (1789–1833), crown prince, governor of Azerbaijan and Iran’s first modern reformer, was one. His newly constructed royal summer palace at Ujan near Soltaniya was decorated with four paintings, two of which represented the Russian Tsar, Alexander I, and Napoleon respectively.
Another one was Hajji Baba, a “prince” in Hamadan who, when Robert Cotton Money met him in 1824, “asked all about Napoleon,” and collected “all the anecdotes he could of him” because he seemed to adore his character. The third Qajar shah, Mohammad Shah (r. 1834-48) had his palace in Tehran “hung round with various prints of Napoleon, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria.”
Mohammad Shah is said to have been interested in acquiring a copy of the Life of Napoleon, with engravings of the emperor’s battles, and he ordered Mirza Reza Mohandes, who earlier had translated biographies of Peter I, Alexander the Great, and Charles XII into Persian, to produce a translation of a history of the French general, from an English rendering of an originally French work. Richard Khan, too, in 1869 translated A Brief History of Napoleon into Persian.
In the early twentieth century ‘Abbas Mirza Salar Lashkar, a.k.a. Nayeb al-Saltana, picked up a book titled Napoleon Ier et la Perse and decided to translate it into Persian.
As noted, the revised image of Nader, from usurper and brutal tyrant to savior of the nation, was greatly facilitated by widespread Iranian disappointment with the feeble Qajars, and further built, in a dialectical way, on the analogy with Napoleon. James Morier, British envoy and the author of the picaresque novel, Hajji Baba of Isfahan, in 1808 said about the Iranians that, “of Bonaparte, from the likeness of that of their own Nadir Shah, they have a very high idea.”
But the way in which the warlord was fashioned in the twentieth century was in some way a calque on the way Western authors and especially John Malcolm portrayed him. To Malcolm, Nader Shah was a force of nature, a brute who acted to purify the overripe, decadent civilization from which he himself sprang.
Where the Polish Jesuit Thadeusz Krusinski, an eyewitness to the fall of Isfahan in 1722, had seen the Afghans as barbarians who might be civilized by becoming acquainted with Persia’s superior culture, Malcolm saw in Nader Shah a volcanic force that had rejuvenated that same culture precisely by ridding it of Afghan primitivism. Malcolm saw Nader the way Edward Gibbon had seen Attila the Hun: as a great warrior and disciplinarian who had cleansed the land by liberating his people from the yoke of barbarians.
Full of admiration for Nader’s military prowess, Malcolm in a rather self-serving manner painted a redeeming portrait of the eighteenth-century empire builder, based on his anticipation of the unfolding of his own empire, that of the British. It is telling in this context that Malcolm did not dwell on the savagery that accompanied Nader’s subjugation of northern India and his sack of Delhi, thinking it greatly exaggerated. The bloodletting of the last few years of the warrior’s life he ascribed to creeping insanity.
Malcolm’s assessment would essentially offer the template for the later nationalist Iranian portrayal of Nader Shah. Of course, for this to have an impact on Iranian image making, Malcolm’s landmark book, A History of Persia (1815) first had to be translated into Persian.
This might have happened as early as the 1840s were it not for Naser al-Din Shah’s grand vizier and chief counselor Mirza Taqi Khan, better known as Amir Kabir who, wary of Malcolm’s less than flattering verdict on the Qajar dynasty, is said to have cautioned his master that “for Persians reading such a book is fatally poisonous.”
That does not seem to have deterred the monarch himself, for the shah apparently had A History of Persia read to him before going to sleep. At any rate, the acquaintance among the wider Iranian public with Malcolm’s take on Nader and Iranian history at large would have to wait until the 1870s, when a Persian translation of his book was undertaken.
Yet the work that resulted did not come out in Iran but in British-controlled Bombay and in the context of the new type of print culture that had developed in India under British auspices. Over time, this translation would become exceedingly popular.
Nader Shah in Modern Iranian Historiography
The fall of the Qajars in the 1920s and the rise of Reza Khan, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, inaugurated a new phase in the dialectical process of historiography with regard to Nader Shah. British foreign secretary Victor Mallet in 1925 insisted that Nader Shah was Reza Khan’s “great hero,” adding that he would not be surprised if the new ruler would model his career on that of Nader. The Iranian press at the time depicted the new ruler accordingly, as a national savior ready to rebuild the country and drive out the foreign intruders.
Just as the early Qajar historians had exorcised the previous regimes, including that of Nader, so the historians who came of age in the 1920s and 1930s followed the line of the new regime by decrying the stagnation and especially the loss of land their country had suffered because of the military weakness of the Qajars, which inevitably entailed a reevaluation of the last ruler who had stood for a strong and independent Iran—Nader Shah.
In the 1930s, as Reza Shah consolidated his power, military history and the single strong leader came to the fore to help create a usable past for a state increasingly built on authoritarian foundations. For historians writing in the reign of Reza Shah and his centralizing tendencies, Nader’s military career acquired a heightened significance for having reunified the nation—just like Iran’s current ruler.
In modern times, Nader has remained controversial in Iran. To some, he was just an uncultured tribal chieftain who delivered the coup de grace to the magnificent Safavid state. In modern Iran, where the great man, the one who keeps order and who can bring salvation by effecting the kind of change that no one else is willing to take responsibility for, continues to loom large, Nader Shah remains a hero.
“For many Iranians today, Nader’s military successes are justification in themselves and more than outweigh any brutalities that accompanied him.” Yet Nader remains an awkward fit for those who adhere to the dominant paradigm in modern Iranian history writing with its tendency to espouse a primordial nationalism that preaches an unbroken civilizational link between the Achaemenids and the Islamic Republic.
For some he remains the warrior who restored Iran’s pride by driving out the foreigners who had occupied the country, the Afghans, the Ottomans, and the Russians. Yet the deeply ingrained notion that Iranian civilization is one of “givers” is hard to reconcile with the sheer brutality and the outright imperialism culminating in Nader’s Indian campaign, which consequently, à la Malcolm, has to be presented as an aberration in an otherwise brilliant career.
Nader thus becomes the figure whose genius could have halted and even reversed the decline that had set in with the Afghan onslaught and the fall of the Safavids. In this scenario, after uniting Iran Nader could have done a lot to rebuild a great nation if he only he had cared about the welfare of the Iranian people. Instead, he lost his mind when he decided to invade India, and even the dividend of that campaign, a huge amount of treasure, was wasted.
A related yet slightly different interpretation connects Nader to the feeble awareness eighteenth-century Iranians evinced about the global changes and the sinister designs of foreigners on their country at the time. Nader, in this scenario, was too busy making war and thus did not take advantage of Western scientific and technological achievements and skills other than to seek European assistance in building a Persian-Gulf fleet—something the Safavids had never done.
For all his military brilliance, he also had no eye for the imperialist schemes of the Europeans. Indeed, to some, he even facilitated their imperialist project by offering the English East India Company reduced customs rates and seeking their assistance in building naval capacity. Even his Indian expedition benefited the British. By bringing home fabulous wealth from his Delhi campaign he acted as Trojan horse, increasing their business opportunities, and by opening up and weakening India he enabled the English to expand their long-term influence and domination in the subcontinent.
https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2018/matthee-nader-shah
----------------------------------
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaigns_of_Nader_Shah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_the_Mughal_Empire
-------------------------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/20-1739
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/nader_shah_of_iran_invades_delhi.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621397394
https://www.docdroid.net/p9hXcQI/o-toyrkmenos-nanter-sakhis-toy-iran-katalamvanei-to-delkhi-docx
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ σκοτώνει τον δράκοντα – ένα επικό-μυθικό στοιχείο στην Ιστορία της Ισλαμικής Τέχνης της Ασίας
===========
Η Ιστορία του Καυχησιάρη που πνίγηκε στο πηγάδι
Η Ιστορία του ανθρώπου που κρυφάκουγε
Σμικρογραφίες Χειρογράφων του Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ: ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ και οι Επτά Ομορφιές (Πριγκίπισσες)
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ενώπιον των απεικονίσεων των επτά πριγκιπισσών
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Ρωμιάς πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα ανοικτό καφέ.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Ινδής πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα μαύρο.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Βέρβερης πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα τυρκουάζ .
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Βέρβερης πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα τυρκουάζ (από άλλο χειρόγραφο)
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της πριγκίπισσας της Χωρασμίας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα πράσινο.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Τουρανής πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα κίτρινο.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Ιρανής πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα λευκό.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ακούει την αφήγηση της Ρωσσίδας (ή Σλαύας) πριγκίπισσας που είναι ντυμένη σε χρώμα κόκκινο .
Εθνικός Ποιητής των Αζέρων o Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί, Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ (Επτά Ομορφιές), κι η Αναζήτηση της Υπερβατικής Ομορφιάς Γαιών και Εθνών από τον Σάχη Μπαχράμ Γκουρ
Nezami Ganjavi, National Poet of the Azeris, his Haft Peykar (Seven Beauties) and the Search for the Transcendental Ebullience of Lands and Nations by the Shah Bahram Gur
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋραρκτάρης δημοσιεύει περίληψη ομιλίας μου (στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο 2019) αναφερόμενης στην υπερχρονική Κοσμογονία, Κοσμολογία και Εσχατολογία του Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί και στο τι αυτή σημαίνει για τα μεγάλα έθνη της Γης σήμερα ως αποκαλυπτική προφητεία. Αντίθετα από τις πρόχειρες ερμηνείες δυτικών οριενταλιστών, η ποίηση του Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί δεν έχει τίποτα το λυρικό ή ερωτικό, και οι αναφορές του στον Σασανίδη σάχη Μπαχράμ (Ουαραχράν Ε'; 420-438 τεμ) δεν είναι ούτε ιστορικές ούτε προσωπικές. Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ είναι ένα μυστι(κιστι)κό σύμβολο του Μεσσία-Μάχντι.
------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/01/εθνικός-ποιητής-των-αζέρων-o-νεζαμί-γκα/ ===================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Σε δύο πρότερα κείμενά μου αναφέρθηκα στον Φερντοουσί, εθνικό ποιητή Ιρανών και Τουρανών, και στο μνημειώδες έπος του Σαχναμέ (Βιβλίο των Βασιλείων), το οποίο ολοκληρωμένο στις αρχές του 11 ου αιώνα, επηρέασε την λογοτεχνία και την φιλοσοφία, την κοσμολογία και την εσχατολογία πολλών άλλων εθνών με την υπερχρονική θεώρηση του Είναι και του Γίγνεσθαι που εισήγαγε στην μυθολόγηση της Ιστορίας και στην εξιστόρηση του Μύθου. Στον ίδιο τον Φερντοουσί και στο Σαχναμέ θα επανέλθω, αλλά μέχρι τότε τα κείμενα εκείνα μπορείτε εδώ:
Το Σαχναμέ του Σάχη Ταχμάσπ (1524-1576): οι πιο Όμορφες Σμικρογραφίες Χειρογράφου στον Κόσμο
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/το-σαχναμέ-του-σάχη-ταχμάσπ-1524-1576-οι-πιο-όμ/
(πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/56206313/Το_Σαχναμέ_του_Σάχη_Ταχμάσπ_1524_1576_οι_πιο_Όμορφες_Σμικρογραφίες_Χειρογράφου_στον_Κόσμο)
Φερντοουσί, ο Παραδεισένιος: Εθνικός Ποιητής Ιρανών και Τουρανών, Θεμελιωτής του Νεώτερου Ευρασιατικού Πολιτισμού
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/φερντοουσί-ο-παραδεισένιος-εθνικός-π/
(πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/61682121/Φερντοουσί_ο_Παραδεισένιος_Εθνικός_Ποιητής_Ιρανών_και_Τουρανών_Θεμελιωτής_του_Νεώτερου_Ευρασιατικού_Πολιτισμού)
Τυπικό παράδειγμα επίδρασης του Φερντοουσί είναι τα πολλά και εκπληκτικά έπη του Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί, δηλαδή του Νεζαμί από την Γκάντζα του Αζερμπαϊτζάν, που είναι ο εθνικός ποιητής των Αζέρων και ο σημαντικώτερος υπερβατικός φιλόσοφος, επικός και λυρικός ποιητής, μυστικιστής και πάνσοφος πολυμαθής του Καυκάσου. Φίλος σάχηδων και ηγεμόνων, ο Νεζαμί Γκαντζαβί ασχολήθηκε γράφοντας ποίηση με θέματα ιστορικά, επιστημονικά και ηθικά.
Σήμερα, θα κάνω μια πρώτη αναφορά στο έπος του Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ, στο οποίο μέσα από συμβολισμούς κοσμολογικού κι εσχατολογικού χαρακτήρα ο Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί δίνει ολότελα άλλη διάσταση σε ένα προϊσλαμικό Σασανίδη σάχη και εξερευνά τις όψεις του κάλλους και της αισθητικής τελειότητας που αποτελούν την εγγύηση της άριστης βασιλείας.
Σμικρογραφία χειρογράφου του Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ
Ενδεικτικό μάλιστα της απήχησης της αζερικής επικής παράδοσης είναι ότι προ ετών χορογραφήθηκαν αποσπάσματα από το Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ και ανέβηκαν ως μπαλέτο. Στιγμιότυπα από το μπαλέτο θα δείτε στο βίντεο. Στο εισαγωγικό σημείωμα, σε ρωσσικά, αγγλικά κι ελληνικά, εξιστορώ διά βραχέων την υπόθεση του έπους. Περισσότερα μπορείτε να διαβάσετε παρακάτω είτε κατεβάζοντας επισυναπτόμενα άρθρα είτε πηγαίνοντας στους συνδέσμους που παραθέτω.
Βασικές αρτηρίες των Ιστορικών Δρόμων του Μεταξιού
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Низами Гянджеви, Хафт пейкар (Семь красавиц) 1197 Составлено как балет доктором Лорел Викторией Грей (Silk Road Dance Co)
https://www.ok.ru/video/1494107032173
Περισσότερα:
Основанный на эпической поэме Хафт пайкар («Семь красавиц»), написанной Низами Гянджеви, национальным поэтом азербайджанцев, фольклорный балет «Хафт пайкар» («Семь красавиц / Йедди Гезл рэкси»), составленный доктором Лорел Викторией Грей, был впервые показан в 2005 году. Настоящая версия из спектакля 2011 года приглашенных артистов (постановка танцевального ансамбля «Шелковый путь»).
«Семь краса́виц» (перс. هفت پیکر — Хафт пайкар) — четвёртая по счёту поэма классика персидской поэзии Низами Гянджеви из его сборника «Хамсе», написанная в 1197 году на персидском языке. В основу сюжета поэмы положена легенда о сасанидском шахе Бахрам Гуре (420—439 годы). Почти половину всей поэмы составляют семь рассказов жён Бахрама — царевен, живущих в семи дворцах (в шатрах), каждый из которых, в соответствии с древней мифологией, посвящён какой-либо планете и дню недели и имеет соответствующий цвет.
После смерти отца Бахрам возвращается в Персию и восходит на престол. Став царём, Бахрам предпринимает поиски семи принцесс и женится на них. Он приказывает архитектору построить семь величественных зданий — по одному для каждой из своих новых жён. Архитектор рассказывает Бахраму, что, согласно астрологии, каждой страной, или «климатом», то есть одним из семи «поясов», на которые разделена Земля, правит одна из семи планет, и даёт совет Бахраму украсить каждый из дворцов для его жён в оттенках цвета, с которым ассоциируется планета, правящая страной, откуда прибыла каждая из красавиц.
Вначале Бахрам относился скептически к предложению архитектора, но потом даёт согласие на такое оформление дворцов для своих жён. После завершения строительства принцессы поселяются в своих дворцах. Бахрам посещает каждую принцессу в определённый день недели.
Интересно, что Бахрам является к принцессам в одеянии цвета их дворца. Каждая из принцесс рассказывает царю свою историю, которая соответствует определённому настроению и её соответствующему цвету. Сюжет каждой новеллы — любовное переживание, причём, в соответствии с переходом от чёрного цвета к белому, грубая чувственность сменяется духовно просветлённой любовью. Некоторые видят в этом переходе мистический путь, который должна пройти человеческая душа от мрака к чистоте, к божеству.
Соответственно этому царь, проходя этот путь, обретал высокие душевные качества. Впоследствии, испытав горечь поражения, предательство и другие невзгоды, он из любителя приключений превращается в достойного и справедливого правителя.
Таким образом, вторая тематическая линия поэмы — превращение Бахрама из легкомысленного царевича в справедливого и умного правителя, борющегося с произволом и насилием.
Проходят годы. Пока царь был занят своими жёнами, один из его визирей захватил власть в стране. Неожиданно Бахрам обнаруживает, что дела в его царстве в беспорядке, казна пуста, а соседние правители собираются на него напасть. Расследовав деяния министра, Бахрам приходит к выводу, что тот виновен в бедах, постигших царство.
Он приговаривает злодея-министра к смертной казни и восстанавливает справедливость и порядок в своей стране. После этого Бахрам приказывает превратить семь дворцов своих жён в семь зороастрийских храмов для поклонения Богу, а сам Бахрам отправляется на охоту и исчезает в глубокой пещере.
Пытаясь найти дикого осла (гур), Бахрам находит свою могилу (гур).
Μαυσωλείο του Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί στην Γκάντζα του Αζερμπαϊτζάν
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Nizami Ganjavi, Haft Paykar (Seven Beauties) 1197 Composed as Ballet by Dr. Laurel Victoria Gray (Silk-Road Dance Co)
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240286
Περισσότερα:
Based on the epic Haft Peykar (Seven Beauties) written by Nizami Ganjavi, who is the national poet of the Azeris, the folkloric ballet Haft Paykar (Seven Beauties / Yeddi Gözəl rəqsi) composed by Dr. Laurel Victoria Gray premiered in 2005. The present version is from the 2011 performance of special guest artists invited by the Silk Road Dance Company.
Haft Peykar (Farsi: هفت پیکر) also known as Bahramnameh (بهرامنامه, The Book of Bahram, referring to the Sasanian king Bahram Gur) is a romantic epic by Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi written in 1197.
This poem is a part of the Nizami’s Khamsa. The original title in Persian Haft Peykar can be translated literally as “seven portraits” with the figurative meaning of “seven beauties”.
The poet starts by giving an account of the birth of Bahram and his upbringing in the court of the Arab king al-Nu’man and his fabled palace Khwarnaq. Bahram whose upbringing is entrusted to al-Nu’man becomes a formidable huntsman.
While wandering through the fabled palace, he discovers a locked room which contains a depiction of seven princesses; hence the name Haft Paykar (seven beauties).
Each of these princesses is from the seven different climes (traditional Zoroastrian division of the Earth) and he falls in love with them. His father Yazdegerd 1st passes away and Bahram returns to Iran to claim his throne from pretenders. After some episodes he is recognized as shah and rescues the Iranians from a famine.
Once the country is stable, the shah searches for the seven princesses and wins them as his brides. His architect is ordered to construct seven domes for each of his new brides.
The architect tells him that each of the seven climes is ruled by one of the seven planets (classical planetary system of Zoroastrian world) and advises him to assure good fortune by adorning each dome with the color that is associated with each clime and planet. Bahram is skeptical but follows the advice of the architect.
The princesses take up residence in the splendid pavilions. On each visit, the shah visits the princesses on successive days of the week; on Saturday the Indian princess, who is governed by Saturn and so on.
The princesses names are Furak (Nurak), the daughter of the Rajah of India, as beautiful as the moon; Yaghma Naz, the daughter of the Khaqan of the Turks; Naz Pari, the daughter of the king of Khwarazm; Nasrin Nush, the daughter of the king of the Slavs; Azarbin (Azareyon), the daughter of the king of Morocco; Humay, the daughter of the Roman Caesar; and Diroste (wholesome), a beautiful Iranian princess from the House of Kay Kavus.
Each princess relates to the shah a story matching the mood of her respective color. These seven beautifully constructed, highly sensuous stories occupy about half of the whole poem. While the shah is busy with the seven brides, his evil minister seizes power in the realm.
Bahram discovers that the affairs of Iran are in disarray, the treasury is empty and the neighboring rulers are posed to invade. He clears his mind first by going hunting.
After returning from hunt, he sees a suspended dog from a tree. The owner of the dog, who was shepherd, tells the story of how his faithful watchdog had betrayed his flock to a she-wolf in return for sexual favors.
He starts investigating the corrupt minister and from the multitude of complaints, he selects seven who tell him the injustice they have suffered.
The minister is subsequently put to death and Bahram restores justice and orders the seven pleasure-domes to be converted to fire temples for the pleasure of God.
Bahram then goes hunting for the last time but mysteriously disappears. As a pun on words, while trying to hunt the wild ass (gūr) he instead finds his tomb (gūr).
Nizami Museum of Azerbaijan Literature, Baku
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Νεζαμί-Γκαντζεβί, Χαφτ Πεϊκάρ (Επτά Ομορφιές) 1197 Αποδομένο σε Μπαλέτο – Dr. Laurel Victoria Gray
Περισσότερα:
Βασισμένο στο επικό-λυρικό ποίημα Χαφτ Πεϊκάρ (Επτά Ομορφιές) του εθνικού ποιητή των Αζέρων Νιζαμί Γκαντζαβί (1141–1209), το φολκλορικό μπαλέτο Haft Paykar: Seven Beauties – Yeddi Gözəl rəqsi συντέθηκε από την χορογράφο κι ιστορικό χορού Dr. Laurel Victoria Gray και παρουσιάστηκε για πρώτη φορά το 2005. Στο βίντεο βλέπουμε αποσπάσματα από την παραγωγή και παράσταση του 2011 που ανέβασε η Silk Road Dance Company.
Το ποίημα Χαφτ Πεϊκάρ (φαρσί هفت پیکر) γράφηκε το 1197 κι αναφέρεται στις αναζητήσεις του κάλλους γαιών και εθνών εκ μέρους του Σάχη Μπαχράμ Γκουρ. Συμβατικά μεταφράζεται σαν ‘ομορφιές’ ή ‘beauties’ ή ακόμη και ‘πριγκίπισσες’ αλλά η λέξη ‘πεϊκάρ’ στα περσικά σημαίνει ‘σώμα’, ‘ομοίωμα’, ‘πορτρέτο’ ή ακόμη και ‘μορφή’.
Κατά το υπερβατικό, μυστηριακό και φιλοσοφικό αυτό ποίημα, στις περιηγήσεις του ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ, ενόσω είναι ακόμη ο διάδοχος του θρόνου, ανακαλύπτει ένα μυθικό ανάκτορο και καταφέρνει να μπεί σε ένα κλειδωμένο δωμάτιο όπου υπάρχουν επτά απεικονίσεις ωραίων πριγκιπισών. Η κάθε μια τους αντιστοιχεί σε μια χώρα και σε ένα έθνος και αναλογεί σε μια διαφορετική ημέρα της εβδομάδας και σε ένα διαφορετικό χρώμα.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ερωτεύεται και τις επτά πριγκίπισες αλλά πρέπει να επιστρέψει στο Ιράν, όπου πεθαίνει ο σάχης πατέρας του, ανέρχεται ο ίδιος στον θρόνο και περνάει κάποιο διάστημα μέχρις ότου βάλει τα πράγματα σε μια τάξη. Τότε ως Σάχης ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ ψάχνει και βρίσκει τις πριγκίπισσες και ζητάει από τον αρχιτέκτονά του να ανεγείρει ένα ανάκτορο με επτά θόλους, ένα για την κάθε νύφη του.
Ο αρχιτέκτονας του λέει ότι πρέπει να βρεθεί η αντιστοιχία της καταγωγής των πριγκιπισών με τους επτά πλανήτες, τις ημέρες της εβδομάδας και τα σωστά χρώματα. Έτσι λοιπόν ορίζεται η εξής αντστοιχία και αναφέρονται τα ονόματα των πριγκιπισών:
Φουράκ – Ινδή Πριγκίπισσα – Κρόνος – Σάββατο – μαύρο
Γιάγμα Ναζ – Τουρανή Πριγκίπισσα – Ήλιος – Κυριακή – κίτρινο
Ναζ Παρί – Πριγκίπισσα της Χωρασμίας – Σελήνη – Δευτέρα – πράσινο
Νασρίν Νους – Ρωσσίδα (ή Σλαύα) Πριγκίπισσα – Άρης – Τρίτη – κόκκινο
Αζαρμπίν – Βέρβερη Πριγκίπισσα – Ερμής – Τετάρτη – τυρκουάζ
Χουμάυ – Ρωμιά Πριγκίπισσα – Δίας – Πέμπτη – σανταλόξυλο (ανοικτό καφέ)
Ντιροστέ – Ιρανή Πριγκίπισσα – Αφροδίτη – Παρασκευή – λευκό
Στη συνέχεια, οι επτά πριγκίπισες εγκαθίστανται στο μεγαλειώδες ανάκτορο, και κάθε πριγκίπισσα αφηγείται και μια διαφορετική ιστορία στον Σάχη Μπαχράμ Γκουρ κατά τις ημερήσιες επισκέψεις του στην κάθε μία από αυτές.
Αυτές οι επτά ιστορίες υπερβατικού έρωτα για το Απόλυτο καταλαμβάνουν την μισή έκταση περίπου του όλου έπους. Στην διάρκεια αυτών των αφηγήσεων όμως η χώρα του Σάχη αναστατώνεται από την κακή διοίκηση, τα ταμεία αδειάζουν, και τα γειτονικά κράτη είναι έτοιμα να επιτεθούν.
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ πρώτα καθαρίζει το μυαλό του απασχολούμενος σε ένα κυνήγι. Όταν γυρίζει, βλέπει σε ένα δέντρο κρεμασμένο ένα σκύλο. Ο τσομπάνος, στον οποίο ανήκε ο σκύλος, αφηγείται στον επιστρέφοντα Σάχη πως ο σκύλος του τον επρόδωσε παρασυρόμενος από το πάθος του για μια λύκαινα.
Για να εκδικάσει τον βεζύρη (πρωθυπουργό) του για την κακοδιοίκηση ακροάται επτά άτομα που του αφηγούνται πως από την κακή διοίκηση έγιναν θύματα. Έπειτα, ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ εκτελεί τον κακό βεζύρη, μετατρέπει το ανάκτορο των επτά θόλων σε επτά ναούς, και φεύγει για ένα τελευταίο κυνήγι όπου και χάνεται για πάντα.
Ο ποιητής κάνει ένα λογοπαίγνιο λέγοντας ότι, προσπαθώντας να κυνηγήσει τον όναγρο (γκουρ) ο Σάχης έφθασε μπροστά στον τάφο (γκουρ) του. Η ίδια λεξη στα φαρσί έχει δύο νοήματα. Στην ιρανική και τουρανική παιδεία, ο Μπαχράμ έμεινε γνωστός ως Μπαχράμ ο Όναγρος (γκουρ).
Βεβαίως το επικό-λυρικό ποίημα είναι γεμάτο κοσμολογικών, μεσσιανικών, σωτηριολογικών κι εσχατολογικών συμβολισμών. Όπως συχνά συμβαίνει και στην περίπτωση του Φερντοουσί, του εθνικού ποιητή των Ιρανών και των Τουρανών, ο Σαχης Μπαχράμ Γκουρ του έπους Χαφτ Πεκάρ δεν είναι αυτό τούτο το ιστορικό πρόσωπο, ο Μπαχράμ Ε’ (420-438 / σε μέσα περσικά: Ουαραχράν και Ουαχράμ) της σασανιδικής δυναστείας, όπως αυτός είναι γνωστό
ς μέσω των συγχρόνων του ιστορικών κειμένων. Πρόκειται για μυθολογογημένο πρόσωπο που επιλέγεται με βάση κάποια από τα καθοριστικά χαρακτηριστικά του ιστορικού Σασανίδη σάχη. Άλλωστε, ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ είχε επίσης μυθολογηθεί (μέσα σε άλλες ιστορίες) από τον Φερντοουσί (που πέθανε περίπου 120 χρόνια πριν γεννηθεί ο Νιζαμί Γκαντζαβί) στο Σαχναμέ και αργότερα (μέσα σε επίσης διαφορετικές ιστορίες) από τον Αμίρ Χουσράου (εθνικό ποιητή των Ινδών που γεννήθηκε 50 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Νιζαμί Γκαντζαβί) στο Χαστ Μπεχέστ (Οκτώ Παράδεισοι).
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ στο κυνήγι
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ και η Φίτνε, μία σκλάβα που εκτρέφει μία αγελάδα
=============================
Διαβάστε:
Haft Peykar
Haft peykar, a famous romantic epic by Nezami of Ganja (Neẓāmi Ganjavi) from the last decade of the 6th/12th century. The title can be translated literally as “seven portraits,” but also with the figurative meaning of “seven beauties.” Both translations are meaningful and the poet doubtless exploited intentionally the ambiguity of the words.
Editions and translations
The Haft peykar has come down to us as part of the Ḵamsa, the posthumous collection of Nezami’s narrative poems. A critical edition of the Haft peykar was produced by Helmut Ritter and Jan Rypka (Prague, printed Istanbul, 1934) on the basis of fifteen Ḵamsa manuscripts and the Bombay lithograph of 1265. This is one of the very few editions of a classical Persian text that uses a strict text-critical methodology: the editors divided the principal manuscripts into two families (called ‘a’ and ‘b’). Only those verses shared by both families are regarded as authentic.
The ‘b’ family is taken as the main basis for the edition, with those verses missing in the ‘a’ family printed in square brackets. The verses specific to the ‘a’ family are printed in the critical apparatus. More recently, the Haft peykar was re-edited by the Azerbayjani scholar T. A. Magerramov (Maharramov) (Moscow, 1987).
This edition quotes variants from fourteen manuscripts, the Ritter/Rypka edition and the uncritical edition by Waḥīd Dastgerdī (Tehran, 1315 Š./1936 and reprints), but Magerramov made no attempt to divide the manuscripts into families and in this regard his version is a step backwards from the Prague edition. There is also an edition by Barāt Zanjāni (Tehran, 1373 Š./1994), but the present writer has not been able to consult it. In the following, all references are to chapter and line of the Prague edition.
Ο Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί γίνεται δεκτός από τον Κιζίλ Αρσλάν, τον Κιπτσάκ Τουρανό ηγεμόνα (αταμπέκ) του Αζερμπαϊτζάν
There are three complete translations in western European languages. First, the one in very rough English “blank verse” by C. E. Wilson (The Haft paikar, 2 vols., London, 1924, with extensive notes), wherein the post-Victorian translator felt compelled to render a fairly large number of verses in Latin; second, an Italian prose version by A. Bausani (Le sette principesse, Bari, 1967), based on the critical edition by Ritter/Rypka, with omission of the bracketed verses; and finally an English version by J. S. Meisami (The Haft Paykar, a medieval Persian Romance, Oxford and New York, 1995), in “free verse” (partially rhymed, partially in near-rhymes, partially unrhymed) based on the Ritter/Rypka edition (but retaining the bracketed verses).
There are also versions in Russian prose (R. Aliyev, Baku, 1983) and verse (V. Derzhavin, Moscow, 1959 and reprints). Of the various partial translations it might suffice to mention the one by R. Gelpke in very elegant German prose (Die sieben Geschichten der sieben Prinzessinnen, Zurich, 1959), also in English metatranslation by E. Mattin and G. Hill (The Story of the Seven Princesses, Oxford, 1976).
Date and dedication
The Haft peykar is probably Nezami’s last work. The manuscripts of the superior ‘b’ recension contain a dedication to the ruler of Marāḡa, ʿAlāʾ-al-Dīn Körpe-Arslān b. Aq-Sonqor (he is named in V. 12), who is known to have died in 604/1208 (see Storey/de Blois V, p. 441, n. 2), and the date of completion is indicated in LIII, 63-64 with the words: “three conjunctions after five hundred and ninety I recited this book like the famous (poets of the past), on the fourteenth day of the month of fasting, when four hours of the day were complete,” evidently meaning on 14 Ramadan 593 (early August 1197).
This is probably correct. But the manuscripts of the ‘a’ recension have altered (or miscopied?) the name of the dedicatee to Qïzïl Arslān, retained the verse giving the day, month and hour of completion, but altered the year to “after ṯā (variant: tā) and ṣād and ḥē” i.e., either “after 498” (which is much too early) or “after 598/1202.”
Ο Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί γίνεται δεκτός από τον Τουρανό ηγεμόνα (αταμπέκ) του Αζερμπαϊτζάν
Synopsis of the frame-story
The Haft peykar is a romanticized biography of the Sassanian ruler Bahrām-e Gūr. His adventurous life had already been treated in Persian verse by Ferdowsi in the Šāh-nāma, to which fact Nezami alludes a number of times. In general, his method is to omit those episodes that the earlier poet had treated, or to touch on them only very briefly, and to concentrate in new material.
After the customary long introductory sections, the poet gives an account of the birth of Bahrām, the often-told story of his upbringing at the court of the Arab king Noʿmān (here, as often, mislocated in the Yemen instead of al-Ḥira) and the construction of Noʿmān’s fabled palace, Ḵᵛarnaq. Reared in the desert, Bahrām becomes a formidable huntsman. Wandering through the palace, Bahrām discovers a locked room containing the portraits of seven princesses, one from each of the seven climes, with whom he immediately falls in love.
Bahrām’s father Yazdjerd (i.e. Yazdegerd I) dies, and Bahrām returns to Persia to claim his throne from a pretender. After much palaver he is recognized as king. He rescues his people from a famine. Next Nezami picks up the story of Bah-rām’s hunting expedition with the loose-tongued slave-girl Feṭna, but alters the version known from the Šāh-nāma considerably; here the girl is not put to death, but eventually pardoned, and the king learns a lesson in clemency.
The king sets out in search of the seven princesses and wins them as his brides. He orders his architect to construct seven domes to house his new wives. The craftsman tells him that each of the climes is ruled by one of the seven planets and advises him to assure his good fortune by adorning each dome with the color associated with the clime and planet of its occupant. The king is at first skeptical but eventually lets the architect have his way. The princesses take up residence in the splendid pavilions.
The king visits each princess on successive days of the week: on Saturday the Indian princess, who is governed by Saturn, in the black dome, on Sunday the Greek princess, who is governed by the sun, in the yellow dome, and so on. Each princess regales the king with a story matching the mood of her respective color. These seven beautifully constructed, highly sensuous stories occupy about half of the whole poem.
Years pass. While the king is busy with his wives an evil minister seizes power in the realm. Eventually Bahrām discovers that the affairs of the kingdom are in disarray, the treasury is empty and the neighboring rulers poised for invasion. To clear his mind, he goes hunting in the steppe. Returning from the hunt he comes across a herdsman who has suspended his dog from a tree. He asks him why. The shepherd tells the story of how the once faithful watchdog had betrayed his flock to a she-wolf in return for sexual favors.
The king realizes that his own watchdog (the evil minister) is the cause of his misfortune. He investigates the minister. From the multitude of complainants he selects seven, who tell him of the injustices that they have suffered (the stories of the seven victims are the somber counterweight to the stories of the seven princesses). The minister is put to death. The king restores justice, and orders the seven pleasure-domes to be converted into fire temples for the worship of God. Bahrām goes hunting one last time and disappears mysteriously into a cavern. He seeks the wild ass (gūr) but finds his tomb (gūr).
General characteristics
In his introduction to the critical edition, Ritter described the Haft peykar as “the best and most beautiful epic in New Persian poetry and at the same time . . . one of the most important poetical creations of the whole of oriental Indo-European literature,” a judgment with which it is difficult to disagree. The poet made artful use of various older sources, among them the Šāh-nāma and other versions of ancient Iranian history and legend, also the Siāsat-nāma of Neẓām-al-Molk, from which he took the crucial story of the shepherd and his unfaithful dog.
It is possible that the seven stories told by the princesses derive from earlier works, but it has not actually been possible to trace any of them to known literary sources. Nezami’s telling of the stories has in any event had great influence on the later development of Persian literature and world literature; for example the story told by the fourth (Russian) beauty is the oldest known, and arguably best, version of the tale of the cruel princess who is unnamed in Nezami’s version, but known in Pétis de la Croix’s translation of a later retelling as Turāndoḵt (Turandot; see, e.g., Meier).
Nezami’s Haft peykar is a masterpiece of erotic literature, but it is also a profoundly moralistic work. In some modern studies it has been regarded more or less as a versified treatise on astrology, but this is a misapprehension. The point of the story is clearly that Bahrām’s attempt to find happiness by living in accordance with the stars is a failure.
The seven domes are built in perfect accord with the properties of the stars, but they are very nearly the cause of his downfall. In the end it is only justice that matters. Only by abandoning the pleasures represented by the seven domes and heeding the complaints of the seven victims of tyranny does Bahrām acquire the status of a true hero.
And the essentially anti-fatalistic message is underlined by the story of the second (Greek) princess, which tells of a king who, because of an unhappy horoscope, had foresworn marriage, but then is led by the selfless love of a slave-girl to defy the astrologers and take his fate in his own hands.
Although there are mystic (Sufic) traits in the narrative (notably in the story of the seventh victim) it is also misguided to regard it, with some, as a Sufic allegory. It is a work of art that is very firmly rooted in this world, and its ethical content is of essentially worldly, not religious, nature.
Μπορείτε να βρείτε την αναφερόμενη βιβλιογραφία εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/haft-peykar
======================
Περισσότερα:
A Key to the Treasure of the Hakim – Christine van Ruymbeke & Johann-Christoph Bürgel (eds.)
Κατεβάστε το Pdf με πολλά άρθρα ειδικών σχετικά με τον Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί και το έπος Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ:
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620827883
https://www.docdroid.net/Y6MroCn/key-to-the-treasure-of-the-hakim-on-nizami-khamsa-pdf
Cameron Cross The Many Colors of Love in Niẓāmī’s Haft Paykar
Κατεβάστε το Pdf:
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620829460
https://www.docdroid.net/OUB35qe/cameron-cross-the-many-colors-of-love-in-nizamis-haft-paykar-pdf
Δείτε σμικρογραφίες άλλου χειρογράφου του Χαφτ Πεϋκάρ: https://findit.library.yale.edu/?f%5Blanguage_sim%5D%5B%5D=Persian&f%5Bsubject_topic_sim%5D%5B%5D=Persian+poetry
Επίσης:
https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=408542
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/nizami/hpaykar.htm
http://azeribooks.narod.ru/poezia/nizami/sem_krasavits.htm
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семь_красавиц
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haft_Peykar
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Низами_Гянджеви
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizami_Ganjavi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahram_V
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бахрам_V
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khusrow
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сакалиба
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
==============================
Σχετικά με τις παραστάσεις μπαλέτου Χαφτ Πεϊκάρ:
Haft Paykar: Seven Beauties Dance Concert
February 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM
INTERSECTIONS: New America Arts Festival
WASHINGTON DC PREMIERE!
This epic romance is a visual treat, taking viewers to seven different cultures.
Based on the 12th century poem by Nizami Ganjavi, the tale tells of the young warrior Bahram Gur, who enters a mysterious, locked room to discover the portraits of seven beautiful princesses, each from a different land.
After he wins a kingdom and achieves great wealth and power, he remembers the maidens and sets out on a quest to bring each to his kingdom, commissioning the architect Shideh to build seven domed structures – one for each bride
http://www.silkroaddance.com/2011.html
Περισσότερα για τους συντελεστές και παραγωγούς της παράστασης:
https://www.facebook.com/HaftPaykar
http://www.laurelvictoriagray.com/
http://www.silkroaddance.com/
=============================
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε PDF:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/o-250655546
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/nezami_ganjavi
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620935781
https://www.docdroid.net/8Lza618/ethnikos-poiitis-ton-azeron-o-nezami-gkantzevi-xaft-peykar-epta-omorfies-pdf