Which faction would be...

[Persian Warrior]

... considered the most as Persian or Iranian? I already know of the Khwarezm Shah but since technically they are Turkic I was wondering if there was a better choice.

[allenguy007]

Sultanate of Ghazni.

[Fenix_120]

The Khwarezm Shah was ruling over most of Persia.


And I think every unit who's name starts with "Persian" is in the Khwar's roster.

Hope this helps.


@ Allenguy:


I think Ghanzi has more Turkish style troops than the Khwar's.

[Persian Warrior]

What about the Ghorid Sultanate? They're Tajik aren't they? Personally I don't like the Khwarezm very much

[Ahiga]

There were no "Iranian" Dynasties at this point in history, the previous major three following the Muslim Conquests having passed (Samanids, Buyids, and Saffarids).

Ghazni is the closest militarily to the old Khorasani Iranian Dynasties, with their focus on armored cavalry with bow and mace and armored spearmen & archers. They are also one of the most thoroughly Persian in culture. Ghazni's Turkishness was like the Norman's Vikingness.

Ghorids were ruled by Tajiks, and were a mixture of Tajiks, Afghans, and Turkish Ghulams.

So I'd say Ghazni.

[ShayanMirza]

Afraid Persians have had very few kingdoms relative to the Turkic dynasties in Iran since...well, since the Turks showed up. Persian culture has always reigned in these Turkic dynasties, but if you're looking for ethnic Persian dynasties you'd have to go back a few hundred years. As for Khwarezm, they read the Shahnameh in court if that means anything, and did a great deal to perpetuate Persian culture. Furthermore, most of the bureaucracy was Tajik.

Not many kingdoms historically would fit the mold of a Persian nationalist kinda thing--history rarely does.

[Persian Warrior]

I realized that since, if I recall correctly, the next "real" Persian Dynasty was the Safavids, I wanted to know what would be that CLOSEST to one. So I guess the Khwarezm or the Ghaznavids would be closest. Since I don't like Khwarzem I guess I'll go with the Ghaznavids. Thanks for all your help guys.

[ShayanMirza]

Safavids were, in all likelihood, Turkic in origin too...

[Kennylz]

I realized that since, if I recall correctly, the next "real" Persian Dynasty was the Safavids, I wanted to know what would be that CLOSEST to one. So I guess the Khwarezm or the Ghaznavids would be closest. Since I don't like Khwarzem I guess I'll go with the Ghaznavids. Thanks for all your help guys.

You don't like the Khwarzem yet you sport their sig. Interesting.

[anaztazioch]

I would go with Abbassid and Khwarezm for Iranian/Persian army.Persia was conquered by muslim armies quite early after prophet Muhammad.
Fars are Iranians, i think thats 4 or 5 units in Abbassid roster.
Khwarezm has Diquan lancers, 3 types Daylamy infantry, Tajik militia, Persian archers, Persian spearmans.
Ghaznivids only has Khorossan infantry and cav. Also Seljuk tribe has its origins in Afghan hills i think.

[Persian Warrior]

@ShayanMirza
Really? I didn't think they were Turkic...
Anyways I don't know I guess I'll just go with Khwarzem.

[Heinz Guderian]

Why did Persia change its name to Iran post ww2?

[Faris ad Din]

DOH! (Apologies for the "doh," but you'll see what I mean. It's pretty shocking. ) The Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi (not to be confused with his son MOHAMMAD Reza Pahlavi), was an admirer of Hitler and the Nazi regime. He renamed Persia "Iran," "Land of the Aryans," in accordance with his regime falling in the Nazi's circuit of influence.

In 1921, Reza Khan overthrew the weakening Qajar Dynasty and became Shah. Reza Shah initiated industrialization, railroad construction, and the establishment of a national education system. Reza Shah sought to balance Russian and British influence, but when World War II started, his nascent ties to Germany alarmed Britain and Russia.

Further article just found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_naming_dispute

The change was in 1935, two years after the Führer took power.

The name "Persia" until 1935 was the "official" name of Iran in the Western world, but Persian people inside their country since the Sassanid period (226–651 A.D.) have called it "Iran" meaning "the land of Aryans". The Proto-Iranian term for Iran is reconstructed as *Aryānām (the genitive plural of the word *Arya) and the Avestan equivalent is "Airyanem" (as in Airyanem Vaejah).

In 1935 Reza Shah asked foreign countries to use "Iran" in other languages as well. Some believe he made this decision in order to be closer to Germany, by trying to emphasize the Aryan connection between Hitler's idealistic German Aryan race and the Persian Aryan race, given that "Iran" means "land of Aryans", at a time where the German empire was slowly becoming an unstoppable superpower. Some other believed he changed "Persia" to "Iran" to present a new and modern face of the country in the world.

Bleh, so it may be the other way around. Hitler may have even taken some Aryan ideas from Persian culture for his own uses first. "Iran" was around for a long time.

[Heinz Guderian]

Nazis. Those jackboots got around.

[ShayanMirza]

NO! LET ME REPEAT, NO!

Iran has been called Iran for thousands of years. I am no Persian nationalist but Faris, that is competely off. He didn't change the name, he simply asked that it be called what its inhabitants were already calling it.

Please,
PLEASE,
do not associate a wonderful nation's name with one idiot who had a man-crush on Hitler.

[Heinz Guderian]

Makes more sense.

[mastaace]

Ha finally something i know. The aryans are one of europes oldest people, and as all indo-european people (science is not 100% sure, but who can about history that is that long ago?) there origin lies in todays Ukraine and west-russia. they headed to the east, where they settled in todays Iran, some of them got down to India, a reason why the indian language is related to our european languages. they were indeed, as semite (assyrian, median, etc) sources tell, blonde people with blue eyes, as hitler told. but in that way he assumed they were neither germans nor the ancestors of all (northern) europeans, they never really got there! this is, as shayan said, thousands of years ago (don't have any exact dates right now, but i have a book on that theme, i could post exact dates and stuff if somebody is interested.)

so, Iran is really related to the Aryans (Iran=Land of the Aryans), but not the little austrian conceived of that but the people who lived side by side with them, or better to say lived in fear of them. They were one of the first nomadic tribes to fall into the orient. i'm not sure about the people who lived there at that time, but it is possible that it was just sumerian culture...:hmmm:

i do not claime complete correctness, but the main frame is true.

[ShayanMirza]

Incidentally, one interesting fact few people know:

The Pahlavis weren't ethnic Persians.

Reza Shah was Mazandarani, an Iranian group, but not Persian.

Mohammad Reza Shah was half Mazandarani, half Azeri.

Surprise!

[Qarama]

I would say that the Khwarezm empire was a turco-persian empire not only turkish nor persian. During the Seljuq empire the persian culture had it's golden age after hundred of years. So we can say that Turks and Persians were good partners

[ShayanMirza]

Of course! A killer combo, Turkish warriors and Persian culture--worked for Indian, Persian, and Anatolian empires for almost a millennium.

For more info on the subject, get the book "Turco-Persia in Historical Perspective." It has great essays by leading scholars in the field of Central Asian Studies.