Talk:Bazrangids

Mistake
I apologize for the error. Please either delete this article or convert the title from "Asanians" to "Sassanians". It would be nice to have a page that discusses specifically about the Persian Sassanians (even though the Sassanid Empire article has a plethora of information). Just so readers know, I found the word "Asanians" on the Names of the Greeks article. Thank you. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 11, 2006 1:20 P.M. EST

Kurdish tribe
Is there any proof for this claim?! In addition to the fact that the word "Barzang" is an East-Iranian word (barezayå, barezâ, barezanghat - 9 (G) f. height; a mountain (k369)), there is no information about this clan in the Encyclopaedia Iranica:. Instead, the word "Bartangi" is linked to Eastern Iranian languages. I think someone has confused the name "Barzangi" with the Kurdish tribe "Barzani".

Tajik 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the mistake. The dynasty was called "Bazrangi" and NOT "Barzangi" ... and they were not Kurdish either. Tajik 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bareza and its similar derivations are not [only] east Iranian. it is common in northwestern Iranian languages.
 * The name of Barzani Kurds likely has a non-Iranic etymology.
 * There is also a Kurdish group by the name of Barzanji (Barzanji). Ellipi (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the content if this article is completely untrue and made up
This article completely lacks of sources. The content «By the end of the 1st century BC, most of the islands of East Africa were annexed by the Bazrangids. These islands entailed Socotra, Zanzibar, Pemba, Mafia, Combolo/Comoros and Madagascar.» is completely untrue and made up.

About Iranian peoples in East Africa during pre-Islamic times: «No remains which show any Roman, or pre-Islamic South Arabian, influence have been found. It cannot conclusively be shown that any of the reputed finds of Hellenistic or Roman coins were mede in situ in Africa; the excavations by J.S. Kirkman at Ras Mkumbuu (Ndagoni) on Pemba Island, the only reputerd find-spot investigated archaeologically, make it almost certain that the coins supposed to have come frome that place did not in fact do so. Neville Chittick Journal of African History, IV, 1963, pp 179-190 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537%281963%294%3A2%3C179%3AKATASO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage»

See also «The Sasanians in Africa by Matteo Compareti - http://www.transoxiana.org/0104/sasanians.html» and the review made by Karin Mosig-Walburg - http://abstractairanica.revues.org/document4341.html «Il ne veut pas exclure la possibilité de contacts avec un royaume d’Afrique à partir du règne de Narsê, mais cette supposition n’est pas acceptable: l’inscription de Paikuli à laquelle il renvoie ne peut pas en servir de témoignage»

Lurre 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lurre (talk • contribs).

I think this article should be deleted. --201.228.212.47 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this even real?
I find this article a little bit hard to believe. So a tribe from Iran founded every city in Zanzibar and created a massive empire which stretched from East Africa to the Philippines (and even to China)? So why does Google turn up less than 100 results (when you subtract the Wiki derivations)? I'm not saying this is made-up, but I would like some (preferably English or French) sources to confirm the extraordinary claims made in this article.rcduggan (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is nonsense and should be deleted, places like Madagascar weren't found by Bazrangids/Iranic people, the Malay/Indonesian influence in Madagascar is far greater than the later Arab, Persian and Somali muslim traders influences. --Scoobycentric (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am old 201.228.212.47 and have deleted everything except for the most evident. It's better to exclude any unverified information until some evidence is found than leaving it there, specially since this along with the Kilwa Empire article seems to be all "original research". I would recommend eliminating that article, too, for the same reasons, something that I'm obviously unable to do. It just unacceptable that so many lying is left there lingering for literally years without serious action, specially when the main Sassanid Empire article leads directly to it! Worst of all, it is considered both a C-Rated article and of Mid-Importance. --190.157.75.155 (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)