Talk:Hotaki dynasty/Archive 1

Persian Cromwell
En-1724-0035
 * 1)  The Persian Cromwell: Being An Account of the Life and Surprizing Atchievements and Successes of Miri-Ways, Great Duke of Candahar and Protector of the Persian Empire. Written by a Swedish Officer who, for many Years, was Domestick Slave to Miri-Ways. London: Printed for W. Mears and J. Roberts, 1724. 1s. 6d.

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/wiki/index.php?title=Novels:1724

"Miri-Weys, the Persian Cromwell, 1724"

http://www.dinsdoc.com/wright-1-0c.htm

¬The¬ Persian Cromwell: being an account of the life and surprizing achievements and successes of Miri-Ways ... [Microfilm d. Ausg. 1724]. Woodbridge, Ct.. Research Publ.. 1981. 196 S. : Ill.. Early British fiction ; 439..

http://www.bookmaps.de/lib/ruc/p/e/per_81.html
 * It appears from examining these sources that the work in question was clearly a work of fiction and was not intended as an historical document. It is not a reliable source. --Bejnar 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Afghan or Turkic ?
Durranis or Abdalies are Heptalites or white huns the word heptalie became abdalie who are turks by race pir sulatn abdal is a known turkic poet see his site. Whether the dynasty founder and the Hotaki are Ghilzai, that is to say Pashtun, or instead are of Turkic origin, that is to say Uzbek, Tatar or Tajik. In addition, it is about whether the founder of the Hotaki dynasty was Mir Wais Hotak or Muhamad Baqer Hotaki, and the status of historical fiction as a reliable source. 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

besides Britannica and other sources on the front of "hotaki" article, here i found a site in another article, it also confirms that hotaki dynasty were "afghans". Mir Wais Hotak (1709–1715) - Kandahar’s mayor at this time was Mir Wais Hotak, the astute and influential leader of the Ghilzai. 

this site here confirms that "hotakis" were not tartars, but were "afghans". also, it confirms that hotaki or the afghans were not protectors of persia but were invaders. THE AFGHÁN INVASION (A.D. 1722-1730). Unlike the Arabs, Mongols, Tartars and Turks, who were instrumental in effecting previous subjections of Persia by Character of the Afgháns. foreign arms, the Afgháns are, apparently, an Íránian and therefore a kindred race, though differing materially in character from the Per­sians. The Persian language is widely spoken in their wild and mountainous country, while in their own peculiar idiom, the Pushtô, James Darmesteter saw the principal survivor of the language of the Avesta, the scripture of the Zoro­astrians. They are a much fiercer, hardier, and more warlike people than the Persians, less refined and ingenious, and fanatical Sunnís, a fact sufficient in itself to explain the intense antagonism which existed between the two nations, and enabled the Afgháns to give to their invasion of Persia the colour of a religious war.persian.packum.org. Mirrori1 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Malleson, George Bruce (1879) "Chapter 7: The Ghilzai Rule" History of Afghanistan, from the Earliest Period to the Outbreak of the War of 1878 W.H. Allen & Co., London, OCLC 4219393, limited view at Google Books, for details on the origins of Mir Wais, chief of the Ghilzai tribe. --Bejnar 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following book was written more than a century after Mirwais while Persian Cromwell was written in Mirwais's court and its a Biography on Mirwais's father and him. I will quit this article when someone shows me another Book that was written in the early 18th century which states his ethnicity. --Anoshirawan 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the fact is that all Ghilzais are ethnic Pashtuns, and that alone is engough to label mir wais as pashtun. why can't you just learn from this simple determination? why are you so much into people's racial or ethnic backgrounds? your actions are only exposing to us that you are anti-pashtun and anti-afghan. every article you've worked oon is about this, and you should stop behaving this way, most people here are not really interested in racism or people's ethnicity, i know i'm not into that stuff.Mirrori1 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ghilzais are Pashtuns but that doesnt prove anything. I told you, if you want me to have mirwais as a Pashtun, Provide me one source that justifies your claim. The source has to be written in the early 18th century.
 * Read Malleson, George Bruce (1879) "Chapter 7: The Ghilzai Rule" History of Afghanistan, from the Earliest Period to the Outbreak of the War of 1878 W.H. Allen & Co., London, OCLC 4219393, limited view at Google Books for the basis that Mir Wais was chief of the Ghilzai. The book Persian Cromwell is not a valid counter-argument, as it is a work of fiction. See above, and see the bibliographic record. --Bejnar 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

YOu should use some logic in this also. That Swedish Officer had no grudge against Pashtuns and he worked in Mirwais's court so its more reliable than a book written by an english historian more than a century after Mirwais's reign. The first Book in Afghanistan which had Mirwais as a Pashtun was Benawa's book before that you cannot find any Persian books which claim mirwais being a Khilji.


 * you need to go to the city of Kandahar, where mir wais is buried in his maousoleum, and tell the local government or people there that mir wais was not pashtun. because it appears that kandahar, where he was from, is mostly pashtuns, and he is treated as pashtun there. you claim mir wais was tater, which is probably an ethnic or tribe but this is no where in afghanistan. aren't you the same person who keeps repeating that back then afghan was refered to pashtun? so if mir wais was afghan what else does that make him?Mirrori1 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He wasnt Kandahari but ruled kandahar, plus kandahar was mostly a Persian City until the 19th century(ref: Ahmad Ali Kohzad and Ahang) and him being buried in kandahar proves nothing. The only real book which mentions his Parents is Persian Cromwell. --Anoshirawan 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * you pretend like you are a master historian but in reality you lack education. in fact, you probably never went to school, we will not know this.Mirrori1 00:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop becoming emotional, I am not fighting with you but please stop removing information from this article.


 * it's useless to deal with you, you are in deed fighting with me, because you are removing mines and other people's hard work and putting your ridiculous, baseless, bizzare, claims in the aricle. why are you completely removing all the well documented information from the references sections? this is vandalism and you've been reported as i said i would if you don't stop behaving bad. you pretend like you own this article. do not pretend innocent now or try to act like you're a victim, you are the vandal.Mirrori1 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional references that Mir Wais and the Hotaki were Ghilzai are: Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia by Ahmed Rashid - Page 10; Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics by Martin Ewans - Page 30; The Kingdom of Afghanistan by George Passman Tate - Page 119; The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant by Michael Axworthy - Page 186; and A Historical Atlas of Afghanistan by Amy Romano - Page 29. All of these citations are available via Google books.  In addition there are a large number of sources that are available only in paper, such as Smith, Harvey Henry (1973) Area Handbook for Afghanistan American University Foreign Area Studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., page 45, OCLC 741987. --Bejnar 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

actually the Hotaks were firstly mentioned as first Afghans 200 years later ...so till those days they were or became just a sub-group of Ghalzais. Like Awghans today want to claim the whole history of pre-afghanistani time for themself we have the same problem with the Hotaks who count today to Ghalzais so they are today de facto Ghalzais and everyone recognize them as such one...also scienists! The Ghalzais self are also not Pashtuns/Awghans since they are Khaljis..but today they count to Pashtuns. --Aspandyar Agha 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Dynasty origin and ethnicity
This is a dispute about whether the dynasty founder and the Hotaki are Ghilzai, that is to say Pashtun, or instead are of Turkic origin, that is to say Uzbek, Tatar or Tajik. In addition, it is about whether the founder of the Hotaki dynasty was Mir Wais Hotak or Muhamad Baqer Hotaki. The dispute is on the Hotaki dynasty page and the Mirwais Khan Hotak page.


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

My source states that the region was independent of Persian rule from 1707...


 * Most of the northern and eastern Afghan tribes remained independent or gained independence as the Moghal Empire deteriorated. At Qandahar and Herat major rivalries developed between the Abdali (later Durrani) and the Ghilzai Pashtun, a rivalry still not completely eradicated.

This establishes first of all that there was a power vacuum, and that the native Afghans were competing to fill this void.

Later Dupree says:


 * The Shah actually permitted Mir Wais to make the Hajj to Mecca, where the wily Ghilzai secured a Fatwa (religious interpretation) which indicated the righteousness of a Sunni revolt against the "heretical" Safavid Shi'a. Armed with the Fatwa (which, naturally, he failed to show Sultain Husain), Mir Wais returned to Qandahar, heaped with honors from the Shah and with orders to check on the activities of the Giorgi.

So this establishes that Mir Wais at the very least Mir Wais represented the Ghilzai.


 * While in Isfahan, Mir Wais realized that the Safavid court was basically weak, and that a successful revolt in Qandahar would guarantee the Ghilzai independence for many years. In 1121/1709, the Ghilzai rose under Mir Wais and slaughtered the hated Georgian and his small garrison, while most of the Safavid occupation troops were on a punitive expedition against the Kakar Pashtun tribe (Lockhart, 1958, 87).

Again this confirms that Mir Wais was acting as a Ghilzai, on behalf of the Ghilzai, for the independent and supremacy of the Ghilzai over their native land...on which the Safavids are stated to have been an occupying force. So as someone mentioned before, Mir Wais and the Ghilzais were considered invaders of Persia and conversely the Savafids were invaders/occupiers of native Afghan land. --Khampalak 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tajiks are not Turks since they are Indo-Eurpeans to 97% unlike Pashtuns who are mostly Turks and turkizised by culture and language. --Aspandyar Agha 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

''The Ghilzais are an Afghan tribe of Pushtu origin. They came to prominence when the Hotaki sept of the tribe revolted against Persian rule under the leadership of Mir Wais, a devout Sunni. A former state hostage of the Shi'ite Safawids, he obtained a fatwa to lead an uprising against them when he returned from the Haj to Mecca. He succeeded in expelling the Georgian Governor of Kandahar and assumed the post for himself. His eldest son, Mahmud, effected a succesful invasion of Persia which culminated in the conquest of Isfahan and the deposition of the Safawi Shah Sultan Husain. Mahmud was then crowned Shah and ruled for a brief period before being deposed by his own clansmen. His nephew and successor reigned for a brief period of four years before being killed by fellow Afghans, while fleeing towards Kandahar. The Safawi dynasty was then restored in the person of Sultan Husain's only surviving son, Tahmasp II.''

Source: ''Burke's Royal Families of the World, Volume II: Africa & The Middle East. Burke's Peerage Ltd., London 1980.'' --Khampalak 21:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This from the Encyclopedia Iranica. It's about Ashraf Hotak, but it makes an implication that is important to this discussion.


 * Aˆraf GÚILZAY, D. Balland
 * the Afghan chiefwho ruled as Shah over part of Iran from 1137/1725 to 1142/1729. The eldest son of ¿Abd-al-¿Az^z and a nephew of M^r Ways(q.v.), belonged to the leading line of the Ho@tak (q.v.) tribe which together with To@kò^ (q.v.) tribe, dominated the PaÞátu@n confederacy of the GÚilz^ (q.v.). Born in southern Afghanistan early in the 12th/18th century, he took part in the invasion of Safavid territory by these tribes in 1133/1721-1135/1722. When his cousin Mahámu@d (q.v.), with whom he was on bad terms on account of a family feud, deposed the legitimate Safavid monarch Sultan H®osayn and proclaimed himself Shah at Isfahan in 1135/1722, AÞraf went back to the Qandaha@r region and stayed there for some time. ...

This implies that by virtue of being Ghilzai and nephew of Mirwais, he was Pashtun. In addition, make note that this article refers to Ashraf Khan's birthplace in the 18th century as Southern Afghanistan.

Then we have the following from the same article:


 * Later he returned to Isfahan at the insistence of the Afghan occupying force who thought he would be a better leader than the unstable Mahámu@d.

Again, this states that the Hotak forces that invaded and conquered Persia were Afghan and that they were an occupying force...in other words foreign to Persia. If not from Persia, where were they from? Afghanistan.

Source: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f8/v2f8a024.html This is from an encyclopedic source, one which users on the opposite side of this debate cite heavily on this and other articles. --Khampalak 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments (by those not originally involved in the dispute)

The dispute continues
Dupree wrote his book in the 20th century. Like I said before, Books written during the Hotaki rule is more accurate than a book written by a foreigner in the 20th century.

Kandahar was a Persian city and it was ruled by the safavids and was part of the Persian Empire. Afghan land or Afghanistan was a region in the Salaiman mountains and the Peshawar valley ruled by the mughuls of India. Mirwais himself never claimed himself king of the Afghans and never even used the term "Afghanistan" "Afghan Land" and "Afghan Zameen". Mahmoud Mahmoud in his book Nader Nama classifies the Hotakis and the tokhis as Turkic and even during the 18th century Khiljis or Ghiljis werent even known as Afghan but as a different ethnic group from the Afghans(abdalis and karlanris). Khiljis themselves are from turkic origins and are different from Durranis(abdalis). just because they share a common language and culture does not mean they are from the same ethnic group(its like saying Tajiks and Hazaras are the same).

Please provide us with a book or even a document written during the 18th century(1700s). --Anoshirawan 00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The literature that claims the Hotaki Dynasty and the Ghilzais were Pashtun far outnumbers those that say otherwise. The date that the book was written is immaterial. Your demand for an 18th century source is irrelevant and out of line. Dupree is one of the foremost experts on Afghanistan. The fact that you disagree with him is not sufficient grounds for dismissing him as a source. --Khampalak 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

so are you telling me nothing was written about Mirwais in the 18th centry? lol

By the way, the other reference and external links in the article contradict both your claim that the Hotakis are Turkic and that they were Iranian dynasties. Not only that, unlike your Persian Cromwell those sources are not fictional works. Regards. --Khampalak 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Persian Crowell is Historical Fiction. Plus Why wont you provide a source form the 18th century that proves your claim. --Anoshirawan 02:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, if you can't participate in this debate then concede. Otherwise, refrain from setting artificial date constraints on sources and state your case. --Khampalak 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where this strange idea comes from, that somehow a contemporary source is more reliable than a posterior historical study. That is certainly not the consensus on wikipedia, where WP:PSTS expressly states that primary sources, such as works of fiction, should be used with care, and that articles should rely on reliable secondary sources. More generally, in History, contemporary works should be treated with some distance, as they more likely to reveal the authors partisan opinions on events in which he was involved. Conversely, a work by a later historian, who has access to multiple sources and can judge each one in its context, is less likely to show any bias.  Raoulduke47 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Raoulduke but most sources from that time period never mentions him being an Afghan or a Pashtun. Most Mention him being a Turk and even Persian Cromwell an english book written by a Swedish Officer during that time refers Mirwais and the hotakis as Turks not Pashtuns. --Anoshirawan 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Provide these sources then. So far you keep mentioning Persian Cromwell, which we have said over and over again does not constitute a reliable source.  You say "most sources" but have yet to provide anything. Surely Persian Cromwell is not all you have, right?  --Khampalak 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anoshirawan, please take a few minutes and read everything that has been said. --Khampalak 18:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * its really not worth going further with this dispute, even the source that the vandal (user anoshirawan) used has "mir wais" as being the "duke of candahar" (governor of kandahar). user anoshirawan does not understand english. see proof below...

a Swedish Officer who, for many Years, was Domestick Slave to Miri-Ways...... The Persian Cromwell: Being An Account of the Life and Surprizing Atchievements and Successes of Miri-Ways, Great Duke of Candahar and Protector of the Persian Empire publisher = London: Printed for W. Mears and J. Roberts date = 1724


 * do you think all these top encyclopedias such as britannica would make mistakes about major events of history, especially one from the recent 18th century? on top of that, even all the persian historians clearly stated in their records that mir wais was ghilzai afghan, and by now we all agree that afghan was a word used by the persians to describe pashtuns. if the afghans were not keeping records of their history in the 18th century, at least the persians in iran were keeping their records, and since mir wais was involed in a major war with iran, there you find all the detailed history of the wars between the afghans and persians. i will not bother fixing vandalism done by anoshirawan, that's the job of the administrators. it's a waste of time dealing with people such as anoshirawan or beh-nam. also, some administors support vandals, it helps them with their own personal games that they play here.Mirrori1 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Britanica, Iranica, and the vast majority of history books disagree with this claim. No opposing evidence has been presented, and the majority of editors have voiced their opinions. So why is this matter not settled? --Khampalak 21:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You want more sources, here: Nader Nama by Mahmoud Mahmoud.

Mahasereh Esfahan wa Khanadan Jalad by Mir Asef Kolayni.

tarikh Abul Hussain ghafari kashani

Tarikh ejtemahi wa siasy Iran Dawray Mahasez jold aval wa duvum tarikh sayed nafsi

Gulshan ul Murad, Tarikh e Zaid

--Anoshirawan 00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica also mentions Abu nas Farabi being a Tukr and Avicienna being an Arab. I have provided books and works written in the 18th century. Each one of these books claim Hotakis(Mirwais,mahmoud,ashraf...etc) being Turkic.

--Anoshirawan 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Britannica does not say that Avicenna was an Arab. See here: "Avicenna, Iranian physician...".


 * And why should those sources you mention be considered reliable? Raoulduke47 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these sources that I mentioned are Primary sources and they are in Persian. Most of our history is written in Persian and so its more reliable if its in persian and written that time period than it being written in english after two centuries.

--Anoshirawan 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, primary sources are considered less reliable, not more, than secondary sources. Once again read WP:PSTS. The reason here is obvious: two centuries worth of hindsight and historical research have gone into producing modern studies.


 * Also, the fact that they are in Persian weighs against them: this is, after all english-speaking wikipedia, and english-language sources are preferred(see WP:V).Raoulduke47 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghilzai
The Ghilzai are not Turks or Tatars (the Tatars are a Turko-Mongol group in Eastern Europe!!!). It is speculated by some that they may have had some distant links to the Khalaj people who are counted among the early Turkic tribes, but this is only speculation, because the Ghilzai neither have East Asian physical appearance nor any signs of Altaic influence in their language except for some vocabulary that infiltrated Pashto after the Mongol conquest (that means some 500 years after the Khilji had already moved into the Iranian Plateau). And even if the distant ancestors of the Ghilzai were Turks, it has definitely changed in the past 1000 (!!) years. The Hotaki dynasty existed in the 18th century, that means more than 800 years after the migration of the Khalaj, and more than 500 years after the Turko-Afghan Khilji dynasty of India. The Hotaki dynasty did not rule as Turks, they ruled as Sunni Pashtuns who claimed the throne of entire Persia. See this document from the website of Yale University: http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/papers/19weapons.pdf -DerDoc 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link

http://afghanprofile.net/images/the%20persian%20cromwel%20p%201-50%20of%20208.pdf

Chapter 1 --Anoshirawan 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is not convincing. While it does mention that the ancestors or Mir Wais' father were Tatars from Turkistan, it does not say anything about Mir Wais. The Encyclopaedia Iranica says that he was a Pashtun:
 * Ashraf: the Afghan chief who ruled as Shah over part of Iran from 1137/1725 to 1142/1729. The eldest son of Abd-al-Aziz and a nephew of Mir Ways (q.v.), belonged to the leading line of the Hotak (q.v.) tribe which together with Tokhi (q.v.) tribe, dominated the Pashtun confederacy of the Ghilzi (q.v.) -DerDoc 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Ghilzai are Pashtuns and any theory about a possible Turkish origin is speculation:
 * Some historians have speculated about the Turkish origin of the Ghalzay. A few consider them the descendants of the pre-Islamic Hephtalites (e.g., Caroe, pp. 81-83, 132); others suggest a historical relationship with the Khalaj (Frazer-Tytler, pp. 11-12; Minorsky), a people who speak an identifiable Turkish language. Chronicles locate the K¨alaj near Qandahar and Ghazni in the 10th century C.E. (see Minorsky; Caroe, p. 132). Indeed, Khalaj is the name of a small modern (non-Ghalzay) Pashtu-speaking market town near the city of Lashkargah and the ruins of the 11th-12th centuries royal city of Laskari Bazar in southwestern Afghanistan. Linguistic data about a number of small Khalaj-speaking communities in Central Persia is available (Doerfer; Minorsky; Bosworth). Some Indian and Western historians and several nationalistically inspired Afghan writers have proposed that the Turkish Khalji and the Lodi dynasties that ruled northern India during 689-720/1290-1320 and 855-932/1451-1526 respectively were Ghalzi Pashtuns. However, the Ghalzay Pahstuns speak Pashtu, a member of the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages, and exhibit specific socio-cultural and liguistic features that do not resemble those of the Khalaj or any other Turkish groups (see Morgenstierne, in EIr. I, pp. 516-22; Doerfer; Minorsky). There is no known systematic and conclusive ethnological body of evidence to support important Ghalzay and Hephtalite/Khalaj/Khalji/Lodi cultural, historical, and/or socio-structural relationships. -DerDoc 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote http://afghanprofile.net/ is a very anti-Pashtun site. Its self-proclaimed mission is to "provide information on just how barbaric and primitive these Pashtuns have been and still are".Raoulduke47 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The PDF provided is actually a legitimate source. But it is only the notes of a Swedish soldier who became the prisoner of Mir Wais. I am not sure if the work of someone who misspelled Khan as Cham and who believed that Sunni and Turk are synonymous is to be taken serious. There might be some truth in his claims that Mir Wais Hotak's ancestors were Central Asian Turks (whom he wrongly identified as Tatars). But the Hotaki dynasty - whoever their distant ancestors were - were a zealous, strictly Sunni Pashtun dynasty. They spoke Pashto, they had their headquarters in Kandahar, and they claimed the throne of entire Persia. In fact, they were the first native Iranian-speaking dynasty to rule Persia after nearly 800 years of Turkish and Mongol rule. -DerDoc 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this source not convincing lol. This source was written in Mirwais's court and Directly states Mirwais's father being a tatarian turk and his mother being an Uzbek. Plus, kandahar was predominantly a Persian city during the 18th century. There is no Primary sources today that mentions Mirwais or the other hotakis spoke Pashtu. --Anoshirawan 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Works written by European adventurers are legitimate sources, but they are not authoritative. There are works written at the court of Tamerlane by a Spanish politician, stating that Tamerlane was a Turk and that his country was known as Mongolia. While the European politician in fact summarized his own experiences, his conclusion that Tamerlane was a Turk is wrong. We know today that he was a Berlas Mongol. The European guest at his court also misinterpreted his surname Gurkaani, which is derived from Mongolian and means son-in-law. According to him, it ment "noble ruler" which is wrong.
 * The work of the Swedish prisoner does not reflect all other sources. Safavid chronicles as well as later works written during the Afshar and Qajar periods always speak of "Afghan rebels". Nadir Shah was fighting Afghans in the Battle of Damghan when he tried to recapture the throne for the Safavids, and he tried to turn one Afghan tribe (Abdalis) against the other (Ghilzai) - with success. Ottoman sources also speak of "Afghans" while dealing with the Hotaki, for example in the peace-treaty of Safar (October 1727) when the Ottomans officially recognized Ashraf as the "Shah of Persia". -DerDoc 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

still, I am not saying Mirwais's militia wasnt Afghan but he himself wasnt a Pashtun. All of these sources that you have mentioned are secondary sources not primary while Persian Cromwell is a Primary source written by someone who worked for mirwais. writing timorlane was a turk not a mongol is a different argument but in this book it clearly states Mirwais's father was from Central Asia and his mother was from Balkh. I am not saying this is correct both this is a theory and both should be stated in the article. TO solve this problem we will state that there is two theories on their origins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs).
 * No Persian Cromwell is not a primary source for Asian history, it is a piece of fiction written in England. It could only be a primary source in the literary sense as a source of information for contemporary (early 18th Century) British attitudes toward the East. --Bejnar 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Persian Cromwell, fact or fiction?
RFCxxx templates corrected so section param in templates matches section heading. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Persian Cromwell, published in London in 1724, a reliable source? Is it a primary source for the history of Mirwais Khan Hotak and the founding of the Hotaki dynasty?

Title page: ''The Persian Cromwell: being an account of the life and surprizing atchievements and successes of Miri-Ways, great Duke of Candahar, and protector of the Persian Empire. Written by a Swedish officer in 1724 who, for many years, was domestick slave to Mir-Ways. To which is prefix’d, his effigy curiously engraved from an original painting.''
 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * Persian Cromwell is a fictional account of Mirwais. It was published in London in 1725.  See the bibliographic record.  There is no evidence of any Swedish officer as a slave in Mirwais's court.  The information about Mirwais's origins contained in the Persian Cromwell is in conflict with all other histories of Mirwais and the Hotaki dynasty (except those few websites that cite the Persian Cromwell as fact). For example, the Persian Cromwell says that Mirwais was not a Pashtun and not Ghilzai. However, all other histories that discuss the issue indicate that he was Ghilzai.  See, for example, Malleson, George Bruce (1879) "Chapter 7: The Ghilzai Rule" History of Afghanistan, from the Earliest Period to the Outbreak of the War of 1878 W.H. Allen & Co., London, OCLC 4219393, limited view at Google Books, for details on the origins of Mir Wais as chief of the Ghilzai tribe.  Additional references that conflict with the story told in Persian Cromwell include Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia by Ahmed Rashid -  Page 10; Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics by Martin Ewans - Page 30; The Kingdom of Afghanistan by George Passman Tate - Page 119; The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant by Michael Axworthy - Page 186; and A Historical Atlas of Afghanistan by Amy Romano - Page 29.  All of these citations are available via Google books.  In addition there are a large number of sources that are available only in paper, such as Smith, Harvey Henry (1973) Area Handbook for Afghanistan American University Foreign Area Studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., page 45, OCLC 741987. It seems highly probable that the fictionalized account in the Persian Cromwell was based upon the limited facts that were available to the author in London and that the slavery of the Swedish officer was entirely made up as a plot device. In short, the Persian Cromwell cannot be considered a reliable source. --Bejnar 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Behnam seems to have temporarily given up Persian Cromwell as a source, but has restored his claims, this time based on Mountstuart Elphinstone's An account of the kingdom of Caubul and its dependencies in Tartary and India (1815). However, I have read through this book(available on Google books:  ) and found nothing that might confirm Mirwais' supposed Tatar ethnicity. On the contrary, Elphinstone persistently refers to "Ghilzai kings"(that he writes "Ghiljie"):


 * Page 435-436: "The Ghiljies were in former times by far the most celebrated of the Afghauns. In the beginning of the last century this tribe alone conquered all Persia and routed the armies of the Ottoman Porte: after a hard struggle, the third Ghiljie king of Persia was expelled by Nadir Shah."
 * page 541: "In 1708, the Ghiljies rose against the Georgian Prince Bagrathion..."


 * Also, I'm getting tired with this stupid and worthless argument "it's older so it's more reliable". It's time some people realised that the date at which a book was written is in NO WAY related to its reliability. 18th century authors were just as capable of making mistakes, or writing propaganda as 21st century authors.


 * If this dispute continues, I suggest asking for mediation or RFAR. --Raoulduke47 18:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments (by those not originally involved in the dispute)

The evidence is clear that Persian Cromwell is a best a minority opinion. I believe that it can be cited as a primary source for many facts, but should be used with caution, as there is strong evidence that it is a work of fiction. The article should reflect modern scholarly opinion, with any notable dissents mentioned. Eluchil404 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, Tartar is not ethnicity, why is the article saying it is ethnicity? Second, the majority of sources (95%) say Mir Wais was ethnic Afghan (ethnic Afghan = Pashtun) from the Ghilzai tribe, so according to Wiki rules, we must stick to the majority. Here is 2 more sources to check:


 * THE AFGHÁN INVASION (A.D. 1722-1730). Unlike the Arabs, Mongols, Tartars and Turks, who were instrumental in effecting previous subjections of Persia by Character of the Afgháns. foreign arms, the Afgháns are, apparently, an Íránian and therefore a kindred race, though differing materially in character from the Per­sians. The Persian language is widely spoken in their wild and mountainous country, while in their own peculiar idiom, the Pushtô, James Darmesteter saw the principal survivor of the language of the Avesta, the scripture of the Zoro­astrians. They are a much fiercer, hardier, and more warlike people than the Persians, less refined and ingenious, and fanatical Sunnís, a fact sufficient in itself to explain the intense antagonism which existed between the two nations, and enabled the Afgháns to give to their invasion of Persia the colour of a religious war.


 * Beginning of the trouble at Qandahár. of India, was in the possession of the former, and was governed in a very autocratic manner by a Georgian noble named Gurgín Khán. Mír Ways, an Afghán chief whose influence with his fellow-countrymen made him an object of suspicion, was by his orders banished to Iṣfahán as a state prisoner.source 1


 * Mir Wais Hotak (1709–1715) A picture of life in the old city of Kandahar under the Timurids, the Safavids and the Moghuls has begun to emerge since the British Institute began its excavations in 1974. Bronze ewers, imported glazed ceramics and ornate glass from Persia and imported porcelains from China speak of wide-spread trade. Locally made glazed wares in the Persian style speak of a cultural orientation toward the west.


 * On the whole the indigenous Pushtun tribes living in the Kandahar area were more attached to the Persians and, indeed, on those occasions when the Moghuls received the city by means other than conquest, it was disaffected Persian governors who instigated the transfer, not the tribes. The tribes were not above pitting foreigner against foreigner in order to further their attempts to better one another. However, siding sometimes with the Persians, sometimes with the Moghuls, but never with each other, they perpetuated tribal disunity and prolonged foreign domination.


 * The principal contenders in these tribal disputes came from the two most important Pushtun groups in the Kandahar area, the Ghilzai and the Abdali (later Durrani), between whom there was long-standing enmity. As a matter of fact, because of these quarrels, many of the turbulent Abdali had been forcibly transferred to Herat by the irritated Persians by the end of the 16th century. This left the Ghilzai paramount in Kandahar, but the dispute more hotly contested, the hatred more deeply entrenched, and revenge more fervently sought.


 * The Persians were adept at manipulating such machinations and their rule at Kandahar was tolerant until the court at Isfahan began to sink in decadence. Mirroring this, the Persian governors of Kandahar became more and more rapacious and, in response, the tribes became more and more restless. Mounting tribal disturbances finally caught the concern of the court and they sent Gurgin, a Georgian known for his uncompromising severity toward revolt, to Kandahar in 1704. Kandahar’s mayor at this time was Mir Wais Hotak, the astute and influential leader of the Ghilzai.source 2(Dilbar Jan 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Persian Cromwell is a Primary source. Primary sources are more accurate than secondary sources written centuries after. --Anoshirawan 06:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's not a primary source, in fact it's not a source at all. It's just a fancy tale written for the distraction of European readers. It's only vaguely influenced by historical events. Raoulduke47 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Area ruled
The Hotaks ruled over Kandahar and their capital were Kandahar since their ancestors came with the Moghul-Emperor Babru from Ferghana and settled there, --Aspandyar Agha 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Kandahar at that time covered most of southern Afghanistan and large area of Balochistan in Pakistan. Check older maps of the area. --Dilbar Jan 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On those days Kandahar didn´t covered Balochistan ...since Balochistan and kandahar was part of Kabulistan..an area that goes from Kabul to the boundaries of punjab and southern to balochistan. There is no older map that says Kandahar was much greater than today but much smaller..since part of Helmands are parts today also Ghazni.

See here where Afghanistan was originally situated and also mentioned over 1500 years till the time of the british

http://britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-1842/map-400.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspandyar Agha (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hotaks and Turk Relation
Ok guys,

the Hotaks were ethnic turks who came with Babur from Ferghana like many other turkish tribes and mongols that settled in Pakistan and also in modern Afghanistan like the mongolic Arghuns who settled in the area of Kabulistan during Bayqara, the last Timurid ruler. The Hotaks are today a subgroup of the originally turkish Ghalzais (btw all non-iranian Afghan tribes are forced to be a sub-group of that clan/ see also the translation of Ghalzai in the various turkish dialects and languages). First they didn´t spoke Pashto since their language was turkish and the language of their court Persian (Kandahar was a multi-culturally province with arabic, turkic, mongolic, Panjabi/Seraiki, Persian, Balochi and Afghan population). That Persian ws allways the language of courts in all ethnics is not a secret therefore Persian is called Parsi-e-Darbari (Persian of Courts/Language of Courts). Because of the similar life-style and their orthodox belief the Hotaks and the Afghans (Ghalzais-> were the only tribe that had good relation to the Hotaks) were allied. The Hotaks, mostly nomads like the Ghalzais adopted slowly the language of the larger tribe of Ghalzais. Intermarriage toward both tribes were nothing new. To the time of Ahmad Khan Abdali the Hotaks and the Ghalzais came very close and they became one. Today, like the Ghalzais self, the Hotaks are Pashtunized by language.

The Hotaks self are of turkish origine. There is no question more about it just the answer to which tribe they belong it is still disputed, specially under local iranologs and historians (f.expl. Mohammad Ghobar self didn´t exactly knew to which turks they belonged. Also Prof. Dr. Ahmad Javid or Diawari can´t really asnwer that question.

However we have just one source to their roots and that was written during their time 3 times. One time by an european and two times by Persian historians of Mirwais Khan Hotaki. 200 years later pashtun nationalists claimed him as an Afghan and they began to write books about him in Peshawar. To categorize them as turks we have to see their names. Because Mirwais name was not Mirwais but Bayqar/Baqar (a turkish name) like the mongolian timurid king Bayqara.

I think we can say that he was an Afghan of turkish origine (maybe a remnant of the Arguns or tatars) since his tribe is also not by chance a sub-group of the Ghalzais. Like the Hotaks many turkish and non-iranian tribes are a sub-groupf of them like Jajis, Mangals, Zadrans, Kharotis...ect ..names that you can also follow back to Djingis Khan and his allied tribes.. jaji Jaji, Zadran Jadran, Ghalzai Khalji, Kharoti Kharot/Kareit ..ect --Aspandyar Agha 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Afghanistan
I recognized you guys chosed History of Afghanistan. That´s wrong since Afghanistan didn´t exist on those days but the persian Khorasan. Afghanistan´s date was in 1893 (era of Abdurraman Khan) inofficially and officially in 1911 with the reaching of the independence. Mirwais self claimed himself as Shah of Persia which was modernday Iran and Afghanistan. So also this part of history belong to so-called Greater Iran or at least to Khorasan. From Amanulla to now the history should be mentioned as Afghan/Afghanistani history. The rest are part of older Iran and Khorasan since the descends of the Kings were ruling with the help of their nephews and sons (beside the Qizilbashs) all part of yesterdays Khorasan --Aspandyar Agha 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion on this page and on the talk page for the Template:History of Afghanistan. You will then understand that it doesn't matter when the word Afghanistan started to be used, it is still appropriate. --Bejnar 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
Hi friends,

what do you think if we would change tge tampletes to History of Khorasan/Greater Khorasan since the ruler from 1747 called themself as Amir of Khorasan?? I don´t have any problems with Greater Iran because Khorasan is also mentioned as Iran e Khorasani and Khorasan e Irani but since we mostly use just Khorasan we should change it..and plz add also the Kart Malik empire. They ruled for over 160 years in Khorasan and kept mongols away!! I don t know why you ddin´t add him..because they didn´t ruled over modern Iran?? WHO cares..they ruled over modern Afg and Pakistan. --Aspandyar Agha 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * History of ... templates normally correspond to articles History of ... Also the most specifically applicable template should be chosen. Hence, I don't think that it would be a good idea. --Bejnar 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aspandyar Agha has been banned from wikipedia for his grossly trollish behaviour. There is no need to take any of his arguments seriously.  --Raoulduke47 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hotaki dynasty had a bigger impact on Modern Iran than Afghanistan. The Hotakis did nothing in Modern Day Afghanistan, they were Afghans who captured kandahar and killed thousands of natives. Hotakis had nothing to do with Afghanistan, just because they were ethnic Pashtuns doesn't mean they are part of Afghanistan's history and if thats so then why not include the lodhis who ruled Dehli for a while. --Anoshirawan 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for responding. What was the impact that the Hotaki dynasty had on modern Iran? --Bejnar (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Elphinstone
Do you understand why Elphinstone is not a reliable source for the ethnicity of Mir Wais as a Tatar? If not, please read the comment by Raoulduke47 above. --Bejnar 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. The proponents of Mirwais' supposed Tatar ethnicity seem to have latched -rather irrationally- onto Elphinstone's statement that the Hotakis belong to the "family of Toraun" which, according to them, should be written "Turan", meaning Turkish (this is not clear: Turan is a word of Iranian origin). This is not at all convincing. If Elphinstone had wanted to say the Hotakis were Turks, or had Turkish origins, then he would have said it outright, not used an ambiguous circumlocution like "family of Toraun". Quite on the contrary, from reading the whole paragraph, the evidence is that the Hotakis were Ghilzais, and that "family of Toraun" is simply an indication of lineage, not of ethnicity.


 * More importantly, Elphinstone's An account of the kingdom of Caubul is primarily a geographical study, and provides no evidence that Mirwais was a Tatar, as he is not mentioned even once in the entire book. Raoulduke47 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Turan is iranian but describes Turks for thousand of years. (Tur-darkness/on-people). Turan was always a sononym for Turks. The old german tribes used Tuirk which has the same meaning. Btw plz check what Gurgin self wrote about the origine of Mirwais if you don´t accept some sources than sources from him personally --88.68.197.81 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Balboa
 * Please read the threads before making assertions that have already been throughly discussed. (1) Elphinstone, a geographer, said "family of Toraun" not Turan.  (2) Turan (more often Turanian) refers to the large family of related ethno-linguistic groups: the Hungarians, the peoples of the Caucasus, the Uralic group (Finnic and West Siberian peoples), and the Altaic group (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Korean and Japanese peoples. Turan would be an unlikely reference for Elphinstone to make, since it has almost zero specificity. (3) Is the Gurgin to whom you refer the governor of Kandahar who was killed by Mirwais?  Please can you provide a citation to a reliable source where his comments are recorded? I do know that he complained bitterly to the Persian court that the man he had sent in custody to the Persian court (i.e. Mirwais) had returned to Kandahar in honor with full authority to resume his post. --Bejnar 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Touran or Turan are one and the same term written differently. Caucasians are also not Turanians but Caucasians, indo-european people and not Turks and that is what Touran otr Turan means...Turks.. and since just Turks are from Altai and not Japanese (gozok) ..and Gurgin self is a very good source and also some other above mentioned other local historian names who still living. The rest of your text don´t make any senses since they are BS and taken from a hairy and tailed black back of a Facktoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.122.201 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for your interpretation. Elphinstone says exactly: "The Ghiljies are divided into the families of Toraum and Boorhaun, which branch into eight clans.  Toraun is the eldest family, and consists of the clans of Hotukee and Tokhee; from the first of which were sprung the kings, and from the second the viziers, of the Ghiljic dynasty." p.437 Elphinstone did not use the word Turan or Turkic or Tatar to refer to Mirwais.  Elphinstone certain knew the word "Turkic" as he used it more than fourteen times in his book, and he knew the term "Tartar" (for Tatar) which he used more than ten times in his book.  Please cite specific sources for your claims.  If Gurgin said something important for this discussion, please provide a pinpoint citation, as requested above. --Bejnar 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wlphiston was also close to Persian language...because of the Moghul teachers. The moghuls (per.) self called themself as Turania ...since they were Mongols descends. --88.68.223.93 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you read what Elphinston wrote, see above, and realize that in other places in his book he used the words Turkic and Tartar (Tatar) correctly. So, if he meant Turkic, he could have used the term, he didn't.  Read it. --Bejnar 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should also understand that Elphinston didn´t know the diff between turkic and turkish, too. Turkic-nation of east-asian background and turkish, people of turkey. But today we know what he meaned--88.68.211.214 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC History of Afghanistan template
There is an RFC on the Template:History of Afghanistan about whether the template should include the Hotaki dynasty. See template talk. --Bejnar 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hotaki rule in Iran
Mir Mahmud took Isfahan in 1722 having defeated a larger Persian army who had 24 cannon under the command of M. Phillipe Colombe, a Frenchman. The Ottomans pressed in from the west, and Mir Mahmud's successor, Ashraf defeated an Ottoman army in 1725. Isfahan fell to the forces of Nader Shah in 1729. See: Jackson, Peter and Lockhart, Lawrence (eds.) (1991) The Cambridge history of Iran volumes 7 & 8. The Hotaki never conquered what is now north-western Iran, although they did defeat and end Safavid rule. --Bejnar 16:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hotaki still ruled as "Shahs of Iran". The name "Afghanistan" was virtually non-existent at that time, and the Hotaki had no control over the northern parts of what is now Afghanistan. Encyclopaedia Iranica writes:
 * ''"Ashraf's reign of little more than four years was almost wholly occupied with fighting against various external and internal adversaries. He was at war successively with Ottoman Turkey and Russia, the two powers which had taken advantage of Iran's decadence to annex de facto a large number of frontier districts. Posing as the legitimate inheritor of the Iranian throne, Ashraf demanded restitution of all the annexed territories. The Ottomans took offence at this arrogance, as they saw it, and proceeded to sever relations and open hostilities in Azerbaijan in the spring of 1138/1726. Since one of their declared war aims was to restore the Safavids as a client dynasty, Ashraf's first response was to put Sultan Hosayn, who was living in captivity at Isfahan, to death in the autumn of 1139/1726. Then, after strengthening the city's fortifications, he marched out to meet Turkish troops and defeated them at Khorramabad, south of Hamadan, on 25 Rabia I 1139/20 November 1726. The Afghan victory over a greatly superior military opponent was largely due to infiltration of the Ottoman ranks by agents provocateurs who emphasized the common Sunni faith of the Turks and the Afghans, deplored the fratricidal war between them, and advocated alliance against their common enemies, the heretical Iranians; this adroit tactic sapped the morale of the Turkish troops and procured the defection of the Kurdish cavalry. ... Ashraf at first belittled this adversary, but later took the threat seriously and launched an offensive against Tahmasp. His troops, however, were worn out by their incessant campaigning. They were driven back by Nader in a battle at Mehmandust near Damgan on 6 Rabia I 1142/29 September 1729. Taking advantage of this success, Nader embarked forthwith on a vigorous counteroffensive. After failing to block the way at the pass of Kovar east of Varamin, Ashraf had to abandon Tehran, where Tahmasp now took up residence, and retreat in haste to Isfahan with Nader at his heels. For fear of a popular pro-Safavid uprising, the Afghan troops sacked Isfahan, set fire to the bazaar, and killed a large number of its inhabitants, including 3,000 of the olama and other notables. Then, apparently after receiving some Ottoman reinforcement, Ashraf marched out to Murchakort, 35 miles northwest of the city. The Afghans suffered heavy losses in the subsequent hard-fought and largely hand-to-hand battle. Ashraf had to abandon his capital on 21 Rabia II 1142/13 November 1729, and Nader made his entry three days later at the head of the victorious force. The city had in the meantime again been plundered by the mob and presented a sorry picture when Tahmasp arrived a month later to mount the throne of his ancestors. ..."'' http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f8/v2f8a024.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.44 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC which history template is appropriate
Request for comments on which template should be displayed:
 * Statement in favor of Template:History of Afghanistan:
 * The History of Afghanistan template is more specific to the Hotaki. The Hotaki ruled portions of Afghanistan from 1709 to 1736. They are included as a section in the History of Afghanistan article.  Normally they would be included in the History of Afghanistan template but two users keep removing them.  See RFC on including the Hotaki dynasty in the History of Afghanistan template.  The Hotaki ruled in the area that is now Afghanistan from 1709 to 1736; they ruled eastern Persia for seven years (1722-1729).  The History of Greater Iran template, as maintained, does not mention the Hotaki dynasty.


 * Statement in favor of Template:History of Greater Iran:
 * Statements by parties not previously involved:
 * Oppose During the Hotaki dynasty there was nothing by the name of "Afghanistan". The Hotakis only had their capital in kandahar during Mirwais's rule and They proclaimed themselves as the Kings of Iran not Afghanistan. The Greater Iran template should stay because this dynasty not only ruled parts of Modern Afghanistan but Iran also.--Anoshirawan 03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)


 * This RFC ran for two cycles and only the members involved in the dispute commented. I will run it for a third cycle. --Bejnar (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Statement in favour of Template:History of Afghanistan: - The (unsigned) case is most persuasive. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bejnar, a socket-puppet of Dilbar
Bejnar, a socket-puppet of Dilbar. Both use the same words. Ban them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.219.132 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How interesting to be called a sock-puppet of, I assume, User:Dilbar Jan by an IP editor. It is not true of course. I first ran across Dilbar when he/she left a message on my talk page on 11 October 2007 about my changes to the Mir Wais Hotak article.  While I didn't always agree with the edits made by Dilbar, I was sorry that he/she let their temper get the better of them, and ended up banned.  I suspect that this is not the correct arena to make or to respond to this charge.  So please feel free to move this charge and reply to where they belong. --Bejnar (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

template
The "History of Greater Iran" template is more accurate, because:


 * Afghanistan was not created at that time, neither as a kingdom nor as a state
 * the Hotakis officially ruled as "Shahs of Iran" (see entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica)
 * the Hotakis affected the history of Iran and Afghanistan
 * their short rule was ended by Nadir Shah who conquered all Hotaki lands back for the Persian throne

The Pashtun ethnicity of the Hotakis does not necessairly mean that they are not part of Iran's or Greater Iran's history. Nadir Shah, for example, was an ethnic Turkmen and the Safavids were Azeris.

The specific history of Afghanistan as a nation begins with the death of Nadir Shah and the Durranis. The specific history of Iran begins with the Zand dynasty.


 * That is also supported by Encyclopedia of Islam, which states that the "Afghan state" began with the Sadozay dynstay (meaning with the Durrani dynasty that came 40 years later). With this support from E of I, the Greater Iran template is the obvious choice. Dupree3 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sadozai Ahmad Khan Abdali didn´t created Afghanistan. He is only the reason that Afghanistan could come to life in 1911 because since his reign to the 1960 Afghanistan had monarchy and the ruler were of ethnic Pashtuns. The father of Afghanistan is Abdurahman Khan who draw the frontiers and lines as we know today.--84.59.111.229 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the template "History of Greater Iran" is more appropriate, as the dynasty played in important role in the modern history of the entire region (i.e. ending Safavid rule, altering the status quo between Persia and the Ottomans or between Persia and the Mughals, paving the way for the success of Nadir Shah Afshar, etc). But since the Hotaki are also very important for the national history of the Pashtuns, I've added the template "Pashtuns" to the article. Tājik (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove any of the templates without explaining the reasons. Tājik (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What dynasty?
What is this business calling these guys as a Dynbasty? This is all about two guys who have robbed and murdered Iranians and destroyed many Iranian villages and towns. Having of two of these guys does not make them a dynasty, this is called just a criminal gang. By the way mahmud became insane and Ashraf killed him. Ashraf was his cousin. So I also do not see any succession. This is one of the most biased articles in Wikipedia.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I hear you on that! This is not a dynasty and it is well known as a rioters who ruled for a short period of time in Iran and was kicked out by Nader Shah. I propose changing its topic name to Afghan's Riot as it is known by historians. Thank you.--Axamir (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Its called a dynasty because Mir Wais Hotak conquered Iran, and rule then passed down to his son and so on. Like it or not, the Safawid's were routed, and Iran was under Pashtun control —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.44.210 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RV
I have reverted edits by a new IP sockpuppet of User:NisarKand, once again trying to evade his indefinite ban. Tajik (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Short message to the IP of banned User:NisarKand
a) the dynasty was short-lived, because it ruled Persia only a decade. The "dynasty" was not founded in Kandahar, it was founded with the defeat of the Safavids in Isfahan, when the Hotakis declared themselves kings of Persia. The revolt in Kandahar was just the first step, but at that time, the Hotakis were still nominally subjects of the Safavids. b) The official language of the dynasty was Persian. There is not a single letter or other document from that area which is written in Pashto. On the other hand, the letters between the Hotakis and Ottomans were in Persian, the official language of the Safavid empire and the language of communication between the Ottomans and Persia. The Pashto name is totally unsourced. Tajik (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)