Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 5

Merge
The articles should be merged because there is no difference between the Muslim conquest of Persia and the fall of the Sasanian Empire. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is one of the weirdest moments in Wikipedia. Why in God's name did you add a tag for merge without a discussion in October? You are not a new editor. You know the rules. You have to start a discussion before adding that template and you have to seek consensus. You also have to date the template to the day you started the discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in my edit summary at Fall of the Sasanian Empire: merge tag - see RM at Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia. The issue of a merge was brought up during the RM (not by me) and I wanted to make sure attention was drawn to it by any watchers of the other article. Between your comment on the talk page above and the removal of the tag were 8 minutes. As for the "rules", please note that I've been around longer than Merging. I support such a merge on the grounds already stated. The editors directly involved in the brief merge discussion at the time were, and . Srnec (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the stuff mentioned in the Fall of the Sasanian Empire could be explained in a background section of this article or something like that. Thus I support this merge. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Here is what happened without filters. I saw the template, tried to find the discussion but I couldn't find it. I removed the template and you reverted me twice without any explanation. You added a merge discussion but yet the template of merge was dated to October and yet you didn't explain where the discussion is or was in your merge discussion. I don't think I have done anything wrong here. Also I doubt that we can have a merge discussion inside a RM discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Srnec and HistoryofIran. Benyamin-ln (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but I dont think it fits in the background. Shouldnt it be in somewhere else because the lede of this article says that the Muslim conquest of Persia "led to the fall of the Sasanian Empire of Iran"--SharabSalam (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wut? Doesn't sound like you've read the Fall of the Sasanian Empire article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am talking about this article's lede. Also the fall happened in 651 and the conquest started in 633, so how can something happened in the future be the background of something that started in the past?.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You stated that it doesn't fit in the background. What do you think I meant by that? Do yourself a favour and actually read Fall of the Sasanian Empire, majority of the stuff in the article is regarding the reasons that the empire fell. For comparison, see Fall of the Western Roman Empire. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you said "the stuff mentioned in the Fall of the Sasanian Empire could be explained in a background section of this article". You are supporting moving the content of the article of the fall of the Sasanian Empire to this article background but I don't agree. I said it doesn't fit in the background section. It probably fits in a "Aftermath" or "result" section(I am not really familiar with this article) and I gave the reason for that because something that happened in the future(fall of Sasanian Empire) cant be in the background of something that happened in the past(Muslim conquest).--SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the information in the the Fall of the Sasanian Empire is mainly about the reasons behind the fall of the empire in the period 628-632, aka it would fit in a background section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support From what I've seen and read, this merge makes sense. This proposal has been up for a while, would the current consensus be enough to even merge? - Aza24 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think, the contents of the two articles are entirely different. One articles talks about the intentions of the Arabs and the events leading to the invasion and the conquer; whereas, the second articles talks about why the Persian Empire could not stand the invasion. - Imdadb (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for the reasons stated above. Irrespective of what these articles currently contain, there is no objective reason why they should not be merged. If necessary, any residual content can be merged into other articles. I also think the title Fall of the Sasanian Empire is worth avoiding because it is an obvious reference to the The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and presupposes an outdated and ahistorical "rise-decadence-and-fall" model of historical change. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Just now noticed the existence of this merge request. As others have said, it is a single event: the reasons for the Sasanians being unable to resist is background information to the actual event. Constantine  ✍  12:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there is a clear consensus, I have boldly gone ahead with the merger. Srnec (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Shahnameh3-1.jpg

Using “Iran” to refer to the Sassanian Empire
The Sassanian Empire was not known as ‘Iran’ to anyone, not even the Sassanians themselves. The state, as well as nearly all other states centered on modern-day Iran were known as ‘Persia’ until the 20th century. The Sassanian Empire was known partly a ‘Eranshahr’, which was only an endonym and also not even the same term as ‘Iran’. Calling the Sassanian Empire ‘Iran’ makes about as much sense as referring to the Roman Empire as ‘Italy’. It is also directly against the article, which is Muslim conquest of Persia, not Muslim conquest of Iran. — LissanX (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Sasanian and the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empires were the two great late antique empires of western Eurasia. The Sasanians controlled the area between the Oxus and Euphrates rivers, which they called “Iranshahr” (Middle Persian Ērānšahr) or simply “Iran” in later literature" (From Oxus to Euphrates: The World of Late Antique Iran, p. xiii).


 * "From the establishment of the empire by Ardašīr I up to the reign of Yazdgerd II (224– 439), the title of the Sasanian sovereigns, despite minor alterations, remained mazdēsn bay [name of the sovereign] šāhānšāhĒrān (ud An-ērān) kēčihr az yazdān, “His Mazdayasnian Majesty [name of the sovereign] king of kings of Iran(ians) (and non-Iran[ians]) whose seed is from the gods.” The title “king of kings of Iran,” which was established by Ardašīr, augmented by the important element ud An-ērān “and non-Iran(ians),” under Šābuhr I, with ephemeral omission of the selfsame under Narseh (Huyse 2006: 183–4), thus represented mutatis mutandis the core of the Sasanian titulature during this period." (The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, p. 806).


 * "The word ērān is first attested in the titles of Ardašīr I (q.v.), founder of the Sasanian dynasty." (ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR)


 * "Shahbazi demonstrates the existence of a nation, created when political unity had been achieved by many 'countries', all of which shared a common Aryan heritage. Iran was Aryanshatra, then Iranshahr, and finally Iran. Shahbazi explains that "one should not ignore the fact that, once established, a national identity keeps its appellation." In other words, although the name "Iran" vanished from official records with the ending of the Sasanian state, Iran, Iranshahr, Mamalek-e Iran (Iranian lands) and Iran-zamin (land of Iran) continued to express the same concept." (Iran After the Mongols, p. 159).


 * "Quite similarly, the Ilkhans proclaimed themselves as the rulers of Iran (padishahan-i Iran), converting their own hitherto political and economic center Tabriz into their imperial capital." (Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, p. 72).


 * I could do this all day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You should spend your day taking a reading comprehension class instead, because everything you just posted confirms what I said about the word 'Eranshahr' being an endonym. — LissanX (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You allege that the Sasanian Empire was not known as Iran to anyone, not even themselves, well I just proved you wrong. And it clearly wasn't 'partly' known as Eranshahr either. Also, you call it an endnoym, yet three of the sources has Iran in their title and consistently use it pre-20th-century. It clearly goes to show that your statement about "Calling the Sassanian Empire ‘Iran’ makes about as much sense as referring to the Roman Empire as ‘Italy’." is heavily wrong. Last but not least, I would advise you to stop attacking me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, reading comprehension. I said the Sassanians knew it as ‘Eranshahr’, not ‘Iran’, and that the term ‘Eranshahr’ was an endonym. Here, let me give you a hand:
 * "The Sassanian Empire was known partly a ‘Eranshahr’, which was only an endonym and also not even the same term as ‘Iran’."


 * To explain it to you like a child, since apparently that’s what you need:
 * Nobody referred to the historical Sassanian Empire as ‘Iran’. The Sassanians referred to the Iranic part of their empire as ‘Eranshahr’, not ‘Iran‘. Your own copypasta demonstrates that the word ‘Eran’ was used to mean ‘Iranian people’. ‘Iran’ was not the name of the entire empire or its territory.
 * The Sassanians referred to the part of their empire as ‘Aneranshahr’ to refer to non-Iranic regions, which were also part of their empire. The ‘Eranshahr’ part of their state’s territory was separate from the ‘Aneran’ part.
 * ‘Eranshahr’ meant “land of the Iranic [people]”. This did not include the ‘Aneran’ parts.
 * The word ‘Eranshahr’, not ‘Iran’, was used as an endonym by the Sassanians for the Iranian-populated region of their empire.
 * If you don’t know what an endonym is, look it up.
 * An endonym used to refer to themselves is irrelevant, especially when that endonym (Eranshahr) is not even the same word you want to use (Iran); and especially considering that endonym (Eranshahr) didn’t even apply to the non-Iranic (Aneran) parts of the empire. This is why we refer to the Phoenicians as ‘Phoenicians’ and not ‘Kanʿānīm’. I’ll wait for you to copy and paste more information that ironically proves me right again. — LissanX (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with all those sources explaining it quite simply you've somewhat managed to deny/twist it, amazing. I'm not going to cut it out for you in paper, especially not when you can't say a sentence properly without insulting me. This seems like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose using the term “Iran” to refer to the Sassanian Empire, based on the notion that in the English language, the term "Iran" is most often used to refer to the modern nation-state of Iran, while "Persia" appears to be a wider term that has been used to refer to: a specific area within modern-day Iran, the entire area of modern-day Iran, or the greater Persian area that also includes areas beyond the scope of modern-day Iran (more descriptive of the region that the Sassanian Empire existed in). The people who lived in the region at the time might very well have referred to the region as "Iran" or a related word, as HistoryofIran points out. That is an interesting, but separate discussion from what the region should be referred to in an English language encyclopedia (for the same reason that the encyclopedia uses Germany instead of Deutschland, for example). I would also encourage you to refer to MOS:GEO and WP:PLACE for further guidance. – Mandelbr0t (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not though, there was a whole discussion for this in, where various sources proved that Iran was indeed used as much as Persia if not more pre-1925 (the sources I've posted here uses Iran as well), I would encourage you to read that. Also, I didn't realize we were voting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Sasanian Iran was in fact Iran, you can't say Iran and Eranshahr are different when they both mean land of Aryans. I think anything is better than conquest of Persia as Persia was just a part of the Sasanian empire. Also, why can't that guy have a respectful conversation and has to result to insults? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.38.159 (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Conquest or Invasion?
Hey fellow Wikipedians, I was wondering why should this page be called Muslim conquest of Persia, when the Persian conquest of Greece is called an invasion. What makes an attack on other people an invasion and what makes one a conquest? The muslim invasion of Persia was far more brutal and cruel than the invasions of Greece. I believe it would be more appropriate if the article is renamed to invasion. 180.150.38.159 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It should absolutely be changed to Invasion to match the rest of wikipedia 2001:DF4:3200:1500:4965:1E12:D595:AC2A (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it still say conquest instead of invasion 115.70.22.143 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)