Talk:Timurid dynasty

Introduction
The dynasty is Turkic and it came under Persian linguistic/cultural influence later. That must be emphasized, otherwise, the introduction looks as if the dynasty of Timur was Persian and only nominally Turkic. There is no serious scholarly basis to make such claim other than some ideological convictions. Atabəy (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I had to revert. Most of all, because your edit falsified attached sources (for example the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Beatrice Manz emphasizes on their (evidently) Mongol origins. It was in later times that the clan (Barlas) became Turkicized and Persianized. The intro uses the correct expressions "Persianate" and "Turko-Mongol". Besides that, Turkic Persianate Sunni Muslim dynasty sounds really weird. Keeping in mind that the article itself is very detailed in regard of their origins and culture/language, I am actually convinced that there is no need to mention any ethnic reference in the intro. Tajik (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead of the article "Timur" in Encyclopaedia of Islam is:
 * TĪMŪR LANG (“Timur the Lame”) b. Taraghay Barlas, the founder of the Tīmūrid dynasty [q.v.] which ruled in Central Asia and eastern Iran from 1370 to 1507. The birthdate commonly ascribed to Tīmūr, 25 Sha’bān 736/8 April 1336, is probably an invention from the time of his successor Shāh Rūkh [q.v.], the day chosen for astrological meaning and the year to coincide with the death of the last Il-Khān (Manz, Tamerlane and the symbolism of sovereignty, in Iranian Studies, xxi/1-2 [1988], 113-14 n.) Tīmūr rose to power in the Ulus Čaghatay, a tribal confederation forming the western section of the Mongol Čaghatay Khānate [q.v.] He was a member of the Barlas of the Kish region. This was an important Mongol tribe within the Ulus, tracing its leadership back to Činggis Khān’s commander Karačar, who shared a common ancestor with Činggis, and was later attached to his son Čaghatay. Tīmūr descended from Karačar but was not of the chiefly lineage, and gained power through skilful politics and the help of a personal, non-tribal following.
 * The lead of the article "Timurids" is:
 * TĪMŪRIDS, a dynasty of Persia and Central Asia (771-913/1370-1507) founded by the conqueror Tīmūr Lang [q.v.], who rose to power within the Ulus Čaghatay, a tribal confederation covering Transoxania and much of what is now northeastern Afghanistan. This was controlled by Turco-Mongolian military aristocracy , known as “Čaghatay”, faithful to Mongol traditions but Muslim and living in close contact with the settled population.
 * Tajik (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's clear from references that the dynasty was Turco-Mongolian, while you're trying to emphasize that it was "Persianate". The issue is that why "Persianate" is written ahead of the origin of dynasty. By the way, the article linking to Persianate is a piece of WP:OR invention as the tag clearly indicates. According to the same logic, anyone listening to Michael Jackson or Madonna, wearing Levi's is "Americanate" :). Atabəy (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing the Timurd dynasty to Michael Jackson fans actually shows that you have only a limited understanding of the subject. The dynasty itself was certainly more "Persian" than "Turkic", for it represented to outsiders a continuation of the Persian world. There is a difference between "listening to English music" and "being entirely integrated in the English society". The Timurids were - very much - like the current royal family of the United Kingdom who are German by descent and ethnicity, but entirely English in identity, culture, language, etc. The case was not as clear prior to the world wars when the rulers of Great Britain were still German-speakers. The same happened to the Mughals who were Mongols, then became Turkic, then became gradually Persianized before (and finally) becoming Indians or fully Iranized (like the Taimuris of modern Afghanistan who are Persian-speaking and trace their origin to the Timurids). The transformation from Turko-Mongol (= nomadic steppe people) to Persian and Indo-Persian (= settled; cultured) had already begun during Timru's reign:
 * "... Timur's successors, who were, unlike him, essentially peace-loving, devoted themselves to the support of culture, the arts, and religion and to the preservation of his territorial legacy. His fourth son, Shahrokh (807-­50/1407-47), succeeded him as ruler of Transoxania, though he lived in Herat, and earned a great reputation as a friend of scholars and poets and as a patron of architecture. He installed his son Ologh (Ulugh) Beg as governor at Samarkand, where, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, he enlarged his palace and took steps to prevent the deterioration of many of his ancestor's monuments. His personal interest was astron­omy, to which he made significant contributions (cf. Barthold, 1935). Like his father, Ologh Beg was entirely integrated into Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarkand until the Russian revolution of 1917. Many works of poetry, history, and other learned subjects were composed there in Persian (as later in the empire of the Great Mughals in India). By contrast, Persian was disappearing in Anatolia at the same period, increasingly supplanted by Ottoman Turkish. ..." - Iranica
 * However, as I have already mentioned: there is no need to put all of this in the intro. It's totally enough to say that the Timruids were "the Central Asian dynasty founded by Timur". Everything else can be explained in the article. Tajik (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As Tajik noted, Persianate is a well established term in Academia [] [] and one just has to read books about the era to come across the term. Virtually every major Turkic/Mongolian dynasty of Anatolia, Caucasus, Central Asia and Persia were Persianate in terms of high culture. Persian was the dominant culture simply because the nomadic Turks lacked an urban culture (as the Urban population was mainly Iranian and even the word for city in Turkish "Kent" comes from Iranian Soghdian and the other word "Shahr" comes from Iranian Persian) until many centuries later when Turks settled down and Ottoman-Turkish and Chagatay developed. Both are dead languages now, however both of these had strong ties with Persian. The best example of this is Mughal India which Persianate culture dominated while the dynasty itself was of Turco-Mongolian origin, but the languge of administration, official language and cultural language was Persian and even religions like Sikhism have important founding documents in Persian.

Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 20: "The Mughals- Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strenghthened the Persianate culture of of Muslim India"

So from a historical aspect, this is important. Other examples include Seljuqids, Khwarizmshahids, Ildiguzids, Ghaznavids which we do not have a single verse of Turkic from as the courts, administrations and basic population of urban centers were non-Turks and mainly Iranians. The Qarakhanids might be the only exception to this rule. With regards to this article:

Maria Subtelny, "Timurids in Transition", BRILL; illustrated edition edition (September 30, 2007). pg 40: "Nevertheless, in the complex process of transition, members of the Timurid dynasty and their Turko-Mongolian supporters became acculturate by the surrounding Persinate millieu adopting Persian cultural models and tastes and acting as patrons of Persian culture, painting, architecture and music." pg 41: "The last members of the dynasty, notably Sultan-Abu Sa'id and Sultan-Husain, in fact came to be regarded as ideal Perso-Islamic rulers who develoted as much attention to agricultural development as they did to fostering Persianate court culture."

As Thackston also states: "Indeed, given the extraordinarily unified culture that had been produced by a century of Turco-Persian Timurid rule, the educated elite from Chinese Turkistan to Constantinopole, regardless of ethnicity, communicated on a learned level in one language, Persian, read the same classics of Persian literature, and participated in one Persianate culture ".

"JAHĀNGIR, SĀLEM MOḤAMMAD NUR-AL-DIN, the fourth Mughal emperor, and the first of his dynasty to have been born in India (b. 17 Rabiʿ I 977/30 August 1569; d. 28 Ṣafar 1037/7 November 1627). His court remained strongly influenced by the Persianate political, cultural, and aesthetic traditions of the refugee Timurid elite who had fled the Uzbek invasion of Transoxiana to found the Mughal Empire."

With regards to this article, it is not like the Safavids who origin is disputed (although most established Safavid scholars concur with Kurdish). Rather no one disagrees with the Timurids being Turko-Mongol origin (their fatherline). Wether the Turko-Mongol origin should come first or Persianate culture is irrelavent as both are accurate and occur in the same sentence. As long as the sentence is clear and does not contain readings that imply invented terms like "Turkic Persianate", then it is fine. The current sentence has captured both of these. However, in passing, the origin of the dynasty is a minor point relative to culture of the empire and official language of the empire as a whole and the article is not about Timur himself but rather the Timurid empire/dynasty which despite it Turko-Mongol origin has also been described as a Persianate accultured as well. The article is not about Timur but Timurids. "The Timurids ...". I don't see a problem with the introduction, since Turco-Mongolian is mentioned in the first sentence as well. However the main legacy of any empire is simply the culture they leave behind and Persianate culture was a major part of it. So Persianate culture is arguably much more relavant than the origin of Timur for Timurid dynasty, however Tajik has done a good job in putting both points in the first sentence and I do not think the article conveys any sense of Timur being of Persian origin as it is explicit in the first sentence that the Timurids were Turco-Mongolian in origin. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence reads :"It was founded by the legendary conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century, a descendent of Turks affiliated with the preceding Mongol rulers." and so the introduction is unambigious. However, given the fact that Altaic hypothesis is being seriously challegned, perhaps the Mongolian origin of Timurids should be emphasized in the second sentence as well.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Nedim Ardoğa because his edit was totally irrelevant: the Timurids did not speak Anatolian Turkish nor were they associated with or related to Anatolia or modern Turkey. Tajik (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted an anon IP who had had deleted sourced material without any explanation. Tajik (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I reverted false and misleading edits by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Timurid map too small an area
The Timurid map showing the supposed "greatest extent" takes no account of Timur's conquest of Anatolia. He defeated Bayezid the Thunderbolt at Ankara in 1402 and later went on to take Smyrna. These conquests are not highlighted. Western Anatolia should be included. Also, where there any conquests made in China? The following source: says that Timur died laying siege in China from drinking too much iced water.  Gabr-  el  03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is too small. In addition, the map should also include Goldern Horde's territory, Levant, Egypt, and Ottoman's dominion in Balkan. Alagos (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I know he fought campaigns in those areas, but were they actually part of his empire? MAJackson1 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic introduction
There has to be a better way to describe the dynasty in the introduction without jumping directly to "Persianate". Is this the way a professional encyclopedia starts an article? This is ethnocentric point of view pushing. This is the most ridiculous introduction I have ever came across, just try to read it and you'll probably agree and laugh too. "The Timurids (Persian: تیموریان‎), self-designated Gurkānī [2][3][4] (Persian: گوركانى‎), were a Persianate,[5][6] Central Asian Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turco-Mongol lineage[6][7][8][9] whose Timurid Empire included the whole of Iran, modern Afghanistan, and modern Central Asia, as well as large parts of contemporary Pakistan, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Caucasus. It was founded by the militant conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century." One must read this like 50 times or so to be able to understand it.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Flag
I've noticed that File:Timurid.svg is used in several articles, to represent "Timurids", in one sense or another. However, that flag image is based on the Catalan Atlas; an outstanding piece of history in its own right but it's not a reliable source for faraway places, whose western-style flags are likely to be invented or at least fanciful. So, I propose that the flag should be removed from places where it's currently used as a flagicon just like some kind of modern national flag. Comments/complaints? bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no solution? I've removed it. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why Timurid Dynasty and not Timurid Empire
Honestly, the Timurds were turko-mongolic in origin which came in and created a new culture by merging Chagatai and Persian traditions. Why is the article called the Timurid Dynasty instead of say the Timurid Empire? Naming the article as dynasty implies it was just one in a natural progression of rulers that ruled a set state. This isn't the case. The Timurids were outside invaders that then created a new state. The Safavids were the ones to really re-establish Persian identity in the area. And that's another thing, the Timurids didn't just disappear and get replaced by the Safavids, the surviving Tumrids eventually turned into the Timurid Emirate and then the Mughal Empire which is completely separate from Persia/Iran. I know Iranian nationalism likes to claim everything in one natural progression, even calling Elam as part of Indo-Aryan culture, but I mean we don't call the Mughal page the Mughal Dynasty (of India). We call it the Mughal Empire.207.237.208.153 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have split it into Timurid Empire for the empire. This article is now about the actual dynasty. The sub-section for the list of rulers of the Mughal Empire in this article is copied from the respective section from the Mughal Empire. --Cartakes (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I agree with the split.71.190.228.146 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent Job my friends Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate reference/ note
Reference/ note 25 and 27 are the same - just different formatting. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Gurkani
It seems to me that someone has removed mentions of the "Gurkani" title (with citations) from the intro to the article. The Timurids did not call themselves "Timurids", they referred to themselves as the "Gurkaniya" or Gurkani Empire. Similarly, the Mughals did not refer to themselves as Moghuls or Mongols, they too called themselves the "Gurkaniya". An easy to understand analogy would be the Byzantines referring to themselves as the Roman Empire, and not actually "Byzantine". These were all terms labelled by outsiders, and which eventually stuck (in history books). If any editor has some idea why the term/title was removed, then please share with us. DA1 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC) If you look into any of the Turkic language versions of the Wikipedia page, they all mention Gurkaniya in the introduction. For some reason, the English version has completely revised/removed it. That is quite strange. DA1 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I brought it back, you are actually very correct, this is something new I learned while researching "Mughal Empire", they don't call themselves Mughals, they probabaly hate that word. Both the Mughals and Timurids called themselves Gurkanis which means son-in-law. I'm doing some research finding about how is Timur a son-in-law to the Mongols. In the mean time you should edit the infoox, because I'm not good at it and emulate the Mughal Empire's infobox RussianDewey (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the term because I researched a good bit and couldn't find any sources confirming that the Timurids (as opposed to the Mughals, who are a bit too remote to consider Timurids) actually self-designated as Gurkaniya. If you can find some, so much the better!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my research was done, but I was busy, I can send you the book if you want, my curiosity has faded. Anyway long story short is he is not descendant directly fro Chingiz Khan his "hero" so to speak, he is descendant from what it seems like a Mongolian Family that have been Turkicized. "Temür’s marriage to a Chinggisid princess (the daughter of Qazan Khan) gave him the right to use the title kürgän, or imperial son in law, which was also adopted by several of his descendants, and he attempted to revive the Chinggisid house through the elevation of puppet khans in the Ulus Chaghadai" my source is the new Cambridge History of Islam. I can send it to you if you like, on the Mughals part they see themselves as Timurids, but the correct word is Gurkani, a simple google book search has concluded me that Babur's diary called Baburnama edited by Thackston in 2002 may contain the Gurkani material. RussianDewey (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Timurid flag
File:Timurid.svg states: !This flag, as well as other fictitious flags, is fictitious or proposed but not adopted. This flag is named as it would be an official flag of a national or subnational entity, and probably has some visual elements that are similar to official logos or coats of arms of certain entity, such as colors or some symbol, but they are NOT official and don't have any official recognition." and "WARNING: This image is highly speculative. The main source pointing to this design is the Catalan Atlas, which as a historical primary source cannot be considered a reliable reference, especially if it is the only source used. This image should not be added to articles without clearly indicating its speculative nature. Note that FOTW (where most of those images on Commons are taken from) is based on user contributions like Wikipedia, and hence not authoritative either." Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Though that is a major source for the file, it may not be the ONLY source. somewhere in an article, it said europeans described the flag as black, red and white (white could be a form of flag fringe or border), though there is no reference:, for where the information came from. I will see if i can find any european sources stating that the colours where black red and white, though european descriptions may not be a valid source either so i will look for more sources. when i do, the tag on the file will be removed, and the flag will no longer be considered fictious.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you look at the catalan atlas, you see the same flag raised in parts of China..........WHAAAA?!?!?!!?! so maybe the flag could be that of the Yuan dynasty and not the timurids, perhaps the map is showing a short occupation of central asia by the yuans. I will see if such an event happened. if so then that means the file ISNT a timurid flag, but a Yuan flag and should be added to the yuan dynasty page. For now more research should be done before the image it is removed from articles History of Persia (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake
Babur became ruler of Ferghana on June 1494, at the age of 11 and some months, this is the date where his father died Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timurid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205073939/http://bartleby.com/65/ti/Timurids.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ti/Timurids.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132016/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mughals
Hi. Can you please explain your revert? Also, if you have a source that support the Mughals being considered a continuation of the Timurids, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep something like this (WP:OR). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * from Mughal Empire: The Mughal designation for their own dynasty was Gurkani (, Gūrkāniyān, meaning "sons-in-law"). I doubt they saw as a different dynasty. Beshogur (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I meant in modern scholarship. Timur saw himself as a Chingizid, yet that doesn't mean we should we should see the Timurids as an extension of the Chingizids, no? The Mughals no doubt were aware of their origins, I'm not denying that, but calling the dynasty a continuation of the Timurids? Do scholars consider that as such? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Timur saw himself as a Chingizid Timur never saw himself Chingisid. He saw himself restorer of the Chingisid traditions. Quickly found something like this . There were three principal groups of Timurid legatees. These were: the Mughul emperors of India, true Timurids who enthusiastically embraced Timurid legitimacy and consciously presided over a Timurid renaissance. Also a question, (I don't know exactly), what did the Mughals call their own dynasty? Beshogur (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You ought to now by know not to complain if any very drastic undiscussed edit to an important article is reverted for achieving consensus. You have not produced any evidence whatsoever for your edit, nor showed awareness that you should. You might consider this painting, done for Humayan. It is surely well-known that the Mughals were direct descendants of Timur, and not very remote. The article describes them somewhere as a cadet branch of the Timurids, which seems about right. I doubt you are very familiar with our numerous articles on European dynasties - the treatment here seems very compatible with those. Normally cadet branches are included in their own sections. What do you think is OR? Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You ought to know by now what a source is, Johnbod. Some random painting has zero importance. 'What do you think is OR?'? I don't think you're showing awareness enough, please my read comment(s) again. Anyhow, this is not worth the hassle, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Some random painting has zero importance" - right! This is an imaginary group portrait commissioned by the 2nd Mughal emperor, showing him at the centre of a group of his Timurid ancestors and relatives. Later Mughal emperors added their own portraits. This shows very clearly how the Mughals saw themselves. No historians have been produced showing anything else. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)