Suchergebnisse

In less than twenty years, Nadir Shah built an empire across Iran, India, and Central Asia. When he took the throne on the Mughan steppe in 1148/1736, Nadir confronted the problem of how to legitimize his reign after two centuries of Shi'i Safavid rule. He attempted to solve this problem, in part, by challenging Iran's Twelver Shi'i identity.Nadir proposed to the Ottomans that Twelver Shi'ism be considered a fifth school of Sunni Islam, to be called the Ja'fari madhhab after the sixth Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. In exchange for Shi'i renunciation of such practices as sabb (the ritual cursing of the first three caliphs), Nadir proposed that the Ottomans give this Ja'fari madhhab all the privileges enjoyed by the four Sunni schools, and that a fifth pillar be erected in the Ka'bah in Mecca to commemorate it. He asked that the Ottomans allow him to appoint the leader of the annual ḥajj caravan from Iran.

In the 18 th century the general economic crisis in the Safavid state led to political decline. The pressure of the Shiite clergy under Shah Sultan Hussein aroused the outrage of the Sunni minority in the border regions, in particular, the Ghilzai Afghans in Kandahar, which ended in 1722 with their capture of the capital of the Safavid state, Isfahan. By this time, the central and eastern regions were in the hands of the Afghan tribes, the Caspian regions - in Tsarist Russia, and Azerbaijan, Shirvan and adjacent regions - in the Ottoman Empire. The Safavid prince Tahmasib, who fled from the besieged capital, declared himself the rightful ruler of Iran - Shah Tahmasib II (pr. 1722-1732). The revival of the national spirit began in 1726 when Nadir Quli Khan from the Turkic tribe Afshar joined the Takhmasib Shah. The army under the leadership of Nadir, by the end of 1729, having won a victory over the Afghans in three decisive battles, conquered Isfahan, in 1730 began the liberation of Azerbaijan from the Ottoman Turks and in 1732 - the Caspian regions from the Russian troops. By 1736, the territory of the Safavid state was completely cleared of foreign invaders.

By 1745, the Persian ruler Nadir Shah (also known as Tahmasp Quli Khan) had made a name for himself as a conqueror in Asia. In the same year, the Dutch playwright Frans van Steenwyk scripted a play titled Thamas Koelikan in Amsterdam. The play not only chose Nadir for protagonist, but also identified his conquest of Mughal India as the backdrop to the drama. Just as Van Steenwyk's drama reflected the curiosity of his peers in Nadir Shah, another image of Asian rulers circulating in Europe at the same time also featured in the play—the image of the Oriental Despot. Although the theme of Oriental Despotism was a generic appli-cation to Asian rulers, the relationship of this label with Nadir Shah was more intimate. From the late eighteenth century onwards, any mention of Nadir Shah meant a reference to Oriental Despotism. This article analyses the nature of representation of Nadir Shah in Van Steenwyk's Thamas Koelikan. It studies the means by which the notion of Oriental Despotism features in the play. It argues that the observations made in this regard should be seen in the light of the sources that the playwright employed in penning his play. This related closely to the world of the Dutch East India Company in South Asia.

The article presents epistolary sources in Persian from the Dagestan collection of firmans of Persian shahs in the name of the Kaitag utsmis. At the Institute of history, archaeology and Ethnography of DFRC RAS stored microfilms of these firmans received from the National library of France, where utsmic collection hit in the second half of the ХΙХ century. Copies of the firmans of Persian shahs in the name of Kaitag utsmis exist in the libraries of Georgia. They are published by the Georgian scientists with the typed texts and translation in Georgian and Russian languages. A comparative analysis of the documents revealed that the Georgian collection is fuller than the Paris collection, there are copies made by different katibs in the collections, and there are textual discrepancies and discrepancies in the Dating of firmans. We present in this article a facsimile of the firmans of Nadir Shah addressed to one of the most influential Dagestani rulers of the XVΙΙΙ century Kaitag utsmiy Ahmad-khan, and provide their contents with appropriate comments. Firmans have informative value, serve as a good source base for studying the complex, contradictory historical period, containing a lot of white spots in the history of the Nadir Shah wars in Dagestan. The documents have high scientific value and shed light on the policy of Nadir Shah in the territories under his control, on historical events related to the struggle of the Dagestani peoples for liberation from vassalage, and the policy of the Dagestani rulers. For several years, there was a struggle between the Dagestani highlanders and the Shah of Iran. The final victory over Nadir Shah was won only when the combined forces of the Avars, Kaitag people, akushins, kumukhs, Tabasarans, and all Dagestani peoples took part in the fight against the enemy in Andalal. Firmans convey the atmosphere of historical events, threats against recalcitrant mountaineers are heard more often, the tone of Nadir's letters, promising endless Shah's favors in exchange for submission, is replaced by a menacing, sometimes offensive one.

The campaigns of Nadir Shah's troops in Dagestan are devoted to several specialized studies published in the form of monographs, many articles, the preparation of which involved a wide range of sources and diverse literature. At the same time, it cannot be said that it is exhaustive. Interesting information resources about the events of 1741-43 in Dagestan, still not properly studied, include information from Europeans who visited the region in the 30s-40s of the XVIII century. Among those who left written evidence, the Englishman Jonas Hanway and the Frenchman Louis Bazin, who were well acquainted with each other. The first of them published a four-volume collection "Historical account of British trade through the Caspian sea" (London, 1753). The fourth volume contains interesting information about the campaign of Nadir Shah. The events of 1741-43 in Dagestan are described in Chapter XXIX, parts of which are translated from English in this article. The second of them in his letter, written in 1751, describes the events, which he witnessed, because he was in Derbent at the time of arrival there Nadir Shah. The article contains a translation of a passage of a letter from the French language, published in "Instructive and curious letters" (Paris, 1780). The analysis of narratives showed that Bazin's stories served as the main source for Hanway. At the same time he had messages from Europeans who were in the Russian and Persian service, from the Russian military and government officials and, possibly, Persian subjects, which allowed him to make a more informative message.

Based on the analyzed information from various sources and a wide range of literature, the author makes an attempt to assess the significance of the dynastic ties of the Dagestan rulers in organizing a joint struggle against the Iranian conquest in the 18th century, to determine the role of political marriage in the relationship of local rulers. To achieve this goal, the study consideres a number of key issues, from which particular conclusions are drawn. The work applies general scientific and specific methods. When restoring dynastic ties, the information from written sources was critically analyzed. To structure the work, a typological method was used, which made it possible to group the information obtained. By examining the political and administrative map of the region, the potential complexity of the political relations of local dynasties that formed over the centuries in a tight space has been shown. In the context of global history, the ways of forming family ties between royal houses are determined: the presence of a common ancestor of the Dagestan dynasties, the separation of an independent branch of the dynasty through conflict, the peaceful division of the state between heirs, followed by the separation of independent dynasties, and the conclusion of political marriages. The same universal formula is used by the author to restore family ties between the Dagestan dynasties (Shamkhals of Tarky, Kaitag Utsmis, Kazikumukh, Quba and Avar khans) and their neighbors. Special attention is paid to the restoration of dynastic ties during the invasion of the Iranian conqueror Nadir Shah in the 18th century. Analyzing political alliances in the context of dynastic ties, the author considers the role of political marriage in organizing a joint struggle against the Iranian ruler. The study allows us to draw conclusions about the significant role of political marriage as a tool of diplomacy, but far from having a decisive role in specific historical events.

The article presents the English translation with commentaries of three messages in Arabic by Ibrahim of Urada addressed to the people of Avaristan during the campaign of Nadir Shah to Dagestan. They provide important data elucidating the details of this poorly studied historical event that took place in the fall of 1741.

One of the most important contemporary Persian prose chronicles of Nadir Shah's life is the Tārīkh-i 'ālam-ārā-yi Nādirī (The World-Illuminating History of Nadir). Its author, Muhammad Kazim Marvi, served Nadir as a financial officer, and appears to have witnessed many of the events that he depicts. Completed after Nadir's death in 1160/1747 but before the last Afsharid ruler fell in 1210/1796, the AAN offers one of the most detailed contemporary accounts of Nadir's career. Several scholars, including N. D. Miklukho-Maklai and Muhammad Amin Riyahi, have begun to investigate the historical context of the work, discussing such issues as the date of its composition and its relationship to other accounts of the period. This article will attempt to build upon their work by focusing on what Muhammad Kazim's account of Nadir's career may reveal about his views on kingship and legitimacy.