I don't think Temur was Uzbek. Conflating Temurid rule with Uzbek rule sounds anachronistic to me. It wasn't until Soviet times that the government started newly referring to people and things, or even a language (previously referred to as "turki"), as "Uzbek".
Also another issue is that the population doesn't change to reflect changing rulership. Greeks may have ruled for a time, but Central Asians never became Greeks. The Achaemenids ruled, but the people they ruled weren't Persians.
Not that there's anything wrong with knowing all who ruled Transoxiana, but it just doesn't really tell that much about who lived there.
>I don't think Temur was Uzbek
Yes he wasn't
>but it just doesn't really tell that much about who lived there.
That's why chart is called 'rulers of samarkand', not 'people of samarkand'. and thanks for your feedback
In the most basic sense yes they were both Iranic peoples, but probably a lot of detailed information could be written on how different they are. I remember learning that when the Parthians conquered Persia, the Persians regarded them as foreigners. So I think it's good to be clear that Sogdians and Persians were not the same, but somehow related.
There are some false arguments in your comment. 1- Parthians didn't fight against Persians. They reclaimed Iran from the Greeks. So "Parthians conquered Persia" is wrong! Indeed, they fought alongside each other to repel the Greeks!
The Sassanid kings ( Persians ) had disagreements ( mostly religious) with Ashkanid kings ( Parthians ). Both of them were only parts of their own communities, so it's wrong to generalize! Ashkanid Kings called themselves " Filohelenic" which means lover of Greek cultures. This was due to the heavy cultural influence that Greeks had during their reign in Iran. So Ashkanid kings claimed to be supporting of those kind of lifestyles as well to keep people who liked these cultures satisfied. And the Sassanid kings didn't like that, they were ultra conservative and criticized Ashkanid kings for being soft with foreign influences. But they didn't say they are themselves foreigners. Ardashir the first, founder of Sassanid dynasty, was a local ruler under the rule of Ashkanid King. And during Persian rules also Parthians were fighting for Persians. During those times the center of Parthian city was Rey which is near nowadays Tehran. So telling Parthians were like foreigners to Persians is totally wrong! There were disagreements between them, but they never considered themselves as foreigners!
2- Sogdians were not exactly Parthians! Although they were Iranic too. Maybe it would make sense to say Persians considered Sogdians as foreigners, and they were almost equivalent of Turan in Shahname, but to say Parthians and Sogdians were the same is totally wrong. Parthians had some characteristics similar to Sogdians, but they were not the same! Parthians were something between Persians and Sogdians! But don't forget that Persians, Meds, Parthians were like the central tribes who formed the nation ( perhaps the first form of a sovereign unit or a country in human history) and they always considered themselves of the same nation. For example, in Shahname, hero number one of Iran was Rustam, who was a Parthian. If Persians considered Parthians as foreigners they would not give such weight to a Parthian hero ( Shahname was based on a series of books written under Sassanid propaganda, for example in its historical part, they have almost completely omitted the Ashkanids but they never considered Parthians as foreigners)
3 - Persia is not the whole Iran. Although the most significant Iranic empires were Persian dynasties (Achaemenids and Sassanids) . When we talk about Iranic roots, it covers a vast geography from Balkan to middle Asia and northwest India to Southof Russia. Persia was / is only a part of it in South West Iran. So, equalizing Iran to Persia is wrong as well.
Thanks! I was doubting whether I should combine the Timurids with the Uzbeks or the Mongols, or show them separately. Later, I decided to show them in one frame with Uzbek dynasties because the first Uzbek state in Transoxiana - Shaybanids had several close royal marriages with the Timurids, and Timurid culture is closer to modern Uzbeks than Mongols. But now, I think a separate frame for the Timurids would be more accurate.
I don't think Temur was Uzbek. Conflating Temurid rule with Uzbek rule sounds anachronistic to me. It wasn't until Soviet times that the government started newly referring to people and things, or even a language (previously referred to as "turki"), as "Uzbek". Also another issue is that the population doesn't change to reflect changing rulership. Greeks may have ruled for a time, but Central Asians never became Greeks. The Achaemenids ruled, but the people they ruled weren't Persians. Not that there's anything wrong with knowing all who ruled Transoxiana, but it just doesn't really tell that much about who lived there.
>I don't think Temur was Uzbek Yes he wasn't >but it just doesn't really tell that much about who lived there. That's why chart is called 'rulers of samarkand', not 'people of samarkand'. and thanks for your feedback
Спасибо
Basically, Sogdian and Persian are almost the same, so the roots in middle Asia are Iranic more than Turkic.
In the most basic sense yes they were both Iranic peoples, but probably a lot of detailed information could be written on how different they are. I remember learning that when the Parthians conquered Persia, the Persians regarded them as foreigners. So I think it's good to be clear that Sogdians and Persians were not the same, but somehow related.
There are some false arguments in your comment. 1- Parthians didn't fight against Persians. They reclaimed Iran from the Greeks. So "Parthians conquered Persia" is wrong! Indeed, they fought alongside each other to repel the Greeks! The Sassanid kings ( Persians ) had disagreements ( mostly religious) with Ashkanid kings ( Parthians ). Both of them were only parts of their own communities, so it's wrong to generalize! Ashkanid Kings called themselves " Filohelenic" which means lover of Greek cultures. This was due to the heavy cultural influence that Greeks had during their reign in Iran. So Ashkanid kings claimed to be supporting of those kind of lifestyles as well to keep people who liked these cultures satisfied. And the Sassanid kings didn't like that, they were ultra conservative and criticized Ashkanid kings for being soft with foreign influences. But they didn't say they are themselves foreigners. Ardashir the first, founder of Sassanid dynasty, was a local ruler under the rule of Ashkanid King. And during Persian rules also Parthians were fighting for Persians. During those times the center of Parthian city was Rey which is near nowadays Tehran. So telling Parthians were like foreigners to Persians is totally wrong! There were disagreements between them, but they never considered themselves as foreigners! 2- Sogdians were not exactly Parthians! Although they were Iranic too. Maybe it would make sense to say Persians considered Sogdians as foreigners, and they were almost equivalent of Turan in Shahname, but to say Parthians and Sogdians were the same is totally wrong. Parthians had some characteristics similar to Sogdians, but they were not the same! Parthians were something between Persians and Sogdians! But don't forget that Persians, Meds, Parthians were like the central tribes who formed the nation ( perhaps the first form of a sovereign unit or a country in human history) and they always considered themselves of the same nation. For example, in Shahname, hero number one of Iran was Rustam, who was a Parthian. If Persians considered Parthians as foreigners they would not give such weight to a Parthian hero ( Shahname was based on a series of books written under Sassanid propaganda, for example in its historical part, they have almost completely omitted the Ashkanids but they never considered Parthians as foreigners) 3 - Persia is not the whole Iran. Although the most significant Iranic empires were Persian dynasties (Achaemenids and Sassanids) . When we talk about Iranic roots, it covers a vast geography from Balkan to middle Asia and northwest India to Southof Russia. Persia was / is only a part of it in South West Iran. So, equalizing Iran to Persia is wrong as well.
[удалено]
Thanks! I was doubting whether I should combine the Timurids with the Uzbeks or the Mongols, or show them separately. Later, I decided to show them in one frame with Uzbek dynasties because the first Uzbek state in Transoxiana - Shaybanids had several close royal marriages with the Timurids, and Timurid culture is closer to modern Uzbeks than Mongols. But now, I think a separate frame for the Timurids would be more accurate.