Temporary Rep. of Bharat Rashkak (Login Ghaleb) Arab Legion
It has to do with the Pashtun people, and it will really dispell any notions of a fundamentalist Islamic war-mongering Talibanic people. Only a few years ago, the character of this people was entirely contrary.
The link is here: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume11/gayatri.html
"I MEAN...What is up with the South Asian obession with Balochistan, Afghanistan, and other regions inhabited by non-Indian peoples?"
In case you don't know, a large part of Pakistan IS Balochistan. Further, about 20-25% population of Pakistan is Pashtun.
So all that Bharat wrote was against Pakistan, which we can understand. It had nothing to do with Iran or Iranians.
So please keep Iran and Iranians out of this. We are discussing Pakistanis, and let it be this way.
By the way, looking from your perspective, what's up with Iran's obsession with Germans?
I know it's off-topic. This question just popped up in mind.
This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Jan 31, 2005 5:16 PM
1) "In case you don't know, a very large part of Pakistan IS Balochistan. Further, about 25-30% population of Pakistan is Pashtun."
I am glad you admit it. Don't forget the 25% who "Shia", either.
2) "So all that Bharat wrote was against Pakistan, which we can understand. It had nothing to do with Iran or Iranians."
It has everything to do with I-R-A-N-I-A-N-S, kiddo. You see, the land was stolen form Persia by the Brits. It is not a land inhabited by peoples historically originating in the Indian Sub-Continent.
Must I always remind racist, facist, empirialists such as yourself, that taking other peoples land is not nice?
3) "So please keep Iran and Iranians out of this. We are discussing Pakistanis, and let it be this way."
As long as Iranians live in those regions controlled by Indians, it will be OUR business(And the Pakistanis are INDIAN, after all)...
4) "By the way, looking from your perspective, what's up with Iran's obsession with Germans?"
Those folks are called "insecure" and "moronic", in my book. Sort of like how the Turkish always claim to be "Mongolian"...
5) "I know it's off-topic. This question just popped up in mind."
Isn't the sub-continent a geographical definition than an ethnic one? I mean, it can't be ethnic since India and Iran are both multi-ethnic civilizations.
Point of origin of the people is what Paddy is arguing about. First of all, it doesn't matter as they are within the sub-continent as of now. Secondly, everyone comes from somewhere.
Now, if you are saying about where the Pashtuns became Pashtuns as an ethnicity, that too developed within the sub-continent. Sure, they came from central Asia, but then everybody came from central Asia in the sub-continent. Pashtun culture, hence ethnicity is rooted in the sub-continent.
Now, Pashtuns have seen PLENTY of invasions. Anyone entering the Hindustan had to pass through Pashtun lands. Of course the Turks, the Persians, the Mongols, the Uzbeks, the Kazakhs, all mixed in with the Pashtun population. Genetically, they are very diverse. But culturally, probably 90% of the world takes their fatherline, so hence a Pathan is a Pathan whether regardless of where his mother or even maternal grandfather is from.
1) "Isn't the sub-continent a geographical definition than an ethnic one? I mean, it can't be ethnic since India and Iran are both multi-ethnic civilizations."
This relates to your point being?
Europe is a single civilization, composed of MANY different peoples, who are only now coming together as a cooperative group. Yet, I know of no one who would argue that Europe is unto itself not a combined "civilization". The same goes for both historical India and Persia. They are civilizations unto themselves. Seperate, indeed...
This is South Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent, or Bharat, or Greater India, or the "Indic World":
I.E...The Area in "GREEN"m naturally...You guys are the "low-landers".
2) "Point of origin of the people is what Paddy is arguing about. First of all, it doesn't matter as they are within the sub-continent as of now. Secondly, everyone comes from somewhere."
Actually, I am arguing form a geogrpahical standpoint, more than anything else. Geography relates directly to historic cultural, ethnic and racial differences amongst differing civilizations. The Afghans and Balochs inhabit a region of mountainous plateau on the Asian main landmass, created BY the impact of the Indian Sub-Continent into Asia. Historical communication between the peoples of the "mountains"(Iranians, and later Turko-Iranians) and the peoples of South Asia, was few and far between.
I believe this map CLEARLY shows this geographic difference in relation to historical empires. The mountians "do it all":
After all, what actual cultural similarities do Pashtuns or Balochs share with Indians? They have never been Hindu, speak an unrelated language, and have no physical similarities. Naturally, I would also make the exact same arguement for various Arabs that transplanted to the region in the late '80s and early 90's, and were of so "shocked" to learn that NOBODY THERE SPOKE A SHRED OF ARABIC. Its all the same...
Bharat, go ask any Pashtun what he or she is doing for "Noruz" this year. Then go ask an Indian and a Persian. Unless the Indian is a "Parsi", they will most likely have no clue what in the hell you are talking about. OF course, the Pashtun and Persian will, regardless of their religion.
3) "Now, if you are saying about where the Pashtuns became Pashtuns as an ethnicity, that too developed within the sub-continent. Sure, they came from central Asia, but then everybody came from central Asia in the sub-continent. Pashtun culture, hence ethnicity is rooted in the sub-continent."
Bharat, no offense, but this is simply unrealistic nonsense.
On this very forum, you have repeatidly esposed the theory that the "Aryans" actually originated in Southern Asia, and that the whole "Aryan Invasion Theory" was nothing more than a racist British dream.
I don't necessarily disagree with this point.
Yet, now you are trying to state that the Central Asians(at least the "Iranian" ones) originated in South Asia, as well? There exists not one shred of anthropological evidence to back up such an absurd claim, let alone its insult to commen sense. How can you possibly say this? It is EXACTLY the same as an Arab laying claim to Central Asia, as well. Just from a different angle, and just as offensive.
3) "Now, Pashtuns have seen PLENTY of invasions. Anyone entering the Hindustan had to pass through Pashtun lands. Of course the Turks, the Persians, the Mongols, the Uzbeks, the Kazakhs, all mixed in with the Pashtun population. Genetically, they are very diverse. But culturally, probably 90% of the world takes their fatherline, so hence a Pathan is a Pathan whether regardless of where his mother or even maternal grandfather is from."
True, but the Pashtuns did plenty of "invading" as well. There lineage is that of the "Saka", or Asiatic Scythians, if you will. Short of the later Turko-Mongolian invaders, they were simply some of the BIGGEST A$$HOLES in ancient history...
*Now, you are probably wondering WHY I am always so taken aback by the Indian tendency to claim Afghanistan, Balochistan, Central Asia and even a chunk of modern Iran as their own. It is actually very simple.
It is called SURVIVAL.
You see, just as the Arabs love to hold a fantasy in which the own all of "Persia", for the simple reason that they conquered and held some of the region for a hundred years, I am now starting to see a very LARGE element of Hindu-Indian thought relishing on a transient past that never was. One in which India ruled the Iranian plateau, or at last a large part of it, thus setting the stage for a "natural" modern empire of sorts.
Such idealogy can only lead to endless warfare. Should Pakistan ever "fall" to a greater India, the Pashtuns and Balochs will certainly wage and endless war against the Indian agressor, just as was done to the Soviets in the 1980's, and even to the Pakistani government in our own time! Such a rapidly expanding India can only lead to an Iranian alliance with the tribal Pashtuns and Balochs, as well. After all, once India has Pakistan, and Afghanistan, what is to stop them from an invasion of Iranian Koruson, and Iranian Balochistan. And of course, there is Turkestan, as well...
Bharat, you have said it yourself. Greater India extends all the way to the "Zagros" mountians. The Zagros being right smack in the center of modern Iran...
I have no delusions of a greater Iran, the encompasses all "Iranian" peoples, or any nationalistic garbage as such. What I do have is a comprehension of the huge entho-cultural difference between "Indo's" and "Iranians", and really have no interest in seeing this lead to a large civilzational clash, nor do I envision a future where "Turko-Persian" culture is wiped out of existance by an invading force or nation, be it Indic, Arabic, Slavic, or Chinese...
That is what it boils down to, and nothing more...
"On this very forum, you have repeatidly esposed the theory that the "Aryans" actually originated in Southern Asia, and that the whole "Aryan Invasion Theory" was nothing more than a racist British dream."
There is no archeological proof of that, but when you look at literary evidence from India, you will find "Aryan peoples" have been moving out of India, and absolutely no record of Aryans moving into India...
"You see, just as the Arabs love to hold a fantasy in which the own all of "Persia", for the simple reason that they conquered and held some of the region for a hundred years, I am now starting to see a very LARGE element of Hindu-Indian thought relishing on a transient past that never was. One in which India ruled the Iranian plateau, or at last a large part of it, thus setting the stage for a "natural" modern empire of sorts."
Actually about Indians ruling the Iranian Plateau, I dont think we ever had all of Iran, but in ancient times, the Zoroastrian people before the Sassanids actually wer under the Indian influence, and at times control of eastern areas(Indo-Greek from Afghanistan and the Buddhist Kushans).
"Such idealogy can only lead to endless warfare. Should Pakistan ever "fall" to a greater India, the Pashtuns and Balochs will certainly wage and endless war against the Indian agressor, just as was done to the Soviets in the 1980's, and even to the Pakistani government in our own time! Such a rapidly expanding India can only lead to an Iranian alliance with the tribal Pashtuns and Balochs, as well. After all, once India has Pakistan, and Afghanistan, what is to stop them from an invasion of Iranian Koruson, and Iranian Balochistan. And of course, there is Turkestan, as well..."
Balochs and Pashtuns may not have to fight us. Incase of war with Pakistan, we may turn to seperatist Pashtun and Balochi groups, and give them special powers in Pakistan or self autonomy after Pakistan falls....
"Bharat, you have said it yourself. Greater India extends all the way to the "Zagros" mountians. The Zagros being right smack in the center of modern Iran..."
I will have to disagree with Bharat on this issue too
Bharatvarsha does not go beyond Punjab and Sindh if you consider ethincity of the people. If you look at history, There were the People of the Indus, Ganges and the Kaveri rivers who made India. Ethnic Indians never actually immigrated to foreign lands as much as others, we are where we always have been. So You green map of South Asia is a fair representation of BHarat in history...
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
1) "There is no archeological proof of that, but when you look at literary evidence from India, you will find "Aryan peoples" have been moving out of India, and absolutely no record of Aryans moving into India..."
How does this relate to the Vedas, just out of curiosity. I really am no expert, I would like some insight into it...
Oh, and I must add, that I stated in my post that I agreed that the "Aryan Invasion" theory was most likely not the case in India. It is the susposition that the Aryans "originated" in India, and then migrated into Iran, that makes little sense to me...Unless of course you are refering to the Elamites, perhaps? They were the original people to occupy the Iranian plateau before the arrival of the "Indo-Europeans" sometime around 1,500 B.C...
2) "Actually about Indians ruling the Iranian Plateau, I dont think we ever had all of Iran, but in ancient times, the Zoroastrian people before the Sassanids actually wer under the Indian influence, and at times control of eastern areas(Indo-Greek from Afghanistan and the Buddhist Kushans)."
Well, I do know that at certain times in history, a good part of Afghanistan was under "Indic" control. Of course, these points were few and far between, and even the term "Afghanistan" would not have even been used then.
As far as the Sassanids are concerned, all that I can verify is the simple fact that Zoroatorianism and Hinduism ARE related religions, "cousins", or sorts.
3) "Balochs and Pashtuns may not have to fight us. Incase of war with Pakistan, we may turn to seperatist Pashtun and Balochi groups, and give them special powers in Pakistan or self autonomy after Pakistan falls...."
Knowing these "folks"(the tribal Turko-Iranic groups), all I can say to you is good luck. They currently fight against Pakistan. They would help Pakistan fight India in a war, and then would fight India once the Pakistani lowlands were conquered and "owned" by India.
Do Indians actually want anything to do with these people? Even modern Iranians don't...
"I will have to disagree with Bharat on this issue too
Bharatvarsha does not go beyond Punjab and Sindh if you consider ethincity of the people. If you look at history, There were the People of the Indus, Ganges and the Kaveri rivers who made India. Ethnic Indians never actually immigrated to foreign lands as much as others, we are where we always have been. So You green map of South Asia is a fair representation of BHarat in history..."
Influence is totally different from control my dumb friended non iranian padi shah, who i tried to speak persian to and u couldnt speak it worth jack.
One in which India ruled the Iranian plateau, or at last a large part of it
Large part? little?
try neither, india never even had a piece of iranian plateu, and when would this have been, when sassanids ruled? get real padi guz, u are a joke if u think indians had anything on iran, afghanistan maybe some parts as well as pakistan parts, but saying iran at all is a joke. and u know it.
BTW
UR NOT IRANIAN, SO THIS WHOLE IRANIAN CRAP U ALWAYS PULLIN IS FUNNY.
the Zoroastrian people before the Sassanids actually wer under the Indian influence
what the **** are u smoking? are u speaking of Dariush and Kurush, are u out yur damn mind! zoroastrian people were never under influence of india till some moved to india during islam invasion. u need to get yur facts straight.
Here is the scoop, Persia always times after times had northern parts of india, we sacked new delhi, took yur jewels.
Indians never landed a ****in foot on the iranian plateu.
and may i remind u iranian plateu lies in middle of iran
The Iranian plateau covers much of eastern Iran. Iranian Plateua such as Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz. u must be out yur damn minds u guys even think had a cm of it.
They both exist as a result of two seperate continental plates smashing into the Eurasian landmass.
2) "Influence is totally different from control my dumb friended non iranian padi shah, who i tried to speak persian to and u couldnt speak it worth jack."
Ey Baba...Khaley Porue.
3) "One in which India ruled the Iranian plateau, or at last a large part of it Large part? little?"
I said part of Afghanistan, only...
4) "try neither, india never even had a piece of iranian plateu, and when would this have been, when sassanids ruled? get real padi guz, u are a joke if u think indians had anything on iran, afghanistan maybe some parts as well as pakistan parts, but saying iran at all is a joke. and u know it."
I never said that India ever did rule Iran.
Are you even funtionally literate?
"UR NOT IRANIAN, SO THIS WHOLE IRANIAN CRAP U ALWAYS PULLIN IS FUNNY."
Correct. I am an American who is currently applying for duel citizenship in Turkey...
o my padi got 3 words in persian, well techincally messed it up
Ey Baba, Khaley Porue.
Ey Baba, Xele Poru Hasti.
also dont try to act liek u are iranian, cause in chat, u spoke **** for persian, i thought u were speaking some african language.
also u mentioned iranian plateu, which almost all of the iranian plateu lies in iran, so u saying they had alot of it means they had alot of iran, and saying india had even a cm of iran is ridiuclues and laughable. Afghanistan at one small point they had a bit of it, but for the rest of world history it was under persian rule.
"what the **** are u smoking? are u speaking of Dariush and Kurush, are u out yur damn mind! zoroastrian people were never under influence of india till some moved to india during islam invasion. u need to get yur facts straight."
I'm not smoking anything my friend, The Mewar kings of Gujrat(allies of the Guptas) always had a strong influence on eastern Iran. Before them it was allies of Mauryas and Kushans(very little).
"Here is the scoop, Persia always times after times had northern parts of india, we sacked new delhi, took yur jewels."
Sure you did. In pre-Islamic Iran, the Sassanids managed to capture Gandahar, in western Afghanistan. In Islamic times, Iran had parts of Northern India, thanks to your Turkish masters
If you think Nadir Shah won a REAL WAR in India, you're dead wrong...
Nadir won because:
1) Mughal Emperor's Rajputs(and all his best artillery and elephants) walked away from the field
2) He had the entire Sikh confederacy as his allies
3) He had the Jats and many more Rajput warriors fighting under him
4) It was very easy for him to bribe the unpaid Indian soldiers who decided to fight
His stealing of jewels was basically because the Mughal's couldn't pay the Shah what he demanded, so he offered his personal treasures...
"Indians never landed a ****in foot on the iranian plateu.
and may i remind u iranian plateu lies in middle of iran
The Iranian plateau covers much of eastern Iran. Iranian Plateua such as Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz. u must be out yur damn minds u guys even think had a cm of it."
Can I get some of the stuff you smoke?
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
haha because he was azari u have to refer to him like that, he was iranian before anything. so im Luri, so that means im not considered iranian first? drop dead dumbass, every iranian consideers themself iranian before anything no matter what race, we have from turks to persians to kurds, we all iranian, we all kicked yur ass.
"Well, you really can't say that "India" had control of Iran. Which kingdom would represent India in this case? Which kingdom would represent Iran?"
For the kingdoms that went into Iran, they were the Sindhis and Gujratis. I dont know which Iranian kingdom, but it was eastern Iran.
They were never there to rule like expansionists, they basically provided military help to their ally kings....
"Afghanistan at one small point they had a bit of it, but for the rest of world history it was under persian rule."
No. Afghanistan was independant for most of the times in history....
The Iranians and Indians had control sometimes, but they never managed to hold on to them for long. The best we've done is influence the people in some ways...
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
The Iranians and Indians had control sometimes, but they never managed to hold on to them for long. The best we've done is influence the people in some ways...
what influence do u have on afghanis? there language is persian. What in their country is indian?
secondly u had kingdoms that ruled iran?
please explain before i put this rare finding in the iranian forum
man u think kushans were anything? sassanids took the huns which were way stronger as well as romans, kushans to them were a breeze.
In AD 226 Ardashir I, a Persian vassal-king, rebelled against the Parthians, defeated them in the Battle of Hormuz, and founded a new Persian dynasty, that of the Sassanids. He then conquered several minor neighboring kingdoms, invaded India, levying heavy tribute from the rulers of the Punjab, and conquered Armenia. Within twenty years, Ardeshir I (224-241) created a vast empire that stretched as far as the Indus.
Well the Kushans did help the Huns, but they were defeated by the Guptas, in Indus and Punjab, and as you can see, they are Indian tributary states....
The Kushans did lose their land in Gandahar, but that doesn't count as "nortern India". That's Afghanistan....
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
I dont think this is right, because in this time India(Chandraguta Maurya of Magadha) went as far as getting upto Balochistan...
"Along with the the astute advice of Chanakya, Chandragupta also seized Punjab, Kabul, Khandahar, Gandhara and Persia from Seluces. Seluces' daughter was married to Chandragupta.
"Selucus failed and had to conclude a treaty with Chandragupta by which he surrendered a large territory including, in the opinion of certain writers, the satrapies of Paropanisadai (Kabul), Aria (Herat), Arachosia (Qanadahar) and Gedrosia (Baluchistan), in return for 500 elephants. The treaty was probably cemented by a marriage contract. A Greek envoy was accredited to the Court of Pataliputra."
- An Advanced History of India
by RC Majumdar, HC Raychaudhri & Kalinkar Datta"
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
man u dont think nothing is right, but its all tru, the achemenid empire was very big and u guys didnt have no piece of no where in pakistan of afghanistan, unless u smokin and like to think of lie then yes.
Chandragupta also seized Punjab, Kabul, Khandahar, Gandhara and Persia from Seluces
u had persia?
lol stop smoking crack boi, i know u hate that we ruled u guys, but saying propaganda like india ever had persia is the biggest joke in history.
go to any website u will see the acheamenid empire had from macedonia to north east india, for over 300 years.
after that was the selucid which was destroyed by parthians who restored persia to borders
then 2 years after there fall for ruling 20 years, the sassanids extented the empire to boundaries from north india to south arabia to former ankara in turkey , Sassanid Empire (226-642)
that lasted over 400 years, led by hardships aftering fighting romans, byzantines for hundreds of years and destroying them, sassanids had becomed weakened, then arabs ruled from ( 642-750)
followed by Various local Persian monarchs rose to power: the Tahirids (821-873), Saffarids (867-903), Samanids (873-999), Ziyarids (928-1077) and Buyids (945-1055).
then They were followed by Turkic dynasties with Persian culture: the Ghaznavids (962-1186), Seljuqs (1038-1153) and Khwarazmis (1153-1220).
Mongolian Empire (1220-1500)
Then Persian Savafid Dynasty
Safavid Empire (1501-1747)
then qajar Dynasty till 1906
then Pahlavi dynasty till 1979
so when did india ever have iran or for that matter persia? was it
Timeline
c.2300-c.1700 BCE Indus Valley civilization
c.1700-c.520 BCE No records
c.520-c.400 BCE Persian Empire
c.329-c.316 BCE Occupied by Alexander the Great and Macedonian generals
c.316-c.180 BCE Controlled by the Maurya dynasty, founded by Chandragupta. Converted to Buddhism under King Asoka (273-232 BCE)
c.180-c.10 BCE Under control of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, with some incursions of the Indo-Scythians from around 100 BCE.
c.10 BCE-c.20 CE (Common Era) Kushan Empire
c.20-c.75 CE Parthian invasion and Indo-Parthian Kingdom . Rule of Commander Aspavarman?
c.75 CE- c.230 CE Kushan Empire
c.230-c.300 CE Kushanshahs A Persian state established as a buffer zone and a Persian dependency.
c.300-c.450 CE Controlled by the Guptas
c.450-c.565 CE White Huns (Hephthalites)
c.565-c.712 CE Local control
c.712-850 CE Controlled by the Caliphate
"u had persia?
lol stop smoking crack boi, i know u hate that we ruled u guys, but saying propaganda like india ever had persia is the biggest joke in history."
I'm not smoking anything my drunk friend, and what I say isn't propaganda. Its not a joke either.
"go to any website u will see the acheamenid empire had from macedonia to north east india, for over 300 years."
Another indication that you drink too much and smoke a bit too much
Look at the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka:
Here is Chandragupta Maurya's Empire(300BC):
Look at this, not Persians but Alexander's forces controlled Indus:
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
So u guys obtained that from the seleucids correct?
until they were destroyed by parthians
then as sassanids came to power 20 years after we reclaimed all land in balochistan and took north eastern part of india for over 400 years.
i can see how u guys obtained a piece south east persia from the selucids for about a 40 year peroid.
btw u mentioned persians didnt take to indus, but ur forgetting indian boi that sassanids came about 40 years after selucids, in which they had occupied all the way to indus, sassanids werent before selucids but after, when the iranian parthians crushed the selucids.
I would say the toughest dynasties persia ever had were the Sassanids because they managed to become the super power even when roman had rised, and we defeated their empire many times including made romans slaves, as well as defeated huns, and the little kushans who indians think were tough.
only reason i was arguing with u cause yur statements said chand... took persia like meaning the whole persia, now i see yea ok small south eastern portion of it, during when selucids had taken over. um yea but still even at indias greatest extent which had that part of south east persias extent for about 40 years, still no piece of modern iran was in it, if u look closely.
"then as sassanids came to power 20 years after we reclaimed all land in balochistan and took north eastern part of india for over 400 years."
Took balochistan = Yes
Took North Eastern India = HELL NO!
You ruled for 400 years??!!! You should really stop smoking....
Look here buddy; that map of Iran is a wrong map. Before the Guptas, they were independant, not under Iran.
And here is before the Sassanids beat up the Kushans
And even if the Sassanids won over the good Kushans, they never really lost all their lands to Iranians. Most of their eastern lands went into the Gupta Empire.
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
TERRORISM IS FOR PU**IES
This message has been edited by Darkness1089 on Feb 3, 2005 10:14 PM
i suggest u go here, the sassanid empire lasted 400 years and yes it did go all the way to north india
In AD 226 Ardashir I, a Persian vassal-king, rebelled against the Parthians, defeated them in the Battle of Hormuz, and founded a new Persian dynasty, that of the Sassanids. He then conquered several minor neighboring kingdoms, invaded India, levying heavy tribute from the rulers of the Punjab, and conquered Armenia. Within twenty years, Ardeshir I (224-241) created a vast empire that stretched as far as the Indus.
The Sassanids believed that they were the natural descendents to the Achaemenid. They revived the Persian culture and aggressively took what they saw as their natural place in dominating their neighbors. Ardeshir's son Shapur I (241-272) continued this expansion, conquering Bactria, and Kushan, while leading several campaigns against Rome. In 259, the Persian army defeated the Roman emperor Valerian at the battle of Edessa where more than 70,000 Roman soldiers were captured or slain.
also i suggest u stop putting if's on yur comments, saying if sassanids took kushans, is a joke in itself, dummy we took romans and huns , kushans must have been a walk in the park compared to those great powers.
secondly some links proving sassanids did take north eastern parts of india
Ardashir and his son Shapur deemed themselves successors of the Achaemenids and aimed to restore their glory, extending Parthian domination over many eastern territories (including India), and in the west taking on Rome in Armenia and Syria.
In many ways the Sassanian period (AD 224-633) witnessed the highest achievement of Persian civilization, and constituted the last great Iranian Empire before the Moslem conquest. The Sassanian Dynasty, like the Achaemenian, originated in the province of Fars. They saw themselves as successors to the Achaemenians, after the Hellenistic and Parthian interlude, and perceived it as their role to restore the greatness of Iran. At its peak, the Sassanian Empire stretched from Syria to north-west India; but its influence was felt far beyond these political boundaries. Sassanian motifs found their way into the art of central Asia and China, the Byzantine Empire, and even Merovingian France.
I do know that Sassanids deposed the Kushans, but Kushans never ruled northern India, they ruled the lands to the north and the west of Sindh. If Sassanids came into conflict with the Magadha rulers, Persia would have been turned into "extended India".
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
About the achaemenids, I really dont know a lot about them, but I do know for sure that Chandrgupta Maurya controlled lands as far as Balochistan(taken from greeks of Alexander's Army), so there was no way these guys could have been rulers of Indus....
Would really appriciete some info on Achaemenids
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
If Sassanids came into conflict with the Magadha rulers, Persia would have been turned into "extended India".
oooo, u think magadha rulers could have taken sassanians? We crushed romans and huns and u think some magadha rulers are anything? okey dokey. btw many sites and encyclopedias show sassanids did go all the way into india, and i remember some stating till new delhi.
"ooo, u think magadha rulers could have taken sassanians? We crushed romans and huns and u think some magadha rulers are anything? okey dokey. btw many sites and encyclopedias show sassanids did go all the way into india, and i remember some stating till new delhi."
You seriously think Sassanids could take the Magadha rulers???
That was India's golden age, when India was united(although the Gupta's direct rule was only in the north, the deccan and dravidian kings gave him their allegiance).
The combined strength of the Magadha king's army and the dravidian navy would EAT the sassanids for breakfast.
Sassanids going as far as Delhi????!!!!!
Man you REALLY need to stop smoking. Use non-Iranian sites to prove it.
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
Padishah's claim of Pakistanis to be Indians:
---------------------------------------------
I have said it many times on this forum, and I repeat, that there is no such thing as Indian nation; because historically, there has never been a country named India. South Asia is more like a combined continent than a country. This South Asian subcontinent constitutes many races, religions, and every possible mixture of these two.
And since the word "India" is a historical myth, hence claiming Pakistanis to be Indians is absolutely wrong.
What is "Pakistani"?:
----------------------
According to you, the "Indian" Pakistanis have occupied "Iranian" Pashtuns and Balochis. As we saw, there is no such thing as "Indian", and hence your statement is altogether nullified. Because if there is no India, then how can Pakistanis be Indians?
So who are Pakistanis? What defines Pakistani nation? Pakistan's origins lie in British Raj. Pakistan is Muslim dominated areas of the British Raj. Pakistan is NOT founded on race.
We saw that Pakistan was not formed on the basis of race. And we know that neither Pakistan nor Pakistan's concept existed before 1947. So now you wrong to say that Pakistan "occupied" Iranian people. Because looking at it from another angle, it is Pashtuns and Balochs who have "occupied" Punjab and Sindh! What say you?
Actually no one occupied anyone in Pakistan. Pakistan was formed on the basis of democracy. Each province and state was given a choice to decide its future. And all Muslim dominated areas of British Raj favored to be included in the Muslim state of Pakistan.
Secondly, if being Aryan is what defines Iranian people then Iran should let go of its Arab and Kurd minority.
Padishah's claim of calling Pashtuns and Balochs "Iranian" people:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this claim really worthwhile, or is it figment of your imagination? We see that it is later rather than former.
We know that about 8000 years ago, the world was not much populated. Then people starting moving from one area to another, and this movement gave rise to present-day nations. Because of this mass-migration, almost all nations are "cousins" to each other. At some point of time, they were one people, and became a separate nation after living separately for a long time.
Just as one example, English were once German. But can anyone call an Englishman to be German? No. That will be plain stupid.
But here you are committing the same stupidity, sorry to say. Pashtuns and Balochs have been separate people from Iranians for more than a thousand year. Hence even though they were once Aryans, they still can not be called Iranian now. If you insist on calling Pashtuns Iranian, then why do you leave Hinus? After all they were Aryans earlier as well. You can not disagree with it.
So why is it that people like Padishah are quick to call Pashtuns to be Iranians, but leave Hindus of North India out? Simple. It's nothing but RACISM.
Hindus of North India, although originally Aryans, and cousins of Iranians, have intermingled with original inhabitants of North India (Dravidians); and thus are not as "white". Pashtuns have had lesser mixing with Dravidians, and thus "whiter" than Hindus.
This is the reason why racist minds like that of Padishah, consider keep the Hindus out of their racist supreme "Iran" concept.
So dear Padishah, to me you are as racist as that Chinese guy who was mocking Indians based on their color. It's just that you are showing your racist side more politely.
Islam, the end of racism:
-------------------------
As I said earlier, it is Islam which defined Pakistan, and not any race. Hence Pakistanis are in all color and from all races (and their mix). A Pakistani could be of Greek origin (Kalash people), or African origin (Makrani Baloch people), or mix of many (Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Muhajirs).
An advice to such people:
-------------------------
Dear Padishah, you should not feel elated if a few Pakistanis relate themselves with Middle East or Central Asia, or if we use Arabic/Persian/Turkish words. Because a lot of Pakistanis ARE from those areas, including myself. I met many Iranians in an Imambargah, and most of them thought of me to be from Uzbekistan.
It proves my claim. Unlike Iran, Pakistan is NOT based on racism. It is a mix of many races, just like the USA.
When I told him of population of NWFP province of Pakistan, Padishah says:
"I am glad you admit it. Don't forget the 25% who "Shia", either."
I don't see why I would have problem accepting it. Especially when I am myself shia. But I think you are exaggerating the population of shias in Pakistan. A better estimate is about 15-20%.
Do you know that Ayatullah Khumeini was originally not Iranian? I hope it won't make you uneasy when I tell you that he was originally from your so-called "non-Iranian" area of British Raj. Yes, he was a Kashmiri.
Just for information, there is a mazaar (tomb) close to Islamabad, Pakistan; belonging to one "BARI IMAM". It's a very famous place for people to visit and pay their tributes. I have heard that BARI IMAM and Imam Khumeini had one grand father.
Pics of Bari Imam's tomb:
This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Feb 5, 2005 8:51 PM This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Feb 5, 2005 8:49 PM This message has been edited by Zulfiqar on Feb 5, 2005 8:38 PM
You seriously think Sassanids could take the Magadha rulers???
o my big bad Magadha rulers, u think they could match to huns or romans at their peak?
if not , please be quiet,
and about the new delhi thing imma find thie site hol up.
It was around the same time, the Sassanian dynasty seems to have ruled the western part of India which owed their allegiance to the Persians. http://prabhu.50g.com/pstgupta/pstgup_hun.html
The successors of Kanishka ruled for a hundred and fifty years, but Kushana power gradually diminished. Events in Persia were once again to intervene in the history of north western India. In A.D. 226 Ardashir overthrew the Parthians and established Sassanian ascendancy. His successor conquered Peshawar and Taxila in the mid third century and the Kushana kings were reduced to subsidiaries of the Sassanians. http://www.indiansaga.info/history/kushana_rudradaman.html
You seriously think Sassanids could take the Magadha rulers???
o my big bad Magadha rulers, u think they could match to huns or romans at their peak?
if not , please be quiet,
and about the new delhi thing imma find thie site hol up.
It was around the same time, the Sassanian dynasty seems to have ruled the western part of India which owed their allegiance to the Persians. http://prabhu.50g.com/pstgupta/pstgup_hun.html
The successors of Kanishka ruled for a hundred and fifty years, but Kushana power gradually diminished. Events in Persia were once again to intervene in the history of north western India. In A.D. 226 Ardashir overthrew the Parthians and established Sassanian ascendancy. His successor conquered Peshawar and Taxila in the mid third century and the Kushana kings were reduced to subsidiaries of the Sassanians. http://www.indiansaga.info/history/kushana_rudradaman.html
please read how we rain into india, in all this links, thank you.
Also be aware u indians have always been weak, when it came to matching yur persian cousins u were nothing.
Secondly when we had empires we didnt just conquer our own land u idoit. we conquered from europe to india to egypt to russia, unlike indians who havent passed the own indus valley, except of course during when persians were under control by selucids for a short peroid, then indians had their arses moved back into their own pile of junk. besides that dont forget all the persian rulers who came into india.
"Also be aware u indians have always been weak, when it came to matching yur persian cousins u were nothing."
What the hell have you been smoking?? You Persians were always treated as an ally, except when your Turkish masters moved in on India. Some "brave" Persians had the guts to move in India but they got their arses kicked hard and went crying back into their shell.
What the hell are you saying u little punk.
Indians liberated your sorry arses from the Greeks. Alexander wasn't brave enough to attack Magadha, and he is the man that crushed Persia like a worm.
"Secondly when we had empires we didnt just conquer our own land u idoit. we conquered from europe to india to egypt to russia, unlike indians who havent passed the own indus valley, except of course during when persians were under control by selucids for a short peroid, then indians had their arses moved back into their own pile of junk. besides that dont forget all the persian rulers who came into india."
The few Persians that were man enough to come to India got their feet shoved up their own arses in short time. Indus has always been in Indian hands, you should really stop smoking weed.
--------------------------------------------
Decent rifle from cottage factory in Bihar = Rs. 200
Ammunition for the rifle = Rs. 7 per bullet
The look on the terrorists' face when the 72 virgins promised to them turn out to be virgin MEN = priceless
I wouldn't really call the turkish rulers in Iran as the turkish masters. Most if not all of them were assimilated by the persians. Timur and maybe Ghaznavids and the seljuqs are the only turks that didn't assimilate completely.
@Padishah Dont you Call pashtuns Persians. Im a pashtun so i know we are not persian. Our language is completey different to yours, Our culture is that of Warriors. Not long ago you were having a go at my ppl and Khushal and pashtuns and know you would like us to be one of you!! Us pashtuns have nothing to do with iran or Persians. we are Pashtuns/Pakhtuns. Final. Jow dare you call us Iranians??? We are more fiercer looking and warrior like compared to persians.
Racially we are more european in appearance. Green/Blue eyes are common, blond hair is alos not unsual. I am often mistaken for a turk. When I was in Holland recently turks in shops were speaking turkish to me... when I explained im from Pakistan they were surprised.
Let us move on... We are proud to be a part of Pakistan and reffered to as Pakistani citizens. Though we are ethnically Afghans our home is Pakistan. We number about 30% in Pak armed forces and are at the fore front of politics, etc.. We are proud of being pakistanis.
they are also a very amall number of Afridi/Mahsud pashtuns in India.
Balochis are also proud to be citizens of pakistan.
The Pashtunistan movement died a long time ago when the Pashtuns realised Pakistan is their country.
"IT IS BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM THE WORLD LIVES IN A NIGHTMARE"
The warlike Pathans [or Pathan, Pukhtun or Pushtun] form one of the world's largest tribal societies (about 16 million) and are divided into numerous sub-tribes and clans.... The Pathan hill tribes all have a passion for freedom and independence, and defend their territory and honor against all invaders. They are fearless guerilla fighters who know the hills and valleys intimately, are crack shots and wear clothes that blend with their surroundings, No one has ever managed to subdue or unite them: the Turks, Persians, Mughals, Sikhs, British and Russians have all suffered defeat at their hands."
The Pukhtunwali (the Way of the Pukhtuns) is an inflexible ethical code by which all true Pathans traditionally abide. Pukhtunwali requires that every insult be revenged and, conversely, every guest protected. To safeguard his honor, o the honor of his family or clan, a Pathan will sacrifice everything, including his money and his life. He will return even t he slightest insult with interest. According to a Pathan proverb, 'He is not a Pathan who does not give a blow for a pinch....In Lords of the Khyber (1984), Andre Singer illustrates this by recounting the story of a man he interviewed 'who proudly declared that he had killed seven male members of a Mahsud family for having insulted his wife, and so far only his brother had been killed in the revenge'"
"The Pathan tribes are always engaged in private or public war. Every man is a warrior, a politician and a theologian Every large house is a real feudal fortress....Every family cultivates its vendetta; every clan, its feud.... Nothing is ever forgotten and very few debts are left unpaid."[1] Winston Churchill
“Our dealing with Pathans was a gentleman's game. No matter how poor a Pathan was, he might meet the King of England or the Viceroy of India but he'd look him in the eye and shake hands with him as if to say, I'm as good a man as you are.”
Racially we are more european in appearance. Green/Blue eyes are common, blond hair is alos not unsual.
HAHA GOOD ONE. I HAVE GREEN EYES, AND YET I DONT BRAG ABOUT IT LIKE U DO, EVEN THO U DONT HAVE COLORED EYES.
also u say yur more warrior like, is that why we had u guys for centuries, or even that british kicked yur asses, and dont say they didnt cause if u do, i will reign down on u paki boi with all articles on brits taking pashmals
Pashmals look like dark indians to me, every picture i seen of them dont look european and dont look scary either.
Bakhtiaris and lurs alone would stop the grounds and shake fear into every paki.
colored eyes, european lol get out of here u guys are indian looking.
Racially we are more european in appearance. Green/Blue eyes are common, blond hair is alos not unsual.
HAHA GOOD ONE. I HAVE GREEN EYES, AND YET I DONT BRAG ABOUT IT LIKE U DO, EVEN THO U DONT HAVE COLORED EYES.
also u say yur more warrior like, is that why we had u guys for centuries, or even that british kicked yur asses, and dont say they didnt cause if u do, i will reign down on u paki boi with all articles on brits taking pashmals
Pashmals look like dark indians to me, every picture i seen of them dont look european and dont look scary either.
Bakhtiaris and lurs alone would stop the grounds and shake fear into every paki.
colored eyes, european lol get out of here u guys are indian looking.
"Balochis are also proud to be citizens of pakistan."
This is complete nonsense. You obviously don't know what's happening in Baluchistan province in Pakistan. The baluchis are treated like crap and believe me if they had any saying they would separate from Pakistan as soon as they could. It's the same in Iran btw.. They are treated like **** by the iranian authorities.
@uxtixuna... No one gives a Sh*** about your bacteria tribe... hence thats why there is not thread about them, no one has heard of them. pashtuns are well known throughout history, Do a google for pashtuns and then for your bacteria tribe. Our history is full of praises and bravery... From alexander, British, turks, Mughals, Russians everyone has praised our bravery. Your tribe is irrelevant and nothing.
About our physical appearance... You have to meet a pashtun to see for yourself. Cloured eyes are very common amongst pashtuns. Hence the pic below... A common Pashtun Girl... Show me a bacteria girl as fierce as this...
@Bharat... Before there was a movement to be part of Afghanistan/Pashtunistan but thats been dead for 20 yrs now.. mainly beacsue pashtuns are involved in every pasrt of pakistani life. Also in partition the Pashtun tribes voted to be part of Pakistan... they had the choice of either Afghanistan or Pakistan. We dont recognise the Afghan border though and pashtuns have relatives living on either side of the border.
Bharat Im coming Bombay in April. What are the nice places in India.. and also when does the monsoon season start.
Also most baluchis are patriotic that is why they have been Pakistanis for many years. Out of many tribes only one has been causing trouble.
"IT IS BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM THE WORLD LIVES IN A NIGHTMARE"
The warlike Pathans [or Pathan, Pukhtun or Pushtun] form one of the world's largest tribal societies (about 16 million) and are divided into numerous sub-tribes and clans.... The Pathan hill tribes all have a passion for freedom and independence, and defend their territory and honor against all invaders. They are fearless guerilla fighters who know the hills and valleys intimately, are crack shots and wear clothes that blend with their surroundings, No one has ever managed to subdue or unite them: the Turks, Persians, Mughals, Sikhs, British and Russians have all suffered defeat at their hands."
The Pukhtunwali (the Way of the Pukhtuns) is an inflexible ethical code by which all true Pathans traditionally abide. Pukhtunwali requires that every insult be revenged and, conversely, every guest protected. To safeguard his honor, o the honor of his family or clan, a Pathan will sacrifice everything, including his money and his life. He will return even t he slightest insult with interest. According to a Pathan proverb, 'He is not a Pathan who does not give a blow for a pinch....In Lords of the Khyber (1984), Andre Singer illustrates this by recounting the story of a man he interviewed 'who proudly declared that he had killed seven male members of a Mahsud family for having insulted his wife, and so far only his brother had been killed in the revenge'"
"The Pathan tribes are always engaged in private or public war. Every man is a warrior, a politician and a theologian Every large house is a real feudal fortress....Every family cultivates its vendetta; every clan, its feud.... Nothing is ever forgotten and very few debts are left unpaid."[1] Winston Churchill
“Our dealing with Pathans was a gentleman's game. No matter how poor a Pathan was, he might meet the King of England or the Viceroy of India but he'd look him in the eye and shake hands with him as if to say, I'm as good a man as you are.”
Pashtuns Of Afghanistan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UXTIXUNA
There you go you bacteria pansy. WE DONT NEED TO BRAG ABOUT OUR PEOPLE. NO ONE HAS HEARD OF YOUR TRIBE... MY SUB CLAN WILL WIPE THE FLOOR WITH IT.
---
The PATHAN (Pashtun) people form the dominant ethnic and linguistic community, accounting for just over half the population. Tribally organized, the Pathan are concentrated in the east and the south. As they gained control over the rest of the country in the 19th century, however, many of them settled in other areas too. The Pashtuns mostly speak Pashtu (although some residing in Kabul and other urban areas speak Dari) and are generally Sunni Muslims. They are divided into tribal and sub-tribal groups to which they remain loyal.
Though their origin is unclear, their legends say that they are the descendants of Afghana, grandson of King Saul. Most scholars, however, believe that the Pashtuns probably arose from an intermingling of ancient and subsequent invaders. Pashtuns are Caucasians, of medium height, with strong, straight noses, black hair, and dark eyes, although there is a high incidence of blue, green, and gray eyes: The young girl with the unforgettable blue eyes featured in many National Geographic publications and posters is a Pashtun, or Pashtana, the feminine form. The language of the Pashtuns is Pashto, also spelled Pushto, Pushtu, Pashtu, and sometimes Paxto.
When Westerners caution against optimism in battle against the Afghans, it is the Pashtuns they have in mind. The ‘Afghans’ that the British futilely battled against in the 19th century were the Pashtuns. The majority of the mujaheddin (‘warriors in a holy war’) who ultimately drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan were Pashtuns. Much of the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal was fought between rival Pashtun leaders, who had amassed weapons and followers during their fight against the Soviets. Pashtuns are fierce fighters and are known for their marksmanship. They are accustomed to hardship and poverty and can prevail in conditions that would easily defeat others. At the same time, though deeply dedicated to their religious beliefs, they also cultivate nonreligious cultural traditions. They are poets with a wonderful oral literature who can quote poetry by the hour.
The Pashtuns are Sunni Muslims, but their Islamic beliefs and behavior have often been tempered, and distorted, by cultural values that are sometimes at odds with the teachings of Islam, as in their treatment of women under Taliban rule. Distinctive tribal customs and traditions form an integral part of the Pashtun society. Pashtun cultural values are reflected in a code of ethics–called simply Pashto in Pashto, and Pashtunwali (‘the way of the Pashtun’) by non-Pashtuns–by which Pashtuns are required to live. Westerners are fascinated by the idea of the Pashtunwali, and Pashtuns correspondingly expand on the concept to suit their listeners.
Pashtunwali is followed religiously, and it includes the following practices: badal (the right of blood feuds or revenge), nunawati (the right of a fugitive to seek refuge and acceptance of his bona fide offer of peace), melmastya (hospitality and protection to every guest), tureh (bravery), sabats (steadfastness), imamdari (righteousness), isteqamat (persistence), ghayrat (defense of property and honor), and mamus (defense of one’s female relatives).
These elements govern Pashtun interpersonal and intertribal relationships. It is expected that a Pashtun who has been wronged will exact revenge, no matter how long it takes. It is also expected that a Pashtun who has been wronged is entitled to compensation, that compensation being determined by a loya jirga, a council of respected men. And finally, it is expected that a Pashtun will protect and shelter the guests in his household. Another feature of traditional Pashtun life is that inheritances are traditionally divided equally among all the sons, in spite of the clear teachings in the Koran that women are to receive an equal share of inheritances.
The Pashtuns have traditionally been small farmers and seminomads, although their way of life and their rough tribal governmental system has been completely disrupted by the events of the last 20 years. More than 1 million Pashtun Afghans fled to refugee camps in Pakistan following the Soviet invasion.
PASHTO 8,000,000 in Afghanistan, 50% of the population; East, south, and southwest. Dialects: GHILZAI, DURRANI. Since the early 1930's the Afghan government has been exerting considerable effort to standardize and publicize the language. One of the two official languages taught in schools and used everywhere around the country. The people are called 'Pukhtoon' in the north and 'Pushtoon' in the south. The Ghilzai speakers are nomadic and 24% of the national population. The Durrani are urban people, 20%, live in permanent settlements. Clans are: Mohmand, Ghilzai, Durrani, Yusufzai, Afridi, Kandahari (Qandahari), Waziri, Chinwari (Shinwari), Mangal, Wenetsi. Kandahari is the standard dialect, in Kandahar, a major city. National language. Mainly Hanafi Sunni Muslim. (More info on Pashtuns)
first off paki ****, its not bacteria, its Baxtiari dumbass indian.
second off, most bakhtiaris are colored eyes and light skinned, so who r u playing, i myself have green eyes, but thats not the point i dont give a **** about eye color.
Baxtiaris during 1900's fought off russian control of iran, with only 800 horsemen and over 3000 russian soldiers in brigade, and fought them off and set up a constitution for iran.
baxtiaris
The Bakhtiari's are the largest and most purely Iranian of all the Persian tribes. They belong to the Lur race and their language is closely related to the oldest known forms of Persian.
Bakhtiari history, stretching back to the fourteenth century, and the 200-year leadership role of Duraki khans within it tantalize the social historian of Iran. There is great temptation to assume that the extraordinary continuity in the name Bakhtiari can also be found in Bakhtiari political, economic, and social organization.
recent history
On June 16 the Bakhtiari forces, composed of about 800 men, actually started for Teheran, and shortly thereafter they were in communication with the Nationalists at Kasvin. Both the British and Russian Legations exhausted every effort to deter the Bakhtiari leaders from their purpose, but without success. On June 23 the advance guard of this force had reached Qum, eighty miles to the south of Teheran.
In Spite of repeated threats from the Legations the Sarda-i-Asad announced that he had certain demands to make on the Shah, and the advance continued. Still endeavoring to frighten the Nationalist forces, the Russian Government began to assemble an expeditionary army at Baku to be sent into Northern Persia.
At this time the Shah's troops were reported to be some 5000 at Saltanatabad and 1350 soldiers of the Cossack Brigade, of whom 800 under Colonel Liakhoff were at Teheran, 350 to the north of the capital, and 200 to the south, awaiting the approach of the Bakhtiaris. On July 3, the force at Karaj fell back to Shahabad, only 16 miles from Teheran, and on the next day a skirmish between this body and the advancing Nationalists took place.
Meanwhile, Russia was dispatching her troops from Baku and by July 8 some 2000 of them were on Persian soil. On July 11 they had reached Kasvin. The Legation had also warned the Nationalists that any further advance by them towards the capital would be followed by foreign intervention.
On July 10 an engagement took place between troops of the Cossak Brigade and the Bakhtiaris at Badamak, fifteen miles to west of Teheran, but the result was indecisive. Skirmishing continued for the next two days, and on July 13 the Bakhtiaris, to the utter surprise of the Cossack Brigade and Royalist troops, slipped through their lines and entered Teheran at 6:30 in the morning. On July 15 they were in full possession of the capital. On the next day the Cossack Brigade, under Colonel Liakhoff, was still besieged in its barracks and square in the center of the city, and the Russian Colonel wrote to the Sipah-dar, as head of the Nationalist forces, proposing terms for the surrender of the Brigade.
Pictures of Bakhtiaris everybody knows Rudi bakhtiar
and some bakhtiari soldiers
besides those old black and white ones, my dad has a album of my family in early 1900s who look like these guys, with guns and stuff.
everybody knows Rudi bakhtiar
