Print Page | Close Window

Nadir Shah, the last great Asian conqueror

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Rate Kings and Emperors
Forum Discription: Talk about the kings and emperors and rate them!
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27898
Printed Date: 28-Sep-2022 at 22:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Nadir Shah, the last great Asian conqueror
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Subject: Nadir Shah, the last great Asian conqueror
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2009 at 06:27
I think Nadir Shah was really a genius, he was successful in almost all land and naval battles and built a vast empire, in five years he was fighting in Russia, Southern Arabia, India and Transoxiana and conquering lands with a small army in the least amount of time possible, for example as you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karnal - here , at the famous battle of Karnal, he decisively defeated the huge Indian army with a much smaller army just in three hours!
 
I took these photos of tomb of Nader Shah in Mashhad (his capital), some days ago:
 



-------------



Replies:
Posted By: M.Scaevola
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2009 at 16:43
"His campaigns created a great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire - Persian Empire that briefly encompassed what is now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran - Iran , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan - Afghanistan , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan - Pakistan , parts of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus - Caucasus region, and parts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia - Central Asia , but his military spending had a ruinous effect on the Persian economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_shah#cite_note-iranica-0 - [1] Nader idolized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan - Genghis Khan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur - Timur , the previous conquerors from Central Asia. Nader imitated their military prowess and—especially later in his reign—their cruelty." << wiki entry.

yeah... idolizing timur the bloodthirsty, that's always a good quality in a leader. not to mention the "ruinous effect on the Persian economy part" - so he's like Timur + Pyrrhus. From what I know of him, a lukewarm 2 stars


Posted By: M.Scaevola
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2009 at 17:08
Wow. Having read a bit more about him after seeing this topic I wish I had given him -1 stars for being a terrible, terrible ruler. Despite his military successes he:

- Had his son blinded because he suspected him of being behind an assassination attempt.
- Built "towers of skulls" like his hero Tamerlane of people he slaughtered
- Sacked a persian city that was rejoicing at him having defeated their afghan overlords, expecting him, a fellow persian, to be a liberator. instead he sacked them to pay for his military expensive.


the guy was a douche


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2009 at 18:13
M.Scaevola, reading your last post, I would suggest that you do not place modern values as a way to judge someone from the past! Just find me a really good Shah, or Khan, or Caesar, or King, etc.?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: M.Scaevola
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2009 at 03:18
Trust me I don't judge him based on modern values. For example I am (tentatively) a big fan of Temujin and was interested to find out that this particular historical figure thought of Genghis Khan as his hero. However, by the standards of basic strategy and social stability this guy was an idiot, his military successes (which are a bit exaggerated in this post) do not make up for his actions. Unless you're willing to judge leaders based purely on their military prowess without taking into account other factors, in which case the likes of Sulla and Marius and Severus should be looked at as "better" than traditionally admired rulers like Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, to use a few examples from Roman history.  I would argue, obviously, the opposite to be true, since the long term consequences of a leader's actions for civilization far outweigh any short term gains he makes in terms of amassing personal power (through military means or otherwise).


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2009 at 06:42
M.Scaevola, I certainly respect your vote and opinion but the greatest conquerors were usually the worst murderers too, it is important to know what Nadir Shah did, the largest land that he conquered was Persia, his own land, which had been conquered by Afghans, Ottomans, Russians and other invaders, I think if there were no Nadir Shah then Persia/Iran would probably lose its identity or could be a colonial country, like India. He had to fight everywhere around the country for strengthening of the internal situation of Iran, if he stayed at his capital in Mashhad, Ottomans from the west, Russians from the north, Afghans from the east and European colonial countries from the south (Persian Gulf) would certainly invade from all sides and break the country into pieces.

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2009 at 18:54
Dear Cyrus!

I do not want to start a fight, but in my experience persons from Iran, at least a lot of those who now live or travel in America, are mostly stuck up snobs! IE, a lot like the Nazis! You do not appear to follow what may be a limited view of your people by people like me, but non-the less, it is a part of my view of Iranians over a period of the last 30 years or so! It almost seems to be arrogance! But, it might well just be in the view of the beholder?

Sorry to tell you this, but as it is said; "honesty is the best policy", unlike modern American liberals who whould never let such words issue from their mouths!

So, is this "superiority complex" a result of these people being Iranian?, or is it something else?

Of course my lifetime of exposure to such personages could well be the result of me being "short sighted?"

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2009 at 04:59
I think it is true that Iranians are very proud of their history and one of its reasons is that there were some great Iranian conquerors from the ancient times, even Nadir Shah was himself proud of it, look at his coin: http://www.coins2.com/imgsearch/gold+and+rare+coins/11/bc8fae9ba0df827c52091b406867ee19/Item-3342-IRAN-Nadir-Shah-Afshar-AH-1148-1160-Abbasi-silver-coin-Tabriz-RARE-mint-1150AH-VF-Juloos-type-.html - Click Here
 
 
The Persian text on the obverse reads: "Nader-e Iran-zamin o Khosrow-e Gitisetan" which means " Nadir of the land of Iran, another Khosrow who conquers the world". By Khosrow, he meant "Khosrow II Parviz" who conquered Egypt and Anatolia and built one of the largest Persian empires about 1200 years before him.


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2009 at 13:36
Cyrus, could the word "Khosrow" be pronounced as if the "KH" was sounded as a "C?", or was it ever spelled "Cosrow?" Or was the "KH" pronounced more like a "K?" If so, and you remove the remaining vowels, we would be left with "CSR(w)" and "KSR(w)"! CSR or KSR, with substituted vowels could easily be "Caesar" or "Kaisar!"

Any chance?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2009 at 11:40
Of course it can be pronounced as "K" like in Kisra, you know "Taq-i-Kisra" (Iwan of Khosrow) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq-i_Kisra - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq-i_Kisra  That is really similar to Kaisar but the Persian word could be older than Caesar, there was also a Parthian king with this name, the one who fought against Trajan, Khusrava was also the name of a legendary king in the Avesta, it relates to Sanskrit Sushrava in the Rig Veda.

-------------


Posted By: Bean Gas
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2010 at 13:25
I think Nadir Shah was weak because his empire quickly disintegrated after he died.

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2010 at 14:12
Cyrus, are you aware that some historians, linguists, etc., consider the word "Caesar / Kaiser" to mean something like "War Leader" or even "Second in command", or something similar?

If so, its existance could be much older than it currently thought?

Also, the very name "Nadir", tends to resemble the English word "nadir", meaning something like "at its (his/her) lowest point!"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nadir

Could it have merely been a "great play on words?"

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2010 at 21:11
Originally posted by Bean Gas

I think Nadir Shah was weak because his empire quickly disintegrated after he died.
Like Alexander, but the fact is that their successors were weak, not these conqueror.


-------------


Posted By: Bean Gas
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2010 at 21:25
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Like Alexander, but the fact is that their successors were weak, not these conqueror.


Ya but a great leader should leave behind men who are capable of leading. Look at the USA today - it is great not because of one or a few individuals but because of a system which ensures Pax Americana survives. What good is a conquest if it does not last.


-------------


Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2010 at 18:28
Is there an option lower than weak? Within five years of his death, his empire crumbled. His legacy? Death and destruction. Just another Timur who put central Asia a step backward.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2010 at 11:38
Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma

Is there an option lower than weak? Within five years of his death, his empire crumbled. His legacy? Death and destruction. Just another Timur who put central Asia a step backward.
He was certainly better than Alexander, because Alexander's empire crumbled right after his death. So it can be said Alexander was the weakest!


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2010 at 12:29
Also, the very name "Nadir", tends to resemble the English word "nadir", meaning something like "at its (his/her) lowest point!"

As I said earlier, perhaps it is a word play?

Perhaps "nader" is closer?

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Nader

Also a variation of Nasser!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2010 at 00:27
Both words have Arabic origins, but the Egnlish word comes from Arabic nazir (نظیر): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=nadir&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=nadir&searchmode=none whenas Arabic nader (نادر) means "extraordinary, exceptional".

-------------


Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2010 at 02:28
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma

Is there an option lower than weak? Within five years of his death, his empire crumbled. His legacy? Death and destruction. Just another Timur who put central Asia a step backward.
He was certainly better than Alexander, because Alexander's empire crumbled right after his death. So it can be said Alexander was the weakest!


I beg to differ. How did Johann Gustav Droysen, the historian who coined the term "Hellenism", introduce his ground-breaking work on Alexander? The name of Alexander signals the end of one world epoch, and the beginning of a new one. That is the age of Hellenism.

By contrast, what did follow from Nadir Shah except destruction?


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2010 at 00:32
Nadir shah didn't really destroy any important thing but Alexander did, like the great Persepolis, the most important thing is the destruction of other cultures, who is the real destroyer? Someone who respects other cultures or someone who imposes his own culture on other peoples?

-------------


Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2010 at 10:00
Persepolis was destroyed as retaliation for the destruction of the Athenian acropolis by Xerxes in 480 BC. It was not even a city, where innocent civilians lived, but a royal palace, the administrative center of the empire, which was built by the tributes the Persian took from their subject peoples. By modern standards, it was a legitimate military target - unlike the great trade city of Milet which was razed to the ground by the Persians in 494 BC.


Posted By: Ramyar
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2011 at 17:50
I was just looking at the older topics and saw this one and I couldn't help my self but to write a reply on
"unlike the great trade city of Milet which was razed to the ground by the Persians in 494 BC."

I personally have no Idea if thats true since the only source I have read that wrote this was herodotus , and you know how herodotus is right ....

but even if it was true , then that my friend was what we call these days payback = fair !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_Revolt#Sardis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_Revolt#Sardis





Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2011 at 16:31
Dear Ramyar, in your above posting, I am assuming that you were referring to the great city found at the following site;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miletus

Now I have never read anything concerning the naming of this formerly great city, but I would suggest that "Millet", a grain crop, might well have been the origin? Please see;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet

"The millets are a group of small-seeded species of cereal crops or grains, widely grown around the world for food and fodder. They do not form a taxonomic group, but rather a functional or agronomic one. Their essential similarities are that they are small-seeded grasses grown in difficult production environments such as those at risk of drought. They have been in cultivation in East Asia for the last 10,000 years.[1]"

These grains also form a base for the growth of a deadly fungus, that could be the cause of the "black death!"? See;

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/middle-ages-food-bread.htm

"Middle Ages Food - Bread for the Poor
Bread made with barley, oats, or millet was always ranked as coarse food, to which the poor only had recourse in years of want. Barley bread was, besides, used as a kind of punishment, and monks who had committed any serious offence against discipline were condemned to live on it for a certain period.

Rye bread was held of very little value, and it was very generally used among the country people. Black wheat, or buck wheat, which was introduced into Europe by the Moors and Saracens when they conquered Spain, quickly spread to northern Europe which helped to ease the problems caused by famine." Now please see;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism

Just some "food" for thought?









-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Sinsot
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2013 at 10:16
Im great fan of Nader Shah Afshar because im from his own tribe and clan even might have his own blood who knows all i know is my family were an important but we kept our origin secret because qajars were against us :) Nader reunited iran again and it wasn't possible without force of Sword because iran is a huge country with different people and different languages and religions so a powerful sword was needed to make them united under one flag from Batumi to Badakhshan Derbent to Dubai :)
Nader was from Torkoman tribe of Afshar torkoman not Turkmen Afshar were people who became part of iran in age of Great Seljuk of Iran the word of Afshar or Usher come from Af Af means hunting in turkish Afshar means fast hunter and really it was in our blood for example when my dad was a kid he hunted birds by running after them and made them tierd which they couldnt fly any more and my dad got them :)
Afshars entered to Anatolia by Seljuk conquest Afshars in Anatolia made Beyelik ( local kingdoms which controlled by seljuk of rum and seljuk of rum controlled by seljuk of iran ) in 15th century Teymur from Iran attacked new born Ottoman Empire in age of Ilderim Bayezit karaman beyelik was mostly shia muslim but they were alliance of ottomans agains Teymur so Teymur captured many of them as Teymur was also shia grand father of Shah Ismail Safavi grantee they will make no problem if they become shia so Teymur set them free and they be follower of Safavi household in age is Soltan Salim he destroyed Karaman also it was time grandson of that sufi made a shia revoulution in iran to make west and east iran united ( Ak koyonlu and Teymuri which destroyed by Uzbeks ) so Afshar joint Ismail Army and they becsme 6th clan of Qizilbash of Safavid in age of next king Shah Tahmasp safavi ( age of famous wars with Soltan Soleyman the Magnificent or Kanuni ) afshars who left anatolia to Azerbaijan becsme two part a group returned to their homeland Khorasan in north east of iran against Uzbeks and a group which im from them came to south east of iran like kerman to make Pashtuns ( Afghan ) and Baloch and some persians in kerman shie muslim :) still Pashtuns ( afghans ) dont like afshar :) Nader shah was from Khorasani group he was against Kermani afshar tribe even


Posted By: Sinsot
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2013 at 10:29
One other great thing Nader shah did was making iranain open mind bout relgion
For centuries iran was one of the major sunni islam center and as we have our own sunni which name is Hanafi its mostly 80 or 90% like shia relgion of now days Turkey is Hanafi sunni as well
Abu hanife was an iranian arab man
Safavi kings made iran shia a fanatic shia which was brother of judiasm and christianity against ottomans but Nader shah became against of these things becuz half of his army were from sunni Uzbeks and Afghans ( Pashtuns ) so he made iranian respect sunni islam more he said even if u dont accept 1st three caliphs as caliphs at least dont insult or damn them he even changed green color of iran which was symbol of shia and safavi household and he put blue by this in now days iran people arent against sunni but sunnies might be against shias he made 1st Navy of iran also he had plan of At least all islamic lands live in peace together even if they hate each other's but ottomans always refused him and called him a pagan


Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2013 at 13:18
Originally posted by Sinsot

torkoman not Turkmen
were did u read that pan iranist websites ?


 
Originally posted by Sinsot

One other great thing Nader shah did was making iranain open mind bout relgion
nadir was sunni muslem like today turkmens and he try to return iran from shia to sunni even by force this is why after he kill one of the well respected qajar lider and most of turkmens rebel against him  he left alone and assassinated

 
Originally posted by Sinsot

half of his army were from sunni Uzbeks and Afghans
most of his army was turkmens from modern day turkmenistan and north east of iran these are note able commander of his army

jan ali soltan goklan lider of goklan turkmens he and goklans hunt down ashraf afghan in moorche khort near isfahan he kill ashraf he remain loyal to nadir until the night nadir assassinated

hassan ali khan turkmen and sharif beg turkmen . 2 of nadir's commanders they retake tabriz from ottoman

mohammad khan turkmen the emissary of nadir to indians he killed by indians and this was the reason of nadir's invasion of india

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allahyar_Beig_Gerayli&action=edit&redlink=1 - Allahyar Beig Gerayli . he was nadir's commander in war with ottoman my mother is gerayli turkmen and gerayli is part of yomud turkmens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topal_Osman_Pasha





-------------
yomud are free people


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 21:53
Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma

Persepolis was destroyed as retaliation for the destruction of the Athenian acropolis by Xerxes in 480 BC. It was not even a city, where innocent civilians lived, but a royal palace, the administrative center of the empire, which was built by the tributes the Persian took from their subject peoples. By modern standards, it was a legitimate military target - unlike the great trade city of Milet which was razed to the ground by the Persians in 494 BC.


Is it just a great co-incidence that this great trading centre was named "Milet?", or is there another option?

Could it have stood for the grain "millet/ millet?"

Just an observation!

Ron

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Shahzadah Durrrani
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2016 at 19:31
I can certainly understand your exacerbation. Persepolis was only destroyed when there was literally no army left to defend .Alexander was a coward and pedophile. He burned the buildings in persepolis despite most of the people evacuated.




Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2016 at 16:18
Originally posted by Shahzadah Durrrani

I can certainly understand your exacerbation. Persepolis was only destroyed when there was literally no army left to defend .Alexander was a coward and pedophile. He burned the buildings in persepolis despite most of the people evacuated.


Given the context and era; not to mention the conventional tactics and policies of the same. To burn a city, village etc. was not exceptional...but the norm. Especially between two or more belligerents.

Hence your characterization of Alexander as a coward is ridiculous.

You ascertation he was a pedophile has been cast as often as that regarding Mohammed as the same.

Hence your rhetoric smacks of the ultra Persian nationalist...not historical objectivity. And not an examination of cultural, social, sexual, religious, practices of the era.

Which in conclusion simply means ...until you gain a credible and intellectual appreciation of the aforementioned not to mention military practices and strategies as they formed and developed in the region and cultural era..


you are to be ignored as a TROLL.

Be wary about that..trolling...It will get you banned rapidly. Consider this your first and last warning.

CV

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com