Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNadir Shah, the last great Asian conqueror

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Poll Question: Nadir Shah Afshar (1688 - 1747)
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
6 [35.29%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [17.65%]
2 [11.76%]
6 [35.29%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Nadir Shah, the last great Asian conqueror
    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 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:
 

Back to Top
M.Scaevola View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-Oct-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2009 at 16:43
"His campaigns created a great Persian Empire that briefly encompassed what is now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of the Caucasus region, and parts of Central Asia, but his military spending had a ruinous effect on the Persian economy.[1] Nader idolized Genghis Khan and 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
Back to Top
M.Scaevola View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-Oct-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
Direct Link To This Post 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/
Back to Top
M.Scaevola View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-Oct-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14
Direct Link To This Post 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).
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
Direct Link To This Post 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,

Edited by opuslola - 13-Nov-2009 at 18:54
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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: 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.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
Direct Link To This Post 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/
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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 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.
Back to Top
Bean Gas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

Spammer

Joined: 06-Jun-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2010 at 13:25
I think Nadir Shah was weak because his empire quickly disintegrated after he died.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
Direct Link To This Post 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,

Edited by opuslola - 06-Jun-2010 at 14:17
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Bean Gas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

Spammer

Joined: 06-Jun-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
Direct Link To This Post 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!

Edited by opuslola - 09-Jun-2010 at 18:10
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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 whenas Arabic nader (نادر) means "extraordinary, exceptional".
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.