Talk:Durrani Empire/Archive 1

Towfique Sadozai

What's the connection between this person studying in the United States and the subject of the article? Is this self-promotion? Corlyon 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Corlyon[reply]

Map of Durrani empire

This map is highly exaggerated and it is inaccurate. I need the link to the source of this map to check its reliability otherwise it will be reported as personal imagination not a factual map and need to be removed.Vargavandnick (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to have a more factual map of the Afghan Empire which consisted of modern day Afghanistan and modern day Pakistan. At later times, the area slightly west of Herat were incorporated (Nishapur) but that was only for a short period. Does anyone have a factual map which we can use to replace the current innaccurate one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.150.114 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get your history corrected, Friedrich Engels in 1857 was in Afghanistan and described how far the Durrani Empire was stretched. [1] He says that the Durrani Empire included the Kohistan and Khorasan provinces of Iran as well as the Punjab region, which was divided in 1947 when Pakistan was born. Half sits in India and half in today's Pakistan. Zaman Shah Durrani made Ranjit Singh the governors of Punjab, and from there Singh began a rebellion against the Durrani Empire. Maps are suppose to show the full extent of the empire, even if the territory was ruled for a day.--AlimNaz (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

I think that an edit war may be brewing over whether this and other articles should have the Template:History of Iran or the Template:History of Afghanistan. I have deleted both pending discussion. --Bejnar 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact an edit war. Anoshirawan has even gone so far as to restore previous versions with grammatical errors in them that had already been corrected; see, e.g. the edit of 01:29, 8 August 2007. --Bejnar

After review, since February, and consulting with other editors, it seems that the specific template History of Afghanistan is the correct one for this article. That template is more specific than the History of Greater Iran template. See also the comment of Rangeley on 13:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) at Talk:History of Afghanistan since 1992. Further insertion of the History of Greater Iran template into this article will be considered vandalism. --Bejnar 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

The Durrani Empire was a larger state that included modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of eastern Iran and western India. Which specific part of Western India was part of the Durrani Empire?? This information should be clarified, not overtly simplified as it is as current.Devraj Singh 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was punjab, which is now half in eastern pakistan and other half in western india. so the indian punjab is the specific part of western india. here are 2 separate maps of durrani empire >>>map, map2.Mirrori1 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Afghan empire extended only upto Lahore, Panjab, which incidently is only located in Pakistan, therefore, it is innaccurate to include india as being part of the Afghan Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.150.114 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Iran?

What's with arbitrarily labeling all Afghan related articles with Greater Iran tags? Since when was Greater Iran an actual entity? It's just an abstraction that has recently been applied to the region by Pan-Iranists. User: Anoshirawan, why do you insist on cleansing every article of any references to Afghanistan when they are clearly about Afghanistan?

from Abdali to Habibullah the official name of this country was Khorasan nor Afghanistan. Greater Khorasan was part of Greater Iran.

Reference: Tarikh Ahmad Shahi(in farsi) by Al munshi

Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):

دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد

Afzal Khan minted the following on his coins:

دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد

Here is another Book in english which mentions Afghanistan not being an official name and the gov't uses other terms.

Cabul or Afghanistan by Philip Robinson

"و اما اسناد رسمی برای کلمه « خراسان » که نام قدیم افغانستان بوده خیلی زیاد است و از قرن پنج تا قرن نزده میلادی مدت یک و نیم هزار سال بنام خراسان مسما بوده تا دوره احمد شاه درانی هم که نامبرده با کلمه « امیر خراسان » مهر و امضا می کرد. نام افغانستان نه در کدام لویه جرگه و نه رفراندوم انتخاب شده و نه احمد شاه درانی که خود را شاه خراسان مینامید انتخاب شده، بلکه این نام در قرن نزده که یک بخش این سرزمین را انگلیس ها کنترول میکردند در اولین نامه اکلند انگلیسی وایسرای شبه قاره هند عنوان شاه شجاع بکار رفته است."

TRANSLATION FROM FARSI:

".....For over 1500 years the name of this country or land was Khorassan. Ahmad Shah Durrani, whom Afghans consider to be the founder of "Afghanistan", called himself "Amir-ul-Mulke Khorassan" and didn't have any idea what "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" were.... and with “Amir-e Khorassan” was how his papers were signed and his coins were minted. The name "Afghanistan" was not chosen through a "Loya Jirga" or a referendum, nor Ahmad Khan Abdaali, who considered himself to be a Khorassani, chose or came up with it, but this name was mentioned in a treaty between the Viceroy of the Indian Sub-Continent Lord Aukland and Persians in 19th Century and in correspondences with Shah Shujah".....

Dr Kamal Kabuli on historian Faryaar Kohzaad's writings.... www.Kabulnath.de

all the sources you are providing are untrustful or unreliable, they are just personal comments by people who do not know history. you must realize that during the 18th or even 19th century, people living in afghanistan (as well as other parts of the world) probably thought that the whole world was just the small region around them, and they also probably thought that earth was flat, so therefore, we can't rely on those types of thinkers. we go by official records or sources, which is government sources followed by encyclopedic information and famous well known historians that actually travelled to the area where they write about, which "all of these" say afghanistan was created in 1747, and that khorasan was a province of persia (in the northwestern corner of today's afghanistan), where persians inhabited the land. afghanistan was where the afghans (specifically pashtuns) lived, even before 1747 and as far as the 7th century there was afghanistan, it was where the afghans lived and naturally their land was recognized as land of the afghans (afghanistan). today's afghanistan can also be called land of the afghans just as it was called for 1,000s of years. this is why we call it afghanistan, because the name itself means the land where the afghan people have been living, their ancestors are all resting in peace in graves on that land.Mirrori1 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a book written by Abdali's Personal Clerk(Munshi) is unreliable? May you please name a Book that mentions Abdali being Afghanistan's king(written before the 20th century)? Its obvious you and your buddies cant read farsi or you would know that everything i said is the truth. If you disagree then go and read Akram Osman's own Article(akram osman is half Pashtun) on Khorasan. Go read Wasef Bakhtari's Book or even Professor Javid's book on Afghanistan. --Anoshirawan 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

books are nothing. i can write a book and claim that no person ever landed on the moon, which would mean nothing.Mirrori1 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For you info, THese are historians from Afghanistan and their works are accepted by Afghanistanis,Iranians and even by Indians. Even Pashtuns respect Prof. Javid.(aKa Pohan Javid).

there is no such thing as afghanistanis, you are only fooling yourself, you will one day look back and laugh at yourself. people from all over the world can read what we type here and you showing them your knowledge or making them laugh at your silly comments. like i said those people who wrote books in afghanistan in the far past did not even know where america was or if the world (earth) was actually round, as they thought that earth was flat. how would they know this if they never travelled to over-seas. you are giving a very good name to persians.Mirrori1 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the early Durrani called the country Afghanistan. The issue is whether the History of Greater Iran template is more appropriate than the History of Afghanistan template, or not. --Bejnar 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected this article for 1 week because it is becoming increasingly apparent that major edit warring is going on. Please reach a proper consensus in this discussion once the protection is over.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not questioning whether the Persians, and speakers of Persian, called the eastern area from Gonabad to the Pamirs: Khorassan. We are not asserting that this territory was called Afghanistan in any other period but the modern. We are asserting that it is called Afghanistan today. We are asserting the general Wikipedia policy of calling things by their current English (not Persian) name. This includes the History of ... articles. We don't call Mexico City either Ciudad de México or Tenochtitlan. Although traditionally Mexico only referred to the Valley of Mexico where Lake Texcoco was, we apply the term Mexico to the current lands within the boundaries of the United Mexican States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos), or more simply in English, Mexico. The point in naming is not What was, it is What is in English. --Bejnar 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Battle of Panipat

On 23 February 2008, Pravinutankar added a spurious sentence: "The Marathas won the 1st and 2nd Battle of Panipat causing heavy losses to Ahmad Shah."

The first battle of Panipat was on 21 April 1526 between the Mughal chief Babur, then ruler of Kabul, and Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi of Delhi. Although the sultan's army outnumbered the Mughals', it was unused to the wheeling tactics of the cavalry and suffered from deep divisions. Ibrahim was killed, and his army was defeated. This marked the beginning of the Mughal Empire in India.

The second battle of Panipat was on 5 November 1556 between the Mughals and the forces of Adil Shah Suri who had established himself at Chunar and proclaimed himself independent. It ended in a victory for Bairam Khan, the guardian of the young Mughal emperor Akbar, over Hemu, the Hindu general of Adil Shah. It marked the restoration of Mughal power after the expulsion of the emperor Humayun by Sher Shah Suri in 1540 at the Battle of Kannauj.

These two earlier battles did not involve the Marathas or Ahmad Shah.--Bejnar (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did the Durrani Empire contribute to humanity?

Great empires are judged by what they contributed to humanity. That is why the greatest empires are considered to be Greek, Persian, Roman, British, and a few others. What are some things that the Durrani Empire contributed to humanity? PashtoonBoy (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, he consolidated and united often diverse tribes and unified as well as brought stability to the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. His presence put an end to infighting and divisions, and despite being a Pashtun, he ruled over a multi-ethnic state consisting of Pashtuns, Hazara's, Baloch's, Panjabi's, Tajik's, Sindhi's, Dardic, Uzbek, Turkmen and Persians. He chose Persian as the official language and control all the economic trade from this vital geostrategic region. Even when one looks at Afghanistan today and Pakistan for that matter, it has never been as unified as it was when compared to the time of Abdali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, except pointless war, killing of innocent people, and looting for personal gain of a few.

Well, if we go by history, i can't see Durrani empire contributing to humanity, but inhumanity. The empire could be classified as the one which lived by looting the nearby provinces and killing innocent, unarmed people including women and children. ThanksKesangh (talk)

what i say about these comments. In start of every new empire, someone gain and other lose. what ahmed shah did to his countrymen was gr8. they united under ahmed shah command. ahmed shah abdali was not a rajput, he was pathan, so he did everything for his nation. He gave them great honor to remember. If Ahmed shah stayed dehli after panipat war, history would be different. may be we wouldnt found british india in history books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubashirdurrani (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorations

The Order of the Durrani Empire (Nishan-i-Daulat-i-Durrani) was founded by Shah Shuja in 1839. I was awarded to a number of officers of the Bengal Army. Feel free to insert this info in the article. PHG (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The current is not consistent with the historical facts. Central Iran (including Isfahan) and Most of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are included the area of influence of Durranis. It dones't make sense at all. Ahmad Shah and his forces didn't have any presence in those areas. Alefbe (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see even Alefbe, who is at odd with Iranian editors, is mentioning it?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article biased map

First of all what is this Map? It is not enough to mention the source it should be reliable. Would anyone accept a map which shows the Polish were ruling over large parts of France in the 18th century(just an example) this map is of such a nature and is totally false. And even Alefbe, who has behaved very hostile towards Iranians in many occasions, tells this. So please imagine how false this map is. Since when two cousins who one killed theo other by the way can call themsleves a Dynasty? Having killed Iranians doe not make them a dynasty/. These Hotaki Ghilzais were killing other Pashtuns in their native Kandahar all the time without being called a Dynnasty. And when he has defeated Ottomans? There are plenty of evidencs that Ottomans supported Afghans with munitions in order to kill Shiite Iranians. Ashraf has divided Iran between him and Ottomansd when he could not claim the whole former Safavid empire. And Hotaki is the successor of Durranis? Come on Nader Shah favored Abdalis= Durranis because they were enemies with Ghilzais. Pashtun nationalists are writing here a totally biased version of history, and I wonder were is Folantin now? Folantin who is alwyas ther to point a finger to Iranians for nationalis edition, takes it easy with regard to such blatant distortion of history?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This map is highly exaggerated and it is inaccurate. I need the link to the source of this map to check its reliability otherwise it will be reported as personal imagination not a factual map and need to be removed.Vargavandnick (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Durrani Empire

The previous map was better historically —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map showing the extent of the Durrani Empire (Afgempdur.jpg) doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Firstly, the map is not in English, which makes it difficult to understand it. Such a map has very high chances of misleading the readers instead of guiding them. Also, the map doesn’t tell the actual year(time) of the maximum extent of Durrani Empire.

Secondly, the limits of the influence of the Afghan Empire(vassal states) is shown covering Rajputana(Although Rajputs were unfriendly towards Marathas, Rajputana wasn't in any way a vassal of the Durrani empire), part of present day Maharashtra and even Malwa- the stronghold of Holkars & Gwalior- the stronghold of Scindias(Holkars and Shindes were potent forces even after the Maratha defeat at Panipat). Even though the Marathas had lost the battle of Panipat, there wasn’t any chance that anyone (including Abdali) could come even near present day Maharashtra. After the battle, Abdali quickly retired to Afghanistan and the Sikhs had emerged a potent force in Punjab. Although he attacked Punjab twice after 1761, he didn't make any decisive gains and didn't come south of Punjab. This map doesn’t seem to be made by an expert and I also have doubts over the western extent of the empire. It is extremely inaccurate and is misguiding the users. It seems to be highly biased, violating Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and seems to be made by an Abdali follower. This map needs to be removed from Durrani Empire and Afghanistan. Kindly go through this. Thanks Kesangh (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map is made and propagated by Pashtun nationalists/extremists and is not reliable, therefore I propose that it should be deleted.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking. You Iranians are the top most racist people in the world and that's the reason why nobody likes you. You contribute nothing in the world but hate and jealousy.--119.73.3.105 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant believe that this SUPPOSSED map of the durrani empire is still here...its totally against the actual history...readers are misguided...keep it if you want to but the truth is far from what wikipedia is trying to portray...the map is totally biased!!!Kesangh (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the map. Friedrich Engels in 1857 was in Afghanistan and he described how far the Durrani Empire was stretched. [2] He says that the Durrani Empire included the Kohistan and Khorasan provinces of Iran as well as the Punjab region, which was divided in 1947 when Pakistan was born. Half sits in India and half in today's Pakistan. Zaman Shah Durrani made Ranjit Singh the governors of Punjab, and from there Singh began a rebellion against the Durrani Empire and began losing control over some territories. Maps are suppose to show the full extent of the empire, even if the territory was ruled for a day.--AlimNaz (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support AlimNaz on this one. The map description clearly states a date of 1761, the peak of the Empire which happened after the battle of Panipat. As AlimNaz said, "Maps are suppose to show the full extent of the empire, even if the territory was ruled for a day." and this map clearly provides all these dates/years. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]