Talk:Safavid Iran

Terms like "Mamâlik-i Mahrûse-yi İran" were not, and could not be, the official name of the state. A careful examination of the article written on the term "Mamâlik-i Mahrûse-yi İran" clearly shows that this expression was not the official name of the Safavid State. Rather than being the name of the state, the term was used as an epithet defining the sovereignty of the Safavid shahs. Indeed, in Safavid chronicles, especially towards the end of Shah Abbas I's reign, the expression "the protected lands of Iran" is encountered more frequently; this expression gradually came to be used as "the protected lands of Iran for the Safavids." This situation shows that the term in question was not an official state name, but a concept defining the dynasty's sphere of influence. The funny thing is, there are many administrators here, people who have worked at Wikipedia for years, and not a single person noticed this? ~2026-77338-7 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems quite fairly referenced though:

• Amanat 1997, p. 13 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAmanat1997 (help) "The frontiers of the "Guarded Domains of Iran" (Mamalik-i Mahrusa-yi Iran), as the country had been defined since Safavid times, were almost the same as those in the fifth-century definition of Iranshahr in the Sassanian manual, Nama-yi Tansar, and those outlined by four-teenth-century geographer Hamdullah Mustawfi, the author of Nazhat al-Qulub."
• Amanat 2017, p. 9 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAmanat2017 (help) "The “Guarded Domains of Iran” (Mamalik-e Mahruseh-e Iran), which became the official title of the country, perhaps as early as the thirteenth century, implied decentralized autonomy and acknowledged diversity of cultures and ethnicities. The idea of the “guarded domains" implied the presence of contesting powers at the frontiers. In this notion of Iran, one may argue, there was a realistic recognition not only of its complexity but also of the inherent necessity for the central state."

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The phrase Mamalik-i Mahruse-yi İran (Protected Lands of Iran), found in Safavid sources, described a political-sovereignty area encompassing various provinces and different communities, rather than the name of a modern nation-state. While this usage shows conceptual continuity with the Sasanian concept of Ērānšahr or the depictions of Iran by medieval Islamic geographers, it does not correspond in content to the idea of a national state. Indeed, as Abbas Amanat points out, in the Safavid period, the concept of "Iran" referred not to a central national identity, but to a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and loosely centralized political order. This structure effectively recognized competing powers and local autonomies in border regions. Furthermore, the article doesn't even explicitly mention the Azerbaijani language; it speaks of Persian, but nobody ignores the fact that the Azerbaijani language (at that time Ajem Turkic) was the mother tongue of the court, religious leaders, the army, and the ruling class, as well as its role in poetry and, most importantly, its status as a valid language. The article states that the official language was Persian, which is true, but why is the Azerbaijani language ignored? The Azerbaijani language has been mentioned very briefly, with only a couple of lines ignored. Furthermore, the influence of the Qizilbas feudal lords on the state has been overlooked. Pirwolf (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right! Furthermore, the concept of an official language is very vague. Did the Safavid state, which existed from the 16th to the 18th century, have an official language concept that was relevant to the 20th century? Of course not. At that time, the official language concept was diplomatic language, not the official language as it is now. It wasn't official in schools, government institutions, or the Army; only diplomatic contact with other countries used Persian.The Qizilbas were portrayed as a military force, but the Safavid dynasty couldn't even have been founded without them; they were the feudal lords of the state. ~2026-78100-2 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

During the Safavid period, much of the Sasanian Empire's territory regained its political unity, and Safavid kings adopted the title "Shahanshah-i Iran" (King of Kings of Iran). Regarding the official terminology of ‘Iran’ and ‘Shahanshah,’ I. P. Petrushevski notes that these terms do not carry any national connotations. According to him, since the Sasanian period, there has been a theoretically ‘universal’ understanding of monarchy associated with these terms in Near and Central Asia (for example, the Mongol Hulagu dynasty also used the titles ‘Shahanshah’ and ‘Iran.’) This understanding was also adopted by Western rulers who embraced the archaic Roman title ‘emperor.’ Therefore, Petrushevski considered it incorrect to define the Qizilbash state as ‘Persian,’ ‘Iranian,’ or ‘New Iran.^[6] ~2026-78100-2 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There are also many sources indicating that the state was referred to as the Qizilbash state. The country was also known as the Qizilbash by the Europeans and the Ottomans. The European Ambassador Michele Membré (1539) stated that the Safavid state was called the Qizilbash state.^[7] The German traveler Adam Olearius (1637–1647), in his work titled "Beschreibung der muscowitischen und persischen Reise," stated that the Turks called the Safavids Kızılbaş and that this name was also used in Europe.^[8] Modern scholars also support this view; for example, Roger Savory wrote that the Safavids were referred to as Qizilbash. .^[9][10][11] ~2026-78100-2 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The way it is written now is confusing to a reader in the English language.

• Safavid Iran starts off as "The Guarded Domains of Iran, commonly called Safavid Iran, Safavid Persia or the Safavid Empire..."
• Afsharid Iran starts off as "The Guarded Domains of Iran, commonly referred to as Afsharid Iran, Afsharid Persia or the Afsharid Empire"
• Zand Iran starts off as "The Guarded Domains of Iran, commonly known as Zand Iran"
• Qajar Iran starts off as "The Guarded Domains of Iran, commonly known as Qajar Iran"

It seems like all these states officially called their state "the Guarded Domains of Iran" (ممالک محروسه ایران) but that is obviously not the WP:COMMONNAME for that state – if it was, it would be impossible to distinguish between them. First, usually official names for a state are given after common names, especially for historic states. For example:

• Iran starts off as "Iran, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran..."
• Achaemenid Empire starts off as "The Achaemenid Empire (/əˈkiːmənɪd/ ə-KEE-mə-nid; Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐏂, Xšāça, lit. 'The Empire' or 'The Kingdom')"
• Kingdom of Yugoslavia starts off as "The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a country in Southeast and Central Europe that existed from 1918 until 1941. From 1918 to 1929, it was officially called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes..."

I would propose we reword the first sentence as:

Safavid Iran was one of the largest and longest-lasting Iranian empires. The state was officially named The Guarded Domains of Iran, and is also commonly called Safavid Persia or Safavid Empire.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that official names for a state are usually given after common names for historical countries. Consider North Vietnam, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or People's Republic of Kampuchea. Also, the point of sharing a single name was for continuity. Technically, it was the same "government" (the "government of Iran"), just differing ruling families. They have common names incorporating the name of the ruling family precisely because their official names were identical. The bureaucracy would persist through each dynasty. For example, the Armenian community in Iran had bureaucrats related to finance, trade, and diplomacy in all four dynasties. For these reasons, I support Keeping the current formulation. JasonMacker (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

In the latter two the WP:COMMONNAME is also the official name, which is the case here. And I do find North Vietnam confusing too, but I'll take that discussion there.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The common names were/are "(the) Afghan government" and "(the) Khmer Rouge", respectively, and not the full official names. That's how people commonly referred to those governments at the time, and still do. Official names are rarely the common names, other than very specific countries like United Arab Emirates. JasonMacker (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You're right. But in those cases the commonname was a non-unique name, whose WP:PTOPIC is a different article. In fact, if you think about it, this reinforces that we need to lead the article with "Safavid Iran". Because Safavid Iran is clearly not the WP:PTOPIC for the Guarded Domains of Iran, and in anycase, there can only be one PTOPIC, meaning that Afsharid Iran, Qajar Iran etc can't be the PTOPICs.

Summary: I'm asserting that the first sentence of an article about a state should typically lead with a name that is the article title, which is frequently decided on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDAB (I recognize that North Vietnam is an exception). In our case, "Safavid Iran" happens to be both the commonname and the naturaldab name.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)