Just a few random comments:
1- About your conclusion. It is true that many ethnicities are the butt of politically incorrect jokes in Iran. But that is also the case in many countries including Britain where stand-up comedians could tell jokes of that nature up until fairly recently. Germans also use the word 'foreigner' not less frequently than Iranians.

The political correctness that has prevailed in North America hasn't embraced much of the other side of the Atlantic.

2- You have referred to the Persian part and non-persian part of the country and then mentioned a few differences (e.g. preservation of the langugae and rising to the foreign aggressions).

Well I don't have anything about the instances you mentioned. They are all true. But I would assign them to living adjacent to the desert (the area where Persians happen to reside). It is a long discussion, but that kind of life-style backed by a long history has made people who live there conservative. I don't see that directly related to their 'Persianness'.

Dear Eswin,

"So why all these poets, not speaking Persian as their mother tongues, did not write their poetry in their own local dialects? Maybe the earlier poets just wanted to reach as many souls by preserving at least the global Iranic cultural item (the Persian language, due to the ruthless efforts of the Sassanids), which otherwise would die out and be replaced by Arabic or even Turkish."

hmmm....OR maybe they didn't feel that much difference or segregation and pain as you are inclined to think. Maybe they really did consider the whole global culture that of their own.

Dear Eswin, you sound a bit biased against the Persians. I hope I'm mistaken, for bias is not a good thing anywhere.

my dear cousin, AIS:

"Being dominated culturally by Persians for centuries and afterwards politically by the Arabs, Turks, and the Mongols, 'the Iranic Persian culture was still closer to the heart of these other Iranics and they would naturally use it to reach their compatriots and try to preserve what was left to preserve from the Iranic culture.'"

[tcho baashad rooz, rooz-e garm-o baaraan
padid aayad neshaan az baamdaadaan! :-)
-Fakhrodin Asad Gorgani]

Eswin-e geraan-sang,

khosh naazokaaneh mitchami ey shaakh-e No-Bahaar
[k]aashoftegi mabaadat az aashoob-e baad-e Dey -Hafez

to aan daaneh raa maani,
keh az pas-e tondbaad-e havaades,
tchoon nahaali taazeh,
sar az khaak baraavardeh,
bozorg gashteh,
basi shekofteh,
derakht shodeh,
beh baar neshasteh,
bebaalideh.

aknoon to hamtchonaan,
mishekofi,
bozorg mishavi,
mibaali...

aknoon baa kherad-o aagaahi yeki sho,
baa daanesh-o roshani yaar-o hamdel baash,
ghadam dar raah neh...
taa khod raah to-raa beh "mehr-o roshani" bebarad.

-khodam! baa elhaam az Baha Valad, pedar-e Molana

basi mehr, Bamdad (farzand-e Gorgan!).

1- Dr. Zarrinkoob tells us that the Arab Caliphs were eager to hire experienced people from noble Iranic families because they (Arabs) never had the experience of rulling over such vast territories. Now what's wrong with that?

2- You said many Persian poets were ethnically non-Persian. I wonder how different were the Iranic language of Persians, Parthians, and Medes? They might have been very similar, so similar that would make them difficult to differentiate when formally written, unless you could pick specific words that belong to specific regions. Sort of like the similarity between "Old English" and "Scots", or even less than that. After all Persians and Parthians and Medes were ethnically very close, I would imagine them being perfectly able to understand each other's languages. Don't you think that Persian of the south, Parthian and Medean could be seen as dialects of one language, rather than totally different languages? In this way you could say that Roudaki's poems are written in his own mother tongue, which apart from some words, is understandable by speakers of other dialects of the Iranic language. Or our form of modern Persian might have been more influenced by Parthian dialect than any other language or dialect.

3- As far as I know, the names "Kurosh" and "Dariush" have become popular in the past century, after scientific research was done on the heritage of the first Persian empire and the ancient cuniform text was decoded. Do you have any evidence of these names being used 300 years ago? Instead, Shahnameh-based names such as Jamshid, Eskandar, Touraj, Soudabeh etc were quite popular, along with names used in other well-known masterpieces (e.g. Farhad, Bahram, Bijan ...)

4- Unlike English, Persian has enjoyed some kind of light but continuous "purification" which was started during the Shah (perhaps his father) and surprisingly continued during the Islamic republic. It is shocking when you read a typical book published in early 1340's in Iran, it's full of depricated Arabic phrases.

5- Finally, please don't take this personal, it's just curiosity: I want to know why sometimes you prefer to use the "proper" form of a word, such as Khwarazmi and Aturpatkan, and some time you write them in English such as "Safarid", and then some other time you use 'weird' spelling such as "Firdowsi" (for Ferdowsi) or "Ibn-e-Sina" (for Ebn-e-Sina), I mean I want to know when would you use the English form and when would you use "i" for "e"?

I just have a couple of things to say on the 2nd point raised by Estakhr.

(a) The ancient language of Avestan, esp. that of Gatha Avestan is thought to be the closest to the Medean language. This language is very different from Ancient Persian, that itself very different from the Middle Persian. I am sure there are many among the readers who can make this more precise, as my readings in this subject is extremely limited.

(b) Obviously knowing only Persian will not help you read Ossetic, Pashtun, Kurdish, or even Gilaki poetry. Consider these as modern examples of non-Persian Iranic languages.

It will be fun to look at the following wikipedia links:

[Iranian Languages]
[Kurdish Language]

You didn't mention the extreme case of the harassments -the situation of Afghanies who live in Iran. I think it would be good if some one bring it up.

Eswin,
Are you a Druid?

American Woman,

Oh my goodness, your wit has always amazed me!

OK, well..., hmmm...., as an "Oak Tree", Yes, otherwise...I hope not(especially the judgeship aspect of it)!

There are other equivalents for that.....

Hamed,

Your point about Afghans is a great one. I really appreciate that.

I think instead of asking whether Sakan and Parthian were dialects of Persian, we should ask the following: Was Sassanid Pahlavic a dialect of Parthian Pahlavic or not?
Both Middle and Modern Persian have very strong roots and ties to what is now Central Asia and northern Afghanistan. Both languages were born and flourished in greater Khorasan and then spread to Iran's interior (the first with Parthians and the second with Samanids).
Actually, the link between middle and ancient Persian is not very strong. For sure they are closely related languages, but the development of the former is not linearly linked to the latter. The same is true regarding modern Persian.
After the fall of Sassanid empire, several local languages flourished in Iran. By a long process, Dari became the administrative and literary language of the lands of old Sassanid empire. Some of the local languages survived (like Kurdish, Gilaki, Mazani, Luri and Baluchi) and some went extinct (like Azari, and Farsi (I know this one may come as a surprize for many, but the local language of Persis after Sassanids had nothing to do with the modern Persian, there is even texts of this language available!)), and transformed into modern Persian between 10th and 11th centuries CE.
I think importance of eastern languages like Tuchari and Sogdian is generally understated in studies of Modern Persian.
Regarding Avestan, it is generally considered an Eastern Iranian language, thus I don't think you can safely say that it is related to Medic or it is the proto-Medic language.
There has been some recent findings in Hamadan (1999) and it seems that they have found Median tablets. We have to see how their reading pans out.

Tirdad,

I really appreciate your comments, I really do not have anything to add to your informative inputs.

Wow, what did I do!

I am sorry, I meant Mohammad!

This is just to clarify once and for all the situation of the Indo-Iranic language family and the languages known as Iranic languages, in a short and concise way. This was partly inspired by Mohammad's comment "I think importance of eastern languages like Tuchari and Sogdian is generally understated in studies of Modern Persian."

1) The "Aryan" language family consists of 3 subfamilies:
a) Indic
b) Iranic
c) Kafiristani (Nuristani), though some scholars believe that this branch derives from the Iranic languages.

The Tokharian (Mohammad's Tuchari) is NOT an Indo-Iranic language. It belongs to its own branch of the indo-european family.

The Old Iranic languages include: Gatha Avestan, Old Persian, Median, Scythian and Soghdian.

Middle Iranic languages include: Parthian (Pahlavi), Karduchi, Avestan (The language of the rest of Avesta), Middle Persian, Middle Soghdian, Bactrian and Khotanese.

The New Iranic languages include: Modern Persian, Pashto, Ossetic, Baluchi, Kurdish, Tajik, The Pamir dialects, The Caspian dialects and Yaghnobi.

Dear Pouria,

I do not need to go at length to show you how wrong you are in reading my "reading". Actually, you are wrong in assuming what I assumed.

I assumed that the Sassanids propagated their Persianism as Iranian and whatever that did not accord with their conception of Persian, which was their own culture, as AnEran!

Hence, they destroy the cosmopolitanism of the Parthians in doing so and replaced it with a universalist Persianism that disguised itself in Iranianism!

Read all the posts together once more!

Dear Pouria:

Furthermore, it is also correct that their demise allowed some of the Iranic languages and heritage that in my opinion had survived Sassanid assimilation to reassert themselves.

As a result, I do not credit Sassanids for being tolerant, but would conclude that they failed to realize their assimilationist tendencies in full!

I definitely appreciate that we may end up agreeing to disagree, mainly because while I am no apologist of Parthian failures, I am no apologist of Sassanid assimilationist tendencies either.

Dear Pouria:

Furthermore, it is also correct that their demise allowed some of the Iranic languages and heritage that in my opinion had survived Sassanid assimilation to reassert themselves.

As a result, I do not credit Sassanids for being tolerant, but would conclude that they failed to realize their assimilationist tendencies in full!

I definitely appreciate that we may end up agreeing to disagree, mainly because while I am no apologist of Parthian failures, I am no apologist of Sassanid assimilationist tendencies either.

Dear Eswin,
You write:

"I assumed that the Sassanids propagated their Persianism as Iranian and whatever that did not accord with their conception of Persian, which was their own culture, as AnEran!"

As you said, you have assumed this - but your assumption is not based on any evidence. The concept of Eran was not in any way purely Persian. It was Iranian or as you like to call it "Iranic". The evidence for this lies in the fact that: 1)the Sassanians acknowldged other Iranians as part of Eran. See Shapur the first's inscriptions (SKZ), and Shahrestaniha-i Eranshahr; 2) That the Sassanians took much of their culture from their Parthian predecessors in the areas of architecture, art, and literature(i.e. Vis o Ramin).

Furthermore:

"Hence, they destroy the cosmopolitanism of the Parthians in doing so and replaced it with a universalist Persianism that disguised itself in Iranianism!"

The Parthians were not any more cosmopolitan than the Sassanians. The difference between the two is that the Parthians tolerated a fuedal system of government while the Sassanids established a centralised one. You also contradict yourself here. Note in the main article you write "The legacy of the Persians was to... work towards the replacement of the Iranic culture in their country by a cosmopolitan culture which people still call the Persian." Here however, you write that it was the Parthians who were cosmopolitan and the Persians pursued a (Perso-centric) Iranianism. Which one is it?

One more point.

The Sassanians did not actively assimilate other groups. Again, the evidence for this is in the fact that many official inscriptions are written in Parthian alongside Persian.
Secondly, consider how difficult an assimilationist policy would have been to carry out without: 1)modern media/communication; 2)vast Persian emigration to other parts of Eranshahr, like the turkish migrations in the 12th century AD.

Dear Pouria:

Since you are a historian in this regard, I would like you to cite an evidence that shows the Parthians tolerated "a feudal" system of government.

Second, Is not the vast Persian imposition of the system of government enough to make sure that this is the " Persian" language that everyone should aspire to, and those who do not are deemed, as less favourable citizens?

Moreover, is just a coincidence that Ferdosi says not much is known about the Parthians, or is that true that the Sassanids systematically attempted to destroy the Parthian heritage (this thesis was not mine, but that of Jaleh Amouzgar and Ahmad Tafazoli, that was partly relayed to me through a student of theirs Mehdi Baghi).

Should we consider the massive attempts to build big cities as innocent attempts to civilize other peoples of Iran?

It could be possible that we may have to conclude that they were just trying to find a way of using the Roman captives, and they did not intend to tighten their grip over the nomadic peoples who spread around.

Civilization building in its own right is definitely a geat thing, but other evidence shows that the Sassanids were very concerned about the restructuring of the Iranian Army, don't you think that such attempts had a great deal of impact on the Freedom and Autonomy of other Iranians?

I beleive reducing Iran to a country with a large peasant population helped creating an army that did not have any interest in professional combat. It is like the reliace of the Pahlavi dynasty on a "CONSCRIPT" Imperial Guard.

Where was the Parthian Cavalry to stop the Arabic invasion when Rostam Farrokhzad was in "Ghadessiyeh"?

Don't get me wrong, I insist that I am no historian like yourself, but I offered a "reading" according to my own. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

Dear Pouria,

I also would like to add that the rise and fall of Khosrow Parviz is another example of how disastrous any centralization of this kind can become.

When the state consumes much of its "restructured army" in a massive campaign, as opposed to relying on a confederation of tribesmen whose concerns about the defence of the empire is defined by their understanding of the natural borders, you develop two possibilities:

1) Tragedies such as what happened to Khosrow Parviz (and Napoleon) happens;

2) The peasants and disenchanted aristocracy revolt or withdraw for as long as possible;

This last idea of course is not mine again, but the theory offered by a graduate of the French Military Academy and an officer of the Iranian Army, who became an expert of the Iranian military history at the time. He wrote his book when we did not enjoy the amount of historical evidence that we have today, his name?

Haj-Ali Razm-Ara

It is possible that I am relying on very rusty ideas! For that matter, forgive me please!

one last thing, for clarification, the Safavid example is a mixed one (a combination of Parthian system, although they did not know about it, and the official religion system of the Sasanids).

I referred to it to respond to you that the Sassanids did not need to restructure the army heavily and could have maintained a centralist state without taking too much away from the freedom of movement of the tribes and at the same time use people who had a strong spirit of chivelary as their loyal army. They simply did not want to do that and that was deliberate.

As to the Arabs, I just disagree, the Parthians would have done a better job than the Sassanid did, and this is too much counterfactualism already so forgive me, because of their style of combat.

And yes, I do not think Arabs were as organized as the Romans but it were the Sassanids whose centralist system was a failure in many respects, it was not the first time that Arabs were
successfully" ravaging Iran, but it was the only time that they did it successfully and it was mainly because of Khosrow Parviz's specific approach to the organization of the Army and the administration of the Emprie, which was just a much harsher version of irrational centralism.

Dear Farvartish,

I stand corrected. Tucharian is not Iranian. Thank you. Do you know how influential it was in formation of later Sogdian and early modern Persian?

Regards,
Mohammad

Dear Eswin,

I have to say this: I think you should admit your pro-parthian bias ;) I have read the comments, and you sure have some points. But the truth is that you do not hide your disdain for the two persian dynasties.
I think the basic argument here is who identifies with "the vision" of these empires.
Persian empires (both of them) were to a large extent centralized and beuraucratic. Parthians were less centralized and had kept some of their tribal traits. It may sound that they were more freedom loving, although I doubt this assertion.
Some people like the idea of the more centralized and civilized Sassanids, and some like the idea of free-spirited and swashbuckling parthians.
I think both visions deserve sentimental and personal merit, but they hardly make a foundation for historical research.
I enjoy reading these comments. Keep on the good work!

Thsi debate is getting rather tedious, but I will make two more short points.
First, Khosrow Parviz was not the one who did the major restructuring, it was Anoshravan. Note that I said major, there were gradual changes throughout throughout teh over 800 years of combined Parthian and Sassanian rule. As civilization advanced, tribes became settled, urban centres grew and so on. The Sassanians had to make those restructurings based on the conditions of the time, not necessarily visa versa. You have assumed that throughout this period everything remained static and the Parthians for example were still nomadic. This was obviously not the case.

Yes, had the Parthians existed, they may have done better against the Arabs. But 1)they did not so the point is irrelevant and 2) the arab invasion was an a special case that also occured at the worst possible time. Iran was weak at that time, not because of Anoshravan's restructuring, but because of the prolonged war with Byzantium. Indeed, if it was not so centralized it probably would have fallen apart long before the Arabs came.

Also, you assume that there existed no sense of chivalry in the Sassanian standing army. That's completely untrue. For one thing there is the evidence of the continued tradition of one on one combat (Phl. tan o tan). Second even the Roman and Byzantine sources talk of this chivalry, not only among the Parthians but also among the Sassanians.

Yes, I can see how the Parthian era may seem romantic, and it was at some level. However, it was not sustainable.

And I'll end with that note. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some points and agree on others.

Pouria

PS. My mother's family is from Damghan, formerly capital of formerly Parthia, so I have nothing against them!

Dear Mohammad,

The influence of Tokharian in formation of Persian is almost negligible. On the other hand the Tokharian's influence on Soghdian is a matter of discussion as it is not clear whether Soghdian influenced Tokharian or the other way around. One thing is certain though, and that is, among all INDO-EUROPEAN languages
(or dialects if you wish) the one that influenced Old Persian most (as it is evident from the cuniform inscriptions) was Median. This is a very well established theory.

Eswin is single handedly fighting a battle against folks who are primarily , although not entirely, "Persofiles" and of course they will all accuse him justly to be biased. Yes, he is probably PROUDLY biased and he is trying hard to defend his standpoint at any cost.
In this respect he walks in the footsteps of his Medo-Scythian forfathers and as a fellow Medo-Scythian I have to give him my reverence!

Dear Eswin,

I was purely referring to academic realm.
What you mention about ethnic nationalism in Iran is a political issue with tangential historic context. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, we should open this debate (if I was not so busy now, I would have written a piece myself).

Very breifly, this is what I think:

National cohesion and identity depends on many factors among them sharing political and economic gains and pains, shared historical background, some sense of cultural shared values, and most important of them all, a sense of fairness and belonging in the nation-state system.

I get the sense that this last issue has weakened a great deal. Iranians don't feel empowered in making decisions that pertain to their future (making historical analogies here does not work. We are in the age of informatics and what was true even 30 years ago does not apply now. People can see what's happening in other places and make comparisons.)
Also there is a general feeling of inherent unfairness in the society and the system. The economic situation has not helped. Iranians on average are 30% poorer today than in 1978. Also the social structures are badly danaged.

Many people are venting their frustration through escapegoating, hence all these anti-xxxx sentiments.

I think the main reason is different readings of history. The reason seems more economic and social and closer to home. If being a member does not have benefits, you start thinking about opting out.

I suggest discussing this issue in more detail very soon.

Thank you again.

Sorry:

I meant " I don't think the main reason is different readings of history."

Dear Mohammad,

I really look forward to seeing a post by you in this regard. I understand that in addition to history, you know something about economy and politics of it, so do us a favour and put it on the table.

Thank you for your comments, and for your understanding.

I said i wouldn't post anymore, but I found this interesting quote that supports my point on Sasanian chivalry and also the point that sasanians were had an Iranian perspective rather than a ethnic or tribal one, which the Parthians *likely* had. It is from the Pahlavi Rivayats, quoted by Tafazzoli in "Sasanian Society". The origical Pahlavi is quite nice, but i figured there would be no point in posting it.

"It is revealed in the Avesta: if Non-Iranian enemies come to the land of Iran and want to take hostages and to much damage in order to restrain them the warriors go towards them. It often happens that they kill (our) warriors, and even then, because of (their) greater violence, the non-Iranians come and destroy the Wahram Fire and (kill) the righteous men (i.e. priests), and they take captives and do much damage in the country of Iran. The warrior who does not do battle and (who) flees is margarzan; he who does (battle) and whom they kill in battle is blessed."

Also, my point about Parthian intellectual activity stands. I did not say that they did not enjoy the (literary) arts, my point is that they were consumers first and foremost, not producers of literature (of whatever sort).