Template talk:History of Afghanistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Starting point 2 new template 3 What do you think? 4 Inclusiveness of template 5 there was no aughanistan before 1911!! 6 Should read before editing template 6.1 References 7 Semi-protected 8 Detail deletion 9 PROTECTED 10 First title 11 Kushan Empire 11.1 Islamic Conquest 12 List of Empires that were centered inside Afghanistan

[edit] Starting point

Beh-nam deleted the Hotaki dynasty from this template saying: "History of Afghanistan starts with the Durrani empire, not the short Hotaki dynasty."

I disagree. The Hotaki dynasty was short, 1709-1738, but it was the first local rule that the Pashtuns had had, and showed their strong desire to cast off Persian rule. --Bejnar 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I notice that Beh-nam also deleted the Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan articles from the template. I think that they are appropriate references, well in keeping with the history templates of other countries. What do others think? --Bejnar 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can see Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan haven't been deleted. Raoulduke47 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken, you are correct, they have been moved up above the line. --Bejnar 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Even if the Hotaki dynasty also falls into history of Iran (or Greater Iran), it is a very real part of the history of the area that we now call Afghanistan. But, if you have a problem with listing it in the Template:History of Afghanistan, please state 'why you consider it a problem to list it in the template in the template's discussion page. When I say "why" I don't mean a bald statement like "History of Afghanistan starts with the Durrani empire, not the short Hotaki dynasty." I mean the reasoning behind it. Thanks. --Bejnar 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you insert the Hotaki rule then you will have to include the following Afsharid rule as well, that is the problem. --Behnam 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No you won't. See article History of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then that article is missing the Afsharid rule in betweenthe Hotaki and Durrani and will also have to be fixed. -- Behnam 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hotaki Dynasty has nothing to do with Afghanistan. The term Afghanistan was unknown during that time period. Just because there center was in kandahar doesnt mean its Afghan history, if thats so then why arent we adding the uzbek khanates in the north during the 19th century, they also controlled parts of modern day afghanistan--Anoshirawan 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods where Persia was called Iran. It is about the land area that now is covered by Persia. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? That is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. --Bejnar 14:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar the Hotakis only controlled parts of southern Afghanistan, If thats soo we should add the independent khanates in the north during the same time.--Anoshirawan 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article about them? --Bejnar 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we put the Khanates of the north? Then you might as well throw in the entire history of the region. Afghanistan means Afghanland, Afghanland means Pashtunland, the northern areas have nothing to do Pashtuns Bejnar and neither does most history of this land. -- Behnam 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what was Anoshirawan thinking when he made the above comment? What did he intend to say? --Bejnar 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

During the 18th century the only place which was called "Afghanistan" was the Peshawar valley and the Salaiman Mountains(the land of Roh).

Here is an extract from the Babur Nama

"The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns."--Anoshirawan 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods where Persia was called Iran. It is about the land area that now is covered by Persia. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with when the name was used, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? That is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. Don't you get it that when the land began to be called Afghanistan is not the determining factor? Look at the Template:History of Iran for a comparison. --Bejnar 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The History of Iran template covers ALL of the history of the land today within the boundaries of "Afghanistan". The History of Afghanistan template does not cover hardly any of the history on this land. -- Behnam 19:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

When editors keep deleting articles from the template, how can you expect any coverage? The ideal template would be specific to the area and list the articles that are specific to the area. It would not list articles that are primarily tangential to the area, but it might have links to sections of articles that deal specifically with the area. To many of us, it is obvious that the Template:History of Iran is over-broad for many articles that deal with the history of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that the Afsharid dynasty intervened after the Hotakis doesn't change the fact that the Hotakis were there --Bejnar 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not even an argument in this discussion. -- Behnam 03:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, I didn't think that the existence of the Afsharid dynasty was a real issue either, but you mentioned them. What is the real issue for you, Behnam? --Bejnar 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The hotakis only controlled small regions in modern day Afghanistan. They werent even native to the land. This template is for Afghanistan's modern history(Afghanistan isnt even 200 years old). --Anoshirawan 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, the Hotaki did not control all of what now constitutes Afghanistan, but their capital and center of power was in Kandahar. Tahmasp I did not control all of what now constitutes Iran, but he is still part of Iranian history. --Bejnar 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(2)The template is not just for modern Afghanistan, it includes Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan. The template is not named "Template talk:History of Modern Afghanistan". --Bejnar 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tahmasp ruled not only modern Iran but Greater Iran thats why he isnt listed in the Iranian section. Hotakis also ruled parts of Afghanistan,Iran,Baluchistan but they never ruled Afghanistan and during that time period there was no Afghanistan. Mirwais's first capital was in Baluchistan then he moved it to kandahar; His descendants moved the capital from kandahar to modern Iran.--Anoshirawan 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We have already extensively covered the fact that it doesn't matter what the land was called at the time. Second Mirwais's first capital was Kandahar, he was an appointed official of the Safavid rulers when he started his rebellion. In fact, Gurgin Khan, the governor of Kandahar, was quite upset when Mirwais returned from his trip to the Persian court with full honors. Malleson, George Bruce (1879) "Chapter 7: The Ghilzai Rule" History of Afghanistan, from the Earliest Period to the Outbreak of the War of 1878 W.H. Allen & Co., London Mir Wais's first capital was Kandahar, unless you consider that his tribal area before the rebellion was a capital. But it still doesn't matter, Kandahar was the initial capital of the rebellion that went on to become a dynasty. That dynasty ruled in what is now southern Afghanistan, and other territories, although the borders are never exactly the same. But we have covered the border issue already. Mir Wais and the Hotaki dynsaty started out in what is now southern Afghanistan, and conquered a great deal of territory (a large portion of which is now in Afghanistan, but in other countries as well) before the rebellion of Nāder Qoli Beg. --Bejnar 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing that you dont get is that the Hotakis had a bigger impact on Iran than Afghanistan. It should be listed in the Greater Iran template not in this one.--Anoshirawan 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Afsharid dynasty did not establish rule over the land of Afghans, which covered southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Nadir Shah only explored the territory, he did not annex the territory as part of Persia. His mission was to loot and plunder Hindu territories with the help of Afghans. He had joint forces of Persians and Afghans. He conquered in the name of Islam, not in the name of Persia. Therefore, the territories he conquered were left with same rulers and same administrations. After he died, Ahmed Shah conquered the same territories in the name of Afghanistan, setting up Afghan rulers over all the territories he conquered. That's the major difference. Same thing with Hotaks, when they conquered territories, they established Afghan rule over the area and set Afghan governors and rulers. --Dilbar Jan 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new template

Again, the new template has the problem of classifying the Hotaki dynasty as Pashtun rule since we are not sure of Mirwais Khan Hotak's ethnicity and also the Hotaki dynasty did not have control of most of today's Afghanistan. -- Behnam 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hotaki dynasty for ethnicity of the Hotaki, and the weight of scholarly authority. The area of total control is not relevant, they were Pashtun and ruled from Kandahar. --Bejnar 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They did not rule most of the territory in today's borders of Afghanistan. Implying a Hotaki rule of today's Afghanistan is misleading. -- Behnam 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion, but as I have already remarked to you there is no such implication that ancient boundaries are exactly the same as modern boundaries. There is nothing to be misleading about. You admit that the Hotaki were based in Kandahar and that Kandahar is now in Afghanistan. Yes, the Hotaki did not control all of what now constitutes Afghanistan, but their capital and center of power was in Kandahar. Tahmasp I did not control all of what now constitutes Iran, but he is still part of Iranian history. Similarly, the Hotaki did not control all of what now constitutes Afghanistan, but they are still part of the history of the area. See, for example, the article History of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Behnam said in an edit summary, "that makes no sense, alot of dynasties that ruled parts of this terrotiry are part of this land's history, that doesn't mean we include them all. only an Afghan Nationalist would make this argument"

The argument is not that the Hotaki are "just any dynasty" it is that they are a Pashtun dynasty, centered in the territory that is now called Afghanistan. They are properly written up in the History of Afghanistan article, which any editor may read for further understanding of their place. --Bejnar 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In removing the Hotaki dynasty from the template, User:Beh-nam wrote in an edit summary, "yes it is consistent if you actually read the article, Hotakis did not rule this area". My, slightly rhetorical, question to him was, "What area did the Hotaki rule? Where did they have their capital?" He did not respond, but the answer is Kandahar, and other adjoining territories. It appears that they took Isfahan at one point, but I haven't found a citation that gives a date for that yet. The Persians then drove them back. --Bejnar 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think?

Hey bros, what do you think now about the template?? if you don´t like it you can change it..but i think we should stay close to history . --Aspandyar Agha 20:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to the history, and to Wikipedia policies. See History of Afghanistan --Bejnar 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusiveness of template

Request for comments on whether this template should include the Hotaki dynasty:

• Statement in favor of inclusion:

The Hotaki ruled southern Afghanistan from 1709 to 1736. They are included in the History of Afghanistan article. There has been a separate article about them for over two years (Sept. 2005), even though it is short and could be profitably expanded. The utility of the History of Afghanistan template is enhanced by including all of the appropriate articles, that is articles that correspond to the section level in the main article. Including every biography would not be appropriate. Please see the edit history for possible versions. --Bejnar 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Statement opposed to inclusion:
• Statements by parties not previously involved:

I've added separate categories to expand the history of Afghanistan to better fill in the massive gap from 600 to 1700 AD. I've not participated in the discussion previous and it seems to me that the Hotaki are important. You have Afghanistan on the fringe of two massive empires, and the Hotaki is their first success at throwing off the yokes of both of them. Yes, they are a transitional dynasty, but they form the basis on which the more stable dynasty could be founded. I've also added a category for the Mongol Invasion, which should warrant it's own section as with the Mughal and the Safavids. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am persuaded by the points raised by Bejnar. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] there was no aughanistan before 1911!!

THERE WAS NO STH LIKE A PERSIAN AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 1911 it was Kabulistan, Khorasan, Bactria and Aryanam Vaey....Tajik!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.213.70 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns are irrelevant. Read the above posts. Also your edits completely screwed up the layout of the template, so they were reverted. Raoulduke47 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

nothing is irrelevant because it is facts. Afghanistan exist since 1919 officially. BUT THERE WAS NO AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 1911. It was called by the local people as Kabulistan, like Persians called their country Persia because of the province Pars where the rulers sit was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.220.108 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As above: We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods when Persia was called Iran. It is about the land area that now is covered by Iran. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? Prehistory is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. --Bejnar 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan is a unique name which translates to the "land of Afghans". Afghans have lived in their Afghanistan for over 1,000 years. This is why the name "Afghanistan" is always used everywhere in the nation's modern and pre historic articles. "History of Afghanistan" is not about the name's history but about the land's history. I wonder why is this name issue so important to 88.68.220.108? This here proves that there was a country called Afghanistan before 1911, Harlan's 1842 work, A memoir of India and Avghanistaun, with observations on the present exciting and critical state and future prospects of those countries.--LloydHawk (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should read before editing template

Please read this, do not edit until you have read it.

Until the 19th century the name was only used for the traditional lands of the Pashtuns, while the kingdom as a whole was known as the Kingdom of Kabul, as mentioned by the British statesman and historian Mountstuart Elphinstone.^[1] Other parts of the country were at certain periods recognized as independent kingdoms, such as the Kingdom of Balkh in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.^[2]

With the expansion and centralization of the country, Afghan authorities adopted and extended the name "Afghanistan" to the entire kingdom, after its English translation, "Afghanland", had already appeared in various treaties between British Raj and Qajarid Persia, referring to the lands that were subject to the Pashtun Barakzai Dynasty of Kabul.^[3] "Afghanistan" as the name for the entire kingdom was mentioned in 1857 by Frederick Engels.^[4] It became the official name when the country was recognized by the world community in 1919, after regaining its full independence from the British,^[5] and was confirmed as such in the nation's 1923 constitution.^[6]''

[edit] References

"History of Afghanistan" is referring to history of the land, not history of the name. There was no such nation by the name of Kabul, "Kingdom of Kabul" means that Kabul was where the King's palace or court was located. Kingdom of Delhi does not mean India was called Delhi, it was where the ruler's (Sultan's) palace was located.--LloydHawk (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I read it, but it does change the fact that the article History of Afghanistan and this template are about the land area, not the name. As I said above, "Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp?" --Bejnar (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

Due to repeated reverts by socks of Beh-nam, I have semi-protected the template for a month. This means no new or unregistered users will be able to edit it. If you have any problems with this, please let me know. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detail deletion

On 20 January 2008 Anoshirawan deleted detail from the template claiming "Durranis and hotakis werent local". This is clearly a spurious reason, as reading the Durrani Empire article: "The Durrani Empire was a large state that included territories within modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Khorasan province of Iran and a smaller section of western India." and the Hotaki dynasty article: "The Hotaki dynasty (1709-1738) was founded in 1709 by Mirwais Khan Hotak, an ethnic Pashtun from the Ghilzai clan[1] of Kandahar province in modern-day Afghanistan." clearly show that they are part of the history of this place. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Durranis were from Multan of Panjab which has nothing to do with Afghanistan. The Hotakis were also from the Salaiman ranges which is part of Pakistan not Modern day Afghanistan.--Anoshirawan 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

But why do those facts, if true, mean that their reigns were unimportant or irrelevant to the history of this place? How do those facts, if true, justify removing their rule from the template? --Bejnar (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PROTECTED

[[Image:|40px|This page is protected.]]

. See the protection policy and protection log for more details.

The soft protection was no sufficient. Please discuss concerns about this template here. An edit war must be averted. Kingturtle (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First title

In the firs box, we just need to write simple words as: History of Afghanistan from ancient times. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kushan Empire

How about adding Kushan Empire and Greco-Bactrian Kingdom as subsets in the first box? --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to add those then you need to add all the Persian dynasties. Also right now you have Ghaznavid and Ghorid for some reason even though a link to the whole article is provided. If you will include those then you might as well include the following list:

[edit] Islamic Conquest

Umayyad Caliphate	661–750
Abbasid Caliphate	750–1258
Tahirid dynasty	821–873
Alavid dynasty	864–928
Saffarid dynasty	861–1003
Samanid dynasty	819–999
Ziyarid dynasty	928–1043
Buyid Dynasty	934–1055
Ghaznavid Empire	975–1187
Ghori dynasty	1149–1212
Seljuk Empire	1037–1194
Khwarezmid dynasty	1077–1231
Kartids dynasty	1231-1389
Ilkhanate	1256–1353
Muzaffarid dynasty	1314–1393
Chupanid dyansty	1337–1357
Jalayerid dynasty	1339–1432
Timurid Empire	1370–1506
Qara Qoyunlu Turcomans	1407–1468
Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans	1378–1508
Safavid Empire	1501–1722*
Mughal Empire	1526–1857
Hotaki dynasty	1722–1729
Afsharid dynasty	1736–1802
* or 1736
* or 1736

This is why several users have been removing the Ghaznavid (Turkish) and Ghorid (Tajik) dynasties Hazara898 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But many of these did not operate in Afghanistan such as the Buyid dynasty. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A few of them did not. I'll modify the list. Here,, all of these dynasties operated in what is today Afghanistan since the Islamic conquest:

Umayyad Caliphate	661–750
Abbasid Caliphate	750–1258
Tahirid dynasty	821–873
Saffarid dynasty	861–1003
Samanid dynasty	819–999
Ghaznavid Empire	975–1187
Ghori dynasty	1149–1212
Seljuk Empire	1037–1194
Khwarezmid dynasty	1077–1231
Kartids dynasty	1231-1389
Ilkhanate	1256–1353
Timurid Empire	1370–1506
Safavid Empire	1501–1722*
Mughal Empire	1526–1857
Hotaki dynasty	1722–1729
Afsharid dynasty	1736–1802
* or 1736
* or 1736

If you have Ghaznavid and Ghorid dynasty now you must either include all these or remove those two. Hazara898 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Empires that were centered inside Afghanistan

• Kushans
• Saffarids
• Ghaznavids
• Ghurids
• Timurids
• Hotakis
• Durranis

Kapisa was the capital city of Kushans, Zaranj was the capital of Saffarids, Ghazni was the capital of Ghaznavids, Ghor was the capital of Ghurids, Herat and Kandahar were capitals of Timurids, Kandahar and Kabul were the capitals of Durranis. All of the above are obviously part of Afghanistan's history first, then they become part of the history of neighboring countries.--203.175.65.176 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)