Talk:Ghurid dynasty/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First-hand sources

Why do you guys don´t use first-hand sources like the traditions of Ghurid chronicles (Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani) or later historians who were close with the issue like Fireshta? There is a translated and virtualized version of Minhaj al-Siraj. Look also at the following: http://afghanistandl.nyu.edu/,http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/afghanenglish/ , http://www.ical.ir/. For those who want to know how these filthy Pashtuns play their dirty games I want you to visit This Page. We can smash all Pashtuns´ fake claims, their propagandas and creating history for themself out of nothing. Show these Sulaimani immigrants where they belong to. http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b179/arianaboy/Unbenannt12-1.png http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b179/arianaboy/afghanistan_map12-2.jpg --84.59.186.208 (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And pleeeeeease, ban these uneducated Pashtun Users here. They use every sources without knowing what the meaning of them are or from which perpective they are written. To break their teeths please quote (a must!) tabaqat-i nasiri where it IS ATTESTED THAT GHURIDS BELONG TO THE TAJIKS! .... f.ex. vol. I p. 316/317 --84.59.186.208 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL First hand sources lol You made up your own maps Farsiwan (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghurids 100% Tajiks, possibly not Persian-speaking but Tajik related or eastern-Persian related people of local Herati people

http://books.google.de/books?id=OLNE_li8C10C&pg=PA92&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=k7D8TbaQDIjxsgaXwdTyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=uQ7k2vQlYxEC&pg=PA137&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=k7D8TbaQDIjxsgaXwdTyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Ghurids%20were%20Tajiks&f=false (there were some Pashtuns in Ghur, but Jewish ones.. look to the reference but they were slaves of the Ghurids)

http://books.google.de/books?id=N7_4Gr9Q438C&pg=PA130&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=k7D8TbaQDIjxsgaXwdTyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Ghurids%20were%20Tajiks&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=Q-obAAAAIAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=k7D8TbaQDIjxsgaXwdTyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg ...I anticipate : both are correct. Jam which I consider as the site of ancient Firuzkuh, the Ghurid capital, ... As can be made out there are Tajik pockets in the Firuzkuhi area spread out along the Murghab and its affluents, ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=_IHESVJmY4AC&pg=PA235&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=k7D8TbaQDIjxsgaXwdTyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=tQc1AAAAMAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=ybH8TdWfDZCPswbf-ozxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgK ...As the power of the Ghaz- navids waned, isolated groups in the heart of the Koh-i-Baba gained strength. The heads of the Tajik Souri tribe, centered at Ghor (Ghur), established the Shansabanid dynasty at Bamiyan, ...; ... The indigenous Kert (Kurt) dynasty, a Tajik line related to the Ghurids, ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=98s_RXcO2c4C&pg=PA195&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=ybH8TdWfDZCPswbf-ozxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false the Il-Khans.106 To proceed from the level of ethnic blocs down to that of individuals, the outstanding fact about the Kart amirs is that most of them were of Ghurid origin, ... (KART MALIKS WERE PERSIANS AND RELATED TO THE HOUSE OF GHUR; SO HOW COULD THE GHURIDS HAVE BEEN PASHTUNS?´)

http://books.google.de/books?id=9ZhT5Ilq5kAC&pg=PA251&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=ybH8TdWfDZCPswbf-ozxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.de/books?id=VhRDAAAAYAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=A7P8TZy6E4jFswbW0YDwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgU But this is not supported by historical facts for the Samanid and Ghurid rulers were of Tajik stock and spoke Persian dialect, now called Dari in Afghanistan and Tajiki in the Republic of Tajikistan.

http://books.google.de/books?id=1f8MAAAAIAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=A7P8TZy6E4jFswbW0YDwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAjgU Since their arrival, and until their establishment as an ethnic group in the central region of the Ghurid kingdom the Tajiks were the only major nation with whom they came into contact. With the rise of Abdalis, the Hazaras, ...

http://www.google.de/search?q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a#q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&tbm=bks&ei=ybH8TdWfDZCPswbf-ozxDQ&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e9074d80a8f61ce5&biw=1280&bih=864 The Ghurids are particularly interesting because, almost alone in the great arena of Central Asia, they seem to have been essentially local both in their origins and in their later development. Eastern Iranian Tajiks, their language ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=esnWJkYRCJ4C&pg=PA237&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=A7P8TZy6E4jFswbW0YDwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false The conquest of northern India was completed by the Ghurids, who were actually Tajiks ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=mMk5AQAAIAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=A7P8TZy6E4jFswbW0YDwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCTgU Later on, the Ghazni state was usurped by M'uiz-ud-Din Muhammad-i-Sam, the Shansabani Tajik Ghori. ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=lt2tqOpVRKgC&pg=PA25&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=BLT8TYv9JMnDswahwY3sDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q&f=false As far as we can tell from the exiguous material in our sources, the hierarchy of Ghurid officials at Firuzkuh and ... that between Turkish military and Persian ('Tajik') bureaucrats, was evidently in practice sometimes rather blurred. ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=CDBuAAAAMAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=BLT8TYv9JMnDswahwY3sDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBDge Page 67 "Hulaku's successors, the Il-Khan Mongols held a kingdom of scarce resources and were hardly a force to reckon ... "Tajik" was now the name for alr Persian-speaking peoples, and thus Tajiks included Ghurids and, by this time, the Khalaj ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=m9otAAAAMAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=4rT8Td39IpHQsgamt5nzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgo He died in 1160 and was succeeded by Khusrau Malik in whose days the power of the Ghurids was revived. ... probably inhabited by an eastern Iranian people conveniently known to both Afghans and Turks as Tajiks" (Caroc, The Pathans, p. ... So. Ghurids were known to middle-evil Pashtuns as Tajiks

http://books.google.de/books?id=XfDYtxfOvTYC&pg=PA37&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=4rT8Td39IpHQsgamt5nzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q&f=false The Tajik rulers of the Kingdom of Ghor (also Ghur), southeast of Herat, captured and burned Ghazni in 1149, ... Not until 1186, however, was the last representative of the Ghaznavids uprooted by the Ghorids (Ghurids) from his holdout ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=dBNuAAAAMAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=arX8TfesIsiKswaswv3xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBjgy The dynamics of north Indian politics changed dramatically, however, when the Ghurids, a dynasty of Tajik ...

http://books.google.de/books?id=qbIYAQAAMAAJ&q=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&dq=Ghurids+were+Tajiks&hl=de&ei=arX8TfesIsiKswaswv3xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBzgy He would have the reader believe that the Tajiks in the nobility were immigrants from eastern Iran, while they were actually the local people ... (About Abdul Hai Habibi and his Puta Khazana, a forgery, the greatest shame and crime of human-beeings! This are scholaric works, too! LOL --84.59.186.208 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL LOL you simply searched google books for two words "Ghurid and Tajiks" LOL but most of them don't confirm and all of them dates back to either Britianica, Americana and Iranica, or ecycp-a of Islam and again they and some of your sources takes us back to Bosworth, and David Neil MacKenzie there is no solid prove that Tajiks existed before Mongolians other than the fact that Tajik is an Iranian speaking group with Gentics shared with Uzbeks and features are all same like any Mongolians beside Mongolians offical langauge was also Persian. Having said that there is no solid prove that Ghurids were non-Afghans. Many native and solid Farsi Dari proves are out there that you can research not Iranian based Shia sources. LOL Copyright of Iran LOL Iranian never respect copyright like Wikipedia they just make up BS and turn things around for their own goodness. Sorry but your sources are all coming from same parents Bosworth, and David Neil MacKenzie find us more detailed sources other than these two men. I am sure you will find it but they don't support Iranian extremist agenda to call them Persian. The origin of Ghurids in English sources is under a change and hopfully German, French and Russian sources along with Dari sources could prove this wrong cause these discoveries were already made and printed in non-English languages we just need to translate the sources like Habibi and Pata Khazana. Farsiwan (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Farsiwan, I can assure you that the German Wikipedia (as well as all reliable and respected German scholars, universities, etc.) use the same sources as those in the English-speaking world. And there is not a single one claiming that the Ghurids were Pashtuns. Your criticism is simply based on the fact that you have absolutely no knowledge and absolutely no qualification in this subject. There are people who are professionals in this field (such as User:Tekisch) and he has given up on you because he thinks of you (just as I do) as a hopeless case. It's not just that you are uneducated in this regard and lack the very basics of this subject, no, you are also unwilling to learn - and that is the greater problem. Your rants about genetics (which is racist nonsense because all people of that region are genetically related to each other, including Pashtuns whose ethnogenesis does not differ much from that of the Tajiks or others) just shows that you are not here to improve this encyclopedia, but that you have a very dangerous ideology to propagate. But be aware that Wikipedia is well-prepared. And now, please, both sides: take your nonsense to somewhere else. --Lysozym (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Farsiwan, stop writing BS. With the sources I wanted to show you that we can also provide in your Pashtun Kmadari style (see Puta Khazana, knwon around the world as a forgery) our sources to underline our claims on Ghurids. That´s exactly what you do... all the time. Typing Ghurids were Afghans or Pashtun Ghurids (they were never Pashtuns). The claim Ghurids were Pashtuns was made falsefully because of their jewish ancestory (Makhzan-i Afghani) they claim from the region. This fact was used in older days by british officiers and geologists who were far away of beeing historians or even scholars. The nationalistic claim of Ghurids by Pashtuns was part of the legitimation of Afghanistan of beeing a Pashtun state based on Pashtun history. But this days are gone and your face and true origine and history is revealed. We know you very well. [more redacted WP:OUTing] For the case that you delete on your Pashtun forum your posting, don´t worry, I have created a print of it. The starter of the threat is 100% Toofan while you.. represents [redacted] .. if YOU are a scholar and a well-known historian, why don´t you tell us what´s your name, what´s are your works and where we can buy your scholaric works?? Why do you afraid to tell us your name.. I mean the name of [redacted WP:OUTing], the Farsiwan who himself many times introduced as a non-Pashtu speaker. Come on, we people are no Pashtuns. You can not fool us (redacted]. You can not challenge us, never. History backs us.. you have no history that backs you. You have in fact nothing that could back your claims, not even middle-evil books or traditions. Just because you call yourself a Farsiwan it does not mean you are a Farsiwan. It just means that you are a Harami, yak pissar e Pashtun e faisha ke sere Kire Tajik, Hazara ya Irani kos o kon meshod da Rika Khana e Kabul (65% e Pashtunha as kira e in mardom baramadan, haramzada astan like Barakzai tribe and Muhammadzais or Popalzais who are all 100% Pashtuns through their mothers). That´s why you became Farsiwan ... to yak Haram asti, chise dega ne. Na Tajik tora mekhoya, na Inglis, na Panjabi wa na Pashtun... chon padareta namidani... All those sources I pasted here are not all newer sources. Many of them are more than 100 years old, written by scholars before McKenzie or Bosworth. Olaf Caroe f.ex. says, too, that Ghurids were called/identified by Pashtuns and Turks as TAJIKS. Dig that and tell me his work is based on Bosworth´s lol Stop creating myths that Borthworth students are working tday against B. claims and faking history lol .. and all other of your BS just to give your Pashtun brothers and sisters a better feeling to get to bed. Come on, how long you want to fool them or yourself ... or maybe you want to fool and weak them and in reality you are one of us? LOL

@Lyz,

is it a nonsense to say Ghurids where no Pashtuns? You need help, dude. --88.69.27.205 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures and tag

I would like to say to user:Lysozym and IP-adress:94.219.108.194 to stop pushing your POV. The script is written in French and Urdu, because the letter "H" is written only in Urdu as "Pesh under it". Stop your childish edits and pushing yours POV and don't remove tags. Thanks in advance.Tofaan (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection, 19 June 2011

I've fully protected the article for 24 hours for all the edit warring shenanigans going on today between 13:56 and 16:57 (UTC). The main combatants, 94.219.108.194 (talk) and Tofaan (talk · contribs), have been blocked for 31 and 48 hours, respectively. Cut this shit out. Larry V (talk | email) 18:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading my own post, I guess that the page doesn't really have to be protected now, and I'm unprotecting it. But I still expect the shit to be cut out. Larry V (talk | email) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this article can be formed much better. Some of the sources even contradicts with their own claims. For example the first book where it is claimed that Ghurids were of Afghan race. But if you read the same book and scroll a bit more down and read the reference you can clearly read that the reference does not support that claim. It is attested that the Ghurids´ sought their ancestory on Zahak, a mythological figure of one of the Persian myths and thus are not related and can not be related with the Afghan race. One just need to read clearly the provided references. The same book says in it´s main topic that the Ghurids are only thought have been of Afghan race because of the jewish population of the region and the fact that Pashtuns claim on those jews as their ancestors. But Ghurids were not Jewish. That´s all behind the Pashtuns claim on Ghurids. --94.219.48.197 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

According to Nasir's latest edit[2], "...the book cited didn't even mention "Persianate" ...". Which is a lie.

This book, Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter, by Finbarr Barry Flood, p13; "Chapter 3 deals with the decades after 1150, when the rule of the Ghaznavid sultans was eclipsed by an obsure Persianate dynasty based in the remote moutainous region of Ghur in central Aghanistan. Previously vassals of the Ghaznavids, in the last decades of the twelfth century the Ghurids established a major transregional sultanate that conjoined the former territories of various Rajput kingdoms in northern India....".

Same book, "Despite formal affinities with Khurasani mosques, there is for example a notable dearth of Persianate elements in the Ghurid mosques of India.", p184.

Same book, "Ghurid monuments in Afghanistan and the Indus Valley conform to the Persianate norms, and are closely related to their Ghaznavid and Seljuq predecessors., p137.

I am tired of lies, tendentious editing because Nasir doesn't like it and his self imposed synthesis of published sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop insulting and attacking me, and please post the links to these books. You are again doing WP:OR, combining multiple sources to draw a specific conclusion that fits or satisfies your own point of view. The source has to mention explicitly that the Ghurid dynasty was Persianate and even if you find this, like the case with the Ghaznavids, it has to be explained to the readers in a way so that they can understand. The book you cited states "Persianized Ghurids". This is an encyclopedia, if you read the article there is a dispute over the ethnicity of this dynasty and how can you draw a conclusion in the leading sentence that they were Persian when everything is just guesses. Why can't you present information from a neutral point of view? Why are you going around labelling every dynasty Persian when you don't have facts. We have to be as accurate as possible.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Still gaming the system, I see.[3] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. If you do that in the article then readers can verify the information and there will be less disputes, misunderstandings and arguments. Now, the book mentions "obscure Persianate dynasty", do you know what this word "obscure" means? Historians are uncertain about the ethnicity and ancestry of the Gurids, but you're dismissing that and wanting them to be Persians because you feel that they were Persians. This is what I'm against, you're suppose to explain that they were of obscure background as the book clearly states. One word can mean alot.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Origins

I'm adding this to the origins section: "The ethnic back-ground of the Ghurid people is shrouded in myth and legend. After the Saffarids invasions of Zamin-Dawar and Bust, the region became exposed to tribes of different ethnic backgrounds. Contact with Ghazna led to the infiltration of Turkish tribes from the surrounding areas. Later on, Ghuzz and Khalaj ethnic elements settled on the fringes of the region, gradually breaking its cultural isolation and diversifying its ethnic composition." [4] Most modern historians refer to the Ghurids as either Afghans [5] [6] [7] [8] or Tajiks [9] Others label them as ethnic Turks. [10] Wikipedia must present all views, major and minor. BarryM9944 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The map of the empire appearing in the infobox is exaggerted. This map ([11]) is more correct, it's from 'Historical Atlas of the Muslim Peoples', by R. Roolvink (Harvard University Press, 1957 BarryM9944 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the Origins section as it now stands. The opening sentence clearly states, "In the 19th century, some European scholars, such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, favoured the idea that the Ghurid dynasty relate to today's Pashtun people, but this is generally rejected by modern scholarship, and, as explained by Morgenstierne in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is for "various reasons very improbable." Which is far and away better than your opening sentence of, ""The ethnic back-ground of the Ghurid people is shrouded in myth and legend". I see nothing constructive in your attempt to ignore what Morgenstierne states.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 2, Brill:1991, page 1099, "Ghurids, the name of an eastern Iranian dynasty...", C.E. Bosworth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Ghurids in Encyclopaedia Iranica. The article is from 2001 and was updated in 2012. It states: "The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansab/Šanasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). After the Ghurids had achieved fame as military conquerors, obsequious courtiers and genealogists connected the family with the legendary Iranian past ... The chiefs of Ḡūr only achieve firm historical mention in the early 5th/11th century with the Ghaznavid raids into their land, when Ḡūr was still a pagan enclave. Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks." What is certain is that the Ghurids were neither Turks nor Arabs. --Lysozym (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sogdian is a northeastern Iranian language; the reference to the Cambridge History of Iran does not support the claim (even though it's true); irrelevant parts removed

Than why it is wrong to mention it? Isn´t the Pashtun part in this relevant, too, because we are know Ghurids were no Pashtuns and Pashtu-speakers, so why should we mention them and not a still fact that occures among scholars? --88.69.10.20 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced. If you can find a source supporting the claim that the Ghurids spoke Sogdian, then everything is fine. --Lysozym (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some. I will look for it but I did not claimed they spoke. I wrote Some scholars suggest or believe ... it is even possible they were of Parthian, Sogdian or Choresmian ancestory, too. Here, the Parthian and Sogdian are the closest assumptation since Herat and Ghor region were part of Parthian country, closely to Merv.--88.69.10.20 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There were no Tajiks in Ghor.. As we all know Tajiks are not local population of this area.. than how can Ghurids can possibly be Tajiks.. Even today Majority of population of Ghor is Aimaks and not Tajik. 58.27.230.123 (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ghurids were Afghans according to firishta

according to persian historian firshta, ghurids were Suri Afghans. I need permission to add this info to article. below is the reference.

'In the following year AH 401 (AD 1010), Mahmood led his army towards Ghoor. The native prince of the country, Mahomed, of the Afghan tribe of Soor (the same race which gave birth to the dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of Sebüktigin), occupied an entrinched camp with 10,000 men. Mahmood was repulsed in repeated assaults which he made from morning till noon. Finding that the troops of Ghoor defended their entrenchments with such obstinacy, he caused his army to retreat in apparent confusion, in order to allure the enemy out of his fortified position. The Ghoorians, deceived by the stratagem, pursued the army of Ghizny; when the king, facing about, attacked and defeated them with great slaughter. Mahommed Soor, being made prisoner was brought to the king, but having taken poison, which he always kept under his ring, he died in a few hours; his country was annexed to the dominions of Ghizny. The author of the Towareekh Yumny affirms, that neither the sovereigns of Ghoor nor its inhabitants were Mahomedans till after this victory; whilst the author of the Tubkat-Nasiry, and Fukhr-ood-Deen Moobarik Shah Lody, the latter of whom wrote a history of the Kings of Ghoor in verse, both affirm, that they were converted many years before, even so early as the time of Ally (Ferishta-Translation John Briggs, p. 28 vol 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sur_%28Pashtun_tribe%29#cite_note-8

Also

Shah Hussain was descended from the younger branch of the Ghorian race, while Muhammad-i-Suri, said to be the great-great-grandfather of the Sultans Ghiyas-ud-Din and Muizz-ud-Din (Muhammad of Ghor) was descended from the elder branch, with whom sovereignty lay. Shah Hussain by one of his Afghan wives, had three sons, Ghalzi, Ibrahim surnamed Lodi, and Sarwani. The Afghan tribe of Sur was founded by Sur, son of Ismail, grandson of Lodi ("Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province" H.A. Rose, Ibetson 1990, P210)

Also

The Suri tribe of the Afghans inhabited the mountains of Ghor east of Furrah and their principal cities were Ghore, Feruzi and Bamian. (Gazetteer of the world or dictionary of geographical knowledge. Vol 5. London: A Fullerton and Company. p. 61.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawwad khan marwat (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC) --Jawwad khan marwat (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Rose is not a historian and has no specialization in this field or time period. The "Gazetteer of the world or dictionary of geographical knowledge", appears to have been written in the late 19th century, which is clearly outdated. As for Ferishta, we should avoid using primary sources, especially when modern secondary sources by historians state differently.

"Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman, Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin."

Per the Norwegian linguist Georg Morgenstierne, "there is no evidence for assuming that the inhabitants of Ghūr were originally Pashto-speaking (cf. Dames, in E I1). If were are to believe the Paṭa Khazāna (see below, iii), the legendary Amīr Karōṝ, grandson of Shansab, (8th century) was a Pashto poet, but this for various reasons is very improbable". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map used in the box is not only unsourced, but also totally wrong. It misses the important Indian territories and gives the wrong impression that the Ghurids ruled over much of modern Iran which is not true. The Ghurids had some influence in what is now eastern Iran, but their rule never reached Iraq. --Lysozym (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I am going to work on it, and update it in the next months. RussianDewey (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghurid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815193620/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ghurids

Please explain to me, Wario-Man, how adding neutral sources while not removing the part about Tajiks is "adding my own personal commentary". I stated what the sources say and then I mentioned the source, while you seem to keep on reverting it. You should not be able to decide which sources are shown and which are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayras123 (talk • contribs)

As Wario-Man mentioned in the edit summary, you added your personal commentary in this edit.

Regarding your this edit, World Heritage Encyclopedia and self.gutenberg.org copy from Wikipedia, and are not reliable sources. The book The Champions of the True Faith is self-published (Xlibris), and is not an acceptable source either. See WP:SPS. utcursch | talk 17:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Exactly, my points are similar to you. He did same things on Bactria and Khalji dynasty . Plus spamming my talk page and personal attacks. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: So when I do follow everything that is outlined in your comments it is now edit warring? Clearly this is some agenda you are trying to push Hayras123 (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The article needs to follow WP:NPOV and if there is a dispute present both sides proportionately to the sources. Some are here.[12] and from Google Scholar, here. It seems disputed, so the article must show the dispute. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like quotes from these two sources:

• The Last Great Muslim Empires BRILL. pp. 262–263.
• Encyclopedia of Bihar, p170

To confirm:

• "It is also further disputed as the last name Suri of the Ghurid rulers is a tribe of Pashtuns(the last great muslim empires, pp.262-263), and bears the name as the famous Pashtun ruler Sher Shah Suri.(encyclopedia of bihar, p170)"

Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghurid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004031412/http://www.islamset.com/islam/civil/ghurids.html to http://www.islamset.com/islam/civil/ghurids.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ghorid architecture from Iran - HistoryofIran

@HistoryofIran If you have reliable sources that Ghorid architecture originated from Iran then we can discuss it here before linking the article. Otherwise, I believe the article should not reference that page until the issue has been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.66.111 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what Iranian means. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Here, the word "Iranian" does not mean "from modern Iran", rather, it's about the ethno-linguistic group known as "Iranian peoples".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiaviani. I'm sorry but who are you trying to fool here? That (poorly written and referenced) article linked is clearly about the architecture of Iran, not about architecture of Iranian peoples. Hence why it uses 'Persian architecture' as a synonym. Hence why structurally the reference point in the subheadings of the article are Iran/Persia. Hence why the sources cited are about Persian, Safavid etc architecture. Hence why it discusses modern architects from Iran.

I know what Iranian means - an ethno-linguistic group and a country/nationality - and its unfortunate that its double meaning is exploited. You cannot use the double meaning of 'Iranian' to pull wool over people's eyes. You cannot make an article about architecture of country of Iran and then link every architectural piece from Ossetia, Central Asia, Kurdistan etc to that page because they are ethnolinguistically 'Iranian'.

Besides, these architectural monuments are rarely called "Persian" or "Iranian" outside of popular magazines, rather, they are named after their dynasty e.g. Timurid architecture, Ghorid architecture. If they are called 'Iranian', it is out of convenience to describe different styles of architecture of areas inhabited by people speaking Iranian languages.86.30.66.111 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant answer, Ghurids were an Iranian dynasty, also, the "Iranian" claim is sourced.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No use of making a half hearted attempt to engage on Talk page after you're attempting to block me for making an edit. I know you know the difference between Iranian and Iranian, but you're trying to obfuscate the issue in order to mislead readers into thinking Ghorid architecture originated from Iran.86.30.66.111 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

1)FYI, if you search for Persian architecture on Wikipedia, it links to ...... Iranian architecture. Which negates your argument of, "you're trying to obfuscate the issue in order to mislead readers into thinking Ghorid architecture originated from Iran."

2)Per Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art & Architecture, Vol.II, ed. Jonathan Bloom, Sheila S. Blair, page 110;"Architecture under the Ghurids is marked by the introduction of Persian forms, materials and techniques."

3)Per Dictionary of Islamic Architecture, Andrew Petersen, page 3;"Mosques of the Ghurid period show a marked Iranian influence which can be seen in buildings such as the mosque and madrassa of Ghiyath al-Din in the village of Ghist". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t say it’s Iranian architecture, it says it has Iranian influence. When the word ‘Iranian’ is being used in this context it doesn’t mean originating from the country of Iran. Ghurid architecture also has Indian influence, maybe an Indian nationalist is now going to direct the link to Indian architecture. 86.30.66.111 (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

First off, I'm not Iranian, nor an Iranian nationalist, so you should redact your battleground comment. Also, if the sentence in question stated;

• "They also transferred Persian architecture of their native lands to India, of which several great examples have been preserved to this date."

Instead of Iranian architecture, as indicated to you before, it links to the same page.

And;

• Encyclopedia Iranica, "Delhi Sultanate", Catherine B. Asher,"Although parts of the Indian subcontinent had experienced the impact of Persian culture since the invasion by the Ghaznavid sultan Maḥmūd in the 10th century, Delhi was little affected before 1192, when the Ghurid general Qoṭb-al-Dīn Aybak defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan, the last Hindu ruler of the city. By 1193 Aybak had taken Delhi itself and had established Islam as the new state religion; the Friday sermon (ḵoṭba) was read in the name of the Ghurid ruler Moʿezz-al-Dīn Moḥammad...[...].. Persian influence on the architecture of the newly established Ghurid splinter state in Delhi was manifest in the very types of buildings constructed, particularly mausolea." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Persian" and "Architecture of Iran". "Persian" or "Iranian" architecture is a convenient term used by some to describe the architecture of the Iranian world under e.g. Saljuk, Timurid. The phrase 'native architecture' in the article shouldn't be linked to any page. The link to the Iranian architecture page was a later addition by an editor that, of course, no one bothered to check. I am repeating myself and it is pointless trying to build consensus unless there are neutral editors present. 86.30.66.111 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Bengal

The map shows that Bengal was part of the Ghurid empire. The conquests was lead by Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji, who then became its de facto ruler. Very confusing--79.75.48.184 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Same source twice

User:HistoryofIran Both of the sources are going back to a quote of Bosworth, that’s why I removed one of it, is it necessary to have both of them or should we remove one? Not that much of an important issue anyways Xerxes931 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If the sources are saying the exact same thing (not necessarily word per word ofc) then I guess it wouldn't hurt. But yeah either way it isn't really that important. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

≤== Ancestors of the Suris ==

Why was my edit removed without giving proper reason? The edit (link to the Sur tribe who claim Ghorid ancestry) did not discredit any other theory, it was just to balance the article and give further explanation to the Pashtun theory. The theories were sourced so where is the point of even editing if only one theory can be presented? NadimN (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no need for any more 19th century sources that have been proven wrong by modern academics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear Ghorids were definitely not Pashtun, that’s not up to debate. However what User:NadimN has added was about vica versa some Pashtun tribes tracing their origin back to Ghor or even the Shansabani Ghorid dynasty, like the Pashtun house of Sur. Having this said that doesn’t belong into the origin section of this article but rather somewhere else. Xerxes931 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well what we know of ghurids is that we "dont" know. So sources claim both pashtun and tajik origin. And mention of important primary sources like firishta is important. I think those soures (specially indian scholars) should also be added in origin section. to make it look more neutral, which now unfortunately is not.

You‘re misinterpreting Firishta, it doesn’t mention the Shansabani dynasty of Ghor as Pashtuns, it rather just mentions that Pashtuns inhabited Ghor as well and Firishta was composed more than half a millennium later than the Shansabani reign. Xerxes931 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well we do know that the Ghurids definitely weren't Pashtun, as stated in the information you tried to remove.. [13]. Please read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:AGE MATTERS, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to remove nothing. but rather stated facts , and how do we know that they were not pashtuns? because their language was not dari persian? and primary sources like firishta clearly say they were Afghans. we really don't need to get emotional, it is a historical article we have the "responsibility" to state facts.

No one's getting emotional, and you did indeed remove stuff, it takes a simple click on the diff to see that. While we're at it, please read WP:POV, WP:PSTS and WP:TRUTH as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

OMG check it again , i removed nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

O really? Who was that removed this then; but this is generally rejected by modern scholarship and, as explained by Morgenstierne in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is for "various reasons very improbable". Instead scholars

Was it a Christmas ghost? [14] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

May be. either ghost or some other user?

Godammit, this is not Nadim. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a very one sided discussion. I acknowledge my mistake editing some parts out, but instead of correcting me, giving advices or just improving the article, my part was just deleted without any context. I think the article should be changed and more balanced, because both are still theories until archeological research can be done in Ghor itself. NadimN (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the content you want to add about Ghor playing an important role in the genealogy of some Pashtun tribes and some tribes like the Suris even tracing their origin(or claiming) back to the Shansabani Ghorid dynasty who this article is about. However that doesn’t change anything about the origin of the Shansabanis themselves which was non-Pashtun and thus that content definitely doesn’t belong into the origin section as it does not change anything about the origin of the Ghorids Xerxes931 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are so concerned by this, why not use modern sources?? Why dig up antiquated historiography and pile up antiquated sources in this article in some puerile attempt to prove you are right? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is some important points Xerxes931.

As me and my counter part are trying to convey. The ghurid (claim) to being of sassanian decent is also "rejected" by modern scholarship and i am sure you are aware of it. there is a lot written about this. 2- since it is written in origin section all we are saying is that their is NOT consensus among scholars that whether they are pashtun or tajik. So both point of views should equally be presented, as the article aready stats that ethnic origin is uncertain. I really hope you get our (and many others) point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT case. As I said, please read the guidelines up above, the source Nadim tried to use was outdated. No one thinks that the Ghurids were Pashtun, the prevalent thesis atm is that they were of Tajik origin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not even the source of Nadim states Ghurids to have been Pashtuns but instead just that the Suri tribe of the Pashtuns traces origins to Ghor, I don’t understand how this is an argument for them being Pashtuns, it just means a tribe of the Pashtuns has non-pashtun origins from Ghor. @IP Besides that I don’t really get what your trying to say @IP, what’s your concern, be a bit more concrete, since you agree with them not being Pashtuns what’s wrong with the section ? Xerxes931 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My concern is simple. The origin is disputed between pashtuns and tajiks- so both should be equally presented.

1- As i said that thier sassanian claim is considered un reliable- https://books.google.no/books?id=t7TDDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=ghurid+claims+persian&source=bl&ots=sywP1RJmzt&sig=ACfU3U30AFMuCsvhJf4eu5IF-e4BDguiTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq_JSXk_vtAhU0CRAIHapfBR84ChDoATAGegQICBAC#v=onepage&q=ghurid%20claims%20persian&f=false and countless other sources points out that. 2-As i said that many modern scholars/authors consider them Afghans- a very prestigious sources (British museum) https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG201424 -Source says ghurids were made up of Afghans and turks (their mamluk soldiers) https://books.google.no/books?id=hgk6SV16fk8C&pg=PA131&dq=ghurid+afghans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIsKyypfvtAhUmiYsKHTqCAQMQ6AEwA3oECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=ghurid%20afghans&f=false -Ghurids rested largely on Afghan support. https://books.google.no/books?id=0-UuAQAAIAAJ&q=ghurid+afghans&dq=ghurid+afghans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLheKUpvvtAhVttIsKHbKZCAsQ6AEwBnoECAQQAg -Very well known scholar calling ghurids Afghans https://books.google.no/books?id=kFJNBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA391&dq=ghurid+afghans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiptZWip_vtAhXos4sKHUFgCJs4ChDoATAAegQIAhAC#v=onepage&q=ghurid%20afghans&f=false

Now- these are NOT minor sources but major professional scholars and authors, not my POV or opinion. I can provide a ton more but i think this should be enough

So all i want to point out is simple correction on origin section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What Sasanian claim? There is not even a single mention of the Sasanians in the article - none of us have even mentioned it either. Even if there was a Sasanian claim, how does that source suddenly debunk it? It simply states that the Ghurids (which are called a Persian dynasty cough) claimed a Islamo-Persian legitimacy by claiming descent from Zahhak and Arab tribes. Who says that is museum (which vagely writes 'Afghan') is a very prestigious source? You? The Lieberman source is not even RS, he seemingly doesn't even specialize in the topic. Ghurids rested largely on Afghan support? So what? That makes them Afghans? Gulzad is not reliable either anyways. Last source doesn't even call them Afghans, that's just how you wanted to interpreted it. Are we done here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There are enough sources in the origin section about them being Pashtuns already, we don’t need more than 3 refs, more importantly is the fact that that idea is generally rejected by modern scholars and if you would dig into the topic deeper yourself you would come to the same conclusion as Morgenstriene that it’s for various reasons improbable. Shansabanis were a Ghurid tribe, not a Pashtun tribe, by claiming them as Pashtun your claiming every single Ghurid tribe as Pashtun. The Ghurids very likely had their own language as it’s stated in Encyclopedia Iranica as well and documented by the translators which the Ghaznavids needed for trips to Ghor. The term Tajik is very flexible, Bosworth mostly uses it for any non-Pashtun Eastern Iranian population, by that definition the Ghorids were Tajiks, as it’s stated. If you go by the definition of “native” Persian speakers in Central Asia, Ghurids wouldn’t fall into the Tajik category, since we don’t know their exact language it’s stated that their exact origin is unknown(which doesn’t make them more Pashtun), but they were certainly (Eastern) Iranian. If your concern is that it states them to be strictly Tajiks then we can perhaps think about including the quote of Bosworth in Iranica: “ Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks.” However that doesn’t make them more Pashtun as I said, the statement about that is going to stay the way it is. Also whenever you leave a comment or anything sign it by putting a ~ four times in a row at the end of your text and if you post sources/links put them in brackets like this [] otherwise it just really looks messy and confusing Xerxes931 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I think you can go for it,you can replace they were tajiks with the "assume" quote or something similar. but it will make it better if you edit about their descendants in one sentence or two like- we know suri pashtuns claim to be their 

descendants- or something you feel is better .thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah I want to hear User:HistoryofIrans opinion on it first. Xerxes931 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand, could you repeat it? This section is a mess to look through, could the IP please avoid the unnecessary space so his comments stop looking like:

  this?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The part about Tajiks in the origin section goes back to Bosworth, who himself says this on the topic on Encyclopedia Iranica: “ Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks.”. Do you think we should try to involve this quote somehow or make it more clear that its only an assumption by Bosworth or is the section fine as it is? --Xerxes931 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it does already say in the article that “Instead scholars assume that the dynasty might have been of Tajik origin.” That seems fine to me imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

True, completely forgot about that, the IP made it appear like it clearly states them to be of certain Tajik origin. --Xerxes931 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

“ Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular;" this makes the difference. And also a mention of their descendants suris.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC) 

I will(in the future) create a section/Find a proper section where we can put in stuff about their descendants and people who claim descendants from them like the Persian Kartid Dynasty as well as the Pashtun Suri Dynasty and perhaps also maybe the mentions of Ghor in the Makhzan-I-Afghani. That’s nothing that belongs into the origin section though.Xerxes931 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Map

The map is wrong Ghurids never reached Bengal Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

C.E. Bosworth states, "Moʿezz-al–Dīn himself returned to Khorasan to aid his brother against the Ḵᵛārazmšāhs, but his conquests in India were carried on by his Turkish commander Qoṭb-al-Dīn Aybak (q.v.) and, expanding as far east as Bengal..."

Shailendra Bhandare states, " Quṭb al-Dīn Aybak, the most prominent of the “Maliks” under the Ghurid overlords was a Turk, and so was Ikhtiyār al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Bakhtiyār Khiljī, the architect of the Ghurid conquest of Bengal..."

K.A. Nizami states, "Toghril consolidated the possession of Gwalior and Bayana, while Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji supplanted the Gahadavala chiefs and carried and the Ghurid banners into Bihar and Bengal."

Simon Digby states, "The conquest of the capital of Gaur provided an occasion for the remission of treasure from Bengal to the Ghurid overlord Mu'izz al - Dīn Muḥammad bin Sām."

It would appear the Ghurids did reach Bengal. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghurid origins and language spoken

@Kansas Bear Hey so I wanted to talk to you about Ghurid decent as of now, it is believed that the reflect of Tajik is also currently unknown and specifically it is purely just regarded as unknown since nobody knows the actual origins of the dynasty, especially since the Tajik part is now outdated, so can I remove that and rather add on about how the origins of the Ghurid Dynasty cannot be confirmed, they are only known to be a decent from some inhabitants of the Iranic people whether it be Pashtun, Tajik, Persian, etc, it is generally unknown.

What are your thoughts and possible solution to this? Noorullah21 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts and possible solution to this?

1. Do not use outdated sources.

2. Do not use sources written by reporters and other non-historians.

I believe this "issue" is clearly addressed by these sentences:

• "In the 19th century some European scholars, such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, favoured the idea that the Ghurid dynasty was related to today's Pashtun people but this is generally rejected by modern scholarship and, as explained by Morgenstierne in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is for "various reasons very improbable".

and "The Encyclopaedia of Islam"......

• ""Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006: "... The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock ...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  While I do think they are tajik possibly, a lot of sources point toward them being Afghan. This doesn't seem to be the only case, as I believe I read about the idea of them being tajik improbable as well, but I'll see what I can conclude and add on toward. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a lot of sources point toward them being Afghan."

No there are not. The Pashtun theory was written by non-specialized civil servants and has been exposed to be wrong.

• "I'll see what I can conclude and add on toward."

And I will remove anything I find to be a personalized opinion, like what you added to the referenced sentence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't personalized, it was quoted in reference from the source of the ghurids off iranica. [15] "we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks." Noorullah21 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Noorullah21 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding sources pointing toward them being of pashtun decent, the reason they are called pashtun of the sort is still a theory and very well an argument today from what I added on back then.

"The first person in the line of Ghoris or Ghurids who converted to Islam was Shansban. This is the reason why this dynasty is also known as Shansbani. Ghurids are also in broader sense known as Shahukhel or Suri also. Shansban seems to be a Turkic name, however Shahukhel and Suri are purely Pashtun names. Shahukhel is combination of two words Shah+Khel (Sanskrit Shast +Kul: means of royal family), another Pashtun variation is Shahbani or Shahvani (Sanskrit Shast+Vanshi: means of royal descent), the word Suri is derived from Sanskrit Sri which means the head of the unit. Suri title is still there in Hindus and Kalash people, this had hinted at the fact that the ghurids could have possibly originated from Pashtun decent, including of how Shansbani was fused with Pashtun clans, however there is nothing to confirm the recent surmise that the inhabitants of Ghor were originally Pashto-speaking, and claims of the existence of Pashto poetry (as in Pata Khazana) from the Ghurid period are unsubstantiated. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

ie my point is there was nothing to confirm it was tajik, afghan, and heck even some sources claim turkic. All we know is that they were an iranic dynastical origin of some sort. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

So..may I re add my edit from the case that you reverted because you claimed it was personal opinion? it was based off iranica. I'll just re-add it in a bit if you don't respond.Noorullah21 (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No. I see nothing wrong with the Origin section as it stands. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

But Iranica states that it is not confirmable whatsoever in any case, it should be noted that it can only be assumed to be of some iranic origin. You seeing nothing wrong is your own personal opinion at that point, but I'm adding on from iranica as quoted. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You reverted it because you claimed its a personal opinion, it is not, I am editing and adding on to it with contributions, it is an appropriate edit as well considering how the source in text right now is basically calling it of tajik origin, when it is unknown. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "But Iranica..."
  

While you ignore what the Encyclopaedia of Islam states, "The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock ..."
No if, ands, or buts in that source. But that does not fit your opinion, again.
It already states the uncertainty of the Tajik origin, there is no reason for you to tamper with it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

AND, your "addition" to the sentence;

• "Instead scholars assume that the dynasty might have been of Tajik origin, though this is also unconfirmable, and is only able to be assumed that they were of Tajik origin."
  

Is an incomprehensible sentence, since it repeats what is already stated. This is not an improvement. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the wording from “ Instead scholars assume that the dynasty might have been of Tajik origin, though this is also unconfirmable, and is only able to be assumed that they were of Tajik origin."

Because this is basically stating it is a fact, so I removed that on my part and reworded it differently as Iranica had stated it, it is incomprehensible, so my apologies for that.

Regarding Encyclopaedia of Islam states, "The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock ..."

Multiple sources conflict this, (ignoring my old ones), this includes iranica. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your most recent edit and I feel like now we both have shown appropriately what should be represented, so I can consider this over, thank you for co-operation and talking over with me. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You have done what you wanted. Accuse me of disruptive editing again and we will be speaking to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of disruptive editing, more specifically 'Tendentious editing". I accused myself of it because I had only wrote "Instead scholars assume that the dynasty might have been of Tajik origin, though this is also unconfirmable, and is only able to be assumed that they were of Tajik origin."", which I had later fixed after user @HistoryofIran notified me of, (thanks to him for that.)

So...do you understand what I mean now? @Kansas Bear Noorullah21 (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:TE is disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes..but I didn’t accuse you of disruptive editing? Noorullah21 (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also actually, not exactly. WP:TE also applies to neutral POV, etc.

What I did wrong that violated it was that my statement sounded like a FACT when it shouldve been a opinion Noorullah21 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Ghurids are not Iranian but Afghans of Arian-descent. Mukhtar Dost (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. Mukhtar Dost (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Former RfC about the map in the infobox (renominated in the next section for neutrality and clarity)

Should the map in Ghurid dynasty article be corrected? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes 1) The current map in the infobox (white and green) is very poor quality, basically unsourced, and contradicted by the very references it claims:

• The first reference given in the caption (Bosworth) is only a vague literary description about the extent of Ghurid territory, pointing out the transient characters of its holdings: "Ḡūr was then the nucleus of a vast but transient military empire which at times stretched from Gorgān (q.v.) in the west to northern India in the east". The eastern extent of the territory is only described as "northern India".
• The second reference in the caption is an actual map from the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147, but that map has a much smaller territorial extent, either to the west, to the east and to the south.
• A third reference obtained from Talk page discussions has: "In 1201 Ghurid troops entered Khurasan and captured Nishapur, Merv, Sarakhs and Tus, reaching as far as Gurgan and Bistam. Kuhistan, a stronghold of the Ismailis, was plundered and all Khurasan was brought temporarily under Ghurid control" - History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Volume 4, p. 191. Again a literary description of the western extent of the Ghurid Empire only (nothing about India). This reference suggest that western cities were "captured" as far as Sarakhs, and that Gurgan and Bistam were only "reached", suggesting something less than "capture", probably just a siege or plundering raids. This reference in itself does not allow to push the frontier of the Ghurids as far as the Caspian sea.
• These sources suggest that the current map is greatly exagerated in its territorial extent, to the west where it shows territory reaching the Caspian Sea, to the east where it shows the Ghurids on the shore of the Bay of Bengal

2) I propose we use the actual published WP:RS map from the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147 to redraw the exact territorial extent given in that map (colored map with orange boundaries, attached). That map may not be perfect, but at least it is sourced. This map also protects us from the exagerated territorial claims made in the current green-and-white map, which are not even supported by its own sources. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

No

Not a very neutral RFC when you start out with the sentence "should it be corrected?" Two high quality WP:RS, Iranica and History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Volume 4 makes mention of the Ghurids controlling Khurasan and Gurgan - even if briefly, it should still show it. Here are sources; "In 1201 Ghurid troops entered Khurasan and captured Nishapur, Merv, Sarakhs and Tus, reaching as far as Gurgan and Bistam. Kuhistan, a stronghold of the Ismailis, was plundered and all Khurasan was brought temporarily under Ghurid control" - History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Volume 4, p. 191. / "Ḡūr was then the nucleus of a vast but transient military empire which at times stretched from Gorgān (q.v.) in the west to northern India in the east". I only agree with the inclusion of the map if Khurasan and Gurgan is included as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, here are more WP:RS maps:

• "Map of the Ghūrid ‘empire’ at its height towards the end of the 12th century." in Thomas, David C. (15 May 2018). The Ebb and Flow of the Ghūrid Empire. Sydney University Press. ISBN 978-1-74332-542-1.
• Ghurid Empire at greatest extent in Schmidt, Karl J. (20 May 2015). An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-47681-8.
  

They set the western territorial limit at Nishapur and Merv, certainly not as far as the Caspian, so they do not consider Gorgan as proper Ghurid territory (neither does your first source which just says it was "reached" -not captured-, which cannot be construed as equivalent with "holding territory", nor really your second which is rather broad and vague in its definition -"stretched to..."-). Anyway, I've added a portion to my map, which would correspond to your "reached" and "stretched" while not being considered actual territory per my map sources (you might have to refresh your file cache to see it, or go the Commons page). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean correspond to "my" "reached" and "stretched"? This is what the sources say, and in quite simple English as well. I would like to remind you of WP:GF and WP:CIR. It's still not good enough; why did you put the Khurasan area as temporary control but refrained from doing so in Bengal and whatnot? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What are your sources for extending Ghurid territory as far as the shores of the Bay of Bengal, even temporarily? I cannot see any, neither in map nor in literary form. Lakhnauti, as shown in the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147 and consequently in my map, is already Bengal.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural no (invited by the bot) Invalid and ineffective RFC. An RFC needs to have a neutral statement of the question. It obviously fails at both "neutral" and having a real statement of the question. Also, RFC are to get outside input, and failing to define a question is going to be a big impediment at getting that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the map in the infobox of the Ghurid dynasty article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both sides argued their position on the basis of the accuracy of the current map vs the proposed map, but as those who supported replacing the map provided evidence in support of their position, while those who opposed it failed to do so, I find that there is clear consensus to replace the map (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the current map () in the infobox of the Ghurid dynasty article be replaced by this map: ? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes

Current map of the Ghurid dynasty at its greatest extent under Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad. [1]

1) The current map in the infobox (white and green) is very poor quality, basically unsourced, and contradicted by the very references attached to it:

• The first reference given in the caption (Bosworth) is only a vague literary description about the extent of Ghurid territory, pointing out the transient characters of its holdings: "Ḡūr was then the nucleus of a vast but transient military empire which at times stretched from Gorgān (q.v.) in the west to northern India in the east". The eastern extent of the territory is only described as "northern India".
• The second reference in the caption is an actual map from the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147, but that map has a much smaller territorial extent, either to the west, to the east and to the south.
• A third reference obtained from Talk page discussions has: "In 1201 Ghurid troops entered Khurasan and captured Nishapur, Merv, Sarakhs and Tus, reaching as far as Gurgan and Bistam. Kuhistan, a stronghold of the Ismailis, was plundered and all Khurasan was brought temporarily under Ghurid control" - History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Volume 4, p. 191. Again a literary description of the western extent of the Ghurid Empire only (nothing about India). This reference suggest that western cities were "captured" as far as Sarakhs, and that Gurgan and Bistam were only "reached", suggesting something less than "capture", probably just a siege or plundering raids. This reference in itself does not allow to push the frontier of the Ghurids as far as the Caspian sea.
• These sources suggest that the current map is greatly exagerated in its territorial extent, to the west where it shows territory reaching the Caspian Sea, to the east where it shows the Ghurids on the shore of the Bay of Bengal

Proposed new map of the Ghurid Empire, based on the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147.

2) I propose that we use the actual published WP:RS map from the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147 Map "g" as a model to redraw the exact territorial extent given in that map (colored map with orange boundaries, attached). That map may not be perfect, but at least it is sourced. This map also protects us from the exagerated territorial claims made in the current green-and-white map, which are not even supported by its own sources. Two more maps are useful to confirm how the territorial extent of the Ghurid Empire is depicted in reliably sourced maps:

• "Map of the Ghūrid ‘empire’ at its height towards the end of the 12th century." in Thomas, David C. (15 May 2018). The Ebb and Flow of the Ghūrid Empire. Sydney University Press. ISBN 978-1-74332-542-1.
• Ghurid Empire at greatest extent in Schmidt, Karl J. (20 May 2015). An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-47681-8.
  

These RS maps set the western territorial limit at Nishapur and Merv, certainly not as far as the Caspian, so they do not consider Gorgan as proper Ghurid territory (nor do the literary sources above which just say it was "reached" -not captured-, which cannot be construed as equivalent with "holding territory", nor really the second source which is rather broad and vague in its definition -"stretched to..."-). I've added a western light-shaded portion to my map, which would correspond to these areas which were "reached", while not being considered as actual territory per the three RS maps I have provided. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)'

References

Yes, ONLY if you include a caption specifying the time period and criteria for inclusion within the region, otherwise, NO. Much better map. But the current map has this much-needed info in the caption, and the new proposed map as proposed does not; it merely refers to the source that it was derived from. Also, noting that both maps are editor-generated. This is common and often needed in Wikipedia. We need to understand that neither specifies exactly how the borders were drawn by the Wiki editor, although one provides a reference that was used as a source of data. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

My conditional "Yes" is now a "Yes" with the now-proposed caption. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Response: Map caption and refs

Map of Ghurid territory circa 1200, at the time of joint rulers Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad and Muhammad of Ghor. In the west, Ghurid territory extended to Nishapur and Merv, while Ghurid troops reached as far as Gorgan on the shores of the Caspian Sea. Eastward, the Ghurids invaded India as far as Bengal, where they sacked Nudiya and established an Islamic government in Lakhnauti.

@North8000: Thanks, here is a proposed caption for the proposed map, with detailed refs. The lines were drawn following Schwartzberg's A Historical Atlas of South Asia (with slight adaptations due to slightly different map projections). The dotted line and light-shaded area in the west corresponds to the claim that "Ghurid troops (...) reached as far as Gurgan and Bistam" per History of Civilizations of Central Asia. There are some territorial variations between the three maps referenced here, but they are all consistent in limiting western territories to Nishapur and Merv. Schwartzberg's A Historical Atlas of South Asia seems to be the most authoritative and comprehensive, and seems to offer a decent compromise between all the sources given. At this point I have not found any reliable source indicating Ghurid territory as far as the shores of the Bay of Bengal, even temporarily: it only goes as far as Lakhnauti per and , with a sack of the city of Nudiya.. If there are such sources, they could be added in dotted line and lighter shade, as for the western portion. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

No

Although that was a horrible RFC, a discussion was still ongoing. What is the point of this? Do you want me to copy paste the same comments? Are we going to repeat the exact same discussion? Also, this RFC is still not neutral, as you have once again filled it with your own POV rather than maintaining neutrality. Please read WP:RFC and WP:NPOV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The initial description of the RFC should be informative and neutral, and I think that it is. Perhaps you are referring to the comments which are supposed to be POV. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes per nom. Khestwol (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

NO. The second map is also pretty rough and inaccurate in some places, mostly the bengal borders and of course in main central asia itself, the first map isn't the best either, and I suggest if we can, to find or make a new map for the Ghurid Empire to accurately potray its extent based on research, from what I know, the second map is more wrong because the Ghurids should own more of middle-tern bengal in general. (I can personally make a map myself, it would just take some time and research.) Noorullah21 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: I am not aware of literary or cartograhic sources attributing Ghurid territory as far as the shores of the Bay of Bengal as shown in the current white-and-green map. As far as I know, the farthest extent among reliable sources is shown in the Schwartzberg Atlas, p.147, Map "g" and Schmidt, p.37 map 16.2, stopping at the city of Lakhnauti and surroundings. If there are RS sources showing greater extent, even temporary, I am ready to acknowledge them in the new proposed map. Do you have anything? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Ghurids stretching to the sea of bengal itself, but I am aware of the Ghurids owning more of inner bengal itself, which was what I was referring to. @पाटलिपुत्र Noorullah21 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: This source says that the Ghurids sacked the ancient city of Nudiya (Nabadwip) before establishing their government in Lakhnauti (Turkish History and Culture in India: Identity, Art and Transregional Connections. BRILL. 17 August 2020. p. 237. ISBN 978-90-04-43736-4.). Nudiya is located just within Ghurid territory on the new map, so no need to redraw boundaries for the moment, but I added Nudiya as a city name. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: IMO the map by पाटलिपुत्र aesthetically looks a lot better - I suggest cropping it a bit (this much of the surrounding territory is not really necessary) and making the markers for cities a bit smaller. One source is better than no sources but I have a question: why base it only on one source and why is the Schwartzberg Atlas the superior map? The other two maps linked by पाटलिपुत्र don't support the larger extent in the current map but also are not perfect matches of the Schwartzberg Atlas map. HistoryofIran: I understand the frustration but are there WP:RS (literary or cartographic) supporting the territorial extent in the current map? IDK if you've linked those before somewhere but they would be useful to have in this RfC. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rationale for using the Schwartzberg Atlas map as the basis makes sense to me. Waiting to see if any literary/cartographic sources are provided for a larger territorial extent (in which case I imagine incorporating that into the new map should be relatively simple). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I cropped the map a bit, introduced smaller dots for the cities. Thanks for the suggestions. I also added Gurgan for clarity. Might have to clean your file cache to see in large format, or click on the last version at Commons. The images above display the last version.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Looks good to me. I don't know much about the Ghurids but to be clear to whoever closes this RfC my comment here should count as a yes unless any further WP:RS are provided that contradict the new map. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes The current map is without any geographic or political boundaries and hence its difficult to gauge what is actually part of it just by having a cursory look at it. The proposed map is not perfect but I believe, its a lot better than the current one. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes The current map is harder to read and understand the location relationships with other countries. Tepkunset (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - Both because of the superior visual quality of the proposed map and because of the better sources used. I understand there are still objections to the second map, but within the strict subject of this RfC, the proposed map is better than the current one. PraiseVivec (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shouldn't this page be renamed Ghurid Empire?

Shouldn't this page be renamed Ghurid Empire, since it deals with the history of the empire as a whole, rather than just its dynastic succession? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What does WP:RS say? If I'm not mistaken, they only really ruled an empire during the rule of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad and Muhammad of Ghor. Otherwise they were mostly confined to what is now central Afghanistan --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Thanks for the answer. I see what you mean, but many of our articles articles about Empires (such as Gupta Empire, Kushan Empire...) often do not start nor finish with actual emperors (often, neither in fact nor in title). Does it mean that you think we could create a Ghurid Empire article from scratch (essentially this article though), and leave a small genealogical page about the dynasty? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but the Ghurids were only an empire for a very brief moment, whereas the Kushans and Guptas had a longer streak compared to their lifespan, no? I guess it ultimately depends on what WP:RS says. I personally am not fan of creating a new article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Aybak plunder of Varanasi

I reverted पाटलिपुत्र here; diff. Since it's not possible to convey everything in a edit summary, I brought it here to briefly explain my part.

• Aybak raid on Varanasi/Kashi/Benaras is the same which is mentioned in next para; where Mu'izz al-Din uprooted many temples and ransacked the holy city.
• I think पाटलिपुत्र, probably thought that this are two different raids, albeit this is not the case. Ghurids could have only enter Varanasi after overcoming the Gahadavala Rajputs (as this territory was under their sway); whom they narrowly defeat in Chandawar-1194, where Jayachandra was killed and afterwards Mu'izz sacked Kashi and Hasan Nizami claimed that 1000 temples were razed to the ground and the idols were smashed.
• The exact year of Battle of Chandwar is bit disputed (1193 or 1194; more sources points 1194) and some even claimed that Mu'izz did not lead in person here and attributes the wholesale destruction to Qutub, Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: Thanks. My source (a very good one) said 1193, so I thought these had to be two different events. Could we then find a way to coalesce the two contents and two sets of references, and explain this happened in "1193 or 1194" as well as other uncertainties? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Asher did not mention much about the background of this raid by Qutub/Mu'izz. As, I mentioned earlier there is a bit inconsistency about the exact year of these events. (1193/1194; at some places even 1195); The scholar who wrote about the Ghurids in detail don't generally stress much upon the Ghurid position in aftermath of their Tarain-1192 triumph and before Mu'izz murder near Indus; after which Aybak founded Delhi Sultanate.

Here is a source from reputed academic on this; (Mohammad Habib):-

on page no. 116:

In the winter of A.D. 1194-1195 Shihabuddin once more marched into Hindustan and invaded the doab. Rai Jaichand moved forward to met him....then description of Chandwar struggle

Shihabuddin captured the treasure fort of Asni and then proceeded to Benaras, 'where he converted about thousand idol-temples into house for the Musalmans.

No, these are not different events. I think you are confusing this because of the inconsistency in the dates in multiple sources. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Mapping

पाटलिपुत्र - Please clarify regarding your edit here, as you changed the date to 1205 in the infobox diff, the Ghurids after they were routed in Battle of Andkhud (1204) against their Turkish rivals, did not had any control over Merv, Nishapur etc. As a matter of fact they only retained Herat and Balkh of their former conquests in Khurasan. I think the previous date - i.e. around 1200 seems more appropirate. Any thoughts HistoryofIran ? Thanks. Re Packer&Tracker (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Re Packer&Tracker:Good point. Maybe I could tweak the date to 1203 (to account for the conquest of Bengal still)... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र Hey so I recently did a Ghurid video on youtube (here) [16] and while researching, I found that the Khiljis of Bengal expanded a little further then just Nudiya.

"Ikhtiyar al-Dīn Muḥammad Khalji left the town of Devkot in 1206 to attack Tibet, leaving Ali Mardan Khalji in Ghoraghat Upazila to guard the eastern frontier from his headquarters at Barisal. Bakhtiyar Khalji's forces suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of Tibetan guerrilla forces at Chumbi Valley, which forced him to retreat to Devkot with only about a hundred surviving soldiers. As he lay ill and exhausted in Devkot, Bakhtiyar Khalji was assassinated by Ali Mardan Khalji."

The main raised point here is how they also ruled Barisal as said in the source. and Barisal is in deep southern Bangladesh.

Maybe you would wish to add this to your map?

This is corroborated by:

Nitish K. Sengupta (1 January 2011). Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib. Penguin Books India. pp. 63–64. ISBN 978-0-14-341678-4.

William John Gill; Henry Yule (2010). The River of Golden Sand: The Narrative of a Journey Through China and Eastern Tibet to Burmah. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-108-01953-8. Noorullah (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: I adjusted the map to include Barisal (you might have to refresh your file cache to be able to see it). Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र No problem Noorullah (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)