Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcranmer | Hacker News Reader

How would you categorize the succession of dynasties in Persia? The world history courses I took all heavily ignored the existence of lands between the Jade Gate and the Turkish Straits, so I have only the vaguest of ideas of what the history of Persia looks like.

View on HN

Rough outline from ancient through end of Middle Ages

* Achaemenid - Cyrus the Great, Xerxes, etc

* Alexander - Conquered Persian Empire

* Seleucid - Alexander's General

* Parthian - Nomadic invaders who ruled Persia from horseback

* Sassanian - Native Persians who expelled the Parthians and saw themselves as the heirs of the Achaemenids

* Arab Caliphate - Part of the Muslim conquest

* Mongol Ilkhanate - Conquered by Hulagu, Grandson of Genghis Khan

* Safavid - Founded by Ismail. It was under this dynasty that Iran/Persia became Shiite as opposed to Sunni

Wikipedia is a good place to start but I would not consider it authoritative. Lot of dogs in the fight over the history of Iran, specially the past couple of centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_iran

For the academic treatment, I highly recommend Encyclopædia Iranica:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/pages/about

A request for you: please call it as we have called it for millennia: Iran.

> A request for you: please call it as we have called it for millennia: Iran.

I've met quite a few (ethnic) Iranians who have told me off for referring to it as Iran instead of Persia, but that may well be more tied up with recent history than ancient history.

You are correct. The impolite answer is that they count on their new compatriots' lack of knowledge to dodge the I-rain-ian [sic] label.

Historically, only enemies of Iran refer to it as Persia. The British, for example, remain quite keen to call us that.

I second this and would like to add that Persians are one of dozen of ethnicities that make up Iran including Turks/Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchs, Turkmens, Lors/Lurs, etc. [1] Referring to it as Persia/Persians is akin to ignoring vast majority of the people living there imho.

"Iran" has been the term people used inside to refer to the land/people for a very long time, but Shah officially requested the change from foreign governments in 1935.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran

Stoking ethnic tensions with an eye towards partition, God forbid, is precisely their aim.

You could return the favor and call them English.

We have higher standards. :)

If one wanted to encourage tourism, call it Persia. Many places have a different foreign name than internal name. It isn't (usually) disrespectful.

Persia is a very pleasing sounding name. I am a Persian and quite like it. However, as noted elsewhere, tribal preferences and aesthetics are trumped by a greater love for the totality of the Iranian People, who are not all Persians.

I can recommend the writings of K. E. Eduljee who has been digging into this topic for an extended period of time.

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/

Scroll down to the Site Contents, the third column is dedicated to (mostly) Persian history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com