Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
inactive
.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles

Using “Iran” to refer to the Sassanian Empire

The Sassanian Empire was not known as ‘Iran’ to anyone, not even the Sassanians themselves. The state, as well as nearly all other states centered on modern-day Iran were known as ‘Persia’ until the 20th century. The Sassanian Empire was known partly a ‘Eranshahr’, which was only an endonym and also not even the same term as ‘Iran’. Calling the Sassanian Empire ‘Iran’ makes about as much sense as referring to the Roman Empire as ‘Italy’. It is also directly against the article, which is Muslim conquest of Persia, not Muslim conquest of Iran. — LissanX (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Sasanian and the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empires were the two great late antique empires of western Eurasia. The Sasanians controlled the area between the Oxus and Euphrates rivers, which they called “Iranshahr” (Middle Persian Ērānšahr) or simply “Iran” in later literature" (From Oxus to Euphrates: The World of Late Antique Iran, p. xiii).
"From the establishment of the empire by Ardašīr I up to the reign of Yazdgerd II (224– 439), the title of the Sasanian sovereigns, despite minor alterations, remained mazdēsn bay [name of the sovereign] šāhānšāhĒrān (ud An-ērān) kēčihr az yazdān, “His Mazdayasnian Majesty [name of the sovereign] king of kings of Iran(ians) (and non-Iran[ians]) whose seed is from the gods.” The title “king of kings of Iran,” which was established by Ardašīr, augmented by the important element ud An-ērān “and non-Iran(ians),” under Šābuhr I, with ephemeral omission of the selfsame under Narseh (Huyse 2006: 183–4), thus represented mutatis mutandis the core of the Sasanian titulature during this period." (The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, p. 806).
"The word ērān is first attested in the titles of Ardašīr I (q.v.), founder of the Sasanian dynasty." (ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR)
"Shahbazi demonstrates the existence of a nation, created when political unity had been achieved by many 'countries', all of which shared a common Aryan heritage. Iran was Aryanshatra, then Iranshahr, and finally Iran. Shahbazi explains that "one should not ignore the fact that, once established, a national identity keeps its appellation." In other words, although the name "Iran" vanished from official records with the ending of the Sasanian state, Iran, Iranshahr, Mamalek-e Iran (Iranian lands) and Iran-zamin (land of Iran) continued to express the same concept." (Iran After the Mongols, p. 159).
"Quite similarly, the Ilkhans proclaimed themselves as the rulers of Iran (padishahan-i Iran), converting their own hitherto political and economic center Tabriz into their imperial capital." (Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, p. 72).
I could do this all day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should spend your day taking a reading comprehension class instead, because everything you just posted confirms what I said about the word 'Eranshahr' being an endonym. — LissanX (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You allege that the Sasanian Empire was not known as Iran to anyone, not even themselves, well I just proved you wrong. And it clearly wasn't 'partly' known as Eranshahr either. Also, you call it an endnoym, yet three of the sources has Iran in their title and consistently use it pre-20th-century. It clearly goes to show that your statement about "Calling the Sassanian Empire ‘Iran’ makes about as much sense as referring to the Roman Empire as ‘Italy’." is heavily wrong. Last but not least, I would advise you to stop attacking me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reading comprehension. I said the Sassanians knew it as ‘Eranshahr’, not ‘Iran’, and that the term ‘Eranshahr’ was an endonym. Here, let me give you a hand:

The Sassanian Empire was known partly a ‘Eranshahr’, which was only an endonym and also not even the same term as ‘Iran’.

To explain it to you like a child, since apparently that’s what you need:
  • Nobody referred to the historical Sassanian Empire as ‘Iran’. The Sassanians referred to the Iranic part of their empire as ‘Eranshahr’, not ‘Iran‘. Your own copypasta demonstrates that the word ‘Eran’ was used to mean ‘Iranian people’. ‘Iran’ was not the name of the entire empire or its territory.
  • The Sassanians referred to the part of their empire as ‘Aneranshahr’ to refer to non-Iranic regions, which were also part of their empire. The ‘Eranshahr’ part of their state’s territory was separate from the ‘Aneran’ part.
  • ‘Eranshahr’ meant “land of the Iranic [people]”. This did not include the ‘Aneran’ parts.
  • The word ‘Eranshahr’, not ‘Iran’, was used as an endonym by the Sassanians for the Iranian-populated region of their empire.
If you don’t know what an endonym is, look it up.
An endonym used to refer to themselves is irrelevant, especially when that endonym (Eranshahr) is not even the same word you want to use (Iran); and especially considering that endonym (Eranshahr) didn’t even apply to the non-Iranic (Aneran) parts of the empire. This is why we refer to the Phoenicians as ‘Phoenicians’ and not ‘Kanʿānīm’. I’ll wait for you to copy and paste more information that ironically proves me right again. — LissanX (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even with all those sources explaining it quite simply you've somewhat managed to deny/twist it, amazing. I'm not going to cut it out for you in paper, especially not when you can't say a sentence properly without insulting me. This seems like a
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not though, there was a whole discussion for this in [1], where various sources proved that Iran was indeed used as much as Persia if not more pre-1925 (the sources I've posted here uses Iran as well), I would encourage you to read that. Also, I didn't realize we were voting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sasanian Iran was in fact Iran, you can't say Iran and Eranshahr are different when they both mean land of Aryans. I think anything is better than conquest of Persia as Persia was just a part of the Sasanian empire. Also, why can't that guy have a respectful conversation and has to result to insults? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.38.159 (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest or Invasion?

Hey fellow Wikipedians, I was wondering why should this page be called Muslim conquest of Persia, when the Persian conquest of Greece is called an invasion. What makes an attack on other people an invasion and what makes one a conquest? The muslim invasion of Persia was far more brutal and cruel than the invasions of Greece. I believe it would be more appropriate if the article is renamed to invasion. 180.150.38.159 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should absolutely be changed to Invasion to match the rest of wikipedia 2001:DF4:3200:1500:4965:1E12:D595:AC2A (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does it still say conquest instead of invasion 115.70.22.143 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the fact of numerical and equipment superiority of sassanids

For some reason some users keep reverting my contribution that state this facts even after i added citations and sources

The last time user “Slatersteven” erased my contribution and replied: “Read WP:ONUS why does this content matter?”

I think these two lines i added matter just as how the previous 15 lines talking about how the Sassanid empire was exhausted and talking about how the Sassanid empire had internal problems matter, they are literally the same thing talking in the same context describing the same thing

You either include both or remove both Amr.elmowaled (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least 3 out of the 4 sources you added were not
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with your additions. Elephants equivalent to modern tanks? Really? The source doesn't even state that, which makes me wonder if there are some interpretation issues as well. Moreover, the lede is supposed to be short and concise. EDIT: I just realized that you added the exact same addition earlier without even providing any sources, so I wonder, are these purely your own words then? [2] [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
>HistoryofIran: “I just realized that you added the exact same addition earlier without even providing any sources”,Yeah when included them at first i assumed it’s well known facts, known by checking the numbers of the armies of the arabs compared to the sassanids and byzantines, known from the equipment and armory of the arabs compared to sassanids and weapons like “elephants”, known that sassanids had the defense advantage since they were the ones being conquered not the opposite, but when someone asked for sources i did provide sources in my last edit !,“ Elephants equivalent to modern tanks? Really? The source doesn't even state that”,I literally included an entire source stating that, you will literally find tons of scholars, historians and books describing elephants as literally “tanks of ancient time”, it’s not something i made up on my own,“ At least 3 out of the 4 sources you added were not WP:RS”,I wonder which one of them exactly and what makes them “not reliable”, what do they lack ? :)
Amr.elmowaled (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall they are described as in some respects like the tanks of the ancient world, I also seem to recall reading they were also obsolete and that many historians do not consider then analogous to tanks. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
>Slatersteven, “I also seem to recall reading they were also obsolete and that many historians do not consider then analogous to tanks.”, provide us a source for your claim please, like i can provide you tons of sources describing elephants as tanks equivalence of that time during and before the arab-sassanid battles, can you provide us a source that reject and object to this analogy or call elephants “obsolete” in the time of arab-sassanid battles ? :) Amr.elmowaled (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would have found that out if you clicked and read
WP:OR, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
> HistoryofIran, “XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies looks okay”, great !, so we are only differing at sources mentioning that sassanids used elephants, and more reliable sources stating that elephants were used as modern day tanks, for the former i can bring you the books of the medieval persian historian al-tabari and maybe ibn taymiyya too ! So it can be easily solved, and the latter at worst case we can replace “elephants were equivalent to modern day tanks” with “elephants are regarded by many scholars as equivalence to modern day tanks”,,,, “ thanks for admitting that you didn't base those words on sources but your own personal opinion”, no actually i based non on my “personal opinion”, i stated just facts and numbers (there are no opinions regarding these), the thing is 1.i just chose the wrong source to cite that persians used elephants 2. Cited that elephants were equivalent to modern day tanks, which at most can be solved by saying “many scholars consider …”, as there are abundant amount of scholars and historians already saying that,,,, and for the page number of citation then no problem, i will add that too !, so everything is okay ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:RS either, they are several hundreds of years old. no actually i based non on my “personal opinion”, i stated just facts and numbers (there are no opinions regarding these) You didn't base those additions on any source, so that makes it your own words, same same. Everything is far from okay, please read all those guidelines I have posted. Also, please use capital letters when you're adding words that use them in a Wikipedia article. I would advise you to refrain from edit warring and post your suggestions here instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
”You didn't base those additions on any source”, didn’t you just say “ XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies looks okay” ?!, also you said “ Ian Heath's work is self-published (WP:SPS) through Lulu.com, nothing suggests he is reliable”, i wonder what is the difference between Ian Heaths and A.I akram and his self published book of “the muslim conquest of persia”, apparently he and his self published book are used in citation are used several times in the article and i found no one saying he is unreliable because “it’s a self published book” and no one had a problem with that as a citation, should i erase these sourceless claims until someone provide us a reliable source WP:RS ?! Amr.elmowaled (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This demonstrates that every single piece of word was from yourself [6] [7], no? And you're right, A.I Akram is not reliable either. But what has that do with anything? It's no secret that this article needs a cleanup, no one has volunteered though. Also, please see
WP:POINT. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
” This demonstrates that every single piece of word was from yourself [6] [7], no?”, no, i just forgot to add the citations and i did add them when someone reminded me to :) Amr.elmowaled (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one too ?! “ The Byzantine and Sassanid armies had superiority in numbers , in arms , and in technical organization , but their conscripts could not match the compelling inspiration Islam had brought to the Arab tribesmen .”

From “A Short History of Africa” by Roland Anthony Oliver, J. D. Fage, New York University Press, 1963 

Amr.elmowaled (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A Short History of Africa", really? We literally spoke about this. I'm sure it's not difficult to find a source thats actually specialized in this subject. Also, even if you find a source, you have to insert it properly, not in the same manner you did earlier. It has to actually fit in, sounding relevant and not
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / Povish. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
you know that i am right don’t you ?, one thing i hate about the english wikipedia is it’s zionist and anti-arab/anti-muslim biases, one know the truth and know everything but he intentionally doesn’t want it to be shown, i am going to leave this talk here, there is no use of wasting my time more, so whenever an admin or someone else come, he shall continue if he want to waste some of his time too … — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr.elmowaled (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok. let it be
"A Short History of Africa", really? We literally spoke about this. I'm sure it's not difficult to find a source thats actually specialized in this subject.
history of the africa heavily coincides with the history of the byzantines and sassanids, the source is totally fine Amr.elmowaled (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the sassanids greatly outnumbered the arabs;rustem probably commanded 30,000-80,000 men, supported by a small number of elephants"
Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopdia, Alexander Mikaberidze, published by ABC-CLIO (reliable source)
-confirming sassanids fought with elephants against the arabs Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the war elephants served as "tanks" in ancient armies." (p.25) in an article with a title of "ancient tanks"
Empire of Ancient Rome
By Michael Burgan, published by
infobase publishing
(reliable source)
Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

. Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it kill you to properly write a source (pages, quotes, etc) and its contents so others can verify it? Wasn't the English Wikipedia a "zionist and anti-arab/anti-muslim"? What are you still doing here then? You even ignored the
WP:POINT policy and went on to pov push at [8] [9] [10]. Stop wasting my time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
so to sum up, we have:
1."There is sufficient proof that the Sassanids and Byzantines were numerically superior to the Arabs . ... The Arabs ' military garb was obviously inferior to that of its enemies" Acts: XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies : Selected Papers, Main and Communications : Moscow, 1991, Volume 1, Ihor Ševčenko, G. G. Litavrin, Walter K. Hanak
2. “The Byzantine and Sassanid armies had superiority in numbers , in arms , and in technical organization , but their conscripts could not match the compelling inspiration Islam had brought to the Arab tribesmen .”
From “A Short History of Africa” by Roland Anthony Oliver, J. D. Fage, New York University Press, 1963
published by very reputable insititutions stating that arabs were inferior
--------------------------------------------------
3."the sassanids greatly outnumbered the arabs;rustem probably commanded 30,000-80,000 men, supported by a small number of elephants"
Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopdia, Alexander Mikaberidze, published by ABC-CLIO
> stating that sassanids used military elephants against the arabs
------------------------------------------------
4. "the war elephants served as "tanks" in ancient armies." (p.25) in an article with a title of "ancient tanks"
Empire of Ancient Rome
By Michael Burgan, published by
infobase publishing
> directly saying that elephants served as tanks and calling them ancient tanks
any notes before publishing my sourced contribution ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly not listening. For example, Michael Burgan is a freelance writer, not even an actual historian. You're posting "A Short History of Africa" once again. Mikaberidze mentions elephants alright, but what does it have to do with tanks? Use some time to read and understand our guidelines, how sources work, etc. I can't sit and analyse every source because you can't be bothered to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i don’t find your objection to “ A Short History of Africa” reasonable since as i stated earlier, the byzantines and Sassanids are part of the history of africa, and even if we assumed that the source is invalid (and it’s actually valid), the statement of arab inferiority also isn’t solely based this citation alone, and the citation of these reputable historians whose words were published by a reputable academic institution makes it more than worthy of being included, And For Michael Burgan quote in his book, i can still use it as a reference to say that “ ‘’’many scholars’’’ regard war elephants as tanks of ancient time”, so no problem at all, Anyone else have a note ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The History of Africa is long and vast, the Sasanians barely sat foot in Africa, and author has no expertise in Byzantine/Sasanian/Arab history. You still can't use Burgan, because he fails WP:RS. I say again; you're clearly not listening. We're back to square one it seems. Yes, that I will report you if you resume your edit warring. I'm done trying to act in
WP:GF. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

You mean I can’t use a scholar quote saying “elephants were ancient tanks” to state that there are scholars who exist in this world saying that “elephants were ancient tanks” ?, like I can’t use a quote of some people to prove their existence ? :) Amr.elmowaled (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not if that "scholar" (he's not one) is Burgan, since he fails
WP:RS as he's not even a historian, but a freelance writer. Is it that hard to fathom :)? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Fine, this is the last one

“Elephants were the tanks of the ancient world;”

World History: A Concise Thematic Analysis, Volume 1 By Steven Wallech, Craig Hendricks, Anne Lynne Negus, Peter P. Wan, Gordon Morris Bakken and ironically **Touraj Daryaee**

Published by john John Wiley & Sons inc.

https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=NQ8h828v06YC&pg=PA153&dq=the+war+elephants+served+as+%22tanks%22+in+ancient+armies+as+world+war&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl58Xi2Yb8AhXyQaQEHXMbBmw4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=the%20war%20elephants%20served%20as%20%22tanks%22%20in%20ancient%20armies%20as%20world%20war&f=false

- specialized people (check) - reliable publisher (check) - elephants being ancient tanks (check)

Now we are cool ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else mr HistoryofIran before publishing my sourced contribution ? Amr.elmowaled (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a proper source. Yes, publish what you want here first and where, so we can make sure it's not
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS like the previous one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 17 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am closing this discussion as part of a group, consisting of

Talk:Muslim conquest of Egypt#Requested move 17 March 2023, Talk:Muslim conquest of Armenia#Requested move 21 March 2023, and Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia#Requested move 17 March 2023
, as the moves are comparable, the arguments for each are comparable, and many editors in those discussions referenced their positions in other discussions.

With the exception of

WP:COMMONNAME
. Overall, neither position was sufficiently strong to establish a consensus given the comparable levels of support.

Muslim conquest of Egypt
differs from these in that the arguments for it were seen as stronger by the participants, as evidenced by P Aculeius's neutral position on that move compared to their opposition on others.

If editors wish to explore these moves in the future they are encouraged to open a multi-move request, which will address some of the raised WP:CONSISTENCY concerns.

For this article alone, there was some support for using Iran over Persia; a separate discussion on moving this article to

Muslim conquest of Iran may be informative, and will likely prevent the question of which name shall be used derailing a future discussion on whether to use Arab, Muslim, or Islamic. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Prefer: "
Arab conquest of Persia", since "Persia" tends to be the traditional historical term for the region. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support "Arab conquest of Iran". Long overdue and
WP:COMMON NAME
. "Iran" has generally taken over "Persia" in scholarly sources in these past two decades. For example;
@
Roman Hispania
", to which "Roman Spain" would often be preferred. But when looking at the sheer proximity of the words, Persia tends to be used together with Sasanian (and its spelling variants) more often than Iran with Sasanian. Just for Google Scholar:
Total of the above in favour of Iran: 58,510 Total of the above in favour of Persia: 60,930.
So,
WP:COMMON NAME still seems to favor "Persia" for historical usage (specifically in relation to "Sasanian", "Sassanian", "Sasanid", "Sassanid"), although not by a huge margin... but of course in many cases "Iran" would be used in these results for geographical purposes, or to refer to the modern country (as in "in the area of modern Iran"), so the actual usage of "Persia" to refer to the historical polity is in fact much higher.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
“Sasanian” is the common spelling in literature, hence why the Wiki article is named that, its original name being “Sassanid Empire”, an outdated spelling. The rest of your claims are not supported by anything, and I could likewise argue that “Persia” is also used to refer to the southern province in Iran. I also wonder why you only used Google Scholar as an example here. There are countless prominent sources which use the name “Sasanian Iran” [21]. And “Arab conquest of Iran” too. It’s not even a competition. I did include numerous sources regarding that in the last RFC, which was a few years ago. The numbers have only heavily increased since. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really meant to be a referendum on whether the Sassanian Empire was Persia or Iran or both. But yes, Persia could, in theory, be confused with the little 'Persia' in the sense of
Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think "
Persia proper
"... For "Arab conquest", "Arab invasion" or "Muslim conquest" the results even clearer. Again, according to Google Scholar:
  • "Arab conquest" is used much more often in association with Persia than with Iran:
"Arab conquest"+Iran 10,300, but "Arab conquest"+Persia 16,000
  • "Arab invasion" is used more often in association with Persia than with Iran:
"Arab invasion"+Iran 4,300, but "Arab invasion"+Persia 5,200
  • "Muslim conquest" too is used more often in association with Persia than with Iran:
"Muslim conquest"+Iran 7,890, but "Muslim conquest"+Persia 9,740
So here again,
WP:COMMON NAME seems to favour Persia... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Iran still more generally has a broader meaning than Persia, just as the Iranian peoples are a broader grouping than the Persians. But this is all getting a little off-track. The thing to note is the Ngrams I began with, which shows the proposed title rising significantly in prevalence over the course of the last two decades - to the point where, in 2019, mentions of the set phrase "Arab conquest of Iran" outweighed the combined mentions of the three closest alternatives.
Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't want to
WP:BLUDGEON this thread, but "Iran" is not just the modern term for the modern country, you yourself admitted to finding out about that back in 2019 [22]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
So I did. You obviously have a better memory than I do. I still think that "Persia" would be better to use in the title of this article though. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Contested dates

The traditional dating is contested (based on historical records) here: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/decline-and-fall-of-the-sasanian-empire-the-sasanian-parthian-confederacy-and-the-arab-conquest-of-iran/introduction AJRT1 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Persia&oldid=1194478753"