Πνευματικότητα, Θρησκείες, Θεολογίες, Ιδεολογίες, Αποδοχή

that time the persian sassanid emperor took all the people from the roman city he took over and moved them to a new city just outside the capital city of his own empire and called it Your City But Better Cause It was Built By Me

Έφεσος, Τουρκία, Ελλάδα, Ψευτοϊστορία, και Μισαλλοδοξία: με Τρομοκράτηση του Μέσου Έλληνα τα ΜΜΕ προετοιμάζουν Εθνική Συρρίκνωση

Ephesus, Turkey, Greece, False History, and Intolerance: by terrifying the average Greek, Greece's Mass Media sets the Stage for National Disaster

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 28η Απριλίου 2018.

Σε αντιπαράθεση με διαφωνούντα αναγνώστη του, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αναπαράγει πλήθος στοιχείων παλαιοτέρων δημοσιεύσεών μου και συζητήσεών μας, πιστά ακολουθώντας την ερμηνευτική προσέγγιση και το πρότυπο ιστορικής-πολιτισμικής σύνθεσης, τα οποία έχω εισαγάγει. Και έτσι, πολύ ορθά καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι σήμερα ανήκει εξολοκλήρου στην Τουρκία η πολιτισμική κληρονομιά της Εφέσου - αρχικά γνωστής ως Άπασα χάρη σε χιττιτικά κείμενα της 2ης χιλιετίας τα οποία αγνοούνται ολότελα από την αμόρφωτη, άξεστη, περιθωριακή και ρατσιστική ψευδο-πανεπιστημιακή ελίτ της Ελλάδας.

-------------------------------

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/έφεσος-τουρκία-ελλάδα-ψευτοϊστορία-κ/ =================================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Ό,τι ακολουθεί είναι ο διάλογος που έγινε με δύο σχολιαστές σχετικά με το σε ποιούς ανήκει η ιστορική, πολιτισμική κληρονομιά της χιττιτικής – ιωνικής (ελληνικής) – ρωμαϊκής – χριστιανορωμέϊκης Εφέσου.

Το βίντεο αφορούσε την Τροία αλλά ο διάλογος επεκτάθηκε στην Έφεσο και γενικώτερες ιστορικές θεωρήσεις.

“Μετά τους Σκοπιανούς & οι Τούρκοι επιχειρούν να παραχαράξουν την ελληνική ιστορία”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeXAUR9LcL0

Αντίκρουση κι απόρριψη του βίντεο έχει αναπτυχθεί εδώ:

Τροία, Τουρκία, Ελλάδα, Ψευτοϊστορία, κι η Αποβλάκωση του Μέσου Έλληνα από τα ΜΜΕ που προετοιμάζουν Εθνική Συρρίκνωση

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/τροία-τουρκία-ελλάδα-ψευτοϊστορία-κι/

(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/60670307/Τροία_Τουρκία_Ελλάδα_Ψευτοϊστορία_κι_η_Αποβλάκωση_του_Μέσου_Έλληνα_από_τα_ΜΜΕ_που_προετοιμάζουν_Εθνική_Συρρίκνωση)

A K

Η Τσιλέρ παλαιότερα, δείχνοντας την Έφεσο σε ξένους διπλωμάτες είχε πει: “Είναι έργα των προγόνων μας”.

Σήμερα κάνει το ίδιο κι’ο Ερτογάν.

Μήπως θέλουν να μας πούν ότι είναι ελληνικής καταγωγής, γι’αυτό θεωρούν ότι είναι έργα των προγόνων τους;;;;

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Είχε δίκιο η Τσιλέρ.

Τα μνημεία δεν ανήκουν σε λαούς που χάνονται μέσα στην Ιστορία αλλά σε τόπους που είναι πάντα εκεί.

Έφεσος: η γνωστή από χιττιτικά κείμενα της 2 ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας ως Άπασα πόλη της δυτικής Ανατολίας, η ιστορία και τα μνημεία της ανήκουν στην Τουρκία, και όχι στην Ελλάδα.

Τα αρχαιοελληνικά μνημεία κι οι ναοί της Σικελίας είναι έργα των προγόνων των Ιταλών.

Επίσης, οι περισσότεροι Ρωμιοί της Ορθόδοξης Αυτοκρατορίας από το 1071 μέχρι το 1923 έγιναν μουσουλμάνοι (‘τούρκεψαν’).

Οπότε, κι απ’ αυτή την άποψη σωστά τα είπε η Τσιλέρ.

Και θα το καταλάβαιναν όλοι αυτό στην Ελλάδα, αν δεν είχε τυραννικά επιβληθεί από το ξενόδουλο κατεστημένο ένας αντιτουρκισμός κι ένα μίσος που όποιος τα έχει μέσα του δεν είναι Χριστιανός αλλά Σατανιστής.

A K

Οι πρόγονοι φανερώνουν καταγωγή, φυλή, ράτσα. Αν έχει δίκιο, τότε είναι ελληνίδα μουσουλμάνα.

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιά μουσουλμάνα – όταν άρχισαν να καταφθάνουν τουρκικά φύλα (οι Σελτζούκοι 5000 ήταν όλοι κι όλοι – συν γυναιξί και τέκνοις), δεν υπήρχαν Έλληνες, Υπήρχαν ελληνόφωνοι Ρωμιοί κι η αυτοκρατορία ονομαζόταν Ρωμανία..

Μα αυτό είναι οι Τούρκοι κι αυτός ήταν ο εθνικισμός που συνέθεσε ως κρατικό δόγμα ο Ατατούρκ: η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά όλων των λαών της Ανατολίας (Μικρά Ασία + Καππαδοκία + Πόντος + Βόρεια Μεσοποταμία). Όχι μια ταύτιση με τους τουρκόφωνους του Καυκάσου και της Κεντρικής Ασίας.

Όποιος έχει πάει σε Ουζμπεκιστάν και Καζακστάν καταλαβαίνει ότι οι Τούρκοι δεν έχουν το σουλούπι των Κεντρασιατών.

Όσο δε για τους παντουρανιστές του Μπαχτσελί που αναφέρονται στον Ατατούρκ: κάθε που μιλάνε, γυρίζει ο Ατατούρκ μέσα στον τάφο του.

A K

Μόνο που η Έφεσος είναι Ελληνικό μνημείο, κι’όχι Ρωμαικό. Στην ‘Εφεσο αναφερόταν όταν έλεγε, ότι ήταν έργα των προγόνων της.

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Εντελώς λάθος. Σου έχουν μάθει (όχι σε σένα προσωπικά αλλά σε όλους όσους κάνετε το ίδιο λάθος) και δεν έχεις απορρίψει μια ψευδέστατη ερμηνεία της Ιστορίας.

Πριν από όλα, η Έφεσος είναι πόλη γνωστή τη 2η προχριστιανική χιλιετία από χιττιτικά κείμενα. Ήταν πρωτεύουσα του ανατολιακού κράτους Αρζάουα κι ονομαζόταν Άπασα.

Το όνομα αυτό παραφθάρηκε σε Έφεσος. Με την άφιξη των Ιώνων δημιουργήθηκε ένας μεικτός πολιτισμός, κι η Ιωνία οργανώθηκε στο Κοινό των Ιώνων όπου αργότερα προσκλήθηκε κι η αιολική αρχικά Σμύρνη.

Ιωνικός είναι ο πολιτισμός της τότε Εφέσου κι ως εκ τούτου πολύ διαφορετικός από εκείνον της δωρικής Σπάρτης. Η επονομασία Έλληνες είναι ένας φτειαχτός όρος.

Όταν έχεις διαφορετικές γλώσσες και διαφορετικούς πολιτισμούς, διαφορετικά πολιτεύματα και διαφορετικές αξίες, τότε έχει δύο ή και περισσότερους πολιτισμούς και να τους δώσεις ένα συγκεφαλαιωτικό όνομα, βοηθάει μόνο στη θολούρα.

Είναι σαν να μου λες ότι σήμερα υπάρχει ‘ευρωπαϊκός πολιτισμός’. Ψέμμα! Άλλο οι Πολωνοί κι άλλο οι Βέλγοι. ‘Άλλο οι Ούγγροι κι άλλο οι Σουηδοί, κοκ.

Τώρα, επειδή έχω πάει στην Έφεσσο κι έχω θαυμάσει τον τεράστιο αρχαιολογικό χώρο, ξέρω ότι σχεόν όλα όσα σώζονται εκεί και κυρίως η πρόσοψη της Βιβλιοθήκης του Κέλσου είναι ρωμαϊκά κι όχι ελληνικά (ή ιωνικά μνημεία).

Η Έφεσος έγινε ρωμαϊκή το 129 π.Χ.. Η Βιβλιοθήκη του Κέλσου κτίσθηκε το 117 μ.Χ. Μιλάμε για σχεδόν 250 χρόνια. Είναι η απόσταση από τον Κοσμά Αιτωλό σε μας σήμερα.

Ο Κέλσος ήταν Ρωμαίος συγκλητικός και ύπατος πιθανώτατα ιωνικής καταγωγής. Το τι ακουγόταν σαν γλώσσα γύρω από εκείνα τα κτήρια ήταν ως επί το πλείστον λατινικά. Τα ελληνικά, τα μελετούσαν (και βέβαια πολλοί ντόπιοι τα μιλούσαν αλλά ανάμεικτα με πολλές λατινικές λέξεις) αλλά αυτοί που ανήγειραν και χρησιμοποίησαν το συγκεκριμένο μνημείο ήταν Ρωμαίοι αξιωματούχοι – όχι Έλληνες.

Ο Κέλσος λεγόταν Τιβέριος Ιούλιος Κέλσος. Ξέρεις κανένα Αχαιό, Αιολό, Ίωνα ή Δωριέα που λέγεται Τιβέριος??????

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Επίσης / Διάβασε:

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

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

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

A K

Τάχω ψάξει και γώ. Τάχεις πολύ μπερδρεμένα μέσα στο μυαλό σου, κι’ούτε σύ δεν καταλαμβαίνεις τι λές.

Εκτός κι’άν είσαι ο “γνωστός”ανθέλληνας παραχαράκτης της ιστορίας, που δέν αναγνωρίζει τα έργα των προγόνων του, κι απο τους Σκοπιανόπληκτους που θέλουν να ονομαστούν τα Σκόπια,” Μακεδονία”.

Αφού η Έφεσος είναι γνωστή απο τη δεύτερη χιλιετία π.χ, πως είναι Ρωμαική; εφ’όσον όπως αναφέρεις, έγινε Ρωμαική το129 πχ;

Επομένως δεν ιδρύθηκε απο τους Ρωμαίους.

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ποιος είναι ο “γνωστός” ανθέλληνας;

Δεν έχω μπερδεμένη την ιστορία στο μυαλό μου αλλά εσύ κι οι περισσότεροι δεν έχετε καταλάβει ότι σας έμαθαν μια ψευτοϊστορία που βολεύει μόνον τους Άγγλους, τους Γάλλους και τους Αμερικανούς για να κάνουν ένα ψευτοκράτος με μια ψεύτικη ταυτότητα όπως η Ελλάδα ό,τι θέλουν όποτε το θέλουν.

Για κάθε συμφορά που υφίσταται η χώρα ο κύριος υπαίτιος είναι το ψευτοϊστορικό δόγμα κι η διεστραμμένη ταυτότητα που ο κάθε Ρωμιός Ορθόδοξος σχηματίζει και πιστεύει ότι έχει.

Η χώρα θέλει οριστική διάλυση κι ανασύσταση. Άλλωστε, όταν λέμε ότι οι αγωνιστές του 1821 προδόθηκαν, αυτό λέμε. Το σατανοκράτος αυτό του σιωνισμού και της μασωνίας πρέπει να διαλυθεί για να σωθεί η Ρωμιοσύνη. Γιατί όσο παραμένει υπαρκτή η ψευτο-Ελλάδα τόσο προχωρεί η σιωνιστική ατζέντα της εξόντωσης του γένους μας.

Ο Μακρόν ετοιμάζει τον Τάφο της Ελλάδας και της Ευρώπης: φέρνει 200 εκ. Αφρικανούς μέσα στα επόμενα 30 χρόνια

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/04/19/ο-μακρόν-ετοιμάζει-τον-τάφο-της-ελλάδα/

Μα γιατί μπερδεύεις την Ιστορία έτσι;

Άλλο ο τόπος σε μια α’ περίοδο που τότε αναφέρεται σε ιστορικά κείμενα για πρώτη φορά (χιττιτική – ανατολιακή περίοδος),

άλλο ο τόπος σε μια β’ περίοδο που αναφέρεται σε μεταγενέστερα κείμενα (ιωνική – αρχαία ελληνική περίοδος),

άλλο ο τόπος σε μια γ’ περίοδο που και αναφέρεται σε άλλα κείμενα και που από τότε σώζονται τα περισσότερα μνημεία που βρίσκονται εκεί (ρωμαϊκή περίοδος),

άλλο ο τόπος σε μια δ’ περίοδο όταν εκχριστιανίζεται κι αναφέρεται στην Αποκάλυψη (χριστιανορωμαϊκή περίοδος), κοκ.

Η Ιστορία τις περισσότερες φορές είναι μια συνέχεια και μια ανάμειξη. Λίγες φορές λόγω ολοσχερούς εξόντωσης υπάρχει διακοπή κι αλλαγή.

Βεβαίως η Έφεσος δεν ιδρύθηκε από τους Ρωμαίους. Αλλά τα εκεί σωζόμενα μνημεία είναι ρωμαϊκά. Δεν είναι ούτε χιττιτικά, ούτε ιωνικά-ελληνικά, ούτε σελτζουκικά-τουρκικά. Αλλά όλη η ιστορική κληρονομιά ενός τόπου βρίσκεται στα χέρια της σημερινής χώρας όπου ο τόπος αυτός (ο κάθε τόπος) ανήκει.

Με ένα βήμα παραπάνω λοιπόν η Τσιλέρ θα καταλάβαινε ότι οι πρόγονοί της δεν ήρθαν από τις στέππες της Κεντρικής Ασίας αλλά ήταν ντόπιοι ελληνόφωνοι Ρωμιοί Ορθόδοξοι που μια στιγμή αλλαξοπίστησαν.

Ο Αντιτουρκισμός είναι βαλτός από ντόπια όργανα Άγγλων, Γάλλων κι Αμερικανών έτσι ώστε να δημιουργήσει αλυσιδωτές αντιδράσεις και ν’ απομακρύνει τα δυο τμήματα του ίδιου γένους από την προοπτική του να επανωθούν.

Οι μισαλλόδοξοι αντι-Τούρκοι, αν δουν την καταστροφή που έφεραν στην Ρωμιοσύνη, θα αυτοκτονήσουν.

A K

Ενώ οι Τούρκοι εκτός απο γενοκτονίες, πολέμους, 400 χρόνια σκλαβιάς, σε χώρες που δεν τους ανήκαν, ήταν αγγελούδια. Ακόμα και σήμερα οι απόγονοι των Σελτζούκων παραμένουν βαρβαροι,όπως βάρβαροι είναι και οι τουρκορωμιοί απόγονοι των αρχαίων ρωμαίων.

Και παρεπιπτόντως, για ποιά ένωση μιλάς; Αυτή που προωθούν όσοι θέλουν να Τουρκέψουμε; Όσοι έχουν την επιθυμία να τεθούν υπό την αιγίδα του Ερτογάν, να πάνε στη Τουρκία, και ν’αφήσουν τους Ελληνες ήσυχους, αρκετά υπέφεραν απο τους βάρβαρους Τούρκο- μόγγολους, ισλαμιστές.

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Αυτό δεν είναι απάντηση σε τίποτα από όσα σου είπα. Κι επιπλέον είναι και λαθεμένο και μισαλλόδοξο. Αν θα είχες σπουδάσει 10 χρόνια σε πανεπιστήμια στη Γερμανία, την Αμερική, την Ρωσσία ή την Κίνα κι αν είχες ειδικευθεί σε σελτζουκικό, οθωμανικό, άλλους τουρανικούς και μογγολικό πολιτισμό, δεν θα έδειχνες τόσο αμόρφωτο χαϊβάνι!

Πρέπει να καταλάβεις ότι είσαι το θύμα αυτών που σε κυβερνούν και που σε βούλιαξαν σε μια ψευτο-ιστορία για να γίνεις του χεριού τους τόσο όσο όταν βγάζεις από το στόμα σου αυτά τα ξερατά που κάνουν σίγουρη την εξαφάνιση της Ρωμιοσύνης με τη διάλυση του ελληνικού κράτους.

Το ότι οι Τουρκορωμιοί είναι απόγονοι των αρχαίων Ρωμαίων είναι άλλη μια απόδειξη του τρομερού κόμπλεξ κατωτερότητας που νοιώθεις για την κακομοιριά στην οποία σε βούλιαξε το κατεστημένο που έκανε τη χώρα σου ένα σκουπίδι του κλώτσου και του μπάτσου.

Όσο για τις γενοκτονίες που ψευδέστατα αποδίδουν στους Τούρκους αυτοί που ξεφτιλίζουν τη σημερινλη Ελλάδα, αυτές πρέπει να ήταν τίποτα μπροστά στο τι κάναμε εμείς που είχαμε και μεγάλο αυτοκράτορα που επονομάσθηκε Βουλγαροκτόνος! Παγκόσμια πρωτοτυπία γενοκτόνων!

Έχω μια συμβουλή να σου δώσω: φτύσε τη χολέρα που άλλοι σου έχουν βάλει μέσα σου. Οδηγεί σε θάνατο. Ένας Χριστιανός στέκεται στην Αγάπη.

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Βλέπεις πόσο φοβιτσιάρη σε έχουν καταντήσει; Θλιβερό! Ποιος σου είπε ότι μου αρέσει ο Ερντογάν; Έχω γράψει επανειλημμένα εναντίον του.

Κι ακόμη χειρότερα, ποιος σου είπε ότι μια επανένωση των ελληνόφωνων Ορθοδόξων Ρωμιών με τους τουρκόφωνους Μουσουλμάνους Ρωμιούς σημαίνει ότι εμείς θα τουρκέψουμε κι όχι ότι εκείνοι θα ρωμιο-συνειδητοποιηθούν;

Και ψέμματα τα περί ισλαμιστών! Ούτε το 25% των Τούρκων δεν είναι πιστοί μουσουλμάνοι. Φανατικοί δεν πρέπει να είναι πάνω από 10%. Οι κεμαλικοί των δυτικών και νότιων παραλίων, της Σμύρνης και της Πόλης είναι πολύ κοντά μας.

Σε έχουν τυφλώσει κι όχι μόνο δεν βλέπεις αλλά και φοβάσαι από πάνω. Έτσι καταντήσανε σήμερα τον άλλοτε λεβέντη Ρωμιό. Κρίμα!

A K

Για πιό λόγο να γίνει αυτή η ένωση; για να γίνουμε “Κούρδοι”; η για να πάρουν το φυσικό αέριο της Ελλάδας και της Κύπρου;

Μια χώρα των 80.000.000 αυτή είναι που θα κάνει κουμάντο, κι’Ελλάδα θάναι μιά επαρχία της Τουρκίας, δεν χρειάζεται πολύ μυαλό, για να το καταλάβει κάποιος.

Όπως και νάχει απ’ότι φαίνεται δουλεύεις για τα συμφέροντα των τούρκων, και παριστάνεις το έλληνα. Δυστυχώς κάτι τέτοιοι σαν και σένα κατήντησαν σ’αυτό το χάλι την Ελλάδα. Δεν έχει νόημα η συνέχιση της κουβέντας μεταξύ μας.

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Εδώ δεν εκφράζεις μόνον φόβο και άγνοια αλλά και πλήρη έλλειψη φαντασίας. Και δεν υπάρχει στον άνθρωπο τίποτα ανώτερο σαν θείο δώρο από την φαντασία. Αλλά βέβαια τόσο νεκρικά είναι τα ψέμματα που επιβάλλει με τυραννικό κατεστημένο που σκοτώνουν τις ψυχές των ανθρώπων και καταντούν τα μυαλά τους κάτι σαν προγραμματισμένα ρομποτάκια ή – πιο απλά – κασέτες που επαναλαμβάνονται.

Ουσιαστικά κάνεις ένα πολύ σημαντικό ερώτημα αλλά αυτό θα το αφήσω για το τέλος.

Σου είπα εγώ να γίνουμε Κούρδοι;

Αλλά ξέρεις γιατί εσύ με ρωτάς κάτι τέτοιο;

Γιατί βαθειά μέσα στο μυαλό σου ξέρεις ότι τα τουρκικά πανεπιστήμια είναι ανώτερα από τα ελληνικά, ότι στην Τουρκία υπάρχουν πολλά ξενόγλωσσα πανεπιστήμια ενώ στην Ελλάδα κανένα, κι έτσι φοβάσαι ότι ο μέσος Έλληνας απλά θα δείξει την κατωτερότητά του μπροστά του μέσου Τούρκου. Κι αυτό είναι αλήθεια.

Αλλά αν προτείνω κάτι τέτοιο, το κάνω επειδή μια τέτοια ένωση θα είναι ταυτόχρονα αποδέσμευση κι απελεύθέρωση του μέσου Έλληνα από την πανούκλα που τον κυβερνάει και θέλει να τον ξεκάνει.

Αυτό δείχνει την αλήθεια: τα τελευταία 10 χρόνια πάνω από μισό εκατομμύριο Έλληνες, στην συντριπτική πλειοψηφία τους νέοι έφυγαν εκτός Ελλάδας και με σκοπό να μην ξαναγυρίσουν. Το 2010 φύγαμε η γυναίκα μου και γω. Τότε είχαμε ένα παιδί και τώρα έχουμε 7 και περιμένουμε το 8ο πρώτα ο Θεός.

Εκεί θα μείνουν τελικά όσοι λυμαίνονται τον τόπο, δηλαδή

α) τα καθάρματα του δημοσίου που σαν εγκληματίες κλέφτες απαιτούν να πληρώνουν οι παραγωγικοί άνθρωποι τους κηφήνες,

β) οι κομματικοί παράγοντες και

γ) τα ανώτερα στελέχη του κατεστημένου (από δημοσιογράφους και καθηγητές ψευτοπανεπιστημίων μέχρι κυπατζήδες κι άχρηστους στρατιωτικούς, κι από τους επαγελματίες πολιτικούς μέχρι τους μεγαλοεργολάβους και τους ψευτο-επιχειρηματίες των κρατικοδίαιτων.

Γιατί σ’ έκαναν να πιστεύεις όσα πιστεύεις; Για να κυβερνάνε αυτοί και να πίνουν εις υγείαν του κορόϊδου (εσένα). Εσύ δεν μπορείς ν’αντιληφθείς πόσο κοντά στον πάτο είστε;

Τα όσα πιστεύεις σε αδρανοποιούν κι αυτό ακριβώς επιδιώκουν αυτοί που θέλουν να διαλύσουν την χώρα. Γιατί μόνον 100000 αν ξυπνήσουν και ξεσηκωθούν αποφασισμένοι να κάψουν τα πάντα, οι 300 κακούργοι δεν θα προλάβουν να πάρουν το αεροπλάνο….

Εγώ να δουλεύω για την Τουρκία; Έχω τέσσερις υπηκοότητες, το σπίτι μου είναι στο Καζακστάν, η δουλειά μου σε Κένυα και Τανζανία, και διευθύνω τρεις επιχειρήσεις που έχω συνεταιρικά με Έλληνες από την Αστάνα και το Πεκίνο, με Καζάκους και Ρώσσους από το Καζακστάν, και με Κινέζους. Σκασίλα που θα είχα για να με πληρώσουν ένα ξεροκόμματο οι Τούρκοι!

Τα παιδιά μου πάνε στο γερμανικό σχολείο, ελληνικά και ρωσσικά μαθαίνουν στο σπίτι, κι οι Έλληνες συνεταίροι μου είναι τόσο σημαντικοί που θα πρέπει να πλειοδοτήσει το τουρκικό κράτος για να με πάρει (αν υποτεθεί ότι θα το ενδιέφερα κι αν τρελλαθούμε και σκεφθούμε ότι θα δεχόμουνα). Φαίνεται δεν με ξέρεις. Αυτό το βίντεο (παλιό από προηγούμενο κανάλι που έκλεισε πριν από 14 μήνες) θα σου δώσει μια ιδέα για το σε πόσες και ποιες χώρες έχω ταξιδέψει πριν φύγω στο εξωτερικό για δουλειές:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xgJwW-F4Y

Μου λες ότι άνθρωποι σαν και μένα κατάντησαν την Ελλάδα σ’ αυτό το χάλι. Μα οι ιδέες μου, οι θέσεις μου κι οι γνώσεις μου απορρίπτονται από τα καθάρματα που κυβέρνησαν την Ελλάδα όσο εγώ έχω ζήσει (κι είμαι γεννημένος το 1956).

Αυτοί όλοι πιστεύουν αυτό που πιστεύεις και συ.

Εσύ κυβερνάς την Ελλάδα με τις απόψεις και τις θέσεις, πλην όμως το κατεστημένο σ’ έπιασε κορόιδο και παίρνει εκείνο όλο το κέρδος αφήνοντάς σε με το φόβο που σε λίγο θα γίνει πανικός όταν οι 50000+ ισλαμιστές έμπειροι πολεμιστές που βρίσκονται στην Αθήνα ξεσηκωθούν και σας σκοτώσουν για να σας ληστέψουν.

Τέλος, θα απαντήσω στην ερώτησή σου για να ικανοποιήσω την περιέργειά σου! Για ποιο λόγο να γίνει η ένωση.

Έχεις αναλογιστεί τι θα είχε συμβεί αν δεν είχε γίνει η ελληνική επανάσταση του 1821 που την υποκίνησαν Άγγλοι και Γάλλοι και που πήραν απόλυτα τον έλεγχό της ήδη πριν από το 1828 χάρη σε καθάρματα στυλ Κωλέττη και Μαυροκορδάτου, διαμορφώνοντας έτσι ένα χρεωκοπημένο κράτος γεννημένο νεκρό ουσιαστικά που δεν δίστασαν να γελοιποιήσουν το 1850 με τα γεγονότα του Πατσίφικο; Ούτως ή άλλως το νεοελληνικό κράτος ήταν άχρηστο πλέον, εφόσον ρητά τα όνειρα των αγωνιστών του 1821 προδόθηκαν – κι αυτό είναι χιλιο-ειπωμένο.

Αν δεν είχε γίνει λοιπόν η ελληνική επανάσταση, η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία δεν θα είχε αποσταθεροποιηθεί, δεδομένου ότι, λαδώνοντας και διαφθείροντας ανυποψίαστους φουκαράδες εδώ και κει και πιέζοντας αποσχιστικές τάσεις σε Ελλάδα, Σερβία, Βλαχία, Αίγυπτο, Λίβανο, Άντεν και Αλγερία, οι Γάλλοι κι οι Άγγλοι προσπαθούσαν να αποδυναμώσουν το κράτος, όπου μετά τους Τούρκους οι Έλληνες ήταν η πολυπληθέστερη ομάδα στην διοίκησή του και στη διπλωματία του. Αναφορικά με την οθωμανική οικονομία του 1820, οι Έλληνες, οι Αρμένιοι, κι οι Ιουδαίοι ήταν πλουσιώτεροι κι από τους Τούρκους.

Αν δεν είχε αποσταθεροποιηθεί η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία κι οι Έλληνες ήταν σ’ αυτήν ένα από τα τρία οικονομικά ισχυρώτερα έθνη το 1900, όταν θα άρχιζε η εκμετάλλευση των πετρελαίων, η χώρα δεν θα διαλυόταν και τα πετρέλαια των σημερινών Ιράκ, Κουβέϊτ, Σαουδικής Αραβίας, Κάταρ, κι Εμιράτων θα τα εκμεταλλεύονταν οι Έλληνες, οι Αρμένιοι κι οι Ιουδαίοι.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι μια χώρα από την Αλγερία μέχρι το Ομάν κι από τη Ρουμανία με ελληνικά, τουρκικά κι αραβικά ως επίσημες γλώσσες θα εκμοντερνιζόταν τον 20ο αιώνα χάρη στα τεράστια οικονομικά της έσοδα που θα την έκαναν χωρίς υπερβολή μια από τις 2-3 μεγαλύτερες χώρες του κόσμου. Κι εννοείται ότι δεν θα υπήρχε καθόλου ισλαμική τρομοκρατία που είναι δυτικής επινόησης παρασκεύασμα.

Το μίσος κι η αρρώστεια που ψιθύρισαν οι Άγγλοι κι οι Γάλλοι στ’ αυτιά των Ελλήνων, των Αρμενίων κι άλλων πολλών εναντίον του ίδιου του κράτους τους (της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας) ήταν μια σατανική διαστροφή που την πλήρωσαν κι οι Αρμένιοι, την πληρώσαμε και μεις που ήμασταν πολυπληθέστεροι και σε κεντρικώτερη θέση.

Αλλά την μισαλλοδοξία την τιμωρεί ο Θεός. Μισώντας αντί να αγαπάς τον πλησίον σου, γίνεσαι σατανιστής και παύεις να είσαι Χριστιανός.

Έτσι τώρα, είτε σ’ αρέσει είτε όχι, θα πέσει άσχημο τσεκούρι στην Ελλάδα γιατί εδώ πληρώνονται όλα. Η σατανοχώρα που επιτρέπει σε πούστηδες και πλακομούνες να σκοτώνουν τις ψυχές μικρών παιδιών, υιοθετώντας τα, είναι ένα σατανικό αίσχος προ της Τουρκίας (που και βέβαια δεν είναι αγία χώρα – κάθε άλλο!!).

Αντί λοιπόν να επιμένεις στο σκοτεινό αδιέξοδο όπου σε οδήγησαν οι τοποτηρητές των εχθρών του γένους μας, δες την αλήθεια κι η αλήθεια θα σ’ ελευθερώσει.

sakis skoularikis

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Συμφωνω φιλε μου. Εχω εκφραστει κι εγω ετσι, οπως εσυ περιπου, και εχω εισπραξει απο φιλους Ελληνες, μια τεραστια εντυπωση φοβικων τασεων απο μερους τους. Αυτοι που “κινουν νηματα” στην Ελλαδα, εχουν κανει καλη δουλεια. Αυτο που εγραψες, περι ρωμιο-συνειδητοποιησης, δεν το καταλαβαινουν με τιποτα. Σε κουβεντες μου, εχω προσπαθησει να τους το κανω “λιανα”, αλλα και παλι οι παρωπίδες τους, δεν τους αφηνουν να δουν τιποτα.

Συνεχισε να προσπαθεις!!!

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Φχαριστώ για τα καλά σου λόγια και την παρότρυνση! Νάσαι πάντα καλά!

Φίλε μου, έχουμε δουλειές με φούντες μπροστά μας, και μια και βλέπω ότι είσαι από την Ηλεία, πρέπει να καθαρίσουμε την …… Κόπρο του Αυγείου (!!) που πληρωμένοι πράκτορες της Φραγκιάς και της Μασωνίας, της Αμερικής και του Σιωνισμού έβαλαν σιγά-σιγά και για δυο αιώνες στα μυαλά πολλών διαδοχικών γενεών. Και δυστυχώς δεν είμαστε ο Ηρακλής!

Αλλά πιστεύω ότι η Θεία Πρόνοια έχει από καιρό επιλέξει το γένος μας για κάτι μεγάλο (και μέχρι τώρα ήμασταν πολύ μικροί) κι ένας Άνθρωπος μόνος θα έρθει και θα φέρει την ανατροπή. Αλλά δεν θα είναι ούτε με συνηθισμένο υλι(στι)κό τρόπο, ούτε χωρίς αίμα.

Καλημέρα από Ναϊρόμπι – Κένυα

Νίκος – raktn@inbox.ru

Δανιήλ & Ιησούς ορίζουν ότι στο Πλήρωμα του Χρόνου ο “Υιός του Ανθρώπου” είναι “ο Άρχων των Ελλήνων” και θα εξοντώσει το Ισραήλ

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/δανιήλ-ιησούς-ορίζουν-ότι-στο-πλήρωμ/

sakis skoularikis Α Κ

Εχεις πολυ φοβο μεσα σου φιλε μου. Μπορει καποιος να σε κανει “Κουρδο”, αν εσυ δεν το θελεις;

Φοβασαι μηπως εισαι ευαλωτος σε τετοιο σημειο, ή το ξερεις οτι εισαι; Φιλε μου δεν στα λεω για να σε προσβαλω. Προσπαθω να σου δειξω οτι δεν πρεπει να φοβασαι. Οσο για το “κουμαντο” που λες, να σαι σιγουρος οτι κουμαντο παντα κανει, αυτος που εχει μυαλο. Ποτε τα 80.000.000.

Παρεμπιπτόντως, ειμαι απο Πυργο Ηλειας και δεν εχω γνωρισε ποτε μου Τουρκο, για να μη λες ή νομιζεις.

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία - 1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα (ή ΈΝΚΙ): Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989

Кузьма Мегаломматис, Эа (или Энки): мировая мифология, Греческая педагогическая энциклопедия, 1989

Kosmas Megalommatis, Ea (oder ENKI): Weltmythologie, Griechische Pädagogische Enzyklopädie, 1989

Kosmas Gözübüyükoğlu, Ea (veya ENKI): Dünya Mitolojisi, Yunan Pedagoji Ansiklopedisi, 1989

قزمان ميغالوماتيس، إنكي ( إئا یا إيا ) : اساطیر جهانی، دایره المعارف آموزشی یونانی، 1989

Côme Megalommatis, Ea: Mythologie mondiale, Encyclopédie pédagogique grecque, 1989

1989 قزمان ميغالوماتيس، إنكي ( إئا أو إيا ): الأساطير العالمية، الموسوعة التربوية اليونانية،

Cosimo Megalommatis, Ea (o ENKI): mitologia mondiale, Enciclopedia pedagogica greca, 1989

Cosimo Megalommatis, Ea (o ENKI): mitología mundial, Enciclopedia pedagógica griega, 1989

Cosmas Megalommatis, Ea (or ENKI): World Mythology, Greek Pedagogical Encyclopedia, 1989

---------------------

Скачать PDF-файл: / PDF-Datei herunterladen: / Télécharger le fichier PDF : / PDF dosyasını indirin: / :PDF قم بتنزيل ملف / Download PDF file: / : یک فایل دانلود کنید / Κατεβάστε το PDF:

calameo.com

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα - Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, 1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα (ή ΈΝΚΙ): Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989 Кузьма Мегаломматис, Эа (или Энки): мирова

docdroid.net

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία - 1989.pdf

'ErrPcq. E. -Eq (oKxo6.Aio, oooupopopul Eo XiirLr.Aoe,el nv.'Eoq,'Eo).AooupoBqoulowtox6qee6q rov Yluxdrv u6orov, T4q ooQhq Kor rov nporil|Io

slideshare.net

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία-1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία-1989 - Download as a PDF or view online for free

figshare

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία - 1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα (ή ΈΝΚΙ): Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989Кузьма Мегаломматис, Эа (или Энки): мировая

Patreon

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Έα: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία-1989 | Megalommatis

Get more from Megalommatis on Patreon

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει το Δελχί, Βαθύπλουτη Πρωτεύουσα των Γκορκανιάν, Πανίσχυρων Μογγόλων της ‘Ινδίας’

March 20, 1739: The Turkmen Nader Shah of Iran occupies Delhi, the Opulent Capital of the Gorkanian, i.e. the Formidable Mongols of ‘India’

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 20η Μαρτίου 2019.

Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης ενσωματώνει τμήματα δύο ομιλιών μου, οι οποίες δόθηκαν τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 στο Πεκίνο σχετικά με την γεωστρατηγική του αφρο-ευρασιατικού χώρου, την πτώση των μεγάλων ιστορικών αυτοκρατοριών, και την δυναμική μιας αυτοκρατορικής-οικουμενιστικής επιστροφής στην Γη.

-----------------------------

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/20-μαρτίου-1739-ο-τουρκμένος-ναντέρ-σάχης-το/ ====================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Μια φορά όταν είπαν στον Ναντέρ ότι δεν υπάρχει πόλεμος στον Παράδεισο, λέγεται ότι ρώτησε: “Μπορεί να υπάρχει ευχαρίστηση εκεί”;

Πριν από 280 χρόνια, το αδιανόητο έγινε γεγονός! Το (σιιτικό) Ιράν κατέλαβε την (σουνιτική) Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ), η οποία ήταν ένα πολύ μεγαλύτερο, πολυπληθέστερο και πλουσιώτερο κράτος. Καμμιά χώρα στον κόσμο δεν είχε ποτέ κατακτήσει την Κοιλάδα του Γάγγη. Αλλά για τον Αφσάρ Τουρκμένο γεωργό – πολεμιστή Ναντέρ όλα ήταν δυνατά!

Οι Αχαιμενιδείς είχαν κατακτήσει όλες τις εκτάσεις από την Μακεδονία μέχρι την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού, από τα βόρεια παράλια της Μαύρης Θάλασσας μέχρι το Σουδάν, κι από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι το Ομάν. Αλλά εκεί που τελειώνει η Πενταποταμία (Παντζάμπ: ‘Πέντε Ποτάμια’ στα φαρσί και στα ουρντού) τερματίζονταν και τα ανατολικά όρια του Ιράν.

Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος που άτρομος διεξήγαγε και νικούσε σε μάχες έναντι συντριπτικά υπερτέρων δυνάμεων δεν κατέλαβε ‘πολλές’ χώρες! Αυτό είναι κάτι που πολλοί ξεχνούν στην Ελλάδα. Ουσιαστικά , ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος κατέκτησε μία χώρα: το Ιράν. Απέραντη, τεράστια, με πολυπληθή στρατεύματα, ναι! Αλλά μία. Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος προχώρησε πέραν της Πενταποταμίας και νίκησε τον Πώρο, βασιλιά ενός βόρειου ινδικού βασιλείου. Και θα προχωούσε περισσότερο αλλά ξεσηκώθηκαν οι στρατιώτες του και τον απέτρεψαν.

Ι. Δεν υπάρχει ‘Ινδία’: είναι ένας ψεύτικος, αποικιοκρατικός, οριενταλιστικός όρος

Υπάρχει στο σημείο αυτό μια σύγχυση που δημιουργήθηκε από αρχαίους Έλληνες και Ρωμαίους συγγραφείς: προερχόμενος από το όνομα του Ινδού ποταμού, ο όρος ‘Ινδία’ (Χεντ και Σιντ) απέκτησε σιγά-σιγά μια τεράστια ασάφεια, ακριβώς επειδή η γνώση για εκτάσεις πέραν του ποταμού ήταν μικρή.

Τα βασίλεια ανατολικά του Ινδού αποτελούσαν βέβαια την Ινδία και ήταν εθνοφυλετικά συγγενή προς τους Πέρσες και τους Άρειους, αλλά πιο πέρα στα ανατολικά και στα νότια εκτείνονταν δραβιδικά βασίλεια που δεν είχαν καμμιά συγγένεια – εθνική, γλωσσική, πολιτισμική – με τους πραγματικούς Ινδούς των βασιλείων αμέσως ανατολικά του Ινδού. Οι Δραβίδες είναι τόσο διαφορετικοί από τους Ινδούς όσο οι Έλληνες από τους Κινέζους.

Στα χρόνια της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας, ο αρχαιοελληνικός όρος ‘Ινδία’ απέκτησε τόση ασάφεια και γενίκευση όση κι ο όρος ‘Αιθιοπία’, ο οποίος περιέγραφε αρχικά το σημερινό Σουδάν (όχι την Αβησσυνία που σήμερα ψευδώς ονομάζεται Αιθιοπία). Οι δυο όροι τελικά αλληλο-επικαλύφθηκαν και ουσιαστικά κατάντησαν συνώνυμα του ‘Νότου’ κατά τους πρώτους χριστιανικούς αιώνες.

Όλα αυτά μας οδηγούν στο συμπέρασμα ότι σήμερα η χρήση της λέξης ‘Ινδίας’ – είτε για αναφορά στην Αρχαιότητα και στα Ισλαμικά Χρόνια, είτε για περιγραφή του συγχρόνου κράτους – είναι λαθεμένη και βεβαρυμένη με πολιτικές, αποικιοκρατικές κι οριενταλιστικές, σκοπιμότητες. Άλλωστε κι η περσική και ουρντού λέξη ‘Χιντουστάν’ σήμαινε και σημαίνει βασικά την περιοχή του Ινδού ποταμού, της Πενταποταμίας και ομόρων περιοχών.

Σχεδόν οι μισοί κάτοικοι του ψευτοκράτους ‘Ινδία’ είναι δραβιδικοί και δεν μιλούν ινδικά (χίντι). Η σημερινή Ινδία μπορεί να είναι μεγάλη αλλά αποτελεί κατ’ ουσίαν ένα νεο-αποικιακό ψευτοκράτος, όπως η Νιγηρία, η Αλγερία ή η Αίγυπτος, που δεν αποτελεί ‘έθνος’ αλλά απαρτίζεται από πολλά και διαφορετικά μεταξύ τους έθνη.

Κλείνω αυτή την αναφορά προσθέτοντας ότι η παραπάνω εθνοφυλετική και γεωγραφική διαφορά είναι ολότελα άσχετη από την θρησκευτική διαφορά Ισλάμ – ‘Ινδουϊσμού’ (μουσουλμάνων – ‘ινδουϊστών’), δεδομένου ότι μουσουλμάνοι υπάρχουν και ανάμεσα στους Ινδούς (: ‘ινδο-ευρωπαίους’) του Βορρά και ανάμεσα στους Δραβίδες του Ντεκάν, όπως είναι το όνομα του νότιου μισού της λεγόμενης ‘Ινδίας’.

Αν, τέλος, θέτω εντός εισαγωγικών τους όρους ‘Ινδουϊσμός’ και ‘ινδουϊστές’, αυτό οφείλεται στο γεγονός ότι είναι τόσο ψεύτικοι και λαθεμένοι όσο κι ο όρος ‘Ινδία’. Κατ’ ουσίαν δεν υπάρχει ‘ένας’ Ινδουϊσμός αλλά πολλοί (όπως κι η Χριστιανωσύνη δεν είναι μία, το Ισλάμ δεν είναι ένα, ο Βουδισμός δεν είναι ένας, κοκ). Κι επιπλέον υπάρχουν κι άλλες θρησκείες είτε στο Ντεκάν είτε στην βόρεια Ινδία. Γενικώτερα, στην ψευδή, αποικιοκρατική, οριενταλιστική Ιστορία της ‘Ινδίας’ θα επανέλθω με πολλά κείμενα.

Ό,τι ξέρει ο σημερινός κόσμος για την Ινδία είναι μια αγγλογαλλική παραχάραξη της Ιστορίας: για παράδειγμα, υπάρχουν αρχαιοελληνικά κείμενα του 1ου χριστιανικού αιώνα, όπως ο Περίπλους της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης, που αναφέρουν τα πολλά και διαφορετικά κράτη, τα οποία βρίσκονταν τότε στον χώρο που στρεβλά σήμερα αποκαλούμε ‘Ινδία’, και όμως δεν τα αποκαλούν ‘ινδικά βασίλεια’, επειδή δεν ήταν ινδικά βασίλεια.

ΙΙ. Κοιλάδα του Ινδού, Πενταποταμία και Κοιλάδα του Γάγγη από τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο στους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους Αυτοκράτορες

Μετά τον θάνατο του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου και μέχρι τα χρόνια της μογγολικής κατάκτησης της Κοιλάδας του Ινδού και της Κοιλάδας του Γάγγη, καμμιά ξένη δύναμη δεν κατέκτησε εκτάσεις που σήμερα ανήκουν στην χώρα που συμβατικά ονομάζεται Ινδία. Μόνον οι Ιρανοί Σασανίδες (Σασανιάν: 224-651) έφθασαν τα ανατολικά σύνορά τους τόσο μακριά όσο οι Αχαιμενιδείς κι ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος. Αλλά και εκείνοι σταμάτησαν εκεί.

Όταν οι Επίγονοι Σελευκιδείς και οι Πάρθες Αρσακιδείς (Ασκανιάν: η πιο μακραίωνη ιρανική δυναστεία – 250 π.Χ.-224 μ.Χ.) βρίσκονταν σε αδυναμία, πολλά αυτόνομα βασίλεια σχηματίζονταν από τα έθνη που κατοικούσαν στις ανατολικές επαρχίες τους, δηλαδή τον χώρο όπου σήμερα βρίσκονται το Πακιστάν, το Αφγανιστάν, το Ουζμπεκιστάν, το Τατζικιστάν, η Κιργιζία, οι ανατολικές εσχατιές του Ιράν και τα βορειοδυτικά άκρα της Ινδίας: η Σογδιανή, το ελληνιστικό κράτος της Βακτριανής, το ινδοπαρθικό κράτος, το ινδοσκυθικό κράτος, το κάποτε πανίσχυρο Κουσάν, οι Τόχαροι, και άλλα κεντρασιατικά τουρκόφωνα ή ινδοευρωπαϊκά κράτη.

Το τι αποκαλείται ‘αυτοκρατορία’ στην Αρχαία Ιστορία της ‘Ινδίας’, όπως την έχουν παρασκευάσει Άγγλοι, Γάλλοι, Ολλανδοί κι Αμερικανοί οριενταλιστές ‘Ινδολόγοι’, είναι βασικά μικρά κράτη (για τα μέτρα των Αχαιμενιδών, των Σελευκιδών και των Σασανιδών) που εκτείνονται κυρίως ανάμεσα στην Πενταποταμία και το Δέλτα του Γάγγη: το βασίλειο των Μαουρύα (322–185 π.Χ.) ή το βασίλειο των Γκούπτα (319-543 μ.Χ.). Αυτά ήταν όντως ινδικά – ινδοευρωπαϊκά βασίλεια. Όμως τα περισσότερα άλλα βασίλεια στα νότια δεν μπορούν να ονομασθούν ινδικά γιατί ήταν δραβιδικά. Και ήταν όλα πάντοτε μικρά τοπικά βασίλεια: όλη η Νότια Ασία ήταν κατά κανόνα πάντοτε κατακερματισμένη.

Οι πρώιμοι μουσουλμάνοι κι οι ισλαμικές στρατιές των μέσων του 7ου αιώνα που έφθασαν στο Πεντζάμπ και τα βορειοδυτικά άκρα της σημερινής Ινδίας ουσιαστικά επανέλαβαν την Ιστορία: εκμεταλλεύθηκαν κάτι το οποίο ‘είχαμε’ ξαναδεί! Όπως ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος, καταλύοντας το αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν, βρέθηκε σχεδόν ‘αυτόματα’ κυρίαρχος των ανατολικών σατραπειών κι εκτάσεών του, έτσι κι οι ισλαμικές στρατιές μετά τις μάχες στην Καντισίγια (636), Νεχαβέντ (642) και Μερβ (651) βρέθηκαν κυρίαρχοι των ανατολικών σατραπειών κι εκτάσεων του σασανιδικού Ιράν.

Ανάποδα, η Ιστορία επαναλήφθηκε και πάλι λίγους αιώνες αργότερα: στους χρόνους της αργής παρακμής και βαθμιαίας αποδυνάμωσης του αβασιδικού χαλιφάτου της Βαγδάτης. Ό,τι χαρακτήρισε τους Σελευκιδείς και τους Αρσακιδείς, συνέβη και τότε: πολλά μικρότερα ισλαμικά βασίλεια ξεφύτρωσαν κι αλληλοδιαδέχθηκαν το ένα το άλλο στην περιοχή ανάμεσα το κεντρικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, την Αράλη στην Κεντρική Ασία και την Πενταποταμία.

Η μογγολική κατάκτηση της σημερινής βόρειας Ινδίας πιστοποιεί διαχρονικά ότι όλος ο χώρος ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη καταλαμβάνεται πιο εύκολα από τον βορρά παρά από τα δυτικά. Και δεν αναφέρομαι σε στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις μόνον. Από τον 8ο αιώνα, με την διάδοση του Ισλάμ στην Κεντρική Ασία, πολλά τοπικά τουρκόφωνα φύλα αποψιλώνονταν από τους πιο ικανούς πολεμιστές τους, οι οποίοι έβλεπαν ότι, αν αποδέχονταν το Ισλάμ, θα μπορούσαν να έχουν μια πολύ επιτυχημένη σταδιοδρομία ως στρατιωτικοί σε μια τεράστια αυτοκρατορία.

Έτσι, πολλοί ευχαρίστως προσέρχονταν για να προσλήφθούν ως δούλοι-πολεμιστές. Στο αβασιδικό χαλιφάτο υπήρχαν ήδη πολυάιθμοι και για όλους τους εχρησιμοποιείτο η αραβική λέξη ‘ιδιοκτησία’, διότι ως σκλάβοι αποτελούσαν την ιδιοκτησία (‘μαμλούκ’ / πληθυντικός: μαμαλίκ) των κυρίων τους. Αυτοί είναι οι Μαμελούκοι.

Μαμελούκοι υπήρχαν παντού: στην Κεντρική Ασία, στην Πενταποταμία, στις κεντρικές περιοχές του χαλιφάτου, στην Αίγυπτο, και στην βορειοδυτική Αφρική. Η κατά τόπους ιστορία τους είναι απλή: πρώτα ήταν σκλάβοι-πολεμιστές, έπειτα απελεύθεροι, ύστερα παράκλητοι ως εμπειροπόλεμοι, και τελικά κυρίαρχοι ηγεμόνες.

Αλλά δεν υπήρχε πουθενά ένας εθνικού χαρακτήρα συντονισμός. Και δεν μπορούσε να υπάρχει, επειδή οι ‘μαμελούκοι’ ανήκαν σε διαφορετικές τουρκόφωνες φυλές, μιλούσαν σχετικά διαφορετικές γλώσσες, κι ενθυμούνταν τις πάντοτε υπαρκτές ενδοτουρκικές εχθρότητες κι αντιπαλότητες. Όποιοι πετύχαιναν σε ένα κάποιο τόπο κυριαρχούσαν εκεί. Δεν υπήρχε δυναστεία Μαμελούκων μόνον στην Αίγυπτο, όπως είναι περισσότερο γνωστό στην Ελλάδα.

Υπήρχαν πολλές κατά τόπους δυναστείες Μαμελούκων που όλοι τους ήταν τουρκόφωνοι – αν κι αυτό δεν σημαίνει την ίδια γλώσσα, εφόσον άλλα τα Κιπτσάκ, άλλα τα Τσαγατάι, άλλα τα τουρκμενικά, άλλα τα των Ογούζων (ή Ούζων – Ουζμπέκων), κοκ.

Αλλά τα φαρσί ήταν πάντοτε η γλώσσα της λογοτεχνίας και της ιστορίας και τα αραβικά η γλώσσα της επιστήμης και της θρησκείας.

Μετά την πρώιμη ισλαμική επέλαση μέχρι την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και την Πενταποταμία, η διάδοση του Ισλάμ στην Νότια Ασία (βόρεια Ινδία: ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη / Ντεκάν: το κατοικούμενο από μη Ινδούς, Δραβίδες, νότιο ήμισυ της σημερινής Ινδίας) δεν ήταν ποτέ θέμα του Ισλαμικού Χαλιφάτου της Δαμασκού (661-750) και της Βαγδάτης (750-1258), όπως συχνά σήμερα Ινδουϊστές εθνικιστές εσφαλμένα ισχυρίζονται.

Αντίθετα, ήταν υπόθεση πολέμου ανάμεσα σε ινδικά ινδουϊστικά βασίλεια της Κοιλάδας του Γάγγη και σε μικρότερα ισλαμικά βασίλεια που ξεφύτρωσαν κι αλληλοδιαδέχθηκαν το ένα το άλλο στην περιοχή ανάμεσα το κεντρικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, την Αράλη στην Κεντρική Ασία και την Πενταποταμία, όπως προανέφερα, εξαιτίας της βαθμιαίας αποδυνάμωσης του αβασιδικού χαλιφάτου της Βαγδάτης.

Αυτά τα ισλαμικά βασίλεια, όπως οι Γαζνεβίδες (977–1186 / το Γαζνί βρίσκεται στο σημερινό Αφγανιστάν), είτε διέθεταν Μαμελούκους είτε είχαν συσταθεί από Μαμελούκους.

Οι πόλεμοι αυτών των βασιλείων με τα ινδικά ινδουϊστικά βασίλεια απέληξαν στην διάδοση του Ισλάμ στον ευρύτερο χώρο της Νότιας Ασίας.

Έτσι, αυτό που αποκαλούμε ‘Σουλτανάτο του Δελχί’, ουσιαστικά αποτελεί μια διαδοχή πέντε διαφορετικών δυναστειών που προέρχονται από Μαμελούκους, δηλαδή διάφορα τουρκόφωνα αλλά και άλλα κεντρασιατικά φύλα.

Αυτές οι πέντε ισλαμικές δυναστείες με βάση το Δελχί (: το Παλαιό Δελχί) διεξήγαγαν πολέμους με τα ινδικά και τα δραβιδικά βασίλεια είτε του χώρου ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη είτε του Ντεκάν.

Οι πέντε δυναστείες καλύπτουν ένα διάστημα άνω των τριών αιώνων: Μαμελούκοι (1206–1290), Χάλτζι (Khalji: 1290–1320), Τούγλακ (Tughlaq: 1320–1414), Σαγίντ (Sayyid: 1414–51), και Λόντι (Lodi: 1451–1526).

Αυτοί μάλιστα ήταν ικανοί να σταθούν με επιτυχία απέναντι στον Χουλάγκου και να αποκρούσουν τις πρώτες μογγολικές επελάσεις (1221-1327), ενώ η Βαγδάτη κατέρρευσε το 1258.

Τότε διαμορφώθηκε μια κοσμοπολίτικη και πολύ ανεκτική κοινωνική κατάσταση που προσέλκυσε Ιρανούς, Κεντρασιάτες, Τουρκόφωνους και Μογγόλους που ελάχιστη σημασία απέδιδαν σε θρησκευτικές διαφορές – σιίτες ή σουνίτες, μουσουλμάνους, χριστιανούς (Νεστοριανούς), μανιχεϊστές, βουδιστές ή ινδουϊστές.

Η εθνοφυλετική σύνθεση των Ινδο-Ευρωπαίων Ινδών του χώρου της σημερινής βόρειας Ινδίας άλλαξε ολότελα και δημιουργήθηκε ένα τουρκο-μογγολο-κεντρασιατο-ιρανο-ινδικό εθνογλωσσικό μείγμα, το οποίο φτάνει μέχρι τις μέρες μας: η επίσημη γλώσσα του Πακιστάν (ουρντού) είναι μια τουρκική λέξη (ordu) που σημαίνει ‘στρατός’.

Αυτή είναι μια μεικτή τουρκική (Turkic), περσική, αραβική κι ινδική γλώσσα, στην οποία το ινδικό λεξιλόγιο (που προέρχεται από αρχαίες ινδικές – ινδο-ευρωπαϊκές γλώσσες όπως τα σανσκριτικά και τα πρακριτικά) είναι σχετικά μικρό.

Η ίδια γλώσσα είναι επίσημη και στην Ινδία, πλην όμως εκεί λέγεται χίντι, γράφεται σε Ντεβαναγκάρι σύστημα (οφειλόμενο σε αρχαία Μπραχμί γραφή) και όχι σε φαρσί (όπως τα ουρντού που έχουν μερικά επιπλέον γράμματα για φθόγγους ανύπαρκτους στα φαρσί), και απλώς δεν έχει τους ισλαμικούς όρους που έχει κάθε γλώσσα μουσουλμάνων. Αλλά κατ’ ουσίαν ουρντού και χίντι είναι μία γλώσσα και με εκτεταμένο τουρκικό (Turkic) λεξιλόγιο.

Αν το Σουλτανάτο του Δελχί γλύτωσε από τον Τσενγκίζ Χαν, δεν απέφυγε τον Ταμερλάνο. Το 1398 ο στρατός του Τιμούρ Λενγκ κατέλαβε το Δελχί κι επακολούθησε μια απερίγραπτη λεηλασία και σφαγή. Η πόλη εκθεμελιώθηκε. Στην συνέχεια αναθεμελιώθηκε και το Σουλτανάτο συνεχίστηκε αν και ιδιαίτερα αποδυναμωμένο.

Το τέλος της τελευταίας δυναστείας του Δελχί δόθηκε από τον Μπαμπούρ (στα περσικά σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’) απόγονο του Ταμερλάνου, ο οποίος ήταν γιος του κυβερνήτη της Φεργάνα του Τουρκεστάν (σήμερα στο ανατολικό Ουζμπεκιστάν).

Μετά από πολλές πολεμικές κατακτήσεις στην Κεντρική Ασία, στράφηκε στην Ινδία και μετά από τη νίκη στην μάχη του Πανιπάτ θεμελίωσε το 1526 την δυναστεία που αποκαλείται Μουγάλ (Mughal) στην διεθνή βιβλιογραφία.

Ουσιαστικά, ο όρος Μογγόλος σήμαινε στρατιωτική βαθμίδα στα Τσαγατάι τουρκικά, την σήμερα νεκρή πλέον γλώσσα του Ταμερλάνου. Το πραγματικό όνομα, με το οποίο οι ίδιοι οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι αυτοκράτορες (‘σάχηδες’) αποκαλούσαν τους εαυτούς τους και το κράτος τους, ήταν η περσική λέξη Γκουρκανιάν που (στον πληθυντικό) σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’.

Ο όρος κατάγεται από πολεμικές – βασιλικές πρακτικές τουρκόφωνων φύλων από τα χρόνια του Τσενγκίζ Χαν (και ίσως και πιο πριν, αλλά τουλάχιστον τότε έγινε γνωστός στους Ιρανούς κι άρχισαν να τον χρησιμοποιούν).

Κατ’ αυτές τις πρακτικές, ένας πολύ γενναίος στρατιώτης – πολεμιστής από μια μάλλον κατώτερη τουρκόφωνη φυλή, αφού επιδείξει ανδρεία σε μια ή περισσότερες μάχες, ζητάει να παντρευτεί την κόρη ενός στρατιωτικού ηγέτη από μια άλλη, ανώτερη τουρκόφωνη φυλή, κι αφού αυτό γίνει, αποκτάει ο ίδιος μεγαλύτερη σημασία και κοινωνική, δηλαδή στρατιωτική, υπόσταση.

Μετά τον Μπαμπούρ (1504 – 1530), οι Γκορκανιάν κυριάρχησαν σε όλες τις εκτάσεις ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και το Δέλτα του Γάγγη, επέκτάθηκαν τόσο προς Αφγανιστάν και Κεντρική Ασία (από όπου κατάγονταν) όσο και προς τα νότια στο Ντεκάν, κι αναγνωρίστηκαν ως σύμμαχοι από τους Ιρανούς Σαφεβίδες που δεν ήταν Πέρσες αλλά Τουρκμένοι.

Και έτσι δημιουργήθηκε μια εκπληκτική τουρκόφωνη κυριαρχία από την Αλγερία και την Δυτική Μεσόγειο μέχρι την Μυανμάρ, Ταϋλάνδη και την Κίνα, κατά την οποία τρεις τουρκόφωνοι μουσουλμάνοι αυτοκράτορες, ένας Οθωμανός, ένας Σαφεβίδης κι ένα Γκουρκανί, έλεγχαν το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα του τότε γνωστού κόσμου.

Η κοινή καταγωγή και η κοινή θρησκεία δεν εξασφάλισαν ωστόσο καμμία ενότητα.

Οι Σαφεβίδες θεμελίωσαν το πρώτο σιιτικό κράτος στην Παγκόσμια Ιστορία και κατασφάζονταν ασταμάτητα με τους σουνίτες Οθωμανούς από την σημερινή νότια Ρωσσία μέχρι το Ομάν, ενώ οι επίσης σουνίτες Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι Γκουρκανιάν παρέμειναν ως επί το πλείστον ουδέτεροι.

Σάχης Ταχμάσπ Α’ του Ιράν, στα αριστερά, και Σάχης Χουμαγιούν των Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλη Μογγολική Αυτοκρατορία της ‘Ινδίας’), στα δεξιά

Μάλιστα μερικές φορές οι Γκουρκανιάν είχαν και καλές σχέσεις με τους Σαφεβίδες, όπως τεκμηριώνει η επίσκεψη (1544) του Χουμαγιούν (γιου του Μπαμπούρ) στο Εσφαχάν του Ιράν και οι απίστευτες ευωχίες και συμπόσια που έλαβαν χώραν εκεί με τον Σάχη Ταχμάσπ Α’ (1524-1576), ο οποίος βοήθησε τον Μεγάλο Μογγόλο να εξαφανίσει την απειλή που ήταν για τον θρόνο του ο Σερ Σάχης Σουρί (Sher Shah Suri), ένας Παστούνος που είχε στήσει μια εξουσία στην Βεγγάλη.

Οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι συσσώρευσαν τεράστιο πλούτο, τον οποίο όμως δεν χρησιμοποίησαν για κάτι το συγκεκριμένο. Μετά τον Αουράνγκζεμπ (1658-1707) άρχισε η παρακμή. Η κατάσταση στο Ιράν ήταν παράλληλη: το 1736 η σαφεβιδική δυναστεία έπαιρνε ένα τέλος.

Ήταν η ώρα για τον Δεύτερο Μεγαλέξανδρο, όπως τον αποκαλούσαν οι σύγχρονοί του Ιρανοί, Κεντρασιάτες, Οθωμανοί κι άλλοι ή τον Ναπολέοντα της Ασίας, όπως τον επονόμαζαν αργότερα Ευρωπαίοι συγγραφείς: τον Ναντέρ Σάχη. Γνωρίζουμε ότι στην εξορία του ο Ναπολέων διάβαζε συγγράμματα Ευρωπαίων που αναφέρονταν στους πολέμους και στις τακτικές του Ναντέρ Σάχη.

ΙΙΙ. Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης (1736-1747) κι η Κατάληψη του Δελχίου (1739)

Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης ήταν μια από τις πάμπολλες περιπτώσεις που πιστοποιούν την υπεροχή των γεωργών προ όλων των άλλων τομέων ανθρώπινης εργασίας και δραστηριότητας.

Μια από τις αναρίθμητες περιπτώσεις που βεβαιώνουν ότι οι άνθρωποι των πόλεων είναι καθοριστικά κι απόλυτα κατώτεροι από τους ανθρώπους που δουλεύουν την γη. Γεννήθηκε σε μια μικρή πόλη του Χορασάν (σήμερα ΒΑ Ιράν) σε μια φτωχή οικογένεια Τουρκμένων αγροτών της φυλής Αφσάρ (افشار / Afshar). Το όνομα αυτό απαντάται σήμερα ακόμη ως επώνυμο σχεδόν σε όλα τα μήκη και πλάτη του μουσουλμανικού κόσμου, ιδιαίτερα βέβαια από την Τουρκία μέχρι την Κίνα.

Αφού πέρασε μια παιδική και νεανική ζωή με πολλές δοκιμασίες (έχασε τον πατέρα του, αιχμαλωτίσθηκε με την μητέρα του, κλπ) κι αφού έγινε Κιζιλμπάσης (‘Ερυθρίνος’), συνέχισε να ζει μια απλή ζωή στρατιώτη μέχρι τα 30 του. Είχε έτσι πάρει ένα πολύ σπάνιο μάθημα από την ζωή, το μόνο απαραίτητο για να γίνει κάποιος άνθρωπος ένας πραγματικά κορυφαίος αυτοκράτορας: περιφρονούσε τα πλούτη, τα αξιώματα, την χλιδή και την πολυτέλεια των ανακτόρων. Ζούσε στα τελευταία σαφεβιδικά χρόνια.

Η αδύναμη εξουσία των τελευταίων σάχηδων του Εσφαχάν ήταν αιτία απόσχισης τοπικών κυβερνητών (στο Αφγανιστάν), ρωσσικών κατακτήσεων στον Καύκασο, οθωμανικής επιθετικότητας και γενικευμένου χάους από την απόπειρα των Αφγανών επαναστατών υπό τον Μαχμούντ Χοτακί να ανατρέψει τον Σουλτάν Χουσεΰν, τελευταίο Σαφεβίδη.

Από το 1722 μέχρι το 1736 (δηλαδή σε ηλικία 34-48 ετών), ο Ναντέρ πολέμησε σε πολλές μάχες για να καταστείλει την αφγανική εξέγερση, να εκδιώξει τους επαναστάτες από την πρωτεύουσα Εσφαχάν και να την αποδώσει στον νόμιμο σάχη Ταχμάσπ Β’, πριν οριστεί διοικητής των ανατολικών επαρχιών και συνενώσει όλες τις ανατολικές επαρχίες της χώρας.

Επίσης πολέμησε ενάντια στους Οθωμανούς, έσπευσε στο Αφγανιστάν για να καταστείλει νέα εξέγερση, υποχρέωσε τον Ταχμάσπ Β’ να παραιτηθεί, όταν ο ανήμπορος σάχης από ζήλεια είχε επιχειρήσει μόνος του μια αποτυχημένη εκστρατεία στον Καύκασο, κι ορίστηκε αντιβασιλέας του γιου του Ταχμάσπ Β’ Αμπάς Γ’.

Μετά από μια σειρά σημαντικών μαχών και νικών κατά των Οθωμανών στον Καύκασο και μετά την εκ μέρους του κατάληψη της Βαγδάτης, υποχρέωσε τους Οθωμανούς να παραχωρήσουν τα ιρανικά εδάφη που είχαν παλαιότερα κατακτήσει στον Καύκασο (Γεωργία και Αρμενία). Και στις 8 Μαρτίου 1736 στέφθηκε σάχης από μια γενική συνέλευση στρατιωτικών, ευγενών και κληρικών που καταλάβαιναν ότι ο μικρός Αμπάς Γ’ ήταν ανίκανος να βασιλεύσει.

Η εκπληκτική ικανότητα του Ναντέρ να ηγείται αριθμητικά μικρότερων στρατευμάτων και να σημειώνει σημαντικές νίκες εναντίον εχθρών – με υπέρτερες δυνάμεις χάρη σε εντυπωσιακούς αιφνιδιασμούς και τεχνικές, απατηλές κινήσεις και πλευροκοπήματα – χαρακτήρισε την περίοδο των έντεκα ετών κατά την οποία βασίλευσε. Σε μια εποχή χωρίς τανκς και μηχανοκίνητες μονάδες, στρατεύματα μετακινούνταν με εκπληκτικές ταχύτητες μέσα από πολύ δύσβατες και δυσπρόσιτες περιοχές, από τον Καύκασο στον Ινδό, από την Κεντρική Ασία στη Μεσοποταμία, κι από το Αφγανιστάν στον Περσικό Κόλπο.

Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης γεννήθηκε σε μια σιιτική οικογένεια αλλά σε μεγαλύτερη ηλικία έδειξε συμπάθεια προς το σουνιτικό Ισλάμ και προσπάθησε να οργανώσει μια σύνθεση και συνένωση των δύο θεολογιών.

Ως άτομο ήταν ίσως ο πιο ανεξίθρησκος ηγεμόνας του Ιράν και η φιλία του προς χριστιανικούς πληθυσμούς ήταν τέτοια που συμπεριέλαβε συχνά Γεωργιανούς κι Αρμένιους στο στράτευμά του.

Θα μπορούσε κανείς εύκολα να τον περιγράψει και ως ένα Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ πριν τον Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ, επειδή καμμιά στρατιωτική του επιχείρηση δεν είχε θρησκευτικά κίνητρα ή σκοπιμότητες.

Όπου έκρινε κι αποφάσιζε ο Ναντέρ Σάχης, η θρησκεία δεν είχε θέση κι όλοι οι άνθρωποι ήταν ίσοι και κρίνονταν με βάση τις ικανότητές τους.

Οι σιίτες μολάδες κι αγιατολάδες κι ο σεϊχουλισλάμης της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας είχαν βρει τον μπελά τους μαζί του.

Η κατάκτηση του Δελχί κι η εκτεταμένη λαφυραγώγηση του πλουσιώτατου γείτονα του Ιράν δεν έγιναν ούτε με σκοπό το κέρδος ούτε για να προσπορισθεί ο Ναντέρ Σάχης φήμη και δόξα.

Απλώς του χρειάζονταν έσοδα για τους πολέμους κατά των Οθωμανών που προετοίμαζε στο μυαλό του.

Ο ετήσιος προϋπολογισμός του κράτους του Αουράνγκζεμπ μόλις 25 χρόνια πριν καταλάβει το Δελχί ο Ναντέρ Σάχης ήταν δεκαπλάσιος εκείνου της Γαλλίας του Λουδοβίκου ΙΔ’ (‘βασιλιά ήλιου’)!

Η στρατιωτική τεχνική του Ναντέρ Σάχη στην μάχη του Καρνάλ (13 Φλεβάρη 1739) ήταν εκπληκτική.

Και η λαφυραγώγηση των ανακτόρων των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων στο Δελχί ξεπερνάει κάθε ιστορική αναφορά και κάθε τρελή φαντασία.

——————————————–

Οι Ατελείωτες Μάχες του Ναντέρ Σάχη

Πρώτη εκστρατεία στο Αφγανιστάν – 1729

Η Μάχη στο Μαλαγιέρ, στην οροσειρά του Κεντρικού Ζάγρου, κατά των Οθωμανών – 1730

Η Μάχη στο Μπαγκαβάρντ του Καυκάσου κατά των Οθωμανών – 1735

Μάχη στα Στενά Χάυμπερ, στα βουνά μεταξύ των σημερινών Πακιστάν κι Αφγανιστάν, στην πορεία για κατάληψη του Δελχί – 1738. Πολέμησαν 10000 Ιρανοί υπό τον Ναντέρ Σάχη και νίκησαν 70000 στρατιώτες της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας των Γκορκανιάν της ‘Ινδίας’.

Η μάχη του Καρνάλ όπου ο Ναντέρ Σάχης πολέμησε εναντίον εξαπλασίων στρατευμάτων (55000 κατά 300000) και νικώντας τα εβάδισε εναντίον του Δελχί – 1739. Οι αντίπαλοι υποστηρίζονταν από 2000 εκπαιδευμένους για πόλεμο ελέφαντες και 3000 κανόνια.

Η μάχη του Καρς: 80000 Ιρανοί κατά 140000 Οθωμανών – 1745. Ιρανική νίκη με νεκρούς και τραυματισμένους 8000 Ιρανούς και Οθωμανούς 12000 νεκρούς, 18000 τραυματισμένους και 5000 αιχμαλώτους

———————————————

Κι όμως ο συνεχώς μάχιμος αυτός γεωργός – στρατιώτης – σάχης δεν θεώρησε αυτή την ιστορική νίκη γεγονός άξιο για να πανηγυρίσει κι αμέσως στράφηκε σε άλλους πολέμους.

Επιστρέφοντας όμως από το Δελχί πήρε τους στρατηγούς του (που ήταν όλοι τους Ιρανοί ευγενείς) και τους οδήγησε στο μικρό χωριό του Χορασάν όπου είχε γεννηθεί. Εκεί τους είπε:

– Βλέπετε σε τι ύψη εξυψώνει ο Μεγαλοδύναμος αυτούς που επιλέγει; Γι’ αυτό, ποτέ μην περιφρονείτε ένα άνθρωπο με ταπεινή καταγωγή και με ελάχιστη περιουσία!

Μετά από άλλα οκτώ χρόνια γεμάτα πολέμους κατά της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας στην αραβική χερσόνησο, την Μεσοποταμία και τον Καύκασο, μετά από εκστρατείες στην Κεντρική Ασία και στα παράλια του Ομάν, ο Ναντέρ Σάχης είχε το τέλος που οι ήρωες αντιμετωπίζουν στα χέρια δειλών συνωμοτών (εκτός κι αν συνωμοσίες δεν υπάρχουν!).

Δολοφονήθηκε όταν κοιμόταν από δέκα πέντε συνωμότες την 20 η Ιουνίου 1747.

Στην συνέχεια θα βρείτε μια σειρά από διαφωτιστικές δημοσιεύσεις σχετικά με την ζωή, το έργο, τις στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις και την κοσμοαντίληψη του πιο τρομερού Ιρανού της δεύτερης χιλιετίας.

Ο Σάχης Ναντέρ κάθεται στον Θρόνο του Παγωνιού, τον μυθικής αξίας χρυσοποίκιλτο κι εμβληματικό θρόνο των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων Αυτοκρατόρων Γκορκανιάν του Δελχί τον οποίο λαφυραγώγησε μαζί πολλά άλλα αμύθητα πλούτη και πετράδια.

Αποσπάσματα από Ιστορικά Κείμενα-Quotes

Afterwards Nadir Shah himself, with the Emperor of Hindustan, entered the fort of Delhi. It is said that he appointed a place on one side in the fort for the residence of Muhammad Shah and his dependents, and on the other side he chose the Diwan-i Khas, or, as some say, the Garden of Hayat Bakhsh, for his own accommodation. He sent to the Emperor of Hindustan, as to a prisoner, some food and wine from his own table.

One Friday his own name was read in the khutba, but on the next he ordered Muhammad Shah’s name to be read. It is related that one day a rumour spread in the city that Nadir Shah had been slain in the fort. This produced a general confusion, and the people of the city destroyed five thousand men of his camp. On hearing of this, Nadir Shah came of the fort, sat in the golden masjid which was built by Rashanu-d daula, and gave orders for a general massacre.

For nine hours an indiscriminate slaughter of all and of every degree was committed. It is said that the number of those who were slain amounted to one hundred thousand. The losses and calamities of the people of Delhi were exceedingly great….

After this violence and cruelty, Nadir Shah collected immense riches, which he began to send to his country laden on elephants and camels.

Tarikh-i Hindi

by Rustam ‘Ali

In: The History of India as Told by its own Historians

The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot

John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 22, pp. 37-67

When the Shah departed towards the close of the day, a false rumour was spread through the town that he had been severely wounded by a shot from a matchlock, and thus were sown the seeds from which murder and rapine were to spring. The bad characters within the town collected in great bodies, and, without distinction, commenced the work of plunder and destruction….

On the morning of the 11th an order went forth from the Persian Emperor for the slaughter of the inhabitants. The result may be imagined; one moment seemed to have sufficed for universal destruction. The Chandni chauk, the fruit market, the Daribah bazaar, and the buildings around the Masjid-i Jama’ were set fire to and reduced to ashes.

The inhabitants, one and all, were slaughtered. Here and there some opposition was offered, but in most places people were butchered unresistingly. The Persians laid violent hands on everything and everybody; cloth, jewels, dishes of gold and silver, were acceptable spoil….

But to return to the miserable inhabitants. The massacre lasted half the day, when the Persian Emperor ordered Haji Fulad Khan, the kotwal, to proceed through the streets accompanied by a body of Persian nasakchis, and proclaim an order for the soldiers to resist from carnage. By degrees the violence of the flames subsided, but the bloodshed, the devastation, and the ruin of families were irreparable. For a long time the streets remained strewn with corpses, as the walks of a garden with dead flowers and leaves.

The town was reduced to ashes, and had the appearance of a plain consumed with fire. All the regal jewels and property and the contents of the treasury were seized by the Persian conqueror in the citadel. He thus became possessed of treasure to the amount of sixty lacs of rupees and several thousand ashraf is… plate of gold to the value of one kror of rupees, and the jewels, many of which were unrivalled in beauty by any in the world, were valued at about fifty krors.

The peacock throne alone, constructed at great pains in the reign of Shah Jahan, had cost one kror of rupees. Elephants, horses, and precious stuffs, whatever pleased .the conqueror’s eye, more indeed than can be enumerated, became his spoil. In short, the accumulated wealth of 348 years changed masters in a moment.

About Shah’s sack of Delhi

Tazrikha by Anand Ram Mukhlis

A history of Nâdir Shah’s invasion of India

In The History of India as Told by its own Historians

The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot.

John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 22, pp. 74-98.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nader_Shah

Ανδριάντας του Ναντέρ Σάχη σήμερα στο Ιράν

Nāder Shah

Nāder Shah, ruler of Iran, 1736-47. He rose from obscurity to control an empire that briefly stretched across Iran, northern India, and parts of Central Asia. He developed a reputation as a skilled military commander and succeeded in battle against numerous opponents, including the Ottomans and the Mughals.

During Nāder’s campaign in India, and several years after he had replaced the last Safavid ruler on the Persian throne, the elimination of much of the Safavid family effectively ended any real possibility of a Safavid restoration. The decade of Nāder’s own tumultuous reign was marked by conflict, chaos, and oppressive rule. Nāder’s troops assassinated him in 1747, after he had come to be regarded as a cruel and capricious tyrant. His empire quickly collapsed, and the resulting fragmentation of Iran into several separate domains lasted until the rise of the Qajars decades later.

Born in November 1688 into a humble pastoral family, then at its winter camp in Darra Gaz in the mountains north of Mashad, Nāder belonged to a group of the Qirqlu branch of the Afšār Turkmen. Beginning in the 16th century, the Safavids had settled groups of Afšārs in northern Khorasan to defend Mashad against Uzbek incursions.

The first major international political event that directly affected Nāder’s career was the Afghan invasion of Iran in the summer of 1719 that resulted in the capture of Isfahan and deposition of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn, the last Safavid monarch, by the autumn of 1722. After the fall of Isfahan, Safavid pretenders emerged all over Iran. One was Solṭān Ḥosayn’s son Ṭahmāsb, who escaped to Qazvin, where he was proclaimed Shah Ṭahmāsb II.

He led a resistance movement against the Afghans during the 1720s. The Russians and Ottomans saw the Afghan conquest as their own opportunity to acquire territory in Iran, so both invaded and occupied some land in 1723. The following year they signed a treaty in which they recognized each other’s territorial gains and agreed to support the restoration of Safavid rule.

Around this time, Nāder began his career in Abivard, an Afšār-controlled town just north of Mashad. He made himself so useful to the local ruler Bābā ʿAli Beg that he gave Nāder two of his daughters in marriage. Due to internal tribal rivalries, Nāder was not able to become Bābā ʿAli’s successor, so he vied for power with various upstart military chiefs in northeastern Iran who had emerged in the wake of the Afghan invasion.

In the mid 1720s, Nāder played an important role in defeating Malek Maḥmud Sistāni, one of that area’s main warlords, who had set himself up as the scion of the 9th-10th century Saffarid dynasty. Nāder was his ally for a while but soon turned against him. His role in suppressing this usurper brought him to Ṭahmāsb’s attention. Ṭahmāsb chose him as his principal military commander to replace Fatḥ ʿAli Khan Qajar (d. 1726), whose descendants (the founders of the Qajar dynasty) blamed Nāder for the murder of their ancestor.

With this promotion, Nāder assumed the title Ṭahmāsb-qoli (servant of Ṭahmāsb). His prestige steadily increased as he led Ṭahmāsb’s armies to numerous victories. He first defeated the Abdāli (later known as Dorrāni) Afghans near Herat in May 1729, then achieved victory over the Ḡilzi Afghans led by Ašraf at Mehmāndust on 29 September 1729.

After this battle, when Ašraf fled from Isfahan to Qandahar, Ṭahmāsb became finally established in Isfahan (with Nāder in actual control of affairs) by December 1729, marking the real end of Afghan rule in Iran. In the wake of Ašraf’s defeat, many Afghan soldiers joined Nāder’s army and proved helpful in many subsequent battles.

Three months before the Mehmāndust victory, Nāder had sent letters to the Ottoman Sultan Aḥmad III (r. 1703-30) to ask for help, since Ṭahmāsb “was made the legitimate successor of his esteemed father [Solṭān Ḥosayn]” (Nāṣeri, p. 210). Receiving no response, Nāder attacked the Ottomans as soon as Ašraf was defeated and Isfahan reoccupied. He waged a successful campaign during the spring and summer of 1730 and recaptured much territory that the Ottomans had taken in the previous decade.

But, just as the momentum of his offensive was building, news came from Mashad that the Abdāli Afghans had attacked Nāder’s brother Ebrāhim there and pinned him down inside the city’s walls. Nāder rushed to relieve him. (This distraction came at just the right time for the Ottomans, since in Istanbul the Patrona Halil rebellion, which led to the deposition of Aḥmad III, broke out in September 1730). Nāder arrived in Mashad in time to attend the wedding of his son Reżā-qoli to Ṭahmāsb’s sister Fāṭema Solṭān Begum.

Nāder spent the next fourteen months subduing Abdāli forces led by Allāh-Yār Khan. To commemorate his victory over them, he endowed in Mashad a waqf (pious foundation) at the shrine of Imam ʿAli al-Reżā (d. ca. 818). Nāder’s personal seal, preserved on the waqf deed of June 1732, showed his unremarkable Shiʿite loyalty at that time: Lā fatā illā ʿAli lā sayf illā Ḏu’l-Faqār / Nāder-e ʿaṣr-am ze loṭf-e Ḥaqq ḡolām-e hašt o čār (There is no youth more chivalrous than ʿAli, no sword except Ḏu’l-Faqār / I am the rarity of the age, and by the grace of God, the servant of the Eight and Four [i.e., the Twelve Imams].” (Šaʿbāni, p. 375; cf. Rabino, p. 53).

Ṭahmāsb took Nāder’s absence in Khorasan as his own chance to attack the Ottomans and pursued a disastrous campaign (January 1731–January 1732), in which the Ottomans actually reoccupied much of the territory recently lost to Nāder. Sultan Maḥmud I (r. 1730-54) negotiated with Ṭahmāsb a peace agreement that allowed the Ottomans to retain these lands, while returning Tabriz to avoid angering Nāder.

Three weeks later, Russia and Persia signed the Treaty of Rašt, in which Russia, trying to curry favor with Persia against the Ottomans, agreed to withdraw from most of the Iranian territory it had annexed in the 1720s.

When Nāder learned that Ṭahmāsb had relinquished substantial territory to the Ottomans, he quickly returned to Isfahan. He used the peace treaty as an excuse to remove Ṭahmāsb from the throne in August 1732 and replace him with Ṭahmāsb’s eight-month-old son, who was given the regnal name ʿAbbās III. Now regent, Nāder resumed hostilities against the Ottomans.

After a decisive round of victories, interspersed with short excursions to quell uprisings in Fārs and Baluchistan, he signed a new treaty in December 1733 with Aḥmad Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad. It marked an attempt to reinstate the provisions of the 1049/1639 Ottoman-Safavid Treaty of Qaṣr-e Širin (Ḏohāb), since it called for the restoration of the borders stipulated at that time, a prisoner exchange, and Ottoman protection for all Persian ḥajj pilgrims. The Ottoman sultan would not ratify it, because disputes persisted over control of parts of the Caucasus, and so intermittent hostilities continued.

In March 1734, Šāhroḵ was born to Reżā-qoli and Fāṭema Begum. Šāhroḵ thus formed a direct link between the lineages of Nāder and the Safavids—an important basis for Šāhroḵ’s eventual right to rule. The choice to name his grandson after Šāhroḵ b. Timur (r. 1409-47) revealed Nāder’s growing interest in emulating the conqueror Timur (r. 1369-1405).

There followed another series of Ottoman-Persian battles in the Caucasus, and Nāder’s capture of Ganja, during the siege of which Russian engineers provided assistance. Russia and Persia then signed a defensive alliance in March 1735 at Ganja. In the treaty, the Russians agreed to return most of the territory conquered in the 1720s.

This agreement shifted the regional diplomatic focus to a looming Ottoman-Russian confrontation over control of the Black Sea region and provided for Nāder a military respite on his western border.

By the end of 1735, Nāder felt that he had gained enough prestige through a series of victories and had secured the immediate military situation well enough to assume the throne himself. In Feburary 1736, he gathered the nomadic and sedentary leaders of the Safavid realm at a vast encampment on the Moḡān steppe.

He asked the assembly to choose either him or one of the Safavids to rule the country. When Nāder heard that the molla-bāši (chief cleric) Mirzā Abu’l-Ḥasan had remarked that “everyone is for the Safavid dynasty,” he was said to have had that cleric arrested and strangled the next day (Lockhart, p. 99). After several days of meetings, the assembly proclaimed Nāder as the legitimate monarch.

The newly appointed shah gave a speech to acknowledge the approval of those in attendance. He announced that, upon his accession to the throne, his subjects would abandon certain religious practices that had been introduced by Shah Esmāʿil I (r. 1501-24) and had plunged Iran into disorder, such as sabb (ritual cursing of the first three caliphs Abu Bakr, ʿOmar, and ʿOṯmān, termed “rightly guided” by the Sunnites) and rafż (denial of their right to rule the Muslim community).

Nāder decreed that Twelver Shiʿism would become known as the Jaʿfari madòhab (legal school) in honor of the sixth Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq (d. 765), who would be recognized as its central authority.

Nāder asked that this madòhab be treated exactly like the four traditionally recognized legal schools of Sunnite Islam. All those present at Moḡān were required to sign a document indicating their agreement with Nāder’s ideas.

Just before his actual coronation ceremony on 8 March 1736, Nāder specified five conditions for peace with the Ottoman empire (Astarābādi, p. 286), most of which he continued to seek over the next ten years.

They were:

(1) recognition of the Jaʿfari maḏhab as the fifth orthodox legal school of Sunnite Islam;

(2) designation of an official place (rokn) for a Jaʿfari imam in the courtyard of the Kaʿba [Perry, 1993, p. 854 and “Kaʿba,” in EI2 IV, p. 318 vs. Lockhart, p. 101] analogous to those of the Sunnite legal schools;

(3) appointment of a Persian pilgrimage leader (amir al-ḥajj);

(4) exchange of permanent ambassadors between Nāder and the Ottoman sultan; and

(5) exchange of prisoners of war and prohibition of their sale or purchase. In return, the new shah promised to prohibit Shiʿite practices objectionable to the Ottoman Sunnites.

Nāder tried to redefine religious and political legitimacy in Persia at symbolic and substantive levels.

One of his first acts as shah was to introduce a four-peaked hat (implicitly honoring the first four “rightly-guided” Sunni caliphs), which became known as the kolāh-e Nāderi, to replace the Qezelbāš turban cap, which was pieced with twelve gores (evocative of the twelve Shiʿite Imams).

Soon after his coronation, he sent an embassy to the Ottomans (Maḥmud I, r. 1730-54) carrying letters in which he explained his concept of the “Jaʿfari maḏhab” and recalled the common Turkmen origins of himself and the Ottomans as a basis for developing closer ties.

During this negotiation and subsequent ones, the Ottomans rejected all proposals related to Nāder’s Jaʿfari maḏhab concept but ultimately agreed to Nāder’s demands concerning recognition of a Persian amir al-ḥajj, exchange of ambassadors, and that of prisoners of war.

These demands paralleled the provisions of a long series of Ottoman-Safavid agreements, especially an accord, drawn up in 1727 but never signed, between the Ottoman sultan and Ašraf, the Ḡilzay Afghan ruler of Persia (r. 1725-29).

At the end of the 1148/1736 negotiations, both sides approved a document that mentioned only the issues of the ḥajj pilgrimage caravan, ambassadors, and prisoners because of disagreement over the Jaʿfari maḏhab concept.

Although no actual peace treaty was signed at that time, mutual acceptance of these other points became the basis for a working truce that lasted several years.

Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations.

Safavid legitimacy depended on the dynasty’s close connection to Twelver Shiʿism as an autonomous, self-contained tradition of Islamic jurisprudence as well as the Safavids’ alleged descent from the seventh Imam Musā al-Kāżem (died between 779 and 804). Nāder’s view of Twelver Shiʿism as a mere school of law within the greater Muslim community (umma)glossed over the entire complex structure of Shiʿite legal institutions, because his main goal was to limit the potential of Sunnite-Shiʿite conflict to interfere with his empire-building dreams.

The Jaʿfari maḏhab proposal also seems intended as tool to smooth relations between the Sunni and Shiʿite components of his own army. In addition, the proposal had economic implications, since control of a ḥajj caravan would have provided the shah with access to the revenue of the lucrative pilgrimage trade.

Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals.

When describing Nāder’s coronation, Astarābādi called the assembly on the Moḡān steppe a quriltāy, evoking the practice of Mughal and Timurid conclaves that periodically met to select new khans. In various official documents, Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage.

This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well.

Nāder’s novel concepts regarding the Jaʿfari maḏhab and common “Turkmen” descent were directed primarily at the Ottomans and Mughals. He may have perceived a need to unite disparate components of the omma against the expanding power of Europe at that time, however different his view of Muslim unity was from later concepts of it. But both ideas had less domestic importance.

On coins and seals, and in documents issued to his subjects, Nāder was more conservative in his claim to legitimacy. For example, the distich on one of his official seals focused only on the restoration of stability: Besmellāh – nagin-e dawlat-e din rafta bud čun az jā / be-nām-e Nāder Irān qarār dād Ḵodā (In the name of God – when the seal of state and religion had disappeared from Iran / God established there order in the name of Nāder; Rabino, p. 52).

In a proclamation sent to the ulamaof Isfahan soon after the coronation, the Jaʿfari maḏhab was depicted as nothing more than an attempt to keep peace between Sunnites and Shiʿites.

The document explained that ʿAli would continue to be venerated as one especially beloved by God, although henceforth the Shiʿite formula ʿAli wali Allāh (ʿAli is the deputy of God) would be prohibited.

In contrast to the shah’s letters to foreign rulers, this proclamation did not even mention the Safavids (Qoddusi, p. 540).

Nāder’s domestic policies introduced major economic, military, and social changes. He ordered a cadastral survey in order to produce the land registers known as raqabat-e Nāderi. Because of the establishment of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the Safavid framework of pious foundations was suspended (Lambton, p. 131), although their revenues were the main source of financial support for important ulama.

Only in the last year of his reign did Nāder decree the resumption of pious foundations.

After his accession to the throne, Nāder claimed the ruler’s privilege to issue coinage in his name. His monetary policy linked the Persian currency system to the Mughal system, since he discontinued the Safavid silver ʿAbbāsi and minted a silver Nāderi whose weight standard corresponded with the Mughal rupee (Rabino, p. 52).

Nāder also attempted to promote fixed salaries for his soldiers and officials instead of revenues derived from land tenure. Continuing a shift that had begun in the late Safavid era, he increased substantially the number of soldiers directly under his command, while units under the command of provincial and tribal leaders became less important.

Finally, he continued and expanded the Safavid policy of a forced resettlement of tribal groups (Perry, 1975, pp. 208-10).

All these reforms can be viewed as attempts to address weaknesses that had emerged in the late Safavid era, but none solved the problems that were tied to larger trends in the world economy. Iran had suffered from a swift rise in the popularity of Indian silk in Europe during the last few decades of Safavid rule, a shift that dramatically reduced Iran’s foreign income and indirectly contributed to the draining of bullion away from Persian state treasuries (Matthee, pp. 13, 67-68, 203-06, 212-218).

This crisis, in turn, put more pressure on the provinces to produce tax revenue, which led provincial governors to take oppressive measures and fueled the Afghan revolt that had resulted in the Safavid collapse in the first place.

After his ascension to the throne Nāder’s main military task was the ultimate defeat of the remaining Afghan forces that had ended Safavid rule. After laying siege to Qandahar for almost a year, Nāder destroyed it in 1738—the last redoubt of the Ḡilzi, who were led by Shah Ḥosayn Solṭān, the brother of Shah Maḥmud, who had been the first Ḡilzay to rule Persia (1722-1725). On the site of his camp Nāder built a new city, Nāderābād, to which he transferred Qandahar’s population and Abdāli Afghans.

The destruction of Qandahar completed the reconquest of territory lost since the reign of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn. Nāder’s career now entered a new phase: the invasion of foreign territory to pursue dreams of a world empire that could resemble the domains of Chinghis Khan (d. 1227) and Timur. After the fall of Qandahar, many Afghans joined his army.

His pursuit of Afghans who had fled across the Mughal frontier grew into an invasion of India when Nāder accused the Mughals of providing them with shelter and aid. Nāder had appointed Reżā-qoli as his deputy in Iran. While his father was away, Reżā-qoli feared a pro-Safavid revolt and had Moḥammad Ḥasan (the leader of the Qajars between 1726 and 1759) execute Ṭahmāsb and his sons.

After a successful offensive that culminated in the final defeat of the Mughal forces at the battle of Karnāl near Delhi in February 1739, Nāder made the Mughal emperor Moḥammad Šāh (r. 1719-48) his vassal and divested him of a large part of his fabulous riches, including the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor diamond. When the rumor spread that Nāder had been assassinated, the Indians attacked and killed his troops. In retaliation, Nāder gave his soldiers permission to plunder Delhi and massacre its inhabitants.

The peace treaty restored control of India to Moḥammad Šāh under Nāder’s distant suzerainty; it proclaimed Moḥammad Šāh’s legitimacy, citing the Turkmen lineage that he shared with Nāder (Astarābādi, p. 327). Nāder arranged a ceremony in which he placed the crown back on Moḥammad Shah’s head. To further emphasize Moḥammad Šāh’s subordinate status, he assumed the title šāhānšāh.

To further strengthen his ties to the Mughals, Nāder married his son Naṣr-Allāh to a great granddaughter of the Mughal emperor Awrangzēb (r. 1658-1707). His chroniclers represent his victory over Moḥammad Šāh as another sign of his similarity to Timur. The shah himself was so obsessed with emulating Timur that he moved, for a time, to Mashad (Lockhart, pp. 188-89, note 4).

While Nāder was invading India, Reżā-qoli was securing more territory for Nāder north of Balḵ and south of the Oxus river. His campaign aroused the ire of Ilbars, the khan of Khwarazm, and of Abu’l-Fayż (r. 1711-47), the Toqay-Timurid khan of Bukhara. When they threatened counterattacks, Nāder engaged in a swift campaign against them on his way back from India. He executed Ilbars and replaced him with a more compliant ruler, but this new vassal would soon be overthrown. Abu’l–Fayż, like the Mughal emperor, accepted his status as Nāder’s subordinate and married his daughter to Nāder’s nephew.

After the campaigns in India and Turkestan, particularly with acquisition of the Mughal treasury, Nāder found himself suddenly wealthy. He issued a decree canceling all taxes in Iran for three years and decided to press forward on several projects, such as creation of a new navy.

Nāder had sent his naval commanders at various times on expeditions in the Persian Gulf, particularly to Oman, but these missions were unsuccessful, in part because it was difficult to secure naval vessels of good quality and in adequate numbers. In the summer of 1741, Nāder began to build ships in Bušehr, arranging for lumber to be carried there from Māzāndarān at great trouble and expense. The project was not completed, but by 1745 he had amassed a fleet of about thirty ships purchased in India (Lockhart, p. 221, n. 3).

However, Nāder experienced several major setbacks after his return to Iran. In 1741-43 he launched a series of quixotic attacks in the Caucasus against the Dāḡestānis in retaliation for his brother’s death. In 1741, an attempt was made on Nāder’s life near Darband. When the would-be assassin claimed that he had been recruited by Reżā-qoli, the shah had his son blinded in retaliation, an act for which he later felt great remorse.

Marvi reported that Nāder began to manifest signs of physical deterioration and mental instability. Finally, the shah was forced to reinstate taxes due to insufficient funds, and the heavy levies sparked numerous rebellions.

In spite of mounting problems, in 1741 Nāder sent an embassy to the Ottomans to resubmit his 1736 proposal for a peace treaty. But Maḥmud I had just won wars against Russia and Austria and was not receptive.

The sultan rejected the shah’s claim to Iraq (a claim based on Timur’s earlier control of the province).

Then the Ottoman legal authority, the šayḵ al-Eslām, issued a fatwā (legal opinion) formally declaring the Jaʿfari maḏhab heretical.

In response, Nāder besieged several cities in Iraq in 1743, with no results, and in December of that year he signed a ceasefire with Aḥmad Pāšā, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad (d. 1747). Subsequently, Nāder convened a meeting of ulama from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia in Najaf at the shrine of ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (d. 661), the fourth of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the first Imam.

After several days of lively debate on the question of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the participants signed a document which recognized the Jaʿfari maḏhab as a legitimate legal school of Sunnite Islam.

The Ottoman sultan, however, remained unimpressed by this outcome.

Nāder soon had to leave Iraq to suppress several domestic rebellions.

The most serious of these began near Shiraz in January 1744 and was led by Moḥammad Taqi Khan Širāzi, the commander of Fārs province and one of Nāder’s favorites.

In June 1744, Nāder sacked Shiraz, and by winter he had crushed these revolts.

He resumed his war against the Ottomans and defeated them in August 1745 at Baḡāvard near Yerevan.

Although Nāder’s victory led to new negotiations, his bargaining position was not strong because of new, large-scale domestic uprisings.

The shah dropped his demands for territory and for recognition of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, and the final agreement was based only on the long mutually acceptable positions regarding frontiers, protection of pilgrims, treatment of prisoners, and exchange of ambassadors (Lockhart, p. 255).

The agreement recognized the shared Turkmen lineage and ostensibly proclaimed the conversion of Iran to Sunnism.

Yet the necessity to guarantee the safety of pilgrims to the Shiʿite shrines (ʿatabāt-e ʿāliya) in Iraq reveals the formal character of this concession.

The treaty was signed in September 1746 in Kordān, northwest of Tehran.

It made possible the official Ottoman recognition of Nāder’s rule, and the sultan dispatched an embassy with a huge assortment of gifts in the spring of 1747, although the shah did not live to receive it.

Nāder had spent the winter and spring of 1746 in Mashad, where he formulated a strategy to suppress the plethora of internal revolts. He also oversaw the construction of a treasure house for his Indian booty at nearby Kalāt-e Nāderi.

The building complex that Nāder constructed within this natural mountain fortress, near his birthplace in northern Khorasan, became his designated retreat, and he created there a secure showplace for his accomplishments.

Nāder followed the nomadic custom of not staying long in any permanent capital city, and Kalāt and Mashad (in, as he saw it. a complementary relationship) served as his main official sites in ways that resembled capital cities of other nomadic empires.

Under Nāder’s patronage, Mashad flourished at the midpoint of a trading route between India and Russia and grew in importance as a major pilgrimage center with its Emam Reẓā shrine complex.

In June 1747, a cabal of Afšār and Qajar officers succeeded in killing Nāder.

The succession struggle embroiled Persia in civil war for the next five years.

Two months before the assassination, Nāder’s nephew ʿAli-qoli, son of his brother Ebrāhim (d. 1738), had risen in revolt, and in July he followed his uncle on the throne as ʿĀdel Shah (r. 1747-48).

Nāder’s grandson Šāhroḵ, although blinded after an earlier coup attempt, finally secured the throne in Khorasan in 1748 as a vassal of the Afghan Aḥmad Shah Dorrāni (r. 1747-73).

This former deputy of Nāder founded the Dorrāni dynasty and is credited with being the first ruler of an independent Afghan state.

Šāhroḵ ruled for almost fifty years until 1795, when Āqā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (r. 1779-97) deposed him, marking the end of the rule of the Afsharids in Iran.

Text and bibliography in detail:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nader-shah

-------------------------------------

Koh-i-Noor and Nadir Shah’s Delhi loot

The legendary treasure trove of Hindustan has changed hands en masse on two occasions, once in 1739, when it was taken by Nadir Shah, and then again in 1857, by the prize agents of the East India Company. Apart from these two conquests, a great many priceless gems and jewels were acquired by the early European traders in India and sold in Europe. Today, many of the world’s famous diamonds have been attributed conclusively to the 1739 sack of Delhi. The most well-known jewels and artifacts among them are listed below—the little compressed and crystallized charcoal that have wended their way through a labyrinth of mankind’s violent history.

During Nadir Shah’s homeward march from Delhi to Persia, he ordered all the acquired jewels to be decorated on a tent. The tent is described in great details by an eyewitness Abdul Kurreem, who accompanied Nadir Shah on his return journey, in his memoir:

“The outside was covered with fine scarlet broadcloth, the lining was of violet coloured satin, upon which were representations of all the birds and beasts in the creation, with trees and flowers, the whole made of pearls, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, amethysts, and other precious stones: and the tent poles were decorated in like manner.

On both sides of the Peacock Throne was a screen, upon which were the figures of two angels in precious stones. The roof of the tent consisted of seven pieces, and when it was transported to any place, two of these pieces packed in cotton, were put into a wooden chest, two of which were a sufficient load for an elephant; and the screen filled another chest.

The walls of the tent, the tent poles and the tent pins, which latter were of massy gold, loaded five more elephants; so that for the carriage of the whole required seven elephants. This magnificent tent was displayed on all festivals in the Dewan Khaneh at Heart, during the remainder of Nadir Shah’s reign. After his death, his nephew Adil Shah, and his grandson Shahrokh, whose territories were very limited, and expenses enormous, had the tent taken to pieces, and dissipated the produce.”

In the well-known book ‘The History of Nadir Shah’ published in the 18th century from London, James Fraser estimates that 70 crores of wealth was carried away by Nadir Shah from Delhi:

Jewels from emperors and amirs: 25 crores

Utensils and handles of weapons set with jewels, with the Peacock Throne, etc.: 9 crores

Money coined in gold and silver coins: 25 crores

Gold and silver plates which he melted into coins: 5 crores

Fine clothes and rich stuff, etc.: 2 crores

Household furniture and other commodities: 3 crores

Weapons, etc.: 1 crore

Peacock Throne

Ten years after Nadir Shah returned from India with unimaginable treasure in 1739, he was assassinated by his own guards. Immediately, the famed Peacock Throne was dismantled, and its gems and stones were cut out and dispersed in the world market, though the entire lot can never be accounted for.

The Peacock Throne or the Mayurasan has been described by many, including historians Abdul Hamid Lahori, Inayat Khan, and French travellers Bernier and Tavernier, but Tavernier’s account can be considered the most authentic as he was officially allowed to inspect it in the Mughal court by Aurangzeb.

Tavernier was a French gem merchant who travelled between Persia and India six times between 1630 and 1668. According to him, the throne was of almost the size of a bed, being 6 ft x 4 ft in dimension. There were four horizontal bars connecting its four legs, upon which 12 columns stand to hold a canopy. At the centre of each of the 12 columns, a cross design was made of a ruby surrounded by four emeralds.

There were 108 large rubies (100-200 carats), 116 large emeralds (30-60 carats), innumerable diamonds and gemstones studded in the throne made of solid gold. Its paraphernalia included cushions, swords, a mace, a round shield, and umbrellas—all studded with gemstones and pearls. The underside of the canopy was covered with pearls and diamonds. Besides, Abdul Lahori describes the throne and its well-known stones, including Koh-i-Noor, the Akbar Shah diamond, the Shah diamond, the Timur Ruby, and the Shah Jahan diamond.

Koh-i-Noor

This diamond—known as ‘Babur’s Diamond’ before 1739—was acquired from the Kakatiya dynasty by Allauddin Khilji. When Ibrahim Lodi was defeated by Babur, it was apparently handed over to Humayun by the mother of Ibrahim Lodi to guarantee the family’s safety. However, other sources say that it was gifted to Humayun by the Gwalior Royal Family.

Thereafter, it was presented by Humayun to the Persian Shah Tamasp (to garner his support to regain Hindustan), who then gave it to the Deccan Kingdom as a gift. It came back to the Mughals during Shah Jahan’s reign, via a Persian diamond dealer Mir Jumla, and remained with the Mughal emperors until 1739.

It is rumoured that Nadir Shah was tipped off that the emperor Muhammad Shah was hiding the diamond in his turban. Nadir Shah then invited the emperor to a customary turban-exchange ceremony to foster eternal supportive ties between the two empires. He could not believe his eyes when he found the diamond concealed within the layers of the turban, and exclaimed, ‘Koh-i-Noor!’ (‘Mountain of Light!’). Since then, it has been known by that name.

After Nadir Shah was assassinated, the diamond fell into the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdali of Kabul. After Abdali, it was ceded by the Afghans to Sikh King Ranjit Singh of Punjab. On his death-bed in 1839, Ranjit Singh willed the Koh-i-Noor to the Jagannath Temple at Puri. The British East India Company acquired it from his son (Duleep Singh) in 1843.

It is said that the diamond was kept by John Lawrence, who had absent-mindedly put the box in his coat pocket. When Governor General Dalhousie asked for it to be sent from Lahore to Mumbai, Lawrence asked his servant to find it; while rummaging through his wardrobe, the servant replied, “there is nothing here, Sahib, but a bit of glass!”

The Koh-i-Noor was transported to England aboard HMS Madea, with Dalhousie carrying it personally. It was cut and put in a crown by the crown jewellers Garrard & Co.; Queen Mary wore this crown to the Delhi Coronation Durbar in 1911.

The Orloff

Prior to 1739, this unusual half-egg shaped diamond was known as the Great Mogul. After Nadir Shah’s murder, one of his soldiers sold it to an Armenian merchant, and it was acquired subsequently by the Russian nobleman Grigorievich Orlov. The nobleman presented it to his lover, the Grand Duchess Catherine, who mounted it in the Imperial Sceptre during her reign between 1762 and 1796.

Another version of the diamond’s history states that it was one of the eyes in a temple in South India, which was stolen by a French army deserter who had converted to Hinduism solely to gain access to the sanctum sanctorum of the temple to steal the diamond.

The Shah Diamond

This diamond remained in Iran for nearly a century until 1829, when the Russian diplomat and writer, Alexandr Griboyedov, was murdered in Tehran. Fearing a backlash from Russia, the grandson of Shah visited Moscow and presented the diamond as a gift to Russian Tsar Nicholas I.

The Great Table Diamond

Jean Baptiste Tavernier, a French traveller to India, mentioned a huge diamond of more than 400 carats that was set in the Peacock Throne, and called it the Diamanta Grande Table.

After Nadir Shah’s murder, the diamond was cut many times and distributed throughout the world. Researchers are still trying to locate all the pieces of this diamond, but only three have been confirmed to date—Darya-i-Noor (Sea of Light), Noor-ul-Amin (Light of the Eye), and Shah Jahan Table Cut.

The former two are among the Iranian Crown Jewels, as confirmed by a Canadian team from the Royal Ontario Museum that conducted a study on Iranian Crown Jewels in 1965.

The Darya-i-Noor is the most celebrated diamond among the Iranian Crown Jewels, and has a status similar to that of the Koh-i-Noor in the British Crown Jewels. The Shah Jahan Table Cut appeared mysteriously at a Christie’s auction in 1985, and was acquired by H.H.Sheikh Naseer Al-Sabah of Kuwait. It is assumed that it was not sold thereafter and remains in his family.

Timur Ruby

After Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali of Kabul acquired a huge ruby along with the Koh-i-noor diamond, and later the Afghans ceded it to the Sikh King Ranjit Singh.

The British later acquired this mammoth 361 carat ruby from Maharaja Duleep Singh of Punjab. The names and dates of its six original owners are inscribed on the stone, as follows—Timur, Akbar (1612), Jahangir (1628), Aurangzeb (1659), Farrukhsiyar (1713), and Ahmad Shah Durrani (1754).

The ruby may be the one that was mentioned in Jauhar-i-Samsam while describing its acquisition by Nadir Shah from Muhammad Shah as “his majesty bestowed on Nadir Shah, with his own munificent hand, as a parting present, the peacock throne, in which was set a ruby upwards of a girih (three fingers’ breadth) in width, and nearly two in length, which was commonly called khiraj-i-alam or the tribute of the world”.

Below is a list of those few translucent rocks that are sprinkled around the world, of whose heritage we know about, thanks to the researchers and historians.

Till date, these are the only jewels that could have been conclusively traced back to Nadir Shah’s sack of Delhi in 1739. An unknown vast majority of the precious stones that Nadir Shah took with him is simply untraceable and most are probably lost in the passage of time.

Few may be lying in private collections, and then also, it is doubtful if their historicity is known even to their owners.

In this context, it does not really matter in which museum, or which city of the world these are located and preserved.

The important thing is that they are well conserved by experts to be passed down to future generations to cherish and appreciate these priceless items.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/koh-i-noor-and-nadir-shahs-delhi-loot/as49934879.cms

---------------------------------

Afsharid Dynasty (Nader Shah)

Nader Shah or King Nader (1688-1747), the founder of Afsharid Dynasty, an enigmatic figure in Iranian history ruled from 1736 – 1747 A.D.

Nader Shah, or Nader Qoli Beg was born in Kobhan, Iran, on October 22, 1688, into one of the Turkish tribes loyal to the Safavid shahs of Iran. He was the son of a poor peasant, who lived in Khorasan and died while Nader was still a child. Nader and his mother were carried off as slaves by the Ozbegs, but after death of his mother in captivity Nader managed to escape and became a soldier. Soon he attracted the attention of a chieftain of the Afshar in whose service Nader rapidly advanced. Eventually, the ambitious Nader fell out of favour. He became a rebel and gathered a substantial army.

In 1719 the Afghans had invaded Persia. They deposed the reigning Shah of the Safavid dynasty in 1722. Their ruler, Mahmoud Ghilzai (±1699-1725), murdered a large number of Safavid Princes, hacking many of them to death by his own hand. After he had invited the leading citizens of Esfahan to a feast and massacred them there, his own supporters assassinated Mahmoud in 1725. His cousin, Ashraf (±1700-1730), took over and married a Safavid princess.

At first, Nader fought with the Afghans against the Ozbegs until they withheld him further payment. In 1727 Nader offered his services to Tamasp II (±1704-1740), heir to the Safavid dynasty. Nader started the reconquest of Persia and drove the Afghans out of Khorasan. The Afghans suffered heavy losses, but before they fled Ashraf massacred an additional 3000 citizens of Esfahan. Most of the fleeing Afghans were soon overtaken and killed by Nader’s men, while others died in the desert. Ashraf himself was hunted down and murdered.

By 1729 Nader had freed Persia from the Afghans. Tamasp II was crowned Shah, although he was little more than a figurehead. While Nader was putting down a revolt in Khorasan, Tamasp moved against the Turks, losing Georgia and Armenia. Enraged, Nader deposed Tamasp in 1732 and installed Tamasp’s infant son, Abbas III (1732-1740), on the throne, naming himself regent. Within two years Nader recaptured the lost territory and extended the Empire at the expense of the Turks and the Russians.

In 1736 Nader evidently felt that his own position had been established so firmly that he no longer needed to hide behind a nominal Safavid Shah and ascended the throne himself. In 1738 he invaded Kandahar, captured Kabul and marched on to India. He seized and sacked Delhi and, after some disturbances, he killed 30000 of its citizens.

He plundered the Indian treasures of the Moghal Emperors, taking with him the famous jewel-encrusted Peacock Throne and the Koh-i Noor diamond. In 1740 Nader had Tamasp II and his two infant sons put to death. Then he invaded Transoxania. He resumed war with Turkey in 1743. In addition, he built a navy and conquered Oman.

Gradually Nader’s greedy and intolerant nature became more pronounced. The financial burden of his standing armies was more than the Persians could bear and Nader imposed the death penalty on those who failed to pay his taxes. He stored most of his loot for his own use and showed little if any concern for the general welfare of the country. Nader concentrated all power in his own hands.

He was a brilliant soldier and the founder of the Persian navy, but he was entirely lacking any interest in art and literature. Once, when Nader was told that there was no war in paradise, he was reported to have asked: “How can there be any delights there?”.

He moved the capital to Mashhad in Khorasan, close to his favourite mountain fortress. He tried to reconcile Sunnism with Shi’itism, because he needed people of both faiths in his army, but the reconciliation failed.

In his later years, revolts began to break out against his oppressive rule. Nader became increasingly harsh and exhibited signs of mental derangement following an assassination attempt.

He suspected his own son, Reza Qoli Mirza (1719-1747), of plotting against him and had him blinded. Soon he started executing the nobles who had witnessed his son’s blinding.

Towards the end, even his own tribesmen felt that he was too dangerous a man to be near. In 1747 a group of Afshar and Qajar chiefs decided “to breakfast off him where he should sup off them”. His own commanders surprised him in his sleep, but Nader managed to kill two of them before the assassins finished him off.

Nader was Persia’s most gifted military genius and is known as “The Second Alexander” and “The Napoleon of Persia”.

Although he restored national independence and effectively protected Iran’s territorial integrity at a dark moment of the country’s history, his obsessive suspicions and jealousies plunged Iran into political turmoil.

Little is known about Nader’s personal life. His grandiosity, his insatiable desire for more conquests and his egocentric behaviour suggest a narcissistic personality disorder and in his last years he seems to have developed some paranoid tendencies.

Nader was married four times and had 5 sons and 15 grandsons.

Afsharid Kings:

Nader Shah 1737 – 1747

Ali Gholi 1747 – 1748

Ebrahim 1748 – 1749

Shahrokh 1748 – 1749

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/afsharids/afsharids.php

-------------------------------

Nader Shah in Iranian Historiography

Warlord or National Hero?

By Rudolph Matthee · Published 2018

Western—European and North American—historiography generally portrays the years between the death of Louis XIV in 1715 and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 as having given birth to the modern world—a republican world founded on rational discourse and popular sovereignty, an empirically grounded, industrializing world built on progress and productivity, an aggressive, market-driven world espousing expansion as agenda and organizing principle.

In the traditional interpretation of Islamic Middle Eastern history, the “eighteenth century” projects an entirely different image. Rather than evoking energy and innovation, it conjures up stasis, decline and defeat. It speaks of exhausted, mismanaged empires that either succumbed to regional competitors or proved too weak to resist the juggernaut of European imperialism. Examples abound.

The state that had ruled Iran since the early sixteenth century, the Safavids, in 1722 collapsed under the onslaught of Afghan insurgents from the tribal periphery. The Ottomans, having failed to take Vienna in 1683, subsequently retreated against the Austrians and the Russians in the Balkans and later lost Egypt, first to the French and then to the Albanian warlord, Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha. In the Indian Subcontinent, meanwhile, the once mighty Mughal Empire disintegrated and was brought into the British orbit.

Iran was doubly disadvantaged in this process of “regression.” The Ottomans suffered defeat and lost territory yet maintained military, diplomatic and commercial contact with the nations of Western Europe, the source of most of what was new at the time. The so-called Tulip Period of the early eighteenth-century reflects a fascination with things European among the ruling classes of Istanbul.

The Mughal state became tributary to the English East India Company and then was absorbed into the expanding British Empire. Yet that same process caused its elite gradually to become familiar with the ways and means of the new colonizers, creating models and generating ideas that helped the country keep in touch with developments in the wider world.

Iran, by contrast, in this period not just fell precipitously from stability to chaos, but in the process it became disconnected from the world in ways not experienced by the other “gunpowder empires.” Until the late seventeenth century the Safavids had been roughly on par with the Ottomans and the Mughals in their projection of wealth, power and cultural prestige.

Sophisticated Europeans knew Iran as the legendary land of the Sophy, a term personified by the most dynamic ruler of the dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I (r. 1587–1629). Shah ‘Abbas had connected his country to the world in unprecedented ways. After proclaiming Isfahan his capital and endowing it with a newly designed awe-inspiring center, he had turned this centrally located city into a nexus of trade links between Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and India—and a favored destination for European traders and travelers, who saw in it a latter-day reflection of the Persian Empire as they imagined it from reading Herodotus, Strabo, and Pliny.

All this energy and efflorescence had come crashing down with the fall of Isfahan in 1722. The Afghan tribesmen who brought down the Safavid state failed to build their own on its ruins and were soon swept aside. What followed was seventy-five years of chaos and anarchy during which the Iranian plateau became remote and forbidding territory, run by warlords and mostly shunned by Westerners.

As the world was radically reconfigured in this period, Iranians continued to live in a rather self-congratulatory, inward-looking mode, secure in the knowledge that their country was, if no longer the center of the world, a place of consequence. In reality, Iran in this period rapidly “retreated” from the global scene as its ties with the outside world diminished in frequency and intensity. Iran’s short “eighteenth century,” the roughly seventy-five years that separate the fall of the Safavids from the rise of the Qajars, thus runs contrary to the perceived “global eighteenth century” and its presumed new level of (elite) connectivity.

This relative insularity was shattered in the early nineteenth century as the newly acceded Qajar regime (r. 1796–1925) with its largely tribally organized and poorly disciplined army suffered several terrible defeats against the well-equipped Russians, people the Iranians had always thought of and dismissed as bibulous, thick-skulled barbarians. As the Russians occupied large swaths of Iranian territory in the north—much of the southern Caucasus, comprising the modern countries of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan—the British intruded from the other side, the Persian Gulf.

Historians of late have turned away from this type of narrative with its focus on a golden age followed by decline and on great rulers and their deeds as organizing principles, to call for contingency, indeterminacy and attention to the common man. Yet, modern nationalism demands linearity and purposefulness, and shows little patience for revisionist complication.

Faced with the flux and reflux of history, nationalism likes to tell a story of loss and regeneration through resilience, of foreign-inflicted defeat followed by phoenix-like resurgence. It is therefore hardly surprising that modern Iranian historiography—and certainly the Iranian popular imagination—tends to portray the Safavids and the Qajars in starkly contrasting terms—the first symbolizing pride and glory, the second representing fecklessness and submissiveness.

Iranians have come to look back at the Safavid period nostalgically, as the last time their country was proud, independent, and the envy of the world. The Qajars, by contrast, the dynasty that would bring the country to the threshold of the modern age, count as spineless, corrupt rulers who blithely led the country into defeat and humiliation at the hand of foreigners, and who facilitated the country’s creeping incorporation into a Western-dominated imperialist network, preventing it from regaining its “natural” greatness.

The period in between is not so easily classified, for it seems neither a glorious moment in national history nor a century of potential splendor snatched away by foreign powers. Dark, seemingly directionless, and relatively short on written sources, the eighteenth century in Iranian history remains an awkward interlude.

Modern Iranian historians have nevertheless sought to weave this period into a continuous national narrative by adopting a Carlylean “great man” view of history, highlighting the stature of the two rulers who created identifiable albeit short-lived states and thus present a semblance of coherence and direction to Iranian history in an otherwise tumultuous period: Nader Shah (r. 1736–47) and Karim Khan Zand (r. 1763–69).

Both stand out, not just as the only two rulers who defied the period’s centrifugal forces, but as national heroes who revived Iran’s genius. The first, a brilliant warrior, redeemed the nation by restoring the honor it had lost with the fall of Isfahan to foreign tribesmen. The second represents the quintessentially Iranian search for justice.

The first also stirred the Western imagination in ways the second never did—especially after he marched into India in 1739, ransacked Delhi and returned home with fabulous treasures. Indeed, the reception of Nader Shah in eighteenth-century Europe was as swift and dramatic as it was complex. The image it created, half brutal warlord, half national liberator, would significantly contribute to the image modern Iranians would construct of him.

Nader Shah: Scourge of God or National Hero?

The portrayal of Nader in the eighteenth-century West was the combined outcome of eyewitness accounts, Persian-language sources, and Enlightenment anxieties. Europeans, still puzzled by the sudden fall of the Safavids, learned of him even before he took power in 1736 as the warrior who reconquered Isfahan from the Afghans in 1729.

The Mercure de France of November 1731 contained an “eyewitness report” that portrayed Tahmasp Quli Khan, as Nader Shah was still called at the time, as a savior, a man of valor and fidelity, brave and full of esprit. His stature as the dynamic warlord who might rescue his nation by liberating it from the barbarians who had invaded this old, sophisticated land—the Afghans, the Ottomans, and the Russians—only grew with time.

In 1738 a huge tome appeared in Germany depicting Nader as the divinely inspired savior of a collapsed nation. The notion of Nader the savior resonated with the political philosophy of the Enlightenment as articulated by Montesquieu, Diderot and Holbach, who distinguished between the legitimate right to defend and recover one’s home country, and illegitimate wars of conquest.

A rather different Nader burst onto the European scene soon thereafter, with his defeat of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah at Karnal in 1739 and his subsequent sack of Delhi. News of these exploits spread quickly, carried by missionaries and agents of the European maritime companies, and soon gave rise to numerous pamphlets and books.

The earliest narrative about Nader’s Indian exploits seems to have been a report written in 1739 by Dutch East India Company agents in Bengal. Published in Holland in 1740, this report may have been the source of the anonymous two-volume work that came out in Amsterdam a year later as Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan Sophi de Perse, a text that subsequently was translated into English, Italian, and Spanish.

In the next few years the Asian warlord was the subject of a number of articles in the British press, some of which have plausibly been attributed to Samuel Johnson. Two years later the Anglo-Saxon world became thoroughly acquainted with Nader through James Fraser’s History of Nader Shah, which was mostly based on reports by William Cockell, an agent of the English India Company who had served in Iran while Nader was in power.

In the same year, 1742, James Spilman, a Russia Company merchant, published an account of a journey he had undertaken to Iran in 1739 and to which was appended a brief account of the rise of Nader Shah. In 1743 André de Claustre published Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, roi de Perse. A generation later the French reading public was reminded of Nader through the translation the famous Orientalist William Jones made of a Persian chronicle written in Nader Shah’s orbit, Mirza Mohammad Mahdi Astarabadi’s Tarikh-e Naderi.

A fictionalized Nader quickly followed. The first novel—in which a young Swiss man sets out on an Asian adventure that includes his participation in Nader’s Indian campaign—appeared in 1754. A second, presented as the memoirs of Shah Tahmasp II, Nader’s protégé until he deposed him, followed in 1758.

Both reflect the spirit of a relatively pacific European age in search of a heroic cause in their portrayal of young, poor, and intelligent men who in Europe find no outlet for their martial inclinations. They also reflect the prevailing notion that the East, unfettered by feudal stratification, was open to talent. The same theme appears in the contemporaneous theatrical representation of Nader Shah in Holland, France, and Italy.

The way Nader was in Europe represented varied by context. In the Dutch setting, he became an emblem of republicanism, a “protagonist of lowly origins whose right to the throne sprang from his desire to serve his subjects.” Yet a more common theme in the earliest European references to him was the image of the disciplined warrior, the type Europe lacked until the appearance of Frederick the Great on the European scene in 1740.

As in the case of Alexander the Great, to whom he was sometimes likened, the more negative aspects of Nader’s career over time received ample attention as well. Several authors highlighted his rapaciousness and linked the vast treasure he bought back from India to the typical Oriental despot who plunders and hoards rather than builds.

Nader’s cruelty and growing madness, as the ultimate symbol of the descent into violence and cruelty of a land previously known for its humanism, tolerance and sophistication, did not go unnoticed either; the English merchant-traveler Jonas Hanway, for instance, who in 1743 had visited Nader’s army camp, at once presented the ruler’s appearance as punishment for Iranian sloth and dissolution and painted a lurid portrait of a usurper driven by greed and brutality.

Contemporary Iranian sources evince a similar ambivalence. The chroniclers writing in Nader Shah’s immediate orbit naturally hedge their bets and defuse the ruler’s obvious ruthlessness and gathering madness by turning a blind eye to these uncomfortable facts or by blaming the victims. They generally portray Nader as a ruler of military virtue and sound lineage, hail him as a strongman who had restored order, and defend him against the indictment of having usurped power. The afore-mentioned Astarabadi set the tone for an enduring narrative by lauding Nader for expelling all foreign occupiers from Iranian soil. At pains to rationalize the ruler’s growing craziness and cruelty, he claimed that Nader changed only after his expedition to the Caucasus, eventually bringing ruin to his country.

As a new dynasty of questionable roots and legitimacy, the Qajars had to expunge the legacy of those who came before them—other than the Safavids, to whom they paid allegiance on account of the Shi‘i credentials they themselves so sorely lacked. Nader Shah was one of those.

Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of the Qajar dynasty and a ruthless warlord himself, chose to distance himself from Nader for having deviated from the Shi‘i foundations laid by the Safavids and invoked by Agha Mohammad Shah to buttress his own legitimacy.

Yet the first Qajar ruler must have been impressed by his forebear as well, for he had two figures added to the two huge battle scenes adorning the walls of the Chehel Sotun palace in Isfahan, one of which represents Nader’s defeat of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Khan at Karnal in 1739. Nader also figured in the one of the main halls of the Golestan palace that was built in the newly chosen capital Tehran and renovated in 1806—in a pose of returning the crown of India to the Mughal king.

A More Complex Nader Shah

The early nineteenth century saw two developments that helped shape a new or at least a more complex image of Nader Shah. The first was the string of humiliating military defeats the Qajars suffered against their most formidable enemies, the Russians. The second was the meteoric rise of Napoleon followed by a career that affected the world from the East Coast of the United States to the shores of the Indian Ocean.

The military weakness of the Qajars against the Russians and the tremendous loss of land their defeats entailed quickly detracted from the new dynasty’s aura and made the Iranian public long for a success story. A direct relationship can be discerned between these defeats and the continuing, indeed growing popularity of Nader Shah among Iranians, as exemplified in the more than fourteen editions that appeared of Astarabadi’s popular account of Nader’s life and exploits, the Jahan-gosha-ye Naderi.

The relationship between the reputation of Napoleon and that of Nader Shah in Iran—and Europe—seems something like a dialogic engagement: Napoleon saw himself as a latter-day Nader. Iranians, in turn, came to admire Napoleon as the strongman they themselves so sorely missed in the nineteenth century. Nader in due time and in good Orientalist fashion became known, first in Europe, then in Iran, as the Asian or Persian Napoleon; and, completing the cycle in an anti-Orientalist manner, Napoleon is now often called the European Nader Shah.

All indications are that Napoleon was greatly impressed with Nader Shah. It is almost certain that, as a young man, Napoleon read about Nader’s exploits, and it is likely that he identified with the story of a lad of humble origins who had risen to great heights through sheer will power and energy.

His Asian dreams—his own search for a heroic cause—are neatly summed up in his famous exclamation before a group of bickering German princes in 1804 to the effect that Europe had no longer anything to offer ambitious men, that only in the Orient great prestige and wealth could be acquired.

That Napoleon greatly admired Nader emerges from the record of Amédée Jaubert, the French Orientalist who in 1807 visited Iran to conclude a Franco-Iranian alliance. Jaubert carried a letter from Napoleon with him in which the French emperor, somewhat injudiciously in front of the rather sedentary Fath ‘Ali Shah, praised Nader Shah as a “great warrior, who was “able to conquer a great power,” who “struck the insurgents with terror and was fearsome to his neighbors, while he “triumphed over his enemies and reigned gloriously.”

It is also surely no coincidence that ‘Askar Khan Afshar, Fath ‘Ali Shah’s envoy to Paris in 1808, presented a copy of the Jahangosha-ye Naderi to the Imperial Library in Paris when he came to Paris the following year. L’Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, finally, was one of the books available to Napoleon during in years in exile on Saint Helena between 1815 and 1821.

Napoleon, in turn, made quite an impression in Iran—and a lasting one at that. He became and long remained a familiar figure in part because the country was part of his strategic vision, making him deal directly with its rulers by way of diplomacy. But the main reason for his enduring fame and popularity may have been the same as what made eighteenth-century Europeans look up to Nader Shah—because his strong character spoke to the imagination of the Iranians and projected something that they found missing in their own rulers. Mir ‘Abd al-Latif Khan Shushtari, an Iranian who seems to have imbibed some anti-French sentiments during his long stay in British India, nevertheless called Napoleon a leader who stood out for his organizational skills, his wisdom and his sophistication.

In Iran, meanwhile, the admiration for the French strongman was no less strong. John Malcolm, Britain’s first ambassador to Iran and the author of the first modern history of the country, relates how in 1810, Napoleon’s “name was familiar to numbers in Persia, and some few understood the character of his power.” An “old friend” of his, a poet and a philosopher, told Malcolm that, in his opinion, “this Buonaparte…is a wonderful man; he wields empires as if they were clubs.” Speculating that, after coming to terms with the Ottomans, this Western Chengiz Khan might take on Iran and Russia and then, “make use of both to overthrow your [British] power in India.”

Other Iranian officials were great admirers of Napoleon as well. ‘Abbas Mirza (1789–1833), crown prince, governor of Azerbaijan and Iran’s first modern reformer, was one. His newly constructed royal summer palace at Ujan near Soltaniya was decorated with four paintings, two of which represented the Russian Tsar, Alexander I, and Napoleon respectively.

Another one was Hajji Baba, a “prince” in Hamadan who, when Robert Cotton Money met him in 1824, “asked all about Napoleon,” and collected “all the anecdotes he could of him” because he seemed to adore his character. The third Qajar shah, Mohammad Shah (r. 1834-48) had his palace in Tehran “hung round with various prints of Napoleon, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria.”

Mohammad Shah is said to have been interested in acquiring a copy of the Life of Napoleon, with engravings of the emperor’s battles, and he ordered Mirza Reza Mohandes, who earlier had translated biographies of Peter I, Alexander the Great, and Charles XII into Persian, to produce a translation of a history of the French general, from an English rendering of an originally French work. Richard Khan, too, in 1869 translated A Brief History of Napoleon into Persian.

In the early twentieth century ‘Abbas Mirza Salar Lashkar, a.k.a. Nayeb al-Saltana, picked up a book titled Napoleon Ier et la Perse and decided to translate it into Persian.

As noted, the revised image of Nader, from usurper and brutal tyrant to savior of the nation, was greatly facilitated by widespread Iranian disappointment with the feeble Qajars, and further built, in a dialectical way, on the analogy with Napoleon. James Morier, British envoy and the author of the picaresque novel, Hajji Baba of Isfahan, in 1808 said about the Iranians that, “of Bonaparte, from the likeness of that of their own Nadir Shah, they have a very high idea.”

But the way in which the warlord was fashioned in the twentieth century was in some way a calque on the way Western authors and especially John Malcolm portrayed him. To Malcolm, Nader Shah was a force of nature, a brute who acted to purify the overripe, decadent civilization from which he himself sprang.

Where the Polish Jesuit Thadeusz Krusinski, an eyewitness to the fall of Isfahan in 1722, had seen the Afghans as barbarians who might be civilized by becoming acquainted with Persia’s superior culture, Malcolm saw in Nader Shah a volcanic force that had rejuvenated that same culture precisely by ridding it of Afghan primitivism. Malcolm saw Nader the way Edward Gibbon had seen Attila the Hun: as a great warrior and disciplinarian who had cleansed the land by liberating his people from the yoke of barbarians.

Full of admiration for Nader’s military prowess, Malcolm in a rather self-serving manner painted a redeeming portrait of the eighteenth-century empire builder, based on his anticipation of the unfolding of his own empire, that of the British. It is telling in this context that Malcolm did not dwell on the savagery that accompanied Nader’s subjugation of northern India and his sack of Delhi, thinking it greatly exaggerated. The bloodletting of the last few years of the warrior’s life he ascribed to creeping insanity.

Malcolm’s assessment would essentially offer the template for the later nationalist Iranian portrayal of Nader Shah. Of course, for this to have an impact on Iranian image making, Malcolm’s landmark book, A History of Persia (1815) first had to be translated into Persian.

This might have happened as early as the 1840s were it not for Naser al-Din Shah’s grand vizier and chief counselor Mirza Taqi Khan, better known as Amir Kabir who, wary of Malcolm’s less than flattering verdict on the Qajar dynasty, is said to have cautioned his master that “for Persians reading such a book is fatally poisonous.”

That does not seem to have deterred the monarch himself, for the shah apparently had A History of Persia read to him before going to sleep. At any rate, the acquaintance among the wider Iranian public with Malcolm’s take on Nader and Iranian history at large would have to wait until the 1870s, when a Persian translation of his book was undertaken.

Yet the work that resulted did not come out in Iran but in British-controlled Bombay and in the context of the new type of print culture that had developed in India under British auspices. Over time, this translation would become exceedingly popular.

Nader Shah in Modern Iranian Historiography

The fall of the Qajars in the 1920s and the rise of Reza Khan, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, inaugurated a new phase in the dialectical process of historiography with regard to Nader Shah. British foreign secretary Victor Mallet in 1925 insisted that Nader Shah was Reza Khan’s “great hero,” adding that he would not be surprised if the new ruler would model his career on that of Nader. The Iranian press at the time depicted the new ruler accordingly, as a national savior ready to rebuild the country and drive out the foreign intruders.

Just as the early Qajar historians had exorcised the previous regimes, including that of Nader, so the historians who came of age in the 1920s and 1930s followed the line of the new regime by decrying the stagnation and especially the loss of land their country had suffered because of the military weakness of the Qajars, which inevitably entailed a reevaluation of the last ruler who had stood for a strong and independent Iran—Nader Shah.

In the 1930s, as Reza Shah consolidated his power, military history and the single strong leader came to the fore to help create a usable past for a state increasingly built on authoritarian foundations. For historians writing in the reign of Reza Shah and his centralizing tendencies, Nader’s military career acquired a heightened significance for having reunified the nation—just like Iran’s current ruler.

In modern times, Nader has remained controversial in Iran. To some, he was just an uncultured tribal chieftain who delivered the coup de grace to the magnificent Safavid state. In modern Iran, where the great man, the one who keeps order and who can bring salvation by effecting the kind of change that no one else is willing to take responsibility for, continues to loom large, Nader Shah remains a hero.

“For many Iranians today, Nader’s military successes are justification in themselves and more than outweigh any brutalities that accompanied him.” Yet Nader remains an awkward fit for those who adhere to the dominant paradigm in modern Iranian history writing with its tendency to espouse a primordial nationalism that preaches an unbroken civilizational link between the Achaemenids and the Islamic Republic.

For some he remains the warrior who restored Iran’s pride by driving out the foreigners who had occupied the country, the Afghans, the Ottomans, and the Russians. Yet the deeply ingrained notion that Iranian civilization is one of “givers” is hard to reconcile with the sheer brutality and the outright imperialism culminating in Nader’s Indian campaign, which consequently, à la Malcolm, has to be presented as an aberration in an otherwise brilliant career.

Nader thus becomes the figure whose genius could have halted and even reversed the decline that had set in with the Afghan onslaught and the fall of the Safavids. In this scenario, after uniting Iran Nader could have done a lot to rebuild a great nation if he only he had cared about the welfare of the Iranian people. Instead, he lost his mind when he decided to invade India, and even the dividend of that campaign, a huge amount of treasure, was wasted.

A related yet slightly different interpretation connects Nader to the feeble awareness eighteenth-century Iranians evinced about the global changes and the sinister designs of foreigners on their country at the time. Nader, in this scenario, was too busy making war and thus did not take advantage of Western scientific and technological achievements and skills other than to seek European assistance in building a Persian-Gulf fleet—something the Safavids had never done.

For all his military brilliance, he also had no eye for the imperialist schemes of the Europeans. Indeed, to some, he even facilitated their imperialist project by offering the English East India Company reduced customs rates and seeking their assistance in building naval capacity. Even his Indian expedition benefited the British. By bringing home fabulous wealth from his Delhi campaign he acted as Trojan horse, increasing their business opportunities, and by opening up and weakening India he enabled the English to expand their long-term influence and domination in the subcontinent.

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2018/matthee-nader-shah

----------------------------------

Further reading:

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_the_Mughal_Empire

-------------------------------------------------

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/20-1739

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/nader_shah_of_iran_invades_delhi.docx

https://vk.com/doc429864789_621397394

https://www.docdroid.net/p9hXcQI/o-toyrkmenos-nanter-sakhis-toy-iran-katalamvanei-to-delkhi-docx

Drawing of Sasanian rock relief: Ardashir I (r. A.D. 224-241) and the Zoroastrian divinity Ohrmazd [Ahura Mazda] at Naqsh-i Rustam, southern Iran, Lutf-'Ali Shirazi Iranian, 1812. MET (ID: 1998.6.3). This drawing of a Sasanian rock relief at Naqsh-i Rustam, Iran, depicts the investiture of Ardashir I (r. 224-241), who receives the ring of office from the supreme Zoroastrian god Ohrmazd, also known as Ahura Mazda. Both king and god are on horseback; the king wears a caftan, the prestigious riding costume of the Sasanian period, and his fan-bearer stands behind him. The horses trample the bodies of the last Parthian king, Ardavan, and the Zoroastrian evil spirit Ahriman. The drawing is one of several in the Metropolitan’s collection made by an Iranian artist Lutf-'Ali Shirazi (1998.6.1; 1998.6.2; 1998.6.4): they are comparable to renderings of Sasanian carved and rock monuments produced by early European travelers to Iran. (MET)

Οι Καλάς, οι Νεοέλληνες κι οι Ισλαμιστές

The Kalash, the Modern Greeks, and the Islamists

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 24η Απριλίου 2019.

Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αναφέρεται σε συζητήσεις του μαζί μου αναφορικά με τους Καλάς, την θρησκεία, και την καταγωγή τους.

-----------------------

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/οι-καλάς-οι-νεοέλληνες-κι-οι-ισλαμιστέ/ ========================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Οι Καλάς, οι Νεοέλληνες κι οι Ισλαμιστές

Μ’ αρέσουν τα βουνά, αλλά οι ποικιλίες τους είναι πολλές κι οι δικές μου προτιμήσεις είναι και λίγο περίεργες. Ίσως επειδή πευκόφυτες πλαγιές ήταν κάτι το συνηθισμένο σαν εικόνα τοπίων όπου ταξίδεψα στα παιδικά μου χρόνια, μ’ αρέσουν τα κατάξερα βουνά. Μ’ αρέσουν τα γήινα κι όχι βραχώδη όρη, με όχι πολύ απότομες πλαγιές και με χέρσα γη στις κοιλάδες ανάμεσά τους. Δεν μ’ αρέσουν τα βουνά στο κρύο κλίμα και στο χιόνι και προτιμώ τα βουνά με υγρό και ζεστό κλίμα, με ομίχλη παρά σύννεφα, και με κοντινή θάλασσα.

Αν μεταφέρω τις προτιμήσεις αυτές στην επικράτεια του Πακιστάν που είναι τόσο μεγάλο όσο η Τουρκία, τότε εννοώ το Μπαλουτσιστάν (: Βελουχιστάν) που δεν είναι άλλο από την αρχαία Γεδρωσία. Αυτή εκτείνεται από τις εκβολές του Ινδού μέχρι τα Στενά του Ορμούζ.

Εκεί έχασε ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος πολλές χιλιάδες στρατιωτών του όχι σε μάχες αλλά από τις κακουχίες και την εξάντληση που οφείλονταν στο κλίμα, στο δύσβατο χέρσο έδαφος με βάλτους, και στην έλλειψη βλάστησης. Όσο δεινοπάθησαν οι στρατιώτες του αυτοκράτορα στην γη της Γεδρωσίας, τόσο δύσκολα έπλευσαν στα παράλιά της οι ναύτες του.

Το σύγχρονο Μπαλουτσιστάν είναι τριχοτομημένο ανάμεσα στο Πακιστάν, το Ιράν και το Αφγανιστάν που κατέχει ένα μικρό βόρειο τμήμα της πατρίδας των Μπαλούτς (Βελούχων).

Και στα νότια παράλιά του, οι Κινέζοι στήνουν στο Γκουαντάρ του Πακιστάν, ένα από τα μεγαλύτερα λιμάνια στον κόσμο από όπου το κινεζικό εμπόριο θα πλέει προς την Αφρική, την Μέση Ανατολή, και την Ευρώπη, αφού θα έχει φθάσει εκεί οδικώς από τις νέες οδικές διασυνδέσεις που περιλαμβάνονται στα μεγαλεπήβολα σχέδια του Νέου Δρόμου του Μεταξιού.

Σχετικά:

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

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

Δυτικά της αρχαίας Γεδρωσίας είναι η Καρμανία (σήμερα Κερμάν) που είναι κεντρική ιρανική σατραπεία.

Ανατολικά της Γεδρωσίας είναι η Ινδία των αρχαίων Ελλήνων που ήταν μια μικρή περιοχή σε σχέση με την σύγχρονη ομώνυμη χώρα.

Βόρεια από την Γεδρωσία υπάρχει μια σειρά περιοχών – χωρών που ήταν ανατολικές ιρανικές σατραπείες και που ονομάσθηκαν από τους αρχαίους Έλληνες με μικρές παραφθορές των ιρανικών ονομάτων τους: η Παρικανία ήταν μια μικρή περιοχή βόρεια της Γεδρωσίας.

Πιο βόρεια ήταν η Δραγγιανή που αντιστοιχεί στην έκταση ανάμεσα στο Ζαχεντάν του Ιράν, το Καντάχαρ του Αφγανιστάν, και την Κέττα, πρωτεύουσα του πακιστανικού Μπαλουτσιστάν.

Στα βορειοανατολικά της Δραγγιανής βρισκόταν η Αραχωσία, δηλαδή οι εκτάσεις του Αφγανιστάν ανατολικά της γραμμής που ενώνει το Καντάχαρ με την Καμπούλ και του Πακιστάν από την Κέττα μέχρι το Πεσαβάρ βόρεια κι ως τον Ινδό ποταμό στα ανατολικά.

Βόρεια από τα δυτικά άκρα της Δραγγιανής ήταν η Αριανή, δηλαδή το κεντρικό Αφγανιστάν και η Χεράτ, κι ακόμη πιο βόρεια βρισκόταν η Βακτριανή. Τα Βάκτρα ήταν πολύ κοντά στα σημερινά σύνορα μεταξύ Αφγανιστάν και Ουζμπεκιστάν.

Στα ανατολικά της Αραχωσίας και στα νοτιοανατολικά της Βακτριανής ήταν η Γανδαρίτις (Γκαντάρα) που σήμερα στο Πακιστάν αντιστοιχεί στην έκταση ανάμεσα στο Πεσαβάρ και τα Τακσάσιλα (Τάξιλα).

Ανατολικά της Βακτριανής και βόρεια της Γανδαρίτιδος ήταν οι Παροπαμισάδες, δηλαδή ορεινός όγκος του Χιντουκούς (Ινδοκαυκάσου).

Αυτός είναι ο ορεινός όγκος όπου ανάμεσα σε διάφορους άλλους λαούς ζουν σήμερα οι Καλάς – κοντά στην πόλη Τσιτράλ που βρίσκεται δίπλα στα αφγανικά σύνορα.

Σχετικά:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Επειδή λοιπόν προτίμησα να περιηγηθώ στο Μπαλουτσιστάν, δεν είχα τον χρόνο να δω τους Καλάς από κοντά.

Πολλά χρόνια αργότερα, συζήτησα γι’ αυτούς με τον Έλληνα ανατολιστή καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτη, ο οποίος είχε την ευκαιρία και να περιηγηθεί στο Μπαλουτσιστάν πολύ περισσότερο από όσο εγώ και τους Καλάς να γνωρίσει από κοντά.

Έτσι, μου εξήγησε ότι η θρησκεία των Καλάς είναι στην ουσία ένας ανατολικός μιθραϊσμός κι ότι όλων των τριγύρω εθνών, μουσουλμανικών ή μη, οι παραδόσεις είναι γεμάτες από στοιχεία ενός πολύ πρώιμου, ανατολικού μιθραϊσμού.

Η βαρειά σκιά του μιθραϊσμού που, αντίθετα από τον ζωροαστρισμό, ήταν μια θρησκεία έντονα πολυθεϊστικών κι ειδωλολατρικών χαρακτηριστικών, φτάνει μέχρι και το υποθετικά μονοθεϊστικό Ισλάμ!

Η πιο συνήθης λέξη που όλοι οι μουσουλμάνοι από τα πρώιμα χρόνια χρησιμοποιούν για έννοιες, όπως ‘γιορτή’, ‘επέτειος’ ή ‘φεστιβάλ’ είναι ‘Μεχραγκάν’, αλλά αυτό είναι μια αρχαία περσική λέξη που σημαίνει αποκλειστικά ‘εορτή του Μίθρα’ (στα περσικά το όνομα του θεού αυτού είναι Μεχρ ή Μιτρά).

Ακούγεται παράξενο να χρησιμοποιείται σε μια θρησκεία ένα θεοφορικό όνομα μιας άλλης θρησκείας, ιδιαίτερα μάλιστα στην περίπτωση εορταστικών επετείων, αλλά αυτό σημαίνει ότι πολύ συχνά οι πιστοί μιας θρησκείας δεν έχουν ιδέα για τις διεργασίες από τις οποίες η θρησκεία τους πέρασε έως ότου συσταθεί ως σύστημα δοξασιών.

Εξάλλου, το θέμα των απογόνων των στρατιωτών του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου (από τους οποίους οι Καλάς λένε όντως ότι κατάγονται) είναι πολύ πιο περίπλοκο από όσο αρχικά φαίνεται.

Σε πολλά σημεία της Ασίας, ιδιαίτερα της Κεντρικής Ασίας, καταγράφονται πληθυσμοί διαφορετικών εθνών που τονίζουν ότι κατά τις παραδόσεις τους έλκουν τον μίτο της καταγωγής τους από τους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου.

Τέτοιες αναφορές είναι δύσκολο είτε να γίνουν αποδεκτές, είτε να απορριφθούν, κι ο λόγος είναι ότι στις ισλαμικές παραδόσεις ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος μυθολογήθηκε εκτεταμένα και σε πλαίσια ανάλογα με εκείνα τα οποία αναφέρθηκαν πρώτα στην Αλεξάνδρου Διήγηση του ανώνυμου συγγραφέα που λαθεμένα ταυτίστηκε με τον Καλλισθένη από αντιγραφείς χειρογράφων.

Η εσχατολογική – μεσσιανική διάσταση πολλών αναφορών των ισλαμικών επών απηχεί θρύλους ικανούς να εξηγήσουν ό,τι η αρχαιοελληνική ιστοριογραφία δεν μπορεί.

Και αυτό μπορεί να αποτελεί την απώτατη καταγωγή των πεποιθήσεων διαφόρων εθνών ή και πληθυσμών σχετικά με την καταγωγή τους από τους στρατιώτες του Μακεδόνα βασιλιά.

Το όλο θέμα δεν με είχε ιδιαίτερα απασχολήσει τα τελευταία χρόνια, αν και μου ήταν γνωστή η τρομερή και συνεχής πίεση που υφίστανται επί τουλάχιστον τρεις δεκαετίες οι Καλάς από την διάδοση του ισλαμικού εξτρεμισμού, του πολιτικού ισλάμ, του ουαχαμπισμού, και της ισλαμικής τρομοκρατίας στο Αφγανιστάν, στο Πακιστάν, και σε πολλά άλλα σημεία και χώρες του κόσμου.

Πρόσφατα όμως ένας εξαιρετικός φίλος από την Κοζάνη μου έγραψε σχετικά δίνοντας όμως στο όλο θέμα μια τελείως άλλη διάσταση. Να ένα μικρό απόσπασμα:

“Βλέποντας σε ντοκιμαντέρ τις συνθήκες διαβίωσής τους, σκεφτόμουν ότι υπάρχουν ακόμη επίγειοι κρυφοί παράδεισοι πάνω στο πλανήτη που βρίσκονται μακριά από τη σατανική επιρροή της τεχνολογίας και της πληροφορίας“.

Και να ένα μικρό τμήμα της απάντησής μου:

“Έχεις απολύτως δίκιο. Ό,τι και να είναι, όποιων απογόνων και να είναι, οι Καλάς είναι ελεύθεροι άνθρωποι. Και μαζί τους όλοι όσοι σε Ασία, Αφρική και Λατινική Αμερική ζουν έτσι. Πόσο απέχουν αυτοί από τον Ιησού, τον Μωάμεθ, τον Ηλία, τον Ιωνά, τον Μωϋσή ή τον Νώε; Τίποτα! Σχεδόν καθόλου! Γι’ αυτό και τους θαυμάζω και τους θεωρώ ανώτερούς μου. Υπάρχουν αρκετοί στην Αφρική έτσι. Από τους Ορόμο της Αβησσυνίας και της Κένυας μέχρι τους Μπέτζα του Σουδάν“.

Στην ανταπάντησή του ο οξυδερκής αυτός φίλος σημείωσε ανάμεσα σε άλλα και τα εξής – με τα οποία όχι μόνο συμφωνώ απόλυτα αλλά και χαίρομαι να βλέπω υγιώς σκεπτόμενους νέους ανθρώπους στην σημερινή Ελλάδα της πτώσης:

“Όσον αφορά στο ζήτημα με τους Καλάς, έβλεπα στα ντοκιμαντέρ ανθρώπους που πήγαιναν εκεί, έβρισκαν τους εν λόγω ανθρώπους να ζουν με κάθε αξιοπρέπεια και άνεση που προσφέρει ένα φυσικό περιβάλλον και να επιστρέφουν εδώ στην Ελλάδα και να λένε ότι εκεί πέρα ”χρειάζονται φάρμακα, τρόφιμα, ενέσεις” και ξέρω ‘γω τι άλλο.

Οι Καλάς ζούνε χωρίς ηλεκτρικό ρεύμα, χωρίς περιττή σπατάλη νερού και με αυτονομία και αυτάρκεια στα βασικά είδη και οι νεοέλληνες πήγαιναν εκεί για να τους κάνουν σα τα μούτρα τους! Να αρχίσουνε να τρώνε σουβλάκια και κατεψυγμένα και οι Καλάς!!

Μόλις είδα τα σχετικά με το τρόπο διαβίωσής τους, σκέφτηκα πως η ιερότητα του τρόπου ζωής τους ίσως και να είναι ανώτερη και από την ιερότητα του τρόπου ζωής στο Αγιο Ορος (καθώς στο Αγιο Ορος καταδέχονται κάποιες από τις μοντέρνες ανέσεις).

Επίσης, οι Καλάς έρχονται από μεγαλύτερο βάθος αρχαιότητας από ότι οι μοναχοί, νομίζω. Οι νεοέλληνες θα έπρεπε να οδεύουν σα προσκυνητές στο δρόμο των Καλάς και όχι σα πεφωτισμένοι που πηγαίνουν σε αγρίους!

Οι νεοέλληνες πηγαίνουν εκεί και ενσυναισθάνονται μοναχά τις δικές τους ανάγκες, σκέφτονται σουβλάκια και νομίζουν ότι σκέφτονται και οι άλλοι σουβλάκια, ενώ οι άλλοι δε ξέρουν καν τι είναι αυτό. Δεν καταλαβαίνουν ότι οι άλλοι δεν θέλουν τίποτα από αυτούς.

Δεν ξέρουν οι Καλάς, γιατί δεν γνώρισαν τον όφι του δυτικού κήπου της Εδέμ που ρουφά το αίμα των ανθρώπων και το μετατρέπει σε ”φάρμακα, τρόφιμα κι ενέσεις”.”.

Στο θέμα θα επανέλθω σύντομα επειδή αφορά την επιβίωση της Ρωμιοσύνης. Αυτή δεν μπορεί παρά να συμβεί έξω από τον τάφο του λεκανοπεδίου.

Γενικώτερα, σε όλο τον κόσμο, οι σύγχρονες μεγαλουπόλεις επινοήθηκαν ως τέλεια εργαλεία διανοητικής εξουδετέρωσης του ανθρώπου και ως παγίδες μαζικής εξόντωσης.

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Калаш: Нация под угрозой существования в исламистском Пакистане

https://ok.ru/video/1347430779501

Kalash: a Nation under Existential Threat in Islamist Pakistan

https://vk.com/video434648441_456240134

Καλάς: ένα Αρχαίο Έθνος που αντιμετωπίζει Υπαρξιακό Κίνδυνο στο Πακιστάν

Περισσότερα:

Еще в 1980-х годах некоторые греки «открыли» Калаш в Северном Пакистане, и они совершили много поездок по региону. Не имея никакого опыта в истории Центральной Азии и Индии, не изучая язык калаша и не имея понятия о религии калаша, эти греки «пришли к выводу», что калаши были греками.

Они намеревались превратить эту первоначальную нацию в несчастную, западную, потребительскую псевдонацию, подобную современной Греции. Калаш не нуждался в этом и не беспокоился о болезни греческого национализма.

Но когда США и Великобритания изобрели и пропагандировали исламский экстремизм и терроризм, нация калаш почувствовала давление со стороны пакистанских исламистов, которые хотят обратить калаш в ислам. Но затем греческие националисты оставили Калаш и не стали защищать свое дело во всем мире.

Теперь в Грецию постепенно вторгаются пакистанцы, афганцы и другие исламистские террористы (замаскированные под иммигрантов). Вскоре современным грекам придется столкнуться с более серьезными проблемами, чем калаш.

——————————————-

Back in the 1980s, some Greeks ‘discovered’ the Kalash in Northern Pakistan, and they made many trips in the region. Without having any background in the History of Central Asia and India, without studying the language of Kalash, and without having a clue about the Kalash religion, these Greeks ‘concluded’ that the Kalash were Greeks.

They intended to turn this original nation into a miserable, westernized, consumerist pseudo-nation like Modern Greece. Kalash did not need this and did not bother for the sickness of Greek Nationalism.

But when the US and the UK invented and promoted Islamic extremism and terrorism, the Kalash felt the pressure due to Pakistani Islamists’ attempts to convert them to Islam. But then the Greek nationalists abandoned the Kalash and did not bother to defend their cause worldwide.

Now, Greece has been gradually invaded by Pakistanis, Afghans and other Islamist terrorists (disguised as immigrants). Soon, Modern Greeks will face worse problem than the Kalash.

——————————————–

Οι άχρηστοι, σάπιοι κι αποβλακωμένοι Νεοέλληνες προ 2-3 δεκαετιών ‘ανακάλυψαν’ ένα αρχαίο έθνος στο Πακιστάν κι από την συμπυκνωμένη βλακεία τους θέλησαν να το θεωρήσουν ως’ελληνικής καταγωγής’ βλέποντας στους κτηνοτρόφους και γεωργούς Καλάς τους απογόνους κάποιων από τους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου.

Χωρίς να έχουν καν μάθει την γλώσσα των Καλάς, χωρίς να έχουν καν μελετήσει Ιστορία Θρησκειών και κεντρασιατικές – ινδικές θρησκείες για να ασχοληθούν με την θρησκεία των Καλάς, αυτοί οι βλάκες Νεοέλληνες, θύματα όλοι της πνευματικής χολέρας ‘Ελληνισμός’ (που είναι ένα ρατσιστικό αποικιοκρατικό γαλλικό θεωρητικό παρασκεύασμα συμπιλημένο ήδη πριν το 1828), ‘απεφάνθησαν’ ότι η θρησκεία των Καλάς είναι ‘αρχαιοελληνική’! Γελάστε κόσμε!

Η αποχαύνωση αυτών των κτηνών ήταν τέτοια που μάλιστα οργανώθηκαν αποικιοκρατικού χαρακτήρα εκδρομές γιατί ήθελαν αρκετοί σκατόψυχοι να μάθουν στους Καλάς τι ήσαν (“Έλληνες”) – λες και κείνοι δεν ήξεραν!

Αυτοί οι Νεοέλληνες της βρωμερής δυσωδίας και του νέφους του λεκανοπεδίου ήταν τα μιάσματα που πήγαν στους πεντακάθαρους Καλάς για να τους βρωμίσουν με την διανοητική σύφιλη του νεοελληνικού εθνικισμού, την πουτανιά του δημοσιοϋπαλληλισμού, την πουστιά της αρπαχτής, την αρρώστεια των νοτιοβαλκανικών αυτιστικών, με την πανούκλα των σούπερ μάρκετς, του ΠΡΟΠΟ, του ποδοσφαίρου, των πολυκατοικιών, της τηλεόρασης, του καταναλωτισμού, της βιομηχανικής παραγωγής, των αυτοκινήτων, των ηλεκτρικών συσκευών, των μπαρ και των νυκτερινών κέντρων, και με την ανομία των εκτρώσεων, της αποποινικοποιημένης μοιχείας, και της ομοφυλοφιλίας.

Έχω πάει στο Πακιστάν αλλά δεν έχω πάει στα βόρεια άκρα του πέρα από το Πεσαβάρ. Και δεν έχω δει τους Καλάς από κοντά. Αλλά πιστεύω ότι οι Καλάς θα βρήκαν όλους αυτούς τους Νεοέλληνες που με τον ελληνισμό τους ξεφτιλίζουν την Ρωμιοσύνη και την Ορθοδοξία σαν φορείς ενος παράξενου είδους τρέλας και ψυχικής νόσου.

Οπότε, μυστικά θα τους ξόρκισαν, και στην συνέχεια δεν θα τους έδωσαν και μεγάλη σημασία. Η φιλοξενία των Καλάς είναι παροιμιώδης και φημισμένη σε όλη την Κεντρική Ασία και το Πακιστάν – και ισχύει για όλους. Και Περουβιανοί να είχαν πάει εκεί, οι Καλάς το ίδιο καλά θα τους είχαν υποδεχθεί.

Αλλά λίγο αργότερα, οι διαδικασίες που οι Άγγλοι κι οι Αμερικανοί δήθεν σύμμαχοί μας είχαν ξεκινησει στο Αφγανιστάν – με την υπόθαλψη και προώθηση της ισλαμικής τρομοκρατίας, του πολιτικού ισλάμ, και του ουαχαμπισμού – άρχισαν να επηρεάζουν το Πακιστάν. Ήδη πριν από το 2000 οι Καλάς άρχισαν να γίνονται στόχος επιθέσεων από αμόρφωτους, άξεστους και φανατικούς ισλαμιστές που επιδιώκουν να τους εξισλαμίσουν.

Τότε όμως τα βρωμόσκυλα του νεοελληνικού εθνικισμού παράτησαν τους Καλάς στην μοίρα τους. Η βλακεία των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων και της καλοπέρασης των αργόσχολων με τα δανεικά ετελείωσε, η χώρα χρεωκόπησε, κι εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες ισλαμιστές από το Αφγανιστάν, το Πακιστάν, την Ινδία και το Μπάνγκλα Ντες κατέφθασαν στην Ελλάδα για να την κάψουν.

Σύντομα οι προδότες της Ρωμιοσύνης και της Ορθοδοξίας, οι Ελληναράδες της δημοσιοϋπαλληλο-τεμπελιάς, της ανομίας και της αλλαξοκωλιάς που επί μία δεκαετία (2009-2019) δεν έβαλαν μυαλό θα βρεθούν σε χειρότερη θέση από τους σημερινούς Καλάς.

Ίσως τότε καταλάβουν οι σημερινοί Ρωμιοί που έχασαν την ταυτότητα και την ακεραιότητά τους πόσο κατώτεροι ήταν από τους Καλάς. Και ίσως τους μιμηθούν: ίσως παρατήσουν όλα τα αντικείμενά τους στα καταραμένα τους σπίτια του λεκανοπεδίου, ίσως περπατήσουν μερικές δεκάδες ή εκατοντάδες χιλιόμετρα μέχρι τα Βαρδούσια και το Καϊμακτσαλάν και κάνουν για σπίτι τους μια σπηλιά ή μια ξερολιθιά. Τότε θα έχουν μια πιθανότητα να επιβιώσουν.

————————————————————

Η ελεεινή νεο-ελληνική προχειρότητα δεν κρύβεται: αν το ενδιαφέρον για τους Καλάς ήταν ειλικρινές και πήγαζε από μια αντικειμενική διάθεση για γνώση του άλλου (κάτι που συμβαδίζει με σεβασμό προς αυτό), τότε η ελληνική Wikipedia θα είχε για τους Καλάς ένα λήμμα πολύ μεγαλύτερο από εκείνα της ρωσσικής ή της αγγλικής Wikipedia. Αλλά που;

Συγκρίνετε:

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

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Калаши

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Καλάς

Σχετικά: Pakistan: Kalash valley of wine and festivals under threat https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13466250

------------------------------------

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/t-250680858

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/the_kalash_the_modern_greeks_and_the_islamists.d

https://vk.com/doc429864789_621286709

https://www.docdroid.net/FDR93e6/oi-kalas-oi-neoellines-ki-oi-islamistes-docx

PROOF THAT AFRICANS WERE IN AMERICA BEFORE COLUMBUS!

Columbus Himself

According to renowned American historian and linguist Leo Weiner of Harvard University, one of the strongest pieces of evidence to support the fact that African people sailed to America before Christopher Columbus was a journal entry from Columbus himself. In Weiner’s book, “Africa and the Discovery of America,” he explains that Columbus noted in his journal that the Native Americans confirmed “dark brown” people had come from the south-east in boats, trading in gold-tipped spears.”

American Narcotics Discovered in Egyptian Mummies

The discovery of American narcotics in Egyptian mummies has left some historians amazed. Recently, archaeologists discovered the presence of narcotics only known to be derived from American plants in ancient Egyptian mummies. These substances included South American cocaine from Erythroxylon and nicotine from Nicotiana tabacum. German toxicologist Svetla Balabanova reported the findings, which suggest that such compounds made their way to Africa through trans-Atlantic trade that would predate Columbus’ arrival by thousands of years.

North America

For years, Eurocentric archaeologists have largely turned the other cheek when it came to the discovery of artifacts from ancient Egypt being discovered in the Americas. According to Dr. David Imhotep, the author behind the book “The First Americans Were Africans: Documented Evidence,” “Egyptian artifacts found across North America from the Algonquin writings on the East Coast to the artifacts and Egyptian place names in the Grand Canyon” are all signs of an early arrival in the Americas by Africans. This is also paired with a much earlier account of African people with incredible skills at sea. Back in 445 B.C., the Greek historian Herodotus wrote of King Ramses III leading a team of Africans at sea with astounding seafaring and navigational skills. Together, both accounts would point to Africans sailing over to the New World before Columbus.

Ancient Pyramids

Constructing pyramids was a highly specialized and complicated task that took the ancient Egyptians a lot of time to master. In ancient Egypt, there are signs of progression from the original stepped pyramid of Djoser to the more sophisticated pyramids that now stand at Giza. According to historians, it would be impossible for any group of people to have built those same complex pyramids without going through the same progression. Professor Everett Borders noted the presence of completed pyramids in La Venta in Mexico but the unusual absence of any earlier forms of the pyramids. According to Borders, it’s a sign that Africans, having already mastered the construction of pyramids in Egypt, sailed over to the New World and constructed these dual-purpose tombs and temples in the Americas.

Ancient African Skeletons Discovered in the New World

There have been many instances of archaeologists discovering skulls and skeletons that they believed clearly belonged to people of African descent. Polish professor Andrzej Wiercinski revealed the discovery of African skulls at Olmec sites in Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas and Monte Alban. Even more ancient African skeletons that would clearly predate Columbus’ arrival in the Americas were discovered throughout Central America and South America with some even being unearthed in what is now California.

A Clear Link in Religion

The similarities in Native American and African religions also suggest that Africans had to have had early contact with the Native Americans by sailing to the New World. Before Columbus stumbled upon the Native Americans’ land, there were prominent figures of deities with dark skin and coarse hair throughout their religion. Today, many surviving portraits reveal these deities who were clearly crafted in the likeness of Africans. Historians also point to wall paintings in caves in South America that depict the ancient Egyptian “opening of the mouth” and cross libation rituals.

The Accounts of Other European Explorers

Christopher Columbus wasn’t the only European explorer who made note of an African presence in the Americas upon his arrival. Historians revealed that at least a dozen other explorers, including Vasco Nunez de Balboa, also made record of seeing “Negroes” when they reached the New World. The accounts match up with the reports from the natives in Mexico. Nicholas Leon, an eminent Mexican authority, recorded the oral traditions of his people and ultimately kept track of a key piece of evidence that African people made it to the New World far before their European counterparts. His reports revealed accounts from natives saying “the oldest inhabitants of Mexico were African. [T]he existence of Africans and giants is commonly believed by nearly all the races of our sail and in their various language they had words to designate them.”

Africans Were Master Shipbuilders

Some people insist that Africans couldn’t have made it to the New World first simply because they didn’t have the skill and resources to sail across the Atlantic. As it turns out, that’s completely false. Historians have discovered evidence that suggests Africans were masters at building ships and that it was actually a part of their tradition. Shipbuilding and sailing are over 20,000 years old in the Sahara, and cave wall paintings of ancient ships were displayed in National Geographic magazine years ago. With those shipbuilding skills and the navigation skills that were noted by other historians of the time, the myth that Africans wouldn’t have been able to sail to the New World becomes officially debunked. As Dr. Julian Whitewright, a maritime archaeologist at the University of Southampton, explained, the voyage from Africa on ancient ships was “quite a plausible undertaking, based on the capabilities of the vessel of the period and historical material stating it took place.”

Gigantic Stone Heads in Central Mexico

The Olmec civilization was the first significant civilization in Mesoamerica and deemed “Mother Culture of Mexico” by some historians. This civilization dominated by Africans is best known for the colossal carved heads in Central Mexico that serve as even more evidence that Africans sailed to the New World before Columbus. The heads are clearly crafted in the likeness of Africans. The same civilization that created these giant heads was also responsible for introducing written language, arts, sophisticated astronomy and mathematics to Mesoamerican civilization, ancient African historian Professor Van Sertima explained.

A Long History of Trade by Sea

According to Paul Alfred Barton, the author of “A History of the African-Olmecs: African Civilizations of America from Prehistoric Times to the Present Era,” ancient kingdoms in West Africa have a long history of trade by sail, which made it all the more likely that they eventually expanded their trade to the Americas. While the Sahara is a dry desert today, its past as a lake-filled, wet and fertile place has been well-documented. African ships often crossed these large lakes to get from place to place and traded with other African civilizations along the way. After expanding their trade to the Americas, they certainly made their mark as things like African native cotton were soon being discovered all across North America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0z6zyc2J8

Το Πλοίο του Σουλεϋμάν – Εισαγωγή

Stohastis Publishing House, 1993

The Ship of Suleyman – Safinah-i Sulaymani / سفینه سلیمانی Introduction of the Greek edition of The Ship of Suleyman / Book review: 

https://www.academia.edu/23396049/Safina_i_Sulaymani_Shah_Sulaymans_diplomatic_missions_deeds_in_Thailand_edition_M_S_Megalommatis Αυτό το κείμενο αποτελεί την Εισαγωγή της νεοελληνικής έκδοσης του συγγραφέντος από τον Ιμπν Μουχάμαντ Ιμπραήμ κειμένου – αναφοράς για τα πεπραγμένα της αποστολής στην οποία αυτός είχε συμμετάσχει. Ο Μουχάμαντ Ράμπια Ιμπν Μουχάμαντ Ιμπραήμ (محمد ربیع بن محمد ابراهیم/Muhammad Rabi` ibn Muhammad Ibrahim) ήταν ο επίσημος σαφεβιδικός γραφέας της αυτοκρατορικής αποστολ΄ής στο Σιάμ (Ταϋλάνδη). Υπέβαλε την αναφορά του αυτή στον Σάχη Σουλεϋμάν και ακριβώς γι’ αυτό ο τίτλος κάνει λόγο για το Πλοίο του Σουλεϋμάν. Ο Σάχης Σουλευμάν βασίλευσε από το 1668 έως το 1694. Η αποστολή στο Σιάμ ανεχώρησε την 27η Ιουνίου 1685 από το Μπαντάρ Αμπάς (ένα από τα λιμάνια του Ι΄ράν στον Περσικό Κόλπο) και επέστρεψε την 14η Μαΐου 1988. Η μετάφραση έγινε από την αγγλική έκδοση του John O’Kane, The ship of Sulaiman [by ibn Muhammad Ibrahim], London, Routledge & K. Paul [1972]. Η νεοελληνική έκδοση ακολουθεί την αγγλική στην διάρθρωση του κειμένου σε εισαγωγή, τέσσερα κεφάλαια (‘μαργαριτάρια’) και επιμύθιο. Είναι αναλυτικά σχολιασμένη και επεξηγημένη από τον μεταφραστή. Κυκλοφόρησε ως βιβλίο στις εκδόσεις Στοχαστής το 1993 (368 σελίδες). Το χειρόγραφο βρίσκεται στο Βρεταννικό Μουσείο. Περισσότερα για την αγγλική έκδοση: https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/496059 Σχετικά με το θέμα (σε φαρσί): https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/سفینه_سلیمانی_(کتاب)

                                                    Εδώ μπορείτε να κατεβάσετε μία από τις ιρανικές εκδόσεις (σε φαρσί): asmaneketab.ir/product/کتاب-سفینه-سلیمانی-محمدربیع-بن-محمداب/ Εκδόσεις Στοχαστής, Αθήνα 1993 - Stohastis Publishing House, Athens 1993

Discovery in Pompeii - 2025

The Italian Ministry of Culture revealed the discovery of the hall with its large, colorful frescoes on February 26, 2025. These frescoes depict initiation scenes, are almost life-size, and have a deeply religious significance. They were designed to decorate banqueting areas and are believed to date from 40 to 30 BC.

It's a megalography, a large painting, similar to the famous painting in the Villa of the Mysteries. The house is located on insula 10 of Regio IX and was named by archaeologists as House of Thyasus, referring to the retinue of Dionysus.

“For the ancients, the figure of the Bacchante represented the wild and untamed side of women, in contrast to the idealized image of Venus, the goddess of love and marriage,” said Gabriel Zuchtriegel, director of the Pompeii Archaeological Park. “The frescoes in the House of Thyasus and the Villa of the Mysteries show women caught between these two extremes, reflecting the different ways in which femininity was conceived at that time.”

Archaeologists have identified more than fifty rooms, a laundry (fullonica), and a bakery.

All photos by archaeologist Silvia Vacca

Instagram : silvia_vacca_

Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims 

When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Church's sole Pope Emeritus…

Table of Contents

I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI

II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope

III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars

IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies

V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored

VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'

VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture

VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations

IX. The lecture's most controversial point

X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states

Of all the Roman popes who resigned the only to be called 'Pope Emeritus' was Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI (also known in German as Prof. Dr. Papst), who passed away on 31st December 2022, thus sealing the circle of world figures and heads of states whose life ended last year. As a matter of fact, although being a head state, a pope does not abdicate; he renounces to his ministry (renuntiatio).

Due to lack of documentation, conflicting sources or confusing circumstances, we do not have conclusive evidence as regards the purported resignations of the popes St. Pontian (235), Marcellinus (304), Liberius (366), John XVIII (1009) and Sylvester (105). That is why historical certainty exists only with respect to the 'papal renunciation' of six pontiffs; three of them bore the papal name of 'Benedict'. The brief list includes therefore the following bishops of Rome: Benedict V (964), Benedict IX (deposed in 1044, bribed to resign in 1045, and resigned in 1048), Gregory VI (1046), St Celestine (1294), Gregory XII (1415) and Benedict XVI (2013).

I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI

Benedict XVI (18 April 1927 – 31 December 2022) was seven (7) years younger than his predecessor John Paul II (1920-2005), but passed away seventeen (17) years after the Polish pope's death; already on the 4th September 2020, Benedict XVI would have been declared as the oldest pope in history, had he not resigned seven (7) years earlier. Only Leo XIII died 93, back in 1903. As a matter of fact, Benedict XVI outlived all the people who were elected to the Roman See.

Benedict XVI's papacy lasted slightly less than eight (8) years (19 April 2005 – 28 February 2013). Before being elected as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was for almost a quarter century (1981-2005) the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was the formal continuation of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, and therefore one of the most important sections ('dicasteries'; from the Ancient Greek term 'dikasterion', i.e. 'court of law') of the Roman administration ('Curia').

A major step toward this position was his appointment as archbishop of Munich for four years (1977-1981); Bavaria has always been a Catholic heavyweight, and in this regard, it is easy to recall the earlier example of Eugenio Pacelli (the later pope Pius XII), who was nuncio to Bavaria (and therefore to the German Empire), in Munich, from 1917 to 1920, and then to Germany, before being elected to the Roman See (in 1939). Before having a meteoric rise in the Catholic hierarchy, Ratzinger made an excellent scholar and a distinct professor of dogmatic theology, while also being a priest. His philosophical dissertation was about St. Augustine and his habilitation concerned Bonaventure, a Franciscan scholastic theologian and cardinal of the 13th c.

II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope

During his ministry, very early, Benedict XVI stood up and showed his teeth; when I noticed his formidable outburst against the 'dictatorship of relativism', I realized that the German pope would be essentially superior to his Polish predecessor. Only in June 2005, so just two months after his election, he defined relativism as "the main obstacle to the task of education", directing a tremendous attack against the evilness of ego and portraying selfishness as a "self-limitation of reason".

In fact, there cannot be more devastating attack from a supreme religious authority against the evilness of Anglo-Zionism and the rotten, putrefied society that these criminals diffuse worldwide by means of infiltration, corruption, mendacity, and simulation. Soon afterwards, while speaking in Marienfeld (Cologne), Benedict XVI attacked ferociously all the pathetic ideologies which indiscriminately enslave humans from all spiritual and cultural backgrounds. He said: "absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism". This is a detrimental rejection of Talmudic Judaism, Zohar Kabbalah, and Anglo-Zionism.

It was in the summer 2005 that I first realized that I should study closer the pre-papal past of the Roman Pontiff whom St Malachy's illustrious Prophecy of the Popes (12th c.) described as 'Gloria olivae' (the Glory of the olive). I contacted several friends in Germany, who extensively updated me as regards his academic publications, also dispatching to me some of them. At the time, I noticed that my Christian friends already used to question a certain number of Cardinal Ratzinger's positions.

But, contrarily to them, I personally found his prediction about the eventuality of Buddhism becoming the principal 'enemy' of the Catholic Church as quite plausible. My friends were absolutely astounded, and then I had to narrate and explain to them the deliberately concealed story of the Christian-Islamic-Confucian alliance against the Buddhist terrorism of the Dzungar Khanate (1634-1755); actually, it took many Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756), successive wars between Qing China and the Dzungar Khanate (1687-1757), and even an alliance with the Russian Empire in order to successfully oppose the ferocious Buddhist extremist threat.

Finally, the extraordinary ordeal of North Asia {a vast area comprising lands of today's Eastern Kazakhstan, Russia (Central Siberia), Northwestern and Western China (Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang and Tibet) and Western Mongolia} ended up with the systematic genocide of the extremist Buddhist Dzungars (1755-1758) that the Chinese had to undertake because there was no other way to terminate once forever the most fanatic regime that ever existed in Asia.

Disoriented, ignorant, confused and gullible, most of the people today fail to clearly understand how easily Buddhism can turn a peaceful society into a fanatic realm of lunatic extremists. The hypothetically innocent adhesion of several fake Freemasonic lodges of the West to Buddhism and the seemingly harmless acceptance of Buddhist principles and values by these ignorant fools can end up in the formation of vicious and terrorist organizations that will give to their members and initiates the absurd order and task to indiscriminately kill all of their opponents. But Cardinal Ratzinger had prudently discerned the existence of a dangerous source of spiritual narcissism in Buddhism.

III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars

To me, this foresight was a convincing proof that Benedict XVI was truly 'Gloria olivae'; but this would be troublesome news! In a period of proxy wars, unrestrained iniquity, and outrageous inhumanity, a perspicacious, cordial, and benevolent pope in Rome would surely be an encumbering person to many villainous rascals, i.e. the likes of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, and many others so-called 'leaders'. The reason for this assessment of the situation is simple: no one wants a powerful pacifier at a time more wars are planned.

At the time, it was ostensible to all that a fake confrontation between the world's Muslims and Christians was underway (notably after the notorious 9/11 events); for this reason, I expected Benedict XVI to make a rather benevolent statement that evil forces would immediately misinterpret, while also falsely accusing the pacifist Pope and absurdly turning the uneducated and ignorant mob of many countries against the Catholic Church.

This is the foolish plan of the Anglo-Zionist lobby, which has long served as puppets of the Jesuits, corrupting the entire Muslim world over the past 250 years by means of intellectual, educational, academic, scientific, cultural, economic, military and political colonialism. These idiotic puppets, which have no idea who their true and real masters are, imagine that, by creating an unprecedented havoc in Europe, they harm the worldwide interests of the Jesuits; but they fail to properly realize that this evil society, which early turned against Benedict XVI, has already shifted its focus onto China. Why the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasonic lodge would act in this manner against Benedict XVI is easy to assess; the Roman pontiff whose episcopal motto was 'Cooperatores Veritatis' ('Co-workers of the Truth') would apparently try to prevent the long-prepared fake war between the Muslims and the Christians.

IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies

And this is what truly happened in the middle of September 2006; on the 12th September, Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany; the title was 'Glaube, Vernunft und Universität – Erinnerungen und Reflexionen' ('Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections'). In the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Dr. Ratzinger eclipsed Pope Benedict XVI, as the one-time professor persisted on his concept of 'faith', "which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole", as he said. In a most rationalistic approach (for which he had been known for several decades as a renowned Catholic theologian), in an argumentation reflecting views certainly typical of Francis of Assisi and of Aristotle but emphatically alien to Jesus, Benedict XVI attempted to portray an ahistorical Christianity and to describe the Catholic faith as the religion of the Reason.

At an early point of the lecture, Benedict XVI referred to a discussion that the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (or Palaiologos; Μανουήλ Παλαιολόγος; 1350-1425; reigned after 1391) had with an erudite Turkic scholar (indiscriminately but mistakenly called by all Eastern Roman authors at the time as 'Persian') most probably around the end of 1390 or the first months of 1391, when he was hostage at the Ottoman court of Bayezid I. In the historical text, it is stated that the location was 'Ancyra of Galatia' (i.e. Ankara).  

This Eastern Roman Emperor was indeed a very controversial historical figure; although undeniably an erudite ruler, a bold diplomat, and a reputable soldier, he first made agreements with the Ottomans and delivered to them the last Eastern Roman city in Anatolia (Philadelphia; today's Alaşehir, ca. 140 km east of Izmir / Smyrna) and then, after he took control of his ailing kingdom thanks to the sultan, he escaped the protracted siege of Constantinople (1391-1402) only to travel to various Western European kingdoms and ask the help of those rather reluctant monarchs (1399-1403).

At the time, all the Christian Orthodox populations, either living in the Ottoman sultanate or residing in the declined Eastern Roman Empire, were deeply divided into two groups, namely those who preferred to be ruled by Muslims (because they rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy, evilness and iniquity of the Roman pope) and the fervent supporters of a Latin (: Western European) control over Constantinople (viewed as the only way for them to prevent the Ottoman rule); the former formed the majority and were called Anthenotikoi, i.e. 'against the union' (: of the Orthodox Church with the Catholics), whereas the latter constituted a minority group and were named 'Enotikoi' ('those in favor of the union of the two churches').

V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored

Manuel II Palaeologus' text has little theological value in itself; however, its historical value is great. It reveals how weak both interlocutors were at the intellectual, cultural and spiritual levels, how little they knew one another, and how poorly informed they were about their own and their interlocutor's past, heritage, religion and spirituality. If we have even a brief look at it, we will immediately realize that the level is far lower than that attested during similar encounters in 8th- 9th c. Baghdad, 10th c. Umayyad Andalusia, Fatimid Cairo, 13th c. Maragheh (where the world's leading observatory was built) or 14th c. Samarqand, the Timurid capital.

It was absolutely clear at the time of Manuel II Palaeologus and Bayezid I that neither Constantinople nor Bursa (Προύσα / Prousa; not anymore the Ottoman capital after 1363, but still the most important city of the sultanate) could compete with the great centers of Islamic science civilization which were located in Iran and Central Asia. That's why Gregory Chioniades, the illustrious Eastern Roman bishop, astronomer, and erudite scholar who was the head of the Orthodox diocese of Tabriz, studied in Maragheh under the guidance of his tutor and mentor, Shamsaddin al Bukhari (one of the most illustrious students of Nasir el-Din al Tusi, who was the founder of the Maragheh Observatory), before building an observatory in Trabzon (Trebizond) and becoming the teacher of Manuel Bryennios, another famous Eastern Roman scholar.  

The text of the Dialogues must have been written several years after the conversation took place, most probably when the traveling emperor and diplomat spent four years in Western Europe. For reasons unknown to us, the erudite emperor did not mention the name of his interlocutor, although this was certainly known to him; if we take into consideration that he was traveling to other kingdoms, we can somehow guess a plausible reason. His courtiers and royal scribes may have translated the text partly into Latin and given copies of the 'dialogues' to various kings, marshals, chroniclers, and other dignitaries. If this was the case, the traveling emperor would not probably want to offer insights into the Ottoman court and the influential religious authorities around the sultan.

Alternatively, the 'unknown' interlocutor may well have been Amir Sultan (born as Mohamed bin Ali; also known as Shamsuddin Al-Bukhari; 1368-1429) himself, i.e. none else than an important Turanian mystic from Vobkent (near Bukhara in today's Uzbekistan), who got married with Bayezid I's daughter Hundi Fatema Sultan Hatun. Amir Sultan had advised the sultan not to turn against Timur; had the foolish sultan heeded to his son-in-law's wise advice, he would not have been defeated so shamefully.

Benedict XVI made a very biased use of the historical text; he selected an excerpt of Manuel II Palaeologus' response to his interlocutor in order to differentiate between Christianity as the religion of Reason and Islam as the religion of Violence. Even worse, he referred to a controversial, biased and rancorous historian of Lebanese origin, the notorious Prof. Theodore Khoury (born in 1930), who spent his useless life to write sophisticated diatribes, mildly formulated forgeries, and deliberate distortions of the historical truth in order to satisfy his rancor and depict the historical past according to his absurd political analysis. Almost every sentence written Prof. Khoury about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate is maliciously false.

All the same, it was certainly Benedict XVI's absolute right to be academically, intellectually and historically wrong. The main problem was that the paranoid reaction against him was not expressed at the academic and intellectual levels, but at the profane ground of international politics. Even worse, it was not started by Muslims but by the criminal Anglo-Zionist mafia and the disreputable mainstream mass media, the likes of the BBC, Al Jazeera (Qatari is only the façade of it), etc.

I will now republish (in bold and italics) a sizeable (600-word) excerpt of the papal lecture that contains the contentious excerpt, also adding the notes to the text. The link to the Vatican's website page is available below. I will comment first on the lecture and the selected part of Manuel II Palaeologus' text and then on the absurd Muslim reaction.

VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[7]

Notes 1 to 7 (out of 13)

[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition;  the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation:  “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman.  7e Controverse”,  Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966.  In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary:  “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996.  As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien.  I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.

[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29;  extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c:  Khoury, pp. 142-143;  Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241.  In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation.  I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.  In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason.  On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c:  Khoury, pp. 144-145;  Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor.  In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.

[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13;  cf. Khoury, p. 144.  The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.

VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture

It is my conviction that Benedict XVI fell victim to the quite typical theological assumptions that Prof. Dr. Ratzinger had studied and taught for decades. However, the problem is not limited to the circle of the faculties of Theology and to Christian Theology as a modern discipline; it is far wider. The same troublesome situation permeates all the disciplines of Humanities and, even worse, the quasi-totality of the modern sciences as they started in Renaissance. The problem goes well beyond the limits of academic research and intellectual consideration; it has to do with the degenerate, rotten and useless mental abilities and capacities of the Western so-called scholars, researchers and academics. The description of the problem is rather brief, but its nature is truly ominous.

Instead of perceiving, understanding, analyzing and representing the 'Other' in its own terms, conditions and essence and as per its own values, virtues and world conceptualization, the modern Western European scholars, researchers, explorers and specialists view, perceive, attempt to understand, and seek to analyze the 'Other' in their own terms, conditions and essence and as per their own values, virtues and world conceptualization. Due to this sick effort and unprecedented aberration, the Western so-called scholars and researchers view the 'Other' through their eyes, thus projecting onto the 'Other' their view of it. Consequently, they do not and actually they cannot learn it, let alone know, understand and represent it. Their attitude is inane, autistic and degenerate. It is however quite interesting and truly bizarre that the Western European natural scientists do not proceed in this manner, but fully assess the condition of the object of their study in a rather objective manner.

In fact, the Western disciplines of the Humanities, despite the enormous collection and publication of study materials, sources and overall documentation, are a useless distortion. Considered objectively, the Western scientific endeavor in its entirety is a monumental nothingness; it is not only a preconceived conclusion. It is a resolute determination not to 'see' the 'Other' as it truly exists, as its constituent parts obviously encapsulate its contents, and as the available documentation reveals it. In other words, it consists in a premeditated and resolute rejection of the Truth; it is intellectually barren, morally evil, and spiritually nihilist. The topic obviously exceeds by far the limits of the present obituary, but I had to mention it in order to offer the proper context.  

It is therefore difficult to identify the real reason for the magnitude of the Western scholarly endeavor, since the conclusions existed in the minds of the explorers and the academics already before the documentation was gathered, analyzed, studied, and represented. How important is it therefore to publish the unpublished material (totaling more than 100000 manuscripts of Islamic times and more than one million of cuneiform tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia, Iran, Canaan and Anatolia – only to give an idea to the non-specialized readers), if the evil Western scholars and the gullible foreign students enrolled in Western institutions (to the detriment of their own countries and nations) are going to repeat and reproduce the same absurd Western mentality of viewing an Ancient Sumerian, an Ancient Assyrian, an Ancient Egyptian or a Muslim author through their own eyes and of projecting onto the ancient author the invalid and useless measures, values, terms and world views of the modern Western world?

As it can be easily understood, the problem is not with Christian Theology, but with all the disciplines of the Humanities. So, the problem is not only that a great Muslim scholar and erudite mystic like Ibn Hazm was viewed by Benedict XVI and Western theologians through the distorting lenses of their 'science', being not evaluated as per the correct measures, values and terms of his own Islamic environment, background and civilization. The same problem appears in an even worse form, when Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Iranian and other high priests, spiritual masters, transcendental potentates, sacerdotal writers, and unequaled scientists are again evaluated as per the invalid and useless criteria of Benedict XVI, of all the Western theologians, and of all the modern European and American academics.

What post-Renaissance popes, theologians, academics, scholars and intellectuals fail to understand is very simple; their 'world' ( i.e. the world of the Western Intellect and Science, which was first fabricated in the 15th and the 16th c. and later enhanced progressively down to our days) in not Christian, is not human, and is not real. It is their own delusion, their own invalid abstraction, their abject paranoia, and their own sin for which first they will atrociously disappear from the surface of the Earth (like every anomalous entity) and then flagrantly perish in Hell.

Their dangling system does not hold; they produced it in blood and in blood it will end. Modern sciences constitute a counter-productive endeavor and an aberration that will terminally absorb the entire world into the absolute nothingness, because these evil systems were instituted out of arbitrary bogus-interpretations of the past, peremptory self-identification, deliberate and prejudicial ignorance, as well as an unprecedented ulcerous hatred of the 'Other', i.e. of every 'Other'.

The foolish Western European academic-intellectual establishment failed to realize that it is absolutely preposterous to extrapolate later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations; in fact, it is impossible. By trying to do it, you depart from the real world only to live in your delusion, which sooner or later will inevitably have a tragic end. Consequently, the Western European scholars' 'classics' are not classics; their reason is an obsession; their language and jargon are hallucinatory, whereas their notions are conjectural. Their abstract concepts are the manifestation of Non-Being.

VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations

Benedict XVI's understanding of the Eastern Roman Empire was fictional. When examining the sources, he retained what he liked, what pleased him, and what was beneficial to his preconceived ideas and thoughts. In fact, Prof. Dr. Papst did not truly understand what Manuel II Palaeologus said to his Turkic interlocutor, and even worse, he failed to assess the enormous distance that separated the early 15th c. Eastern Roman (not 'Byzantine': this is a fake appellation too) Emperor from his illustrious predecessors before 800 or 900 years (the likes of Heraclius and Justinian I) in terms of Christian Roman imperial ideology, theological acumen, jurisprudential perspicacity, intellectual resourcefulness, and spiritual forcefulness. Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Christian doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.

What was Ratzinger's mistake? First, he erroneously viewed Manuel II Palaeologus as 'his' (as identical with the papal doctrine), by projecting his modern Catholic mindset and convictions onto the Christian Orthodox Eastern Roman Emperor's mind, mentality and faith. He took the 'Dialogues' at face value whereas the text may have been written not as a declaration of faith but as a diplomatic document in order to convince the rather uneducated Western European monarchs that the traveling 'basileus' (βασιλεύς) visited during the period 1399-1403.

Second, he distorted the 'dialogue', presenting it in a polarized form. Benedict XVI actually depicted a fraternal conversation as a frontal opposition; unfortunately, there is nothing in the historical text to insinuate this possibility. As I already said, it is quite possible that the moderate, wise, but desperate Eastern Roman Emperor may have discussed with someone married to a female descendant of the great mystic Jalal al-Din Rumi (namely Bayezid's son-in-law, adviser and mystic Emir Sultan). Why on Earth did the renowned theologian Ratzinger attempt to stage manage a theological conflict in the place of a most peaceful, friendly and fraternal exchange of ideas?

This is easy to explain; it has to do with the absolutely Manichaean structure of thought that was first diffused among the Western Fathers of the Christian Church by St Augustine (in the early 5th c.). As method of theological argumentation, it was first effectively contained, and it remained rather marginal within the Roman Church as long as the practice introduced by Justinian I (537) lasted (until 752) and all the popes of Rome had to be selected and approved personally by the Eastern Roman Emperor. After this moment and, more particularly, after the two Schisms (867 and 1054), the Manichaean system of thinking prevailed in Rome; finally, it culminated after the Renaissance.

Third, Benedict XVI tried to depict the early 15th c. erudite interlocutor of the then hostage Manuel II Palaeologus as a modern Muslim and a Jihadist. This is the repetition of the same mistakes that he made as regards the intellectual Eastern Roman Emperor. In other words, he projected onto the 'unknown', 15th c. Muslim mystic his own personal view of an Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist. Similarly, by bulldozing time in order to impose his wrong perception of Islam, he fully misled the audience. As a matter of fact, Islam constitutes a vast universe that Prof. Dr. Papst never studied, never understood, and never fathomed in its true dimensions.

In fact, as it happened in the case of the Eastern Roman Emperor, his interlocutor was intellectually weaker and spiritually lower than the great figures of Islamic spirituality, science, wisdom, literature and intuition, the likes of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Al Qurtubi, Mohyi el-Din Ibn Arabi, Ahmed Yasawi, Al Biruni, Ferdowsi, Al Farabi, Tabari, etc., who preceded him by 150 to 500 years. But Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Islamic doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.

The reason for this distortion is easy to grasp; the Manichaean system of thinking needs terminal, crystallized forms of items that do not change; then, it is convenient for the Western European abusers of the Manichaean spirit to fully implement the deceitful setting of fake contrasts and false dilemmas. But the 15th c. decayed Eastern Roman Orthodoxy and decadent Islam are real historical entities that enable every explorer to encounter the multitude of forms, the ups and downs, the evolution of cults, the transformation of faiths, and the gradual loss of the initially genuine Moral and vibrant Spirituality. This reality is very embarrassing to those who want to teach their unfortunate students on a calamitous black & white background (or floor).

All the books and articles of his friend, Prof. Theodore Khoury, proved to be totally useless and worthless for the Catholic theologian Ratzinger, exactly because the Lebanese specialist never wrote a sentence in order to truly represent the historical truth about Islam, but he always elaborated his texts in a way to justify and confirm his preconceived ideas. Prof. Khoury's Islam is a delusional entity, something like the artificial humans of our times. Unfortunately, not one Western Islamologist realized that Islam, at the antipodes of the Roman Catholic doctrine, has an extremely limited dogmatic part, a minimal cult, and no heresies. Any opposite opinion belongs to liars, forgers and falsifiers. As a matter of fact, today's distorted representation of Islam is simply the result of Western colonialism. All over the world, whatever people hear or believe about the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad is not the true, historical, religion of Islam, but the colonially, academically-intellectually, produced Christianization of Islam.  

Fourth, in striking contrast to what the theologian Ratzinger pretended through use of this example or case study (i.e. the 'discussion'), if Benedict XVI shifted his focus to the East, he would find Maragheh in NW Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan) and Samarqand in Central Asia. In those locations (and always for the period concerned), he would certainly find great centers of learning, universities, vast libraries, and enormous observatories, which could make every 15th c. Western European astronomer and mathematician dream. But there he would also find, as I already said, many Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and other scholars working one next to the other without caring about their religious (theological) differences. This situation is very well known to modern Western scholarship, but they viciously and criminally try to permanently conceal it.

This situation was due to the cultural, intellectual, academic, mental and spiritual unity that prevailed among all those erudite scholars. Numerous Western European scholars have published much about Nasir el-Din al Tusi (about whom I already spoke briefly) and also about Ulugh Beg, the world's greatest astronomer of his time (middle of the 15th c.), who was the grandson of Timur (Tamerlane) and, at the same time, the World History's most erudite emperor of the last 2500 years. However, post-Renaissance Catholic sectarianism and Western European/North American racism prevented the German pope from being truthful at least once, and also from choosing the right paradigm.

IX. The lecture's most controversial point

Fifth, if we now go straight to the lecture's most controversial point and to the quotation's most fascinating sentence, we will find the question addressed by Manuel II Palaeologus to his erudite Turkic interlocutor; actually, it is rather an exclamation:

- «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached»!

This interesting excerpt provides indeed the complete confirmation of my earlier assessments as regards the intellectual decay of both, Christian Orthodoxy and Islam, at the time. Apparently, it was not theological acumen what both interlocutors were lacking at the time; it was historical knowledge. Furthermore, historical continuity, religious consciousness, and moral command were also absent in the discussion.

The first series of points that Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor could have made answering the aforementioned statement would be that Prophet Muhammad, before his death, summoned Ali ibn Abu Taleb and asked him to promise that he would never diffuse the true faith by undertaking wars; furthermore, Islam was diffused peacefully in many lands outside Arabia (Hejaz), notably Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and the Eastern Coast of Africa. In addition, there were many Muslims, who rejected the absurd idea of the Islamic conquests launched by Umar ibn al-Khattab and actually did not participate.

We have also to take into consideration the fact that, in spite of the undeniable reality of the early spread of Islam through invasions, there has always been well-known and sufficient documentation to clearly prove that the Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, the Copts of Egypt, and the Berbers of Africa, although fully preserving their Christian faith, preferred to live under the rule of the Caliphates and overwhelmingly rejected the Eastern Roman imperial administration, because they had been long persecuted by the Constantinopolitan guards due to their Miaphysite (Monophysitic) and/or Nestorian faiths.

On another note, the Eastern Roman Emperor's Muslim interlocutor could have questioned the overall approach of Manuel II Palaeologus to the topic. In other words, he could have expressed the following objection:

- «What is it good for someone to pretend that he is a follower of Jesus and evoke his mildness, while at the same time violently imposing by the sword the faith that Jesus preached? And what is it more evil and more inhuman than the imposition of a faith in Jesus' name within the Roman Empire, after so much bloodshed and persecution took place and so many wars were undertaken»? 

Last, one must admit that the sentence «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new!» would have been easily answered by an earlier Muslim mystic of the Golden Era of Islam. Actually, this statement is islamically correct and pertinent. The apparent absence of a spectacular response from the part of Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor rather generates doubts as regards the true nature of the text. This is so because he could have immediately replied to Bayezid I's hostage that not one prophet or messenger was sent by God with the purpose of 'bringing something new'; in fact, all the prophets from Noah to Jonah, from Abraham to Jonah, from Moses to Muhammad, and from Adam to Jesus were dispatched in order to deliver the same message to the humans, namely to return to the correct path and live according to the Will of God.

Related to this point is the following well-known verse of the Quran (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 67): "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists". It is therefore odd that a response in this regard is missing at this point.

It is also strange that, at a time of major divisions within Christianity and more particularly among the Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans, the 'unknown' imperial interlocutor did not mention the existing divisions among Christians as already stated very clearly, explicitly and repeatedly in the Quran. Examples:

"You are the best community ever raised for humanity—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious". (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 110)

"Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating in prayer".

(ch. 3 - Al Imran, 113):

To conclude I would add that elementary knowledge of Roman History, Late Antiquity, and Patristic Philology would be enough for Benedict XVI to know that

- in its effort to impose Christianity on the Roman Empire,

- in its determination to fully eradicate earlier religions, opposite religious sects like the Gnostics, and theological 'heresies' like Arianism,

- in its resolve to exterminate other Christian Churches such as the Nestorians and the Miaphysites (Monophysites),

- in its obsession to uproot Christian theological doctrines like Iconoclasm and Paulicianism, and

- in its witch hunt against Manichaeism, …

… the 'official' Roman and Constantinopolitan churches committed innumerable crimes and killed a far greater number of victims than those massacred by Muslim invaders on several occurrences during the early Islamic conquests.

So, when did the Christian Church encounter Reason and when did it cease to be 'unreasonable' according to the theologian Pope Ratzinger?

One must be very sarcastic to duly respond to those questions: most probably, the Roman Church discovered 'Reason' after having killed all of their opponents and the so-called 'heretics' whose sole sin was simply to consider and denounce the Roman Church as heretic!

If Benedict XVI forgot to find in the Quran the reason for the Turkic interlocutor's mild attitude toward the hostage Manuel II Palaeologus, this is a serious oversight for the professor of theology; he should have mentioned the excerpts. In the surah al-Ankabut ('the Spider'; ch. 29, verse 46), it is stated: "And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner".

Similarly, the German pope failed to delve in Assyriology and in Egyptology to better understand that the Hebrew Bible (just like the New Testament and the Quran) did not bring anything 'new' either; before Moses in Egypt and before Abraham in Mesopotamia, there were monotheistic and aniconic trends and traits in the respective religions. The concept of the Messiah is attested in Egypt, in Assyria, and among the Hittites many centuries or rather more than a millennium before Isaiah contextualized it within the small Hebrew kingdom. Both Egypt and Babylon were holy lands long before Moses promised South Canaan to the Ancient Hebrew tribes, whereas the Assyrians were the historically first Chosen People of the Only God and the Assyrian imperial ideology reflected this fact in detail. The Akkadian - Assyrian-Babylonian kings were 'emperors of the universe' and their rule reflected the 'kingdom of Heaven'.

If Etana and Ninurta reveal aspects of Assyrian eschatology, Horus was clearly the Egyptian Messiah, who would ultimately vanquish Seth (Satan/Antichrist) at the End of Time in an unprecedented cosmic battle that would usher the mankind into a new era which would be the reconstitution of the originally ideal world and Well-Being (Wser), i.e. Osiris. There is no Cosmogony without Eschatology or Soteriology, and nothing was invented and envisioned by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans that had not previously been better and more solemnly formulated among the Sumerians, the Akkadians - Assyrian-Babylonians, and the Egyptians. There is no such thing as 'Greco-Roman' or 'Greco-Christian' or' Greco-Judaic' civilization. Both, Islam and Christianity are the children of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

And this concludes the case of today's Catholic theologians, i.e. the likes of Pope Benedict XVI or Theodore Khoury; they have to restart from scratch in order to duly assess the origins and the nature of Christianity before the serpent casts "forth out of his mouth water as a river after the woman, that he may cause her to be carried away by the river". All the same, it was certainly Prof. Ratzinger's full right to make as many mistakes as he wanted and to distort any textual reference he happened to mention.

X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states

Quite contrarily, it was not the right of those who accused him of doing so, because they expanded rather at the political and not at the academic level; this was very hypocritical and shameful. If these politicians, statesmen and diplomats dared speak at the academic level, they would reveal their own ignorance, obscurantism, obsolete educational system, miserable universities, nonexistent intellectual life, and last but not least, disreputable scientific institutions.

The reason for this is simple: not one Muslim country has properly organized departments and faculties endowed with experts capable of reading historical sources in the original texts and specializing in the History of the Eastern Roman Empire, Orthodox Christianity, Christological disputes and Patristic Literature. If a Muslim country had an educational, academic and intellectual establishment similar to that of Spain or Poland, there would surely be serious academic-level objection to Benedict XVI's lecture. It would take a series of articles to reveal, refute and utterly denounce (not just the mistakes and the oversights but) the distorted approach which is not proper only to the defunct Pope Emeritus but to the entire Western academic establishment; these people would however be academics and intellectuals of a certain caliber. Unfortunately, such specialists do not exist in any Muslim country.

Then, the unrepresentative criminal crooks and gangsters, who rule all the countries of the Muslim world, reacted against Pope Benedict XVI at a very low, political level about a topic that was not political of nature and about which they knew absolutely nothing. In this manner, they humiliated all the Muslims, defamed Islam, ridiculed their own countries, and revealed that they rule failed states. Even worse, they made it very clear that they are the disreputable puppets of their colonial masters, who have systematically forced all the Muslim countries to exactly accept as theirs the fallacy that the Western Orientalists have produced and projected onto them (and in this case, the entirely fake representation of Islam that theologians like Ratzinger, Khoury and many others have fabricated).

If Ratzinger gave this lecture, this is also due to the fact that he knew that he would not face any academic or intellectual level opposition from the concerned countries. This is so because all the execrable puppets, who govern the Muslim world, were put in place by the representatives of the colonial powers. They do not defend their local interests but execute specific orders in order not to allow

- bold explorers, dynamic professors, and impulsive intellectuals to take the lead,

- proper secular education, unbiased scientific methodology, intellectual self-criticism, free judgment, and thinking out of the box to grow,

- faculties and research centers to be established as per the norms of educationally advanced states, and

- intellectual anti-colonial pioneers and anti-Western scholars to demolish the racist Greco-centric dogma that post-Renaissance European universities have intentionally diffused worldwide.

That is why for a Muslim today in Prof. Ratzinger's lecture the real problem is not his approach or his mistake, but the impermissible bogus academic life and pseudo-educational system of all the Muslim countries. In fact, before fully transforming and duly enhancing their educational and academic systems, Muslim heads of states, prime ministers, ministers and ambassadors have no right to speak. They must first go back to their countries and abolish the darkness of their ridiculous universities; their so-called professors are not professors.

Here you have all the articles that I published at the time in favor of Benedict XVI; the first article was published on the 16th September 2006, only four days after the notorious lecture and only one day after the notorious BBC report, which called the Muslim ambassadors to shout loud:

academia.edu

Benedictus XVI may not be right, but today's Muslims are islamically wrong! By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of a text initially published in Buzzle - 16 September 2006 The wrong question is: "Did Benedictus XVI insult Islam and M

academia.edu

What Benedict XVI should say, admonishing Muslim Ambassadors - by Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of an article initially published in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pope-benedict-xvi-admonishing-muslim-ambassadors.html on 2

academia.edu

Can Benedict XVI bring Peace and Concord? - by Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Originally published in Buzzle on 2 October 2006 ..................... Around 1600, all the important intellectuals of the Ottoman Empire re

academia.edu

Lord Carey, Benedictus XVI, and today's decayed Islam - Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of an article initially published in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lord-carey-benedictus-xvi-decayed-islam.html on 23 Septemb

academia.edu

Benedict XVI between Constantinople and Istanbul, by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

When, within a few hours, the Pope will land in Istanbul, he will find himself for a few days outside Time; the evenly balanced gravitation

academia.edu

Benedictus XVI between Istanbul and Nova Roma - by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Walking for a brief span of time in the capital of Justinian, Heraclius and Manuel II Paleologus, Benedict XVI has the rare possibility to s

-----------------------------

Download the obituary in PDF:

megalommatiscomments

Benedict XVI and today’s Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims  When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic C

academia.edu

Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Ch