نشریه تاریخ اسلام و ایران
سال بیستم شماره 5 (بهار 1389)

Although Timur, the founder of the Timurid reign, gained a victory in military fronts, he never sought to establish the legitimacy principles independent of the Mongols. This procedure, which continued on at the realm of his successors, caused the passivity of Timurid’s foreign policy in their relationship with Mongols. Therefore they continued with compromise in relation to the different branches of Mongols who lived on its eastern and northern borders and never sought to ever throw them completely. Its immediate consequence was that in spite of Mongols weakness in this period. They could protect the political establishments and in the long run along with the Timurid’s weakness they would act against the Timurid government’s possessions. This paper is going to study the Timurids relationship with a branch of neighboring Mongolian peoples, namely Mongolian who ruled on Qebchaq desert.

In the civilization region of Iran, Sogd (Sogdiana) land is the earliest in building, growth and development of the city. The etymology of Sogd shows that its meaning is "town and residence". The residents of Sogd were the first urbanized people and the sides of Sogd (Zarafshan / Zeravshan) river are reckoned as the best place in nature and climate for the growth of the city. Although there were repeated attacks of eastern desert invaders (nomadic); being in the side of water, having plains and sand region, the transit of the most important commercial ways of Sogd and agriculture and the land owner (Dehghan / Dehkan) caused its prosperity.This paper tries to get through the effective factors in the existence and the developmental of these areas. And so, investigates about the history of its name and indication historical situation in morphology and existence of Sogdian cities.

Zand reign (1747-1795) particularly during Karim Khan’s rule regards as the period of constancy and quietness after Safavid era, which brought a style of statesmanship due to the condition of that time. The most important characteristic of this style was the difference in the relation between political and religious institutions beside Safavid and Afsharid periods. It seems that the structural failure of these two institutions has affected the cause of their formation of limited exchange.In traditional style, king or sultan was the head of political and religious institutions. But in the Zand reign, king was not in his commonplace situation. Though in that period, the theoretical basis of government did not change, the exchange between political and religious institution was limited. This survey explains reasons and conditions that influence this exchange.

The government of Altin urdu was the most important confederate of Mamlūks. Both of them had a great deal of hostility with in Mongols in Iran, and this common denominator had impressive effect in commercial and political relationships between them.After the death of Mongu (Mongka), because of disagreements between Mongol Khans for the successor, the internal war was arose and a series of quarrels were started especially between two governments that were rivals and had a common border. These quarrels were commanded by Barkah khan and Hulaku. A quarrel of Hulaku with Barkah over the power, his action in murdering and plundering of Islamic cities especially Bagdād, distruction of Abbāsid caliphate and protection of Christians and Buddhists in confrontation of Muslims, carried the anger of the Muslim Khan of Altin urdu. The existence of common enemy –Mongols- ended in proximity and confederation of two Islamic governments of Mamlūks and Altin Urdu. The good political relations carried extended commercial relations.The government of Mamlūks because of involvement in two groups of Franks and Mongols had to strengthen its military power. Then Baybars started slave trading from Qibchāq plain and its attaching markets in the Asia Minor and black sea shores. On the contrary, Barkah also with confederacy with Baybars enjoyed the benefits of relation confederating governments of Mamlūks such as Byzantines, Sicily, Rom Seljuqs, Aragon and Castile.

Although the term “Pars” applied to the land in southern Iran from Achaemenid Period, according to linguistic studies on Assyrian documents, before the above-menthioned period, several areas in Iran were called Pars, or other variants of it (Parsua, Parsuaš, and Parsumaš). These areas included around of Urmia Lake, Kirmānshāh, and Elam. Even according to these studies the term Parth, the ancient name for Khurāsān, is another variation of the same origin which means “boundary” or “side”. As it is revealed through historical documents, the term Parsua is used in Assyrian documents first in 9th century B.C. and later in Assyrian inscriptions of that era, was called a subdued land. The first term for historical Parsua is pinpointed in descriptions of Assyrian invasions to Northern Zagros and along with it we witness mentioning of places around north western Iran. Despite arguments about the original land of Parsua, in most of these studies it is mentioned that the present day southern Azerbaijan or northern Kurdistan was one of the first residential places of Persians in Iran.

The formation of Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus leadership, its establishment and continuation under his successors, in fact was to shift the empire from Mesopotamia to Iran and to assimilate the Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt empires in an expanded empire under Persians leadership. In its nature, the Achaemenid empire enjoyed the framework composed of the following features and characteristics: having expanded territory with a crowd and consisted of the various ethnics and nations, the dominance of Persian ruling ethnic/tribe over subjects by military power, the formation of consolidated financial organization, having the army composed of the central forces (Persian, Median, Elamid and Scythian) and outlying ones (the forces of other ethnics) settled in empire territory, the delegation of authority to the king while the local powers are subject to him, having relatively the variable frontiers and to manage the internal and external forces, and finally, expending and assemble the necessary grounds for growth and development of all cultures and traditions of subject ethnics and nations. The comparing between the facts of Achaemenid empire and the features and characteristics of one empire suggests that the Persians in the first experiment could establish the empire in which, not only maintained the legacy of former empires but by inspiration of Iranian spirit in its, perplexed the Greek thinkers and on the other hand, arose the grounds of formation of later Iranian empire.

The study of Iran's relations with its neighbors did not end in political affairs only. Particularly, in the mutual behavior between the Iranians and the Ottomans in each other's lands there were other important elements which sometimes directed the diplomatic pivot of the two countries to unwanted situations. The measure of the traffic of subjects to both sides, mainly the Iranians interested in pilgrimages and life opportunities, who moved to Ottoman territories, indicate the depth of relations mainly amongst ordinary people. Examining people's reactions in both territories based on documentations reveal daily exchanges between subjects of both sides. However, if any conflicts aroused during these contacts, legal pursuits would be taken to the official courts. Among these conflicts, land possession, which was a basic element of citizen's rights, frequently provided long negotiations. This article, based on archival sources, endeavors to clarify the situation through the following lines:-The geography of land possessed by foreign subjects;-The circumstances of possessions and records;-The kinds and varieties of possessions;-The difficulties against land ownerships.