Turks vs Persians?

Professor Edmund Herzig did this year’s BIPS AGM lecture on 23 November. I’m not even going to attempt to summarise it, but he made some fascinating points about the teaching and conception of history during and after the Islamic Revolution. I’m going to (very partially) summarise some of them here.

During the Pahlavi dynasty, pre-Islamic (Achaemenid / Sasanian) Iran was hailed as a Golden Period for Iran. The Islamic conquest was often seen as a disaster for Iranian culture. These ideas came to a head in the infamous 2,500 year Iranian Monarchy anniversary celebrations in 1971.  Mohammed Reza Shah was inspired by the 1520 ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold’ meeting between Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France to set up fifty sumptuous tent-pavilions in the desert at Persepolis.  A fortnight of extravagant celebrations followed.  Food for the six-hour banquet was flown in from Maxim’s of Paris.  Special dinnerware was created by Limoges.  Uniforms were designed by Lanvin.  Oceans of money were spent on fripperies.  There was even a small forest of trees expressly imported from France.

During the Revolution, ideas changed. The Islamic conquest could, of course, no longer be seen as a disaster. In the Revolutionary period, the Universities in Iran were shut for three years, while the syllabuses (or is that syllabi?) were Islamised.

So how have historians and history-teaching fared? Herzig presented some case studies of individual historians and their publications. He made three points which I thought were especially interesting:

First, he noted that most historians have sensibly steered clear of direct ideological engagement, focusing instead on specific sources. This keeps their integrity intact, but makes for a sometimes-dull (my words, not Edmund’s!) focus on specific (small) points rather than a broad sweep of engaging ideas.

Second, Prof Herzig reported that some history is now taught from Theology Departments. This must of course affect the content and emphasis.

Lastly, he talked about a very interesting approach to the Turkish invasions of Persia. The old Pahlavi approach said that Arabs and Turks were bad, Persians good. Post-Revolution, no-one is going to say the Arabs are bad. But what about the Turks? One approach has apparently been to move right away from a Turk-Persian dichotomy – towards a regional perspective. In this conception, the big thing going on when the Turks invaded Persian territory was not the specific battles – but the effects of the Battle of Manzikert, and the Crusades. This changes the key contest into a Muslim-Christian fight (rather than the Persians vs the Turks). Following this idea, although the Turks were best at the Arts of War; the Persians were the ultimate ‘winners’ – since the might of the Turkish military spread Persian language, poetry, and culture up as far as the Mediterranean.