Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:55:12.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Iranian Navy in the Gulf during the Eighteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Willem Floor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 18th century, rather remarkably, Iran formed a navy. Up to that time the shahs of Iran had relied on other powers to maintain security in the Persian Gulf. The dominant naval power in the gulf during the 16th century was Portugal, while the Dutch, and to a lesser extent the English, were supreme during the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries. Because Iran's southern borders were safe and secure after the conquest of Hormoz in 1622, it did not need a navy. Hence, Iran relied for a time on the Dutch and the English to maintain security in the gulf.

English naval assistance in the conquest of Hormoz set the pattern for the next century. This reliance on other powers for maintenance of security in the gulf proved to be a workable policy as long as there was no real threat to Iran's coastal borders in the south.

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 1987 , pp. 31 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Iranian Studies 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 H. Dunlop, Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis der Oostindische Compagnie in Perzie, 1611-1638 ('sGravenhage, 1930),p.l42.

2 Ibid., pp.157-59.

3 Ibid., p. 315. This task was facilitated by the fact that the VOC and the EIC had formally concluded a joint naval pact against the Portuguese on December 21, 1629, Ibid., p. 308 ff.

4 bid., pp. 389,404-06.

5 Algemeen Rijks Archief (henceforth cited as ARA/Dutch National Archives, the Hague), VOC 1149, Westerwolt to governor-general, Gamron, 28 April 1639, f. 1249; Ibid., 6 April 1639, f. 1283; VOC 1156, Geleynsen to governor-general, Gamron, 21 may 1640, f. 802; VOC 1160, Geleynsen to governor-general, Isfahan, 25 October 1641, f. 275.

6 Floor, Willem, “Het Nederlands-Iraanse conflict van 1645”, Verslagen en Aanwinsten 1978-1979 (Stichting Cultuurgeschiedenis van de Nederlanders Overzee, Amsterdam, 1980), pp. 46-56.Google Scholar

7 ARA, VOC 1175, Petitie Verburch, f. 245.

8 Hotz, A., Journaal der reis van…Cunaeus naar Perzie in 1651-52 (Amsterdam, 1908).Google Scholar

9 Floor, Willem, “First Contacts between the Netherlands and Masqat”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 132, 1982, p. 289-307.Google Scholar

10 Floor, Willem, “Masqat Anno 1673”, Le Moyen-Orient et I'Ocean Indien, Vol. 2, 1985, pp. 1-80.Google Scholar

11 W. Ph. Coolhaas (ed.), Generate Missiven van Gouverneurs-Generaal en Raden aan Heren XVII, deel IV, 1675-85, ('sGravenhage, 1971), pp. 740-42,826.

12 Ibid., deel V, 1686-1697, ('sGravenhage, 1975), p. 743.

13 Ibid., pp. 859-61.

14 ARA, VOC 1886, Oets to governor-general, Gamron, 24 March, 1716, f. 18.

15 ARA, VOC 1913, Ketelaar to governor-general, Gamron, 31 December 1717, f. 29, 49.

16 ARA, VOC 1904, Oets to governor-general, Gamron, 7 Novemeber, 1718, f. 2363-65; Ibid., f. 2403-05.

17 Ibid., f. 2263 vs-2264.

18 ARA. VOC 1928, Lotf Ali Khan to van Biesum, 17 July, 1718 (received ), f. 116; Ibid., Oets to van Biesum, Gamron, 15 September 1718, f. 179; Ibid., 1 October 1718, f. 181; Ibid., Lotf Ali Khan to van Biesum, 18 September, 1718 (received), f. 118-122; Ibid., Schorer to van Biesum, Isfahan, 13 August, 1718, f. 71 (people are elated in Isfahan. Shah is said to have appointed Lotf Ali Khan as tofangchī bāshī (artillery commander]); Ibid., 12 October, 1718, f. 80 (there were three days of bonfires at Isfahan to celebrate the reconquest of Bahrain).

19 ARA, VOC 1928, Oets to Lotf Ali Khan, Gamron, 24 August, 1718, f. 126-27.

20 ARA, VOC 1928, Shah to Oets, Dhu al-Qa‘da, 1130 (October 1718), f. 219-221.

21 ARA, VOC 1928, Oets to Shah, f. 221-24; Oets to E‘temad al-Dowleh, f. 224-28; Oets to Lotf Ali Khan, f. 232-35, Gamron, 3 January, 1719.

22 ARA, VOC 1947, Oets to governor-general, Gamron, 21 September, 1719, f. 82.

23 ARA, VOC 1964, Oets to governor-general, Gamron, 15 February, 1721, f. 76.

24 ARA, VOC 1964, Oets to governor-general, Gamron, 5 April, 1721, f. 767.

25 ARA, VOC 2009, Oets to governor-general, Gamron, 15 November, 1722, f. 47.

26 Lockhart, L., The Fall of the Safavid Dynasty (Cambridge, 1956), p. 171.Google Scholar

27 Lockhart, L., Nadir Shah (London, 1938), p. 44.Google Scholar

28 Floor, Willem, “The Revolt of Shaikh Ahmad Madani In Laristan and the Garmsirat (1730-33)”, Studia Iranica, Vol. 12, 1983, pp. 63-98.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., p. 67 (1731), pp. 71-71 (1732).

30 Lockhart, L., “The Navy of Nadir Shah”, Proceedings of the Iran Society, Vol. 1, (London, 1936), p. 6Google Scholar, n.l., Ibid., Nadir Shah, pp. 78-79.

31 ARA, VOC 2357, f. 455-57; Tahmasp Khan wrote a reply to this letter on 20 Jumada al-Awwal 1151 (15 October 1734) stating that Latif Khan had to prepare ships for transportation of 3,000 foot and horse; how he would arrange It Tahmasp Khan left to the discretion of Latif Khan, Ibid., f. 458.

32 Lockhart, “Navy”, pp. 6-7; Ibid., Nadir Shah, p.79; Floor, “The Revolt”, p. 90.

33 Ibid.; ARA, VOC 2357, f. 458.

34 ARA, VOC 2357, van Leypsigh to de Cleen, Isfahan, 5 November, 1734, f. 1106-08, 1115-16; Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 6.

35 ARA, VOC 2357, f. 461-64; Ibid., Koenad to Nadir, Gamron, 27 December, 1734, f. 463-63.

36 ARA, VOC 2357, f. 549.

37 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 7; Ibid., Nadir Shah, p. 93.

38 Ibid.; ARA, VOC 2357, f. 879-81 (received on 11 May, 1735). According to the Dutch Mohammad Latif Khan “is an ingenuous man, who has learnt too much about European customs at Istanbul, for he showed more curiosity than Mr. Waters, the English second-in-command, had credited him for, during their discussion about ship building and navigation aboard an English vessel”, ARA, VOC 2357, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 24 August 1735, f. 232.

39 It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the meaning of the terms referring to various types of vessels native to the Gulf area such as grab, gallivat, and dinghy. For a full bibliography on ship studies see: A. H. J. Prins, “The Maritime Middle East: A Century of Studies”, Middle East Journal, Vol. 27, 1973, pp. 207-220.

40 Lockhart, “Navy”, pp. 7-8; Ibid., Nadir Shah, pp. 93-94; ARA, VOC 2357, f. 917; Ibid., f. 1233 f. Mohammad Taqi Khan Shirazi to European companies, 27 July, 1735 (received).

41 ARA, VOC 2416, Resolutie Gamron, 23 October, 1735, f. 526-29.

42 ARA, VOC 2416, Resolutie Gamron, 21 November, 1735, f. 666-81.

43 ARA, VOC 2416, Resolutie Gamron, 22 December, 1735, f. 736-39. Shaykh Rashid said that there was no need for the Dutch to give a draft; a letter would have sufficed, for the VOC had a very large credit, as far as he was concerned. He refused, however, to accept the EIC draft; Ibid., f. 365 mentions that captain Louis (Lewis?) of the EIC had estimated the value of the Tawakkul.

44 Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p.63,96 f.

45 ARA, VOC 2416, f. 503-04 (dated Rabi‘ al-Awwal, 1148/July 1736); see also Ibid., f. 1036 Nadir's raqam (decree) of February 1736.

46 Lockhart, “Navy”, p.9; ARA, VOC 2416, 1041, and Ibid., Resolutie Gamron, 6 May, 1736, f. 995.

47 Lockhart, “Navy”, p.9; ARA, VOC 2416, Resolutie Gamron, 5 April, 1736, f. 337; Five years later the Dutch remarked that the English could spend so much money on the Iranian officials because they sold their ships to the Iranian government at 200% profit, ARA, VOC 2548, f. 2592.

48 ARA, VOC 2417, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 4 April, 1737, f. 3264; on the two trankis taken from Shaykh Rashid see: Floor, “The Revolt”, p. 89; Toeckel is Tawakkul. The term white money refers to good money, i.e., which had not been debased. Black money refers to bad or debased money, which was exchanged at a discount of 50%. So the total expenditure amounted to 12,800 toman plus 50% or 19,200 toman + 4000 toman = 23,200 toman of black money. Other expenditures brought the grand total to 23,600 toman.

49 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 9; Lockhart, Nadir Shah, pp. 108-09; ARA, VOC 2416, Koenad to Muhammad Taqi Khan, Safar 1149/Tune 1736, f. 1178-79.

50 ARA, VOC 2416, Resolutie Gamron, 13 October, 1736, f. 1390-92; VOC 2417, f. 4095-97, Sjeeg Rhama bien Fassal Tjoerecki to Koenad, 26 January, 1737 (received), see also Ibid., f. 4047 (Tjereckie).

51 ARA, VOC 2416, Resoluties Gamron, 10 December, 1736, f. 331-36, 442/8 November, 1736, f. 1506-08/8 November, 1736, f. 1476-83; VOC 2417, Koenad to Mirza Isma‘il (brother of Mohammad Taqi Khan), Gamron, 26 December, 1736, f. 4013- 18; Ibid., Koenad to Sjeeg Rama bien Fassal Tjereckle (Shaikh Rahma ibn Fazl Charaki), f. 4047; Ibid., Resoluties Gamron, 12 February, 1737, f. 3745-46/8 January, 1737, f. 3677-78; Lockhart, “Navy”, p.9.

52 ARA, VOC 2417, Resolutie Gamron, 9 March, 1737, f. 3791; VOC 2416, van Leypsigh to Koenad, Isfahan, 17 July, 1737, f. 2490; Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 9; Ibid., Nadir Shah, pp. 182-83.

53 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 10; ARA, VOC 2417, Resoluties Gamron, 23 March, 1737, f. 3822-24/30 March 1737, f. 3860-61; VOC 2448, Resolutie Gamron, 30 April, 1737, f. 319-32.

54 ARA, VOC 2448, Resolutie Gamron, 13 June, 1737, f. 419-22.

55 ARA, VOC 2448, Nadir Shah to Koenad, Rabi‘ al-Awwal, 1150/February 1737 (from Qandahar), received on 19 July, 1737, f. 55.

56 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 10; Ibid., Nadir Shah, p. 183-84; ARA, VOC 2448, Resolutie Gamron, 30 November, 1737, f. 822.

57 ARA, VOC 2448, Resolutie Gamron, 8 November, 1737, f. 789-96/10 December, 1737, f. 889.

58 ARA, VOC 2448, Resoluties Gamron, 10 December, 1737, f. 858, 884-84, 888-89/2 January, 1738, f. 949-56/28 January, 1738, f. 957-75/31 January, 1738, f. 977-85/3 March, 1738, f. 1990-94; Ibid., Mohammad Taqi Khan to Koenad, 23 Shawwal, 1150/13 Febraury, 1738, f. 1998; Ibid., Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 30 April, 1738, f. 1834, 1839-41.

59 ARA, VOC 2449, Resolutie Gamron, 6 May 1738, f. 2090-91; VOC 2476, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 25 February, 1739, f. 87-91; Ibid., Resolutles Gamron, 8 August, 1738, f. 182-83/12 August, 1738, f. 190-91/29 September, 1738, f. 244-46/3 October, 1738, f. 255-56. On 17 July, 1738/31 Rabi‘ al-Awwal Mohammad Taqi Khan had written to Koenad, that the latter's lack of enthusiasm to lend him a ship was quite evident. However, he did not need his ships anymore, because he was almost finished there (Masqat). “If the Imam of Masqat, Sayf, wants to oppose me, I have 7 to 8 ships on the roadstead of Julfar, one English company ship, and about 100 small vessels of Arab and other subjects of the Shah. Sayf only has two rotten, decrepit ships, and the royal fleet can handle those“; VOC 2476, Mohammad Taqi Khan to Koenad, Kong, 14 September, 1738 (received), f. 260-61; Ibid., Schoonderwoerd to Koenad, Bushire, 17 August, 1738, f. 1066/16 September, 1738, f. 1077/ 12 November, 1738, f. 1097/12 January, 1739, f. 1106; Ibid., Hoogeboom c. s. to Koenad, Qeshm, 23 July, 1738, f. 1130; see also f. 1140, 1146.

60 ARA, VOC 2476, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 25 February, 1739, f. 132- 33.

61 ARA, VOC 2476, Schoonderwoerd to Koenad, Bushire, 17 August, 1738, f. 1067: Ibid., Hoogeboom c. s. to Koenad, Qeshm, 13 December, 1738, f. 1193; Ibid., Koenad to governor-general, 25 February, 1739, f. 132-33.

62 ARA, VOC 2476, Resolutie Gamron, 20 January, 1739, f. 470-71/29 January, 1739, f. 495-99; Ibid., Koenad to van Leypsigh, Gamron, 31 January, 1739, f. 616.

63 ARA, VOC 2477, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 20 March, 1739, f. 84,88,109-111; Ibid., Resoluties Gamron, 20 March, 1739, f. 205-07/28 March, 1739, f. 235-39; Lockhart, “Navy”, p . l l .

64 ARA, VOC 2510, Resoluties Gamron, 16 July, 1739, f. 1370-73/29 July, 1739, f. 252; Ibid., Mohammad Taqi Khan to Koenad, f. 1248-53.

65 ARA, VOC 2510, Reoluties Gamron, 29 August, 1739, f. 278-79; Ibid., Koenad to governor-general, 25 November, 1739, f. 110-111.

66 ARA, VOC 2510, Resoluties Gamron, 10 November, 1739, f. 411/-16; Ibid., Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, f. 119-120; Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 11.

67 ARA, VOC 2510, f. 114-116,121; Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p. 184.

68 ARA, VOC 2511, Koenad to governor-general, 31 July, 1740, f. 157-58; VOC 2546, Koenad to governor-general, 31 March, 1740, f. 30-32.

69 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 11; Ibid., Nadir Shah, p. 212; ARA, VOC 2546, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 31 March, 1741, f. 33f (“Sjeeg Rhama has left with the Fattisjahi, 2 smaller vessels, and most of the best other crafts to Kong, Abdoel Sjeeg has fled with two small ships and ten trankis and is hidden somewhere near Qeshm); Ibid., f. 1725 states that “Rhama son of Sjahin Naghiloehi has fled after the mutiny with some ships to Sjahi and Bandar Hoela”.

70 ARA, VOC 2546, Koenad to governor-general, 31 March, 1741, f. 35-37; Ibid., Captain of Middenrak to Koenad, 10 September, 1740, f. 407/18 September, 1740, f. 1408-10; Dagregister Middenrak, f. 1415; Ibid., Schoonderwoerd to Koenad, Bushire, 11 October, 1740, f. 1355.

71 The two Dutch ships were faced by two big ships, viz. the Fattishahi and the Capitaine, as well as one 2-master, and 110 well-armed trankis, in addition to which many more trankis were lying on the beach, which the rebels had as yet not put into action. Soon after the battle started the Iranian trankis accompanying the Dutch ships fled. It should be noted here, that the ships of the Iranian fleet were used for transportation, shelling of enemy positions, and for fighting sea-battles. The European ships were superior in firepower, but as is clear from the various accounts, the smaller gulf vessels played an important part during these battles. For detailed information see ARA, VOC 2546, Dagregister (diary on events near Keyts/Qaish/ and Sjab/Abu Shu'aib/), F. 1423-37, and Ibid., Resolutie Scheepsraad, 1 October, 1740, f. 403-14; Ibid., Imam Verdi Khan to Schoonderwoerd, 24 October, 1740, f. 1153-54/to Koenad, 28 October, 1740 (received/from Nakhilu), f. 1756-58, 1759-60 (30 October, 1740), f. 1765 (11 November, 1740); Ibid., Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 31 march, 1741, f. 38-46; Ibid., Koenad to Sjeeg Sjahin and Sjeeg Rhama at the long island(=Qeshm), Gamron, 20 April, 1741, f. 1961-63, see also f. 1814-17; Ibid., f. 49-50 in January 1741 returned his vessels through the good offices of Mohammad Taqi Khan; Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p. 212.

72 ARA, VOC 2538, Darya begi to Koenad, 4 April, 1741, f. 187-88; Ibid., Imam Verdi Khan to Mohammad Taqi Khan, 3 April, 1741 (received), f. 182-85.

73 Lockhart, “Navy”, p.11, “In March, 1741, however, the mutineers, as before, quarrelled amongst themselves, and some of them opened negotiations with the Persian authorities. Strangely enough, these negotiations were conducted in English, as an English renegade acted as spokesman for the mutineers, while the Agent or one of his assistants interpreted for the Admiral. No settlement, however, was reached”.

74 ARA, VOC 2583, Resoluties Gamron, 15 August, 1741, f. 395-99/21 September, 1741, f. 493-545/7 October, 1741, f. 558-596; VOC 2584, Koenad to governor-general, Gamron, 22 January, 1742 (secret), f. 2495,2504-15.

75 ARA, VOC 2584, Contract Imam Verdi Khan for the use of Dutch ships, 8 October, 1741, f. 2117-19; Ibid., Imam Verdi Khan to Koenad, 14 October, 1741, f. 2125-29; Ibid., Darya begi to Koenad, 11 November, 1741 (received), f. 2134-35; Ibid., Ibrahim Sahid to Koenad, 18 November, 1741 (received), f. 2229-39; Ibid., Koenad to Zion, Deeldekaas (commanding officers of the two ships), 1 December and 20 December, 1741, f. 2664-70 (secret); Ibid., Zion to Koenad, 11 November, 1741. f. 2692-2701/ 21 November, 1741, f. 2712-17; Hatem Khan to Koenad, 6 December, 1741 (received), f. 2150/17 December, 1741 (received), f. 2167-69/25 December, 1741 (received), f. 2771-73 (all from Kong).

76 Koenad instructed his Isfahan office to obtain a finnan from Nader Shah “in which it is ordered that nobody can ask for our ships without showing a royal order,” ARA, VOC 2584, f. 2546. He also protested to Nader Shad about the high-handed behaviour of Imam Verdi Khan, Ibid., Koenad to Nader Shah, Gamron, 18 November, 1741, f. 2559-2607. In a secret letter to Batavia, Koenad asked for permission “to have the Persian taste the sword for once, in case the oppression is too much”, Ibid., f. 2501, which shows that the patience of the VOC council at Gamron had almost run out.

77 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 12; Ibid., Nadir Shah, pp. 213-14 for the possible reason for this scheme; ARA, VOC 2584, Raqam (decree) by Nader Shah to Koenad, 17 December, 1741 (received) (dated 21 Rabi‘ al-Awwal/June, 1741), f. 2161-62.

78 ARA, VOC 2584, Mohammad Ali Beg to Koenad, 17 December, 1741 (received), unfoliated,see also f. 2156; the intended length of the ship was wrong and not feasible, see Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p. 213.

79 ARA, VOC 2593, Clement to governor-general, Gamron, 31 October, 1742, f. 1778 verso;letter to Nader Shah, Ibid., f. 1780-81 (7 January, 1742).

80 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 12; Ibid., Nadir Shah, pp. 220-21; La Porterie came to Iran via Aleppo and Basra on 19 December, 1731. He had been an engineer in French employ. On 20 December, 1731 he left for Kirman (VOC 2254, f. 449). The fortune hunter, as the Dutch used to refer to him, arrived in Isfahan in February 1732, where he sought service with the Shah as an engineer, but he was not successful (VOC 2232, f. 363 verso). One year later he was with Nader's Army at Hamadan, who offered him too low a salary, reason why La Porterie returned to Isfahan, where he stayed with the English (VOC 2323, f. 669/10 October, 1733). In May 1738 it is reported that La Porterie had entered into Iranian service as a cannon caster (VOC 2476, f. 916) and that he would leave with the artillery to Kirman to fight against the Baluch of Makran (Ibid., f. 936). According to the Dutch La Porterie offered his service as a ship builder to Nader Shah. When he was not successful in this, he had to give up, and left in the company of a French captain, George Eustache, who had sold his ship, the “La Fortune”, to the Iranian government for 1,800 toman (VOC 2593, f. 1715 verso). His departure was a blow to the ship building plans, despite the fact that, according to Mohammad Ali Beg, Nader Shah wanted to pursue this activity with diligence, both in Iran, in Surat and in other Indian ports (Ibid., f. 1714 verso-15).

81 ARA, VOC 2593, f. 1807 verso, see also 1715 verso-16, and 1842 verso (La Fortune, Robert Galley); The English Agent commented (Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p. 215) “But what probability there is of such mighty Affairs being accomplished may in part be guessed at by the neabs they are obliged to use for procuring Timber Bringing it near Sixty Days, on Men's Shoulders from Mazenderoon, and They must come at every other material with equal difficulty.” At that time Nader's navy consisted of 15 ships according to the English, Ibid., p. 216.

82 ARA, VOC 2593, f. 1808; Lockhart, Nadir Shah, pp. 215-16.

83 Ibid., ARA, VOC 2593, f. 1797, 1803, 1806, 1808 verso. Mohammad Taqi Khan also asked the Dutch to supply him with three shipa, but they refused, Ibid., f. 1853-59.

84 Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p. 241 ff.; ARA, VOC 2680, de Poorter to Nader Shah, 19 April, 1744, unfoliated/resolutie Gamron, 20 January, 1744, unfoliated; Ibid., van der Welle to governor-general, Gamron, 10 August, 1745, f. 316-49.

85 Lockhart, Nadir Shah, p. 221; Ibid., “Navy”, pp. 13-14. However, in January 1745 Mozaffar Ali Khan asked again for supplies, VOC 2880, f. 59. His succesor as admiral of the gulf fleet was Salim Khan (VOC 2860, unfoliated; VOC 2705, f. 200/August 1745). In 1746 Mohammad Reza Khan was admiral of the fleet sailing to Masqat (VOC 2705, f. 426/March 1746).

86 See for example Ricks, T. H., Politics and Trade in Southern Iran and the Gulf (1745-1765), (unpublished dissertation Indiana University, 1974).Google Scholar

87 Lockhart, Nadir Shah, pp. 221-22; Floor, Willem, “A Description of the Persian Gulf in 1756”, Persica, Vol. 8, 1979, p. 166Google Scholar. See also pp. 172-73 for more details.

88 Lockhart, “Navy”, p. 14.

89 ARA, VOC 2357, van Leypsigh to Hey, Isfahan, 4 February 1735, f. 1145.

90 ARA, VOC 2474, f. 890 (20 April 1738).

91 Lockhart, Nadir Shah, pp. 204-05,289; Ibid., “Navy”, pp. 14-17.