Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:59:02.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Qizilbāsh and their Shah: The Preservation of Royal Prerogative during the Early Reign of Shah Ṭahmāsp

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

GREGORY ALDOUS
GREGORY ALDOUS*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern historians of Persia's Safavid period (1501–1722) have long assumed that there was an interregnum between the death of Shah Ismāʿīl I in 1524 and the date when his son Ṭahmāsp came of age and established direct control in the 1530s. This idea of an interregnum takes two forms in the historiography. According to one narrative, during this time the Qizilbāsh amirs were disloyal to the young Ṭahmāsp and tried to seize control of Persia for themselves. According to the other, there was a war of succession in which Qizilbāsh factions supported different sons of Ismāʿīl I. Both of these narratives co-exist in the contemporary historical literature even though they disagree. Based on a close reading of the early Safavid chronicles, this article demonstrates that both narratives are incorrect and there was no interregnum. The Qizilbāsh continued throughout Ṭahmāsp's minority to respect him and treat him as their leader. Unsurprisingly, given his youth and inexperience, he deferred matters of state to his amirs. Nevertheless, his amirs derived their legitimacy to rule from him, and when leadership passed from one amir to another, it did so only with Ṭahmāsp's approval. Moreover, there was no dispute over the succession during Ṭahmāsp's minority.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 743 - 758
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society

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 Savory, R. M., “The Principal Offices of the Safawid State during the Reign of Ṭahmāsp I (930–84/1524–76),” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 24, no. 1 (1961), p. 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ibid., pp. 65, 70.

3 Ibid., p. 71.

4 H. R. Roemer, “The Safavid Period,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6, The Timurid and Safavid Periods, (eds.) L. Lockhart and P. Jackson (Cambridge, 1986), p. 233.

5 Ibid.

6 Abisaab, R. J., Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire (London, 2009), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

7 Babayan, K., “The Safavid Synthesis: From Qizilbash Islam to Imamite Shi`ism,” Iranian Studies Vol. 27, no. 1–4 (1994), p. 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also S. Babaie et al., Slaves of the Shah: New Elites of Safavid Iran (London, 2004), p. 26.

8 Babayan, “The Safavid Synthesis,” p. 141. Babayan repeated this argument in “The Safavids in Iranian History (1501–1722),” in The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, (ed.) Touraj Daryaee (Oxford, 2012), p. 297.

9 Babayan, K., Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran (Cambridge, Mass., 2002), p. 331Google Scholar.

10 Babayan, “The Safavids in Iranian History”, p. 291.

11 Matthee, R., Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan (London, 2012), p. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, C. P., The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion and Rhetoric (London, 2009), p. 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Mitchell, The Practice of Politics, p. 60.

13 M. Membré, Mission to the Lord Sophy of Persia (1539–1542), translated by A. H. Morton (Warminster, 1999), pp. 18, 32, 42. This has already been remarked upon by D. Morgan in Medieval Persia 1040–1797, A History of the Near East (London and New York, 1988), p. 118.

14 Sām Mīrzā's rebellion cannot serve as a counterexample since it occurred almost a decade after Ṭahmāsp had ascended the throne, after Ṭahmāsp had reached adulthood.

15 Ghiyāth al-Dīn b. Humām al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī Khwāndamīr, Tārīkh-i ḥabīb al-siyar, 4th edition (Tehran, 1380/2001), pp. 595–597.

16 Qāḍī Aḥmad Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Tārīkh-i jahān-ārā (Tehran, n.d.), p. 280.

17 Kupik Sulṭān was the brother of the former amīr al-umarā Chāyān Sulṭān. His given name was Muṣtafā, but Safavid historians usually referred to him by the nickname Kupik.

18 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 282; Khūrshāh b. Qubād al-Ḥusaynī, Tārīkh-i īlchī-yi niẓām shāh: Tārīkh-i ṣafaviyya az āghāz tā sāl 972 hijrī qamarī, (eds.) Muḥammad Riḍā Naṣīrī and Koichi Haneda (Tehran, 1379/2000), p. 85; ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār: Tārīkh-i ṣafavīya az āghāz tā 978 hijrī qamarī, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Navāʾī (Tehran, 1369/1990), p. 60.

19 Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Navāʾī (Tehran, 1384/2005), p. 1142.

20 ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 61.

21 Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1142.

22 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 282; ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 61.

23 ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 61.

24 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 282.

25 Khūrshāh b. Qubād al-Ḥusaynī, Tārīkh-i īlchī, p. 93.

26 Būdāq Munshī Qazvīnī, Javāhir al-akhbār: Bakhsh-i tārīkh-i īrān az qara qūyūnlū tā sāl 984 h. q., (ed.) Muḥsin Bihrām Nizhād (Tehran, 1378/1999), p. 153.

27 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 284; ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 64.

28 Martin B. Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks (The Duel for Khurásán with ʿUbayd Khán: 930-946/1524-1540)”, (unpublished PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1958), p. 95; Savory, Roger, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge, 1980), p. 53Google Scholar.

29 Amīr Maḥmūd b. Khwāndamīr, Īrān dar rūzgār-i shāh ismāʿīl va shāh ṭahmāsb ṣafavī, (ed.) Ghulāmriḍā Ṭabāṭabāʾī (Tehran, 1370/1991), p. 249.

30 Būdāq Munshī Qazvīnī, Javāhir al-akhbār, pp. 155–156; ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 65.

31 Khūrshāh b. Qubād al-Ḥusaynī, Tārīkh-i īlchī, p. 106.

32 Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks,” p. 153.

33 ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 66; Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 285; Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1196; Būdāq Munshī reports the event more briefly than the others and does not mention their obeisance before the shah, Javāhir al-akhbār, p. 159.

34 Khūrshāh b. Qubād al-Ḥusaynī, Tārīkh-i īlchī, p. 109; ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 68; Būdāq Munshī Qazvīnī, Javāhir al-akhbār, p. 160.

35 Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1198.

36 ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 68; Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1198.

37 Savory, Iran under the Safavids, pp. 54–55.

38 Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks,” p. 199.

39 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 285; Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1199.

40 ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 70.

41 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 285; Būdāq Munshī Qazvīnī, Javāhir al-akhbār, p. 163.

42 Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1200.

43 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 286; Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1200.

44 Savory, Iran under the Safavids, p. 55; Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks”, p. 200.

45 Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks,” pp. 228–229.

46 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 287.

47 Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1215; Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 288; ʿAbdī Beg Shīrāzī, Takmilat al-akhbār, p. 78.

48 Ghifārī Qazvīnī, Jahān-ārā, p. 289; Būdāq Munshī Qazvīnī, Javāhir al-akhbār, p. 174.

49 Khūrshāh b. Qubād al-Ḥusaynī, Tārīkh-i īlchī, p. 127.

50 Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks,” p. 292.

51 Ḥasan Bayg Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tavārīkh, p. 1231.

52 Dickson, “Sháh Ṭahmásb and the Úzbeks,” pp. 265, 268–269.