نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

• رضا صحت منش

دانشیار گروه تاریخ دانشگاه جیرفت، جیرفت، ایران

چکیده

سقوط اصفهان و پایان حکومت صفوی، موجب طرح الگوهای تازه­ای برای به ­دست آوردن حکومت در ایران شد. ملک­ محمود سیستانی تبار کیانی را پیش کشید و افغان ­ها، حکومت استکفایی به نیابت از خلافت عثمانی را مطرح کردند. به ­علاوه الگوی صفوی مبنی بر نیابت از امامان معصوم (ع)، کماکان پابرجا بود. در میان مدعیان اما، نادر افشار به حکومت رسید و به مدت 23 سال در رأس قدرت بود. نگارنده در پژوهش پیش‌رو قصد دارد با روش تحلیلی و استفاده از منابع اصلی عصر افشاریه، تلاش­های نادر را در این زمینه بکاود و به این پرسش پاسخ دهد که نادرشاه افشار برای کسب قدرت و ایجاد مبانی مشروعیت از چه الگوهایی استفاده کرد؟ با بررسی و تحلیل داده­ ها، آشکار شد که نادر در پی صفوی ­زدایی و زدودن میراث صفوی در ایران بود. شاهان متأخر صفوی با فرورفتن در تَشرُع و تأکید بر نیابت از امام معصوم (ع)، وظایف شاهی را تغییر داده بودند. از این‌رو نادرشاه با الگوبرداری از تیمور گورکانی و تلفیق سنن ترکمان و ایرانی، مشروعیت سنتی پیشاصفوی را احیاء کرد. بدین ترتیب چهره شاه ترمیم و بر رزم­ آوری سلطان تأکید شد. در این روند، سپاهیان بر روحانیون، سنیان بر شیعیان و غیر­ایرانیان بر رعایای ایرانی برتری یافتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• نادرشاه
• تیمور گورکانی
• مشروعیت
• سپاه
• سنن ترکمان
• سنت ایرانی

موضوعات

• جامعه شناسی سیاسی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Nader Shah’s Mixed Model to Establish the Legitimacy of Afsharid Dynasty in the Post-Safavid Era

نویسنده [English]

• Reza Sehhat Manesh

Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Jiroft, Jiroft, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
With the fall of Isfahan to the Afghans and the subsequent rise of the Afshars, new models of gaining power began to emerge. During this period, new contenders and figures rose to challenge the Safavids. The most significant among them were the Afghans, Fath-Ali Khan Qajar, Malik Mahmoud Sistani, and Nader Qoli Afshar. Meanwhile, Tahmasb II relied on the legitimate right of Safavid succession. Among these contenders, it was Nader Afshar who ultimately seized the throne. The present study sought to answer the follwing question: What model did Nader Afshar use to gain power and establish the foundations of his legitimacy?
Literature Review
The related literature has given relatively little attention to Nader Shah’s efforts to establish legitimacy. In “The Army of Nader Shah,” Axworthy (2007) examined Nader’s army, arguing that the formation of his military after the Safavid period constituted a revolution in weaponry, training, discipline, and morale. In the article titled “Nader Shah, Social Legitimacy, and Riots (1726–1740),” Faridi et al. (2017) concluded that Nader sought political and religious legitimacy through a policy of religious tolerance; however, his efforts ultimately failed due to internal uprisings and Ottoman hostility. They also argued that Nader’s attempts to construct a lineage clashed with the public’s belief in farr-e izadi (divine glory).
 In “The Legitimacy of the Safavids and the Reign of Nader,” Abdollahi and Kajbaf (2013) interpreted Nader’s pursuit of legitimacy as tied to the Safavids and highlighted the process of his delegitimization, noting that the transfer of power from the Safavids to the Afsharids occurred in a relatively soft manner.
Mousavi-Dalini (2018) analyzed Nader’s economic policies as centered on wealth, power, and security, suggesting that he prioritized economics and approached politics through an economic lens. The present study, however, aimed to examine Nader’s efforts to revive Timurid and Turkmen traditions, to re-establish traditional legitimacy, and to purge society of Safavid legacies. Particular attention is also given to Nader’s army and his military strategies as foundations of his legitimacy.
 
 Materials and Methods
This study used an analytical method, drawing on primary sources from the Afsharid and Timurid periods. The sources included both domestic and foreign historiographical works, with particular emphasis on European travelogues and accounts from Nader’s era. An attempt was made to extract the data as comprehensively as possible through full induction and then compare it with data from the Timurid period.
Result and Discussion
There are many similarities between Nader and Timur. Both were Turks from the northeast of Iran, both began their careers as soldiers, and both rose to join the ranks of royal families. It is noteworthy that both generals emerged during periods that were strikingly similar. In the post-Ilkhanid era, Nizam al-Din Shami writes that sedition and chaos spread, and distress and anxiety entered the state of the kingdoms, while the subjects, who were the burdens of glory, fell into the grip of oppression (Shami, 1937, p. 16). Similarly, following the decline of the Safavid dynasty, chaos and disruptions entered the state of Iran; the inhabitants of the provinces began opposing authority in every corner, and the path of intemperance emerged. Consequently, general disturbances affected both religious and governmental rules (Marvi, 1990, p. 5).
The core of the army during both the Timurid and Turkmen eras consisted of a unified force of Jaghtai Turks and Turkmens. In Travels to Tana and Persia, Zeno (1873) writes that Uzun Hassan was a ruler whose mercy rests in the hearts of the soldiers. He gathered chosen riders and believed he could easily make himself the ruler of Iran, provided that his loyal supporters remained steadfast. Many of Timur’s military successes can be attributed to the devotion of his troops, who regarded themselves as invincible under his leadership and revered him as the god of war. They interpreted the victories of the Tatar emir over his enemies as the will of destiny (Mirjafari, 1996). Following the example of earlier Turkmen sultans, Nader began forming a loyal army, building its core from Turkmens and supplementing it with Sunni Afghans.
Nader and Timur both attempted to establish connections with royal families at the start of their careers. Timur was accompanied by Amir Hossein Qazghani. Qazghani, though considered deserving of rule (Hafiz-Abru, 2001), was ultimately defeated and killed by Timur. Even after this, Timur initially refused to assume power directly and instead placed a Mongol prince on the throne—named Sivarghtamesh whose lineage traced back seven generations to Genghis Khan (Hafiz-Abru, 2001). Similarly, Nader initially approached the royal family of Iran and began his career alongside Tahmasp Safavid.
This companionship provided Nader with an opportunity to introduce the real king to the people through concrete actions. Timur had already demonstrated in the post-Ilkhan era that religion could be used as a tool to achieve political goals (Mirjafari, 1996). By attracting Shia and declaring his friendship with Hazrat Ali (AS), he sought the support of the majority of Muslim community. A similar pattern can be seen in Nader’s religious policy during the post-Safavid era. He treated religion primarily as a means to political ends. In line with this, Nader Afshar favored Sunni sects, reflecting the religion of the majority of Turkmens. His policy sought to undermine Shia legitimacy and diminish or erase Safavid Imamism and their belief in the infallibility of Imams. Iranians were victims of militias during the eras of Timur and Nader. In fact, Nader weakened the Safavid supporters both within the army and across the country by simultaneously providing economic support to the military and pursuing a policy of de-Iranization in the army, which deprived Iranians of their wealth. Since Nader did not belong to Iran’s royal dynasties, it might have been difficult for the people to accept him; they were unlikely to be loyal even to his sons. He believed that no one should oppose his heirs. Because Nader’s army consisted largely of Uzbeks, Afghans, Afshars, and Qajars, and he had little reliance on Persians, he gradually removed the latter from the military (Tucker, 1994).
Conclusion
In order to establish the foundations of legitimacy, Nader modeled himself on Timur Gurkani. He made the army the central pillar of his power by regularizing it, after it had suffered greatly during the era of the Safavid rulers. Clergymen, state officials, Safavid survivors, and the general populace accepted his authority based on the strength of Nader’s troops. He appointed the Sunnis to the key military positions and simultaneously weakened the Iranians, who had been the main supporters of the Safavids. Civil affairs were taken from Iranians and placed under military control. Through continuous wars and successive victories, Nader ensured the permanent prominence of the army. In this process, whether intentionally or not, he combined the traditional model of legitimacy based on the divine right of the king with Turkmen traditions. According to this model, Nader, as a conquering general, assumed a position similar to that of Sultan Zafarmand among the Turkmen or Shah Farahmand in Iran. However, these rare fundamental measures were largely temporary solutions to the pressing problems of Iranian society. It seems that he was unable to leave power as a legitimate legacy for his successors, and his attempts to establish a lasting dynasty ultimately failed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Nader Shah
• Timur Gurkani
• Legitimacy
• Army
• Turkmen Tradition