This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Then we can also remove
Monarchs of Persia from
Timur, according to your logic, he was not
an ethnic Persian and he also did not rule Persia but the Timurid empire, a country named Persia did not exist in his time.
Well, but at least the term "Persia" was used for the region of today's Iran (and its vicinity) for millennia, both before and after Tamerlane. E.g., it's all over the
Fra Mauro map (ca. 1450), and it is commonly used to describe that region in that era in modern literature. "Uzbekistan", on the other hand, is a fairly modern term (i.e., post 1920). Older literature would talk about "Turkestan" in general, or about "Samarkand", "Bukhara", "Khiva", "Kokand" (sp?) as the case may be; it would be unusual for a modern historian to use the term while describing events in Alimqul's era (or at any time before the formation of the first "Uzbekistan" republic or oblast in the early USSR). So to anyone who's read any historical literature on the region at all, the very expression, "Monarch of Uzbekistan" would have a ridiculously anachronistic sound to it. --
Vmenkov (
talk)
17:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply