Evaluating the intellectual orientations, political conduct, and strategic actions of the leaders and combatants of the Constitutional Revolution constitutes a significant strand of modern Iranian historiography—one often shaped by polemics, apologetics, and partisan judgments. Within this context, Taqizadeh, as one of the prominent intellectual and political figures of the Constitutional movement, has consistently drawn the attention of scholars and thinkers, including Sayyed Ahmad Kasravi. In his works on the Constitutional era, Kasravi repeatedly assessed, analyzed, and criticized Taqizadeh’s political behavior, raising issues that prompted not only Taqizadeh himself but also a number of contemporary intellectuals and writers to respond and articulate their own views. This study aims to verify the accuracy of Kasravi’s critiques by identifying the key issues he raised and examining them in light of Taqizadeh’s documented activities during the Constitutional years. Based on the preliminary hypothesis, Taqizadeh—contrary to Kasravi’s assertions—sought conciliation with Mohammad Ali Shah in the days preceding the bombardment of the Majles, largely due to threats issued by the Russian and British envoys. He urged restraint, discouraged the mobilization of armed constitutionalists, and on the eve of the bombardment chose seclusion and ultimately took refuge in the British Legation rather than joining the resistance. The findings suggest that, despite Kasravi’s claims, Taqizadeh was neither an agent nor a collaborator of British policy; rather, Kasravi’s misperception stemmed from an exaggerated belief in British support for the Constitutionalists. This research, drawing on library sources, journals, and relevant studies, employs a descriptive‑analytical method to reassess these contested interpretations.