Historical Sciences Studies

Abstract The Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt were dynasties that arose after the conquests of Alexander the Great. During the life of their dynasty, they were involved in six wars, known as the Syrian Wars, for control of the eastern Mediterranean. The Battle of Raphia took place at the end of the Fourth Syrian War between Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV in 217 BC. This battle was one of the critical and decisive confrontations in the Syrian Wars between the two great powers of the Hellenistic era. On the one hand, Antiochus III, king of the Seleucids, sought to regain the territories he had lost in previous centuries. On the other hand, Ptolemy IV and the Ptolemaic government of Egypt sought to assert their dominance over the eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, the results and consequences of this battle could affect the balance of power in the entire Mediterranean region. Based on the historical approach and on the description and analysis of the data of documents and sources, the current research seeks to answer the question: what were the causes of the Battle of Raphia and what were its results and consequences? The results of the research show that this battle was due to the domination of both sides over the eastern Mediterranean countries, especially the region of Coele-Syria; although Antiochus III was defeated in this battle, the passive policy of the Pharaoh of Egypt caused Antiochus III to revive his authority in Asia Minor and eastern Iran. On the other hand, the Egyptians had to contend with the growing power of Rome in the west and were eventually wiped out

Abstract This Study depicts the narratives of Aeschylus and Herodotus about the Achaemenid emperors and tries to show how they gave a narrative about the Achaemenid emperors and what sources they relied on in this regard. Its importance lies in a better understanding of Herodotus’s historiography and its use of Aeschylus’s narration among other sources. The main question and the problem that has been raised is to what sources did Aeschylus and Herodotus use in their narration and what narration they give. The approach and the research Methodology of this study is a thought. This means that it puts the narratives of Aeschylus and Herodotus next to each other to find out how they gave a narrative about the Achaemenid emperors. The thesis is that Aeschylus, who himself witnessed the Persian campaign, while giving a first-hand account, rewrote it based on the model of Greek tragedies, and Herodotus, while largely is influenced by Aeschylus’ account of the Achaemenid emperors and Xerxes’ campaign to Greece, he used other sources in his narration. As a result and data, the narratives of Aeschylus and Herodotus about the Achaemenid emperors and Xerxes’s campaign to Greece show similarities and differences. Based on the model of Greek tragedies, Aeschylus’s narrative tells the story of Xerxes’ campaign as a king whose delusions lead him to do brazen actions that involve an inevitable fate from the gods. Herodotus’ narrative is largely derived from Aeschylus’s narrative. The ups and downs that Herodotus depicts in the lives of the Achaemenid emperors and especially Xerxes and the influence of the intervention of gods and fate in their lives are all reminiscent of the ancient Greek tragedies, here specifically the Persians of Aeschylus. At the same time, Herodotus also uses other sources and gives more details than Aeschylus to show the reasons and agents of this campaign as a historian. Despite this, Aeschylus’s narrative is decades ahead of Herodotus’s narrative and is closer to the time of the event. Also, his narration of the Achaemenid emperors, as narrated by Atossa, Darius and Xerxes, has significant differences from Herodotus’s narration

Abstract The role and position of the Kurdish Baban Emirate in Iran-Ottoman relations has been neglected. The main problem of the present research is to investigate the impact of the Ottoman central government's inability in the eastern provinces on the security of the western territory of Iran. Emirate of Baban and Pashalik of Baghdad were provinces far from the Ottoman center. The territories of both rulers were separated from the territory of Iran after the Zohab Treaty, but Iran's influence and role in Baban and Baghdad never disappeared. The inability and unwilling of the Ottoman central government - especially from the twelfth century to the middle of the thirteenth century - had led to a power vacuum in the eastern provinces. Such a situation was a serious threat to the western territory of Iran. As the subjects and borderlands of Iran were exposed many times to the raids of the Kurds and Arabs of the territory of Baban and Baghdad. In order to ensure the security of its territory, as well as maintaining and continuing its role and influence in the territory of Baban, Iran was inevitably involved in the conflicts between Baban and Baghdad. Some researchers have wrongly considered Iran's involvement in Baban and Baghdad issues as "interference". While Iran's involvement was as a legitimate right to Self-Defense. In the present research, the claim of Iran's "interference" has been rejected by a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach, citing Iranian and Ottoman documents and sources. Because the involvement of Iran in the affairs of Baban and Baghdad was more than based on the will of the Iran, it was caused by the inability and unwillingness of the Ottoman government in the eastern provinces. Basically, the Ottoman government was considered among the unable or unwilling states from the point of view of international law. In order to ensure the security of its subjects and borderlands, Iran sometimes had to use force, except for political and diplomatic ways

Abstract The relations between Oman and Iran have a very long history. This longstanding connection is clearly documented in historical records over the past century, showcasing the diplomatic engagements between the two nations. Numerous factors, contexts, and platforms have shaped the Omani rulers' approach, marking them as individuals of high tolerance towards other states and nations in local, regional, and international politics. Oman's strategic position at the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with its identity as a Muslim country boasting ethnic diversity—including Arab, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani communities—has enriched its cultural, religious, social, and linguistic tapestry. This diversity within the social structure of its rulers has enabled Oman to undertake political actions aimed at fostering political solidarity and an internal bond of tolerance among all ethnic groups, thereby embodying these values.Such practices have positioned Oman as a nation characterized by tolerance, balance in behavior, and stability in local, regional, and international policy adoption. Historical documents and texts reveal that Omani rulers have held a prestigious status in various fields, significantly contributing to de-escalating tensions and preventing conflicts among Muslim countries. By embracing a policy that spans political, social, economic, religious, cultural, linguistic, and security dimensions, Oman has played a pivotal role in peacefully resolving local, regional, and international disputes. Notable examples of Oman's diplomatic interventions include its involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, nuclear negotiations, the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the signing of numerous oil, gas, and security agreements in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea, facilitating hostage releases, and the exchange of cultural, artistic, and media delegations.Moreover, Oman has been instrumental in mediating significant issues such as the conflict between Ansar Allah (the Houthis) and Saudi Arabia, showcasing its commitment to peace and security in the region. This aspect of Omani diplomacy merits attention as a critical historical topic in international relations.The current research aims to examine the role and position of the Omani government in its relations with Iran from the pre-revolutionary period to the present, based on historical documents and evidence. By employing a descriptive, explanatory, and analytical method, this study addresses the underlying factors, grounds, substrates, and motives that have sustained the balanced and relatively stable relationship between Oman and Iran since before the revolution.Preliminary findings suggest that various factors and contexts have historically underpinned the positive and robust relationship between Oman and Iran. Oman's role as a mediator in regional and international conflicts has contributed to outcomes favoring peace, friendship, and security in the Persian Gulf. This research focuses exclusively on the diplomatic interactions between Oman and Iran, emphasizing the significance of their cooperative efforts while other matters remain beyond its scope

Abstract Mafaroukhi and Abunoaym Isfahani, in their books about the history of Isfahan, said that the Sassanian king Pērōz ordered an Isfahani architect, named Āzarshāpour, son of Āzarmāhān, to finish the fortress of Jay (Old city of Isfahān). He built four gates on the wall. In summer solstice, two gates were the place of sunrise and sunset, as in winter solstice, two other gates had the same situation. The gates were named Khor, Māh, Tīr and, Gōsh, names of four Zoroastrian deities and four successive days in the Zoroastrian calendar. This paper aims to investigate the relationship between the names of the gates of Jay and the summer and winter solstices. In the Sassanian era, these days were well-known because they were the time of two Gahanbārs, the six seasonal Zoroastrian feasts. The first and second Gahanbārs were held in the four days mentioned above. The second Gahanbār's time was several days after the summer solstice, and it was in celebration of the creation of water. Another feast in celebration of water named Ābrīzān (water pouring), or Āfrējkān in Isfahani dialect. It was held in the summer solstice and related to the end of a long-term famine under Pērōz's rule. According to Isfahani writers, at the end of the famine, when it rained, people aspersed water on each other and is named the day Ābrīzān after that. It seems that the names of the four gates of Jay, which were built under Pērōz, and their location are related to the feasts and astronomical events associated with the veneration of water. Moreover, the name of the nearest gate to Zāyandeh roud Gōsh could also be related to another feast in celebration of water, greater Tīrgān, that was held on the day Gōsh of the month Tīr, Tīrgān was very similar to Ābrīzān, except the latter was an astronomical feast