The fatal year 1722 began with the second siege and capture of Kirmán by Mír Maḥmúd. The most remarkable Zoroastrians join Afgháns. incident connected with this was that he was joined by a number of “guebres” (gabr), * the small remnant of the Persians who still profess the ancient religion of Zoroaster, and who exist in any number only in the cities of Kirmán and Yazd and the intervening region of Rafsinján with its chief town Bahrám-ábád. Why these people should have attached themselves to foreign Muslims to make war on their Muslim compatriots it is hard to understand, unless the fanaticism of the Shí'a divines was responsible for driving them into this extra­ordinary course. Still more remarkable, if true, is Hanway's statement that they provided Mír Maḥmúd with one of his best generals, who, though he bore the Muhammadan name of Naṣru'lláh, was, according to the same authority, * “a worshipper of fire, since there were two priests hired by the Sultan who kept the sacred flame near his tomb.”

From Kirmán Mír Maḥmúd marched by way of Yazd, which he attempted but failed to take by storm, to Iṣfahán,

Afgháns advance on Iṣfahán. having scornfully refused an offer of 15,000 túmáns * to induce him to turn back, and finally pitched his camp at Gulnábád, distant some three leagues from the Ṣafawí capital. After much dispute and diversity of opinions, the Persian army marched out of Iṣfahán to engage the Afgháns on March 7th and on the following day, largely through the treachery of the Wálí of 'Arabistán, suffered a disastrous defeat.

The battle of Gulnábád, fought between the Persians and the Afgháns on Sunday, March 8, 1722, decided the fate of Battle of Gulnábád, March 8, 1722. the Ṣafawí dynasty as surely as did the battle of Qádisiyya in A.D. 635 that of the Sásánians, or the conflict between the Caliph's troops and the Mongols outside Baghdád in A.D. 1258 that of the 'Abbásids. Between these three battles, moreover, there A curious parallel. was a remarkable point of similarity in the splendour and apparent strength of the defenders and the squalor and seeming weakness of their assailants. The similarity in this respect between the battles of Qádisiyya and Baghdád has been noticed in a well-known passage of the Kitábu'l-Fakhrí, * to which the following account of the battle of Gulnábád by Hanway * forms a remarkable parallel:

“The sun had just appeared on the horizon when the armies began to observe each other with that curiosity so natural on these dreadful occasions. The Persian army just come out of the capital, being com­posed of whatever was most brilliant at court, seemed as if it had been formed rather to make a show than to fight. The riches and variety of their arms and vestments, the beauty of their horses, the gold and precious stones with which some of their harnesses were covered, and the richness of their tents contributed to render the Persian camp very pompous and magnificent.

“On the other side there was a much smaller body of soldiers, dis­figured with fatigue and the scorching heat of the sun. Their clothes were so ragged and torn in so long a march that they were scarce sufficient to cover them from the weather, and, their horses being adorned with only leather and brass, there was nothing glittering about them but their spears and sabres.”

These three great and decisive battles resembled one another in several respects. In each case a great historic The Arab, Mongol and Afghán invasion of Persia compared and contrasted. dynasty, the extent of whose inward decay was masked by its external splendour, and apparent, because hitherto unchallenged, strength and supremacy, collapsed before the fierce onslaught of a hardy and warlike folk, hitherto hardly known, or accounted as little better than barbarians; and in each case the more or less prolonged process of degene­ration which rendered the final catastrophe not only possible but inevitable is fairly obvious to subsequent historians, even if its extent and significance were not realized until the fatal touchstone was applied. The results, however, differed widely according to the character and abilities of the assailants. The Arab invaders of the seventh century established an Empire which endured for six centuries and effected a profound and permanent change in the lands and peoples whom they brought under their sway. The Mongol conquests were even more extensive, reaching as they did from China and Thibet to Germany and Russia, but the cohesion and duration of the vast Empire which they created were far inferior. The Afghán conquest, with which we are now concerned, was little more than an extensive and destructive raid, resulting in some seventy-five years of anarchy (A.D. 1722-1795), illuminated by the meteoric career of that Napoleon of Persia, Nádir Sháh, and ending in the establishment of the actually reigning dynasty of the Qájárs. The actual domination of the Afgháns over Persia only endured for eight or nine years.*

Seven months elapsed after the battle of Gulnábád before the final pitiful surrender, with every circumstance Prince Ṭahmásp escapes from Iṣfahán to Qazwín. of humiliation, of the unhappy Sháh Ḥusayn. In that battle the Persians are said to have lost all their artillery, baggage and treasure, as well as some 15,000 out of a total of 50,000 men. On March 19 Mír Maḥmúd occupied the Sháh's beloved palace and pleasure-grounds of Faraḥábád, situated only three miles from Iṣfahán, which henceforth served as his headquarters. Two days later the Afgháns, having occupied the Armenian suburb of Julfá, where they levied a tribute of money and young girls, attempted to take Iṣfahán by storm, but, having twice failed (on March 19 and 21), sat down to blockade the city. Three months later Prince Ṭahmásp Mírzá, who had been nominated to succeed his father, effected his escape from the beleaguered city to Qazwín, where he attempted, with but small success, to raise an army for the relief of the capital.

Soon after this, famine began to press heavily on the people, who clamoured to be led against the besiegers,

Famine in Iṣfahán. but their desperate sortie failed owing to the renewed treachery of Wálí of 'Arabistán, who was throughout these dark days the evil genius of the unhappy king. The Persian court, indeed, seemed to have been stricken with a kind of folly which was equally ready to repose confidence in traitors and to mistrust and degrade or dismiss brave and patriotic officers like Luṭf-'Alí Khán. For three or four months before the end the sufferings of the people from famine were terrible: they were finally reduced to eating dogs, cats, and even the corpses of their dead, and perished in great numbers. The pitiful details may be found in the pages of Krusinski, Hanway, and the contemporary accounts written by certain agents of the Dutch East India Company then resident at Iṣfahán, of which the original texts have been included by H. Dunlop in his fine work on Persia (Perzie, Haarlem, 1912, pp. 242-257).

At the end of September, 1722, Sháh Ḥusayn offered to surrender himself and his capital to the Afghán invader,

Surrender of Iṣfahán to Afgháns, Oct. 21, 1722. but Mír Maḥmúd, in order still further to reduce by famine the numbers and spirit of the besieged, dragged out the negotiations for another three or four weeks, so that it was not until October 21 that Sháh Ḥusayn repaired on foot to Faraḥábád, once his favourite residence, now the headquarters of his ruthless foe, to surrender the crown which Mír Maḥmúd assumed six days later. When news of his father's abdication reached Ṭahmásp Mírzá at Qazwín he caused himself to be pro­claimed king, but was driven out of that city on December 20 by the Afghán general Amánu'lláh Khán, who on his way thither received the submission of Qum and Káshán.

Ṭahmásp was now reduced to the miserable expedient of invoking the help of Russia and Turkey, who had already Ṭahmásp seeks help from Russia and Turkey. fixed covetous eyes on the apparently moribund Persian kingdom and had occupied Gílán and Tiflís respectively. On September 23, 1723, a treaty was signed whereby, in return for the expulsion of the Afgháns and the restoration of his authority, Ṭahmásp undertook to cede to Russia the Caspian provinces of Gílán, Mázandarán and Gurgán, and the towns of Bákú, Darband and their dependencies. Soon afterwards the Turks took Erivan, Nakhjuwán, Khúy and Hamadán, but were repulsed from Tabríz. On July 8, 1724, an agreement for the partition of Persia was signed between Russia and Turkey at Con­stantinople .*