[SWMH] Persia - suggestions & discussion

[cybrxkhan]

I will read the whole reply later but concerning Soghdians.... i consult the whole thing with my brother who has doctorate on Soghdian and Jaghnobi and their historical development so you can be sure I have the best sources available

That said unles you are really interested in them you don't need to do any research on Soghdians...at least not for me. i just got a list of about a hundred Soghdian names btw and will share it wiith you

Oh wow, that's pretty cool your brother is a specialist.

Anyhow the only reason I'm throwing out all this stuff about the Sogdians is because yeah I'm pretty interested in them, and have been doing much more research on them than I would normally for VIET. Figured I'd share some of the stuff I've come across since it'd be better used with you folks than in VIET since in theory I just need a couple vague sentences to justify the addition of some silly flavor. Being a silk road fanboy with romantic delusions of exotic and cosmopolitan lands, I don't find it too surprising I'm pretty interested in them right now, and from what I've seen the Sogdians pretty much embodied all the stuff we associate with the Silk Road.

And also yes I'd love to see your Sogdian names. I actually compiled a Sogdian namelist a while back, which I recently updated with a lot more Sogdian names since I've been reading up on them, but more is always better.

 

[elvain]

quoting from this thread

Basically, it's not right to have non-Muslim Tajiks in 867. And right now there are Zoroastrian Tajik provinces. The word "tajik" itself came from Sogdian "tāžīk" meaning Arab. Over the time it begun to mean "settled Muslim of non-Turkic descent in Central Asia", but it was never applied to non-Muslims in the region.

To add to that, I don't think separate Tajik culture is entirely necessary. Tajik language as distinct variant of Dari emerged only in XIX century and is used only by Tajiks of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, while in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan they use Dari. Dari itself can be called a dialect of Farsi, and a special culture for every distinct Persian subgroup would be an overkill.

A melting pot where Islamized Sogdians, Bactrians, Khwarezmians and other Eastern Iranian peoples can become Tajik under Arab or Turkic control will work too.

Well, though this may be the case of VIET rather than SWMH I think it also belongs here and we could discuss it here also for the sake of future merge of VIET compatch between VIET and SWMH and I believe that Cybr has something to say here too.

Anyway, thanks for reopening the issue, because it really is worth being discussed. I have some image of the setup in my head which I want to discuss with an expert on Eastern-Iranian languages and history (though I am quite busy) so it will still take time to make the final setup and I believe some of us here will have some good ideas which are worth being introduced or at least discussed.

There are 2 extreme points of dividing persian culture (now speaking about the Seljuk and post-Seljuk period).
1) Tajik vs. Turkish only as one point (With Tajik representing all settled Iranians / Persians and Turks (or Turkmen) representing the Turkish peoples*
2) much wider range of Iranian cultures based on regional dialects which might in the end bring us to Kermani, Farsi, Sistani, etc dialects as well as all Pashto, Dari and others being in.
I personaly would prefer a 3-fold split of Iranians into Parsi/Khorasani/Tajik with marginal Iranians partly surviving (Daylamites, Kurds) and partly (Saka, Azeri) being trensformed into new cultures or swallowed by the invaders' cultures. Here I do confes that I am not very certain about the setup south-east Iran (Sistan/Makran - vanilla Balochistan and Afghanistan south of Herat-Ghazna line) so I am not sure whether to have Baloch and Dari or just have the Tajik to cover all Iranian peoples in the east including the Pashto parts of current Afghanistan.**

anyway, I hope it is clear that those changes will happen after (and will be trigered by) islamization of the region. So there is no need to worry about non-islamic Tajiks.

* in this case, in the post 1066 period there will generaly be 2 cultures:
1) Turkmen, which is the Oghuz and other Turkish tribes after they heavily interact with "Tajik" or settled Iranians (they control land in Persia, their vasals and/or lieges are Iranians etc.) - partialy iranized Turks like the Seljuks between Apl-Arslan and Malik-shah on one side and Sanjar on the other
2) Türk - the "wilder" branch of western Turkish tribes, who interact mainly or entirely only with other nomads (including the Turkmen) - these are for instance the Oghuz tribes which invaded Persia in the times of Sanjar and in fact brought the end to the Seljuk domination in eastern Persia (Khorasan and Khwarezm, partly also Kerman)

** for the 867 setup it was mentioned earlier in this thread - there will be Soghdian, Saka, Khwarezmian and other minor Iranian cultures in the pre-Turkish Eastern Iran which will all (after the islamization of the region) gradualy be turning into a Tajik culture or be replaced with the Turkmen or (later) Türk in some regions (Khwarezm).
Frankly, while I have quite clear image of the sutuation about the 1066+ era, I am much more open to suggestions about the times before the arrival of Turks.

I agree on what you said about the dialect thing. There shouldn't be a whole new culture based on that. If people are going by the modern term of Tajiks then they should be replaced in game by Persians. And Afghans should be replaced by Pashtuns considering they added a Baluchi culture but not a Pashtun one. Also in reality i think the Bedouin culture should also be removed. I mean Bedouins are nomads, they aren't city dwellers the Sultan/Caliph of an empire stretching from Spain to India is not someone who raises sheep and lives in a tent. Bedouin should be replaced by Mashriqi in the east and Maghribi in the west. But if somehow no one is convinced, at least add a Khaliji ("From the Persian Gulf" in Arabic) culture for those east of Hedjaz and Yemen, and have Hedjaz and Yemen be Mashriqi.

now I don't have much time, but I would like to comment on this further... though there is definitely going to be a nomad vs. settled people split so there is no way of removing the Bedouin culture from the Middle east, though I don't think that the later Abbasids should be Bedouins.


PS: I know it would be best to post images with the culture split, but for the background I use an amazingly looking map of Iran created by other forum user which I don't have permission to post on public, so unfortunately no maps until ingame ones

 

[ekorovin]

quoting from this thread

Well, though this may be the case of VIET rather than SWMH I think it also belongs here and we could discuss it here also for the sake of future merge of VIET compatch between VIET and SWMH and I believe that Cybr has something to say here too.

Anyway, thanks for reopening the issue, because it really is worth being discussed. I have some image of the setup in my head which I want to discuss with an expert on Eastern-Iranian languages and history (though I am quite busy) so it will still take time to make the final setup and I believe some of us here will have some good ideas which are worth being introduced or at least discussed.

There are 2 extreme points of dividing persian culture (now speaking about the Seljuk and post-Seljuk period).
1) Tajik vs. Turkish only as one point (With Tajik representing all settled Iranians / Persians and Turks (or Turkmen) representing the Turkish peoples*
2) much wider range of Iranian cultures based on regional dialects which might in the end bring us to Kermani, Farsi, Sistani, etc dialects as well as all Pashto, Dari and others being in.
I personaly would prefer a 3-fold split of Iranians into Parsi/Khorasani/Tajik with marginal Iranians partly surviving (Daylamites, Kurds) and partly (Saka, Azeri) being trensformed into new cultures or swallowed by the invaders' cultures. Here I do confes that I am not very certain about the setup south-east Iran (Sistan/Makran - vanilla Balochistan and Afghanistan south of Herat-Ghazna line) so I am not sure whether to have Baloch and Dari or just have the Tajik to cover all Iranian peoples in the east including the Pashto parts of current Afghanistan.**

anyway, I hope it is clear that those changes will happen after (and will be trigered by) islamization of the region. So there is no need to worry about non-islamic Tajiks.

* in this case, in the post 1066 period there will generaly be 2 cultures:
1) Turkmen, which is the Oghuz and other Turkish tribes after they heavily interact with "Tajik" or settled Iranians (they control land in Persia, their vasals and/or lieges are Iranians etc.) - partialy iranized Turks like the Seljuks between Apl-Arslan and Malik-shah on one side and Sanjar on the other
2) Türk - the "wilder" branch of western Turkish tribes, who interact mainly or entirely only with other nomads (including the Turkmen) - these are for instance the Oghuz tribes which invaded Persia in the times of Sanjar and in fact brought the end to the Seljuk domination in eastern Persia (Khorasan and Khwarezm, partly also Kerman)

** for the 867 setup it was mentioned earlier in this thread - there will be Soghdian, Saka, Khwarezmian and other minor Iranian cultures in the pre-Turkish Eastern Iran which will all (after the islamization of the region) gradualy be turning into a Tajik culture or be replaced with the Turkmen or (later) Türk in some regions (Khwarezm).
Frankly, while I have quite clear image of the sutuation about the 1066+ era, I am much more open to suggestions about the times before the arrival of Turks.


now I don't have much time, but I would like to comment on this further... though there is definitely going to be a nomad vs. settled people split so there is no way of removing the Bedouin culture from the Middle east, though I don't think that the later Abbasids should be Bedouins.


PS: I know it would be best to post images with the culture split, but for the background I use an amazingly looking map of Iran created by other forum user which I don't have permission to post on public, so unfortunately no maps until ingame ones

Some quick points, I will prepare deeper reply later:
Dari most certainly should not be a culture. It truly is just language, and the difference between Tajik and Dari is negligible in CK2 scope. Think of modern Tajik as Dari with Cyrillic script. Pashtun most certainly should be a different culture, the differences between Pashtun and Tajik are probably deeper, than between city-dwelling Tajik and city-dwelling Uzbek. And the role Pashtuns played in Indian history warrants it.
I probably should say, that my primary area of study is Russian campaigns and colonialism in Central Asia, and so my expertise does not go south of Kushka or earlier then 1725, so I'm no expert in medieval setup by any means.

 

[ekorovin]

I would most certainly love to here about the proposed nomad/settled split, because that, arguably, is the most important divide between different cultures in the Greater Iran area. The laws of Khiva khanate and Buhara emirate didn't make a distinction between Tajiks/Uzbeks, Iranians/Turks, but between Sarts(settled)/nomads. To some extent such distinction works for Iran (Khorasan at least) with Ilyat (nomads)/Tajik split.

I'm also don't know if creating a Khorasani culture. To my knowledge Khorasanians were never seen as a distinct nation, that was just a regional subdivision of Persians, if, of course you didn't mean Khorasan Turks or Qizilbashs, but these are not Iranian and, frankly, I don't think they should be represented separately (may be Azerbaijani culture can be proposed here).

There are some arguments against creating Tajik culture separate from Persian, too. They did call themselves Farsiwan mostly, and were seen as just another Persians by Persians, Arabs and Turks. The separation came much much later, some would argue that it happened only after 1924, after creating Soviet national republics.

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

Here I do confes that I am not very certain about the setup south-east Iran (Sistan/Makran - vanilla Balochistan and Afghanistan south of Herat-Ghazna line) so I am not sure whether to have Baloch and Dari or just have the Tajik to cover all Iranian peoples in the east including the Pashto parts of current Afghanistan.**

I'm fairly sure the Baluchis had already arrived in Baluchistan/Southeast Iran by the time Islam had arrived.

 

[ekorovin]

By the way, can we give Tahirids a fighting chance against Yaqub? Historically they won. And maybe cut Yaqub's fertility or even forbid an AI to marry him? Stable Saffarid blob all over Iran in 9 of 10 games irks me.

 

[elvain]

Dari most certainly should not be a culture. It truly is just language, and the difference between Tajik and Dari is negligible in CK2 scope. Think of modern Tajik as Dari with Cyrillic script. Pashtun most certainly should be a different culture, the differences between Pashtun and Tajik are probably deeper, than between city-dwelling Tajik and city-dwelling Uzbek. And the role Pashtuns played in Indian history warrants it.

Yes, this will be the setup for 1066 on - the Tajik, the Pashtun (might also be called Afghan, though I don't like to use that name it seems to be less anachronistic than Pashtun for the islamic era).

I would most certainly love to here about the proposed nomad/settled split, because that, arguably, is the most important divide between different cultures in the Greater Iran area. The laws of Khiva khanate and Buhara emirate didn't make a distinction between Tajiks/Uzbeks, Iranians/Turks, but between Sarts(settled)/nomads. To some extent such distinction works for Iran (Khorasan at least) with Ilyat (nomads)/Tajik split.

It already works in Africa, though not perfectly. The nomads have special buildings (as AFAIK it is impossible to mod special holding type) which provide them additional retinues ("nomadic tribe") and increase their retinue limit so they can have additional tribal force to give them military power boost against the settled cultures. In case of Turks and Mongols (and Magyars) this can solve the irritating problem with event troops, but the system needs more checks to be balanced. Unfortunately until I finnish my work on planned SWMH overhauls I won't have the capacity for this as SWMH is the proority now.

I'm also don't know if creating a Khorasani culture. To my knowledge Khorasanians were never seen as a distinct nation, that was just a regional subdivision of Persians, if, of course you didn't mean Khorasan Turks or Qizilbashs, but these are not Iranian and, frankly, I don't think they should be represented separately (may be Azerbaijani culture can be proposed here).

They are meant to be Iranian Khorasanis, most probably called Aryans. I am aware of the fact that they are more or less artificial culture, but in the primary sources I have red Khorasani people are mentioned as distinct people from the other Persians and are mentioned along with Daylamites as people with different skills and customs than Persians from Fars or Persian Iraq (Jebal).

There is also similar case with the Tajik and frankly there are few reasons to add them despite this culture might be little artificial too:
1) the cultural melting pot in North-east Persia and central Asia with all those local cultures becoming one after the islamization of the region
2) Persian culture if not splitted would be too large. This is the same with the Arabs - the ones in Maghreb, Andalusia, Mashriq and Egypt and the Bedouins have all considered themselves Arabs and spoke more or less the same language, but there were some cultural differences and also for gameplay reasons it is better to have them split.
3) there were numerous demands for this culture to be included and separated from Persians and considering the 2 points above they are legitimate.

I'm fairly sure the Baluchis had already arrived in Baluchistan/Southeast Iran by the time Islam had arrived.

Yup they are, I just needed to do some more reading after which I can confirm they will be in as they were there since 7th century.

By the way, can we give Tahirids a fighting chance against Yaqub? Historically they won. And maybe cut Yaqub's fertility or even forbid an AI to marry him? Stable Saffarid blob all over Iran in 9 of 10 games irks me.

hopefully yes, but this belongs to PB rather than to SWMH. I have the same feeling about the Saffarids. Frankly I hate all those event troops as they IMO destroy the game logic and create terrible imbalances and/or too much historical (and sometimes even ahistorical) determinism.
They are there to fill gaps caused by inacurate research or game mechanics, but OTOH I understand that Paradox decided to go this way as it is very hard to model everything properly.

 

[ekorovin]

I have to admit, I still don't understand which suggestion belongs to which submod

For example, the nice way to slow Yaqub would be having him to start at war with Abbasids, too, as he was attacking the rightful Caliphal representatives, Tahirids. That of course brings our attention to the elephant in the room, Abbasid Caliphate, which should be reworked, too. Should this go to PB too? Also, Muhhamed Tahirid is missing at least one brother, Hussain.

 

[elvain]

I have to admit, I still don't understand which suggestion belongs to which submod

For example, the nice way to slow Yaqub would be having him to start at war with Abbasids, too, as he was attacking the rightful Caliphal representatives, Tahirids. That of course brings our attention to the elephant in the room, Abbasid Caliphate, which should be reworked, too. Should this go to PB too? Also, Muhhamed Tahirid is missing at least one brother, Hussain.

My point was about decreasing Saffarid event troops - and that is in PB scope as it is the mod within HIP which aims to add balance.
SWMH edits map and history.
ATM I can't say what will be the balance in Persia after the overhaul, but as I see it now it might well be sufficent just to edit the event troops, because the Tahirids control quite rich Khorasan which should provide them enough forces to withstand Saffarid attack unless the Saffarids have 10k event troops, simply because Sistan and Makran are way less rich than Khorasan. Just a side note, Western part of Khorasan has(in the planned version) about twice as many provinces than Makran and Sistan together.

 

[ekorovin]

Aryans won't be the good name for Khorasanis, if I understood you correctly, as it's much broader in scope and signifies all Iranian peoples, it would be strange to use it for one of them.

 

[ekorovin]

By the way, what's the religious setup for Eastern Iran? Because I think that most of it, especially newly conquered lands of modern-day Afhganistan, like Helmand were more pagan, than Buddhist or Zoroastrian. And what about Ibadis in Sistan?

 

[elvain]

Aryans won't be the good name for Khorasanis, if I understood you correctly, as it's much broader in scope and signifies all Iranian peoples, it would be strange to use it for one of them.

It certainly is not an ideal name and is understood in much broader sense, but it is an ancient name of peoples originating from the area of Khorasan. The same name can often bear different meanings in different time periods (the Aryans or Arians is one very special example) and as I discussed it with expert on East Iranian languages and their ancient and medieval history, it is one of the most fitting name for those people.

By the way, what's the religious setup for Eastern Iran? Because I think that most of it, especially newly conquered lands of modern-day Afhganistan, like Helmand were more pagan, than Buddhist or Zoroastrian. And what about Ibadis in Sistan?

Frankly, this is quite hard. As I said previously Sistan and the area down there is little foggy for me (even ATM) and at the same time, in SWMH we don't add new religions, so unles you want them to be generic pagans, we can't but have those people be buddhists or zoroastrians

 

[ekorovin]

It certainly is not an ideal name and is understood in much broader sense, but it is an ancient name of peoples originating from the area of Khorasan. The same name can often bear different meanings in different time periods (the Aryans or Arians is one very special example) and as I discussed it with expert on East Iranian languages and their ancient and medieval history, it is one of the most fitting name for those people.

I don't know, still it would be weird to have some part of Iran+Northern India labeled "Aryans", while the rest would be labeled, say, "Farsiwan". It would seem as Khorosani are Aryans, while the rest of peoples of Āyiraan and Āryāvarta isn't Aryan.

As for the other implication of the word "Arian", true story: one of my professors was told, that criminal organisation "Arian Brotherhood" exists in USA. Being rather detached from modern world, he said something along the lines of "My, the Christianity sure taken weird turns across the water".

Frankly, this is quite hard. As I said previously Sistan and the area down there is little foggy for me (even ATM) and at the same time, in SWMH we don't add new religions, so unles you want them to be generic pagans, we can't but have those people be buddhists or zoroastrians

I have nothing to suggest here, unfortunately. I believe there's little info about pre-Islamic cults in the area. Even if new religion were created, basing it on some relics like Hindu Kush religion isn't historically correct.
Speaking of weird regions and their religions, would Pamir be somehow separated, to have Ismaili fortress there, from 1066?

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I assumed that Shi'a in the game IS Ismaili Shi'ism, as it models the Fatimid Caliphs as the head of the religion, no?

 

[theKing1988]

I assumed that Shi'a in the game IS Ismaili Shi'ism, as it models the Fatimid Caliphs as the head of the religion, no?

I think that's a pretty safe assumption. But based on what i know about Shi'ism it's a bit anachronistic to just represent it by one religion.

SWMH don't add new religions though, sadly

 

[elvain]

redirectig discussion from the main thread where it belongs:

Yabghu seems to be widely used among Oguz tribes, while Kypchaks used "khan", as evident from their rulers' names Saru-khan, Tugor-khan (Sharukan and Tugorkan of Russian chronicles).
As for "bey/beg", well one of the Kyrgyz rulers was called Bars-beg and died in 711, by that time Kyrgyzs lived in Minusinsk hollow, well beyond any possible Persian influence.
As for sourses, I'm afraid I don't know anything in English on the subject, what I'm writing now is mostly from Klyashtorny/Savinov "Steppe Empires of ancient Eurasia", St. Petersburg university, 2005, which seems like a well-sourced work, if a little shallow, though the latter is understandable given the scope of the work, it goes from IV century till XI.

The Yabghu certainly is to be used by the Qarluq and Oghuz tribes, the real question now is whether it should be the 'king' or 'duke'.
It is quite clear that Qaghan is 'emperor' and Khan IMO the 'king' in most Turkic cultures. Now, should the Uighur Idiqut, Qarluq and Oghuz Yabghu and Qirghiz Bey be a duke? In the former 2 cases I am pretty sure. But what about the others? And below?
In Peter B. Golden's Introduction to the History of Turkic Peoples it seems that Tarkhan/Tarqan was also pretty widely used title which I may in the end use for counts (I confess I like the sound of that title )

Kyrgyz titles in the period I know of were basically standard Turkic: khan, biy. Cumans/Kypchaks were not very exotic either - khan as a ruler of the horde, hordes consisted of kurens, ruled by opa/apa, each kuren consisted of several "kosh"

In the above sketched regard, I guess it means that the Qipchaq should have Khan-Opa-??? titles (representing king-duke-count) with Qaghan as the supreme emperor title.

 

[ekorovin]

To be honest I can't find any use of tarkhan in the cotext of province ruler. I see it's been used for tax officials in Golden Horde, military rank in different post-Mongol armies or as honorific for Muslim nobility in Russia. It's said that the word comes from Western Turkic Kaganate noble title, though, so it can be used imo.

Duke title for peoples using Yabhgu as king's title can be "baigu". I know there's a discussion around the use of this title, but consensus seems to be that "baigu" was distinct title, probably subservient to Yabghu. It was for sure used in the same Oghuz-Turkmen continuum, as Yabghu.

 

[Cardinal Sin]

Not sure how helpful this is, but "Tegin" would be the usual title for a prince, that is, a member of a royal Turkic family.

 

[elvain]

To be honest I can't find any use of tarkhan in the cotext of province ruler. I see it's been used for tax officials in Golden Horde, military rank in different post-Mongol armies or as honorific for Muslim nobility in Russia. It's said that the word comes from Western Turkic Kaganate noble title, though, so it can be used imo.

Well, searching for a province leader of Turkic nomads makes very little sense and can only be successfull in later eras, say, post-13C, but my main goal is to give the Turks and Turkic people back their nomadic character back (though there will be "sedentarized" Turkish cultures as well, to represent the later Seljuks and even the Ottomans), but maybe I'm bit too catchy and you meant a leader of some tribal group, which is where you are right. OTOH, Tarkhans, AFAIK were military leaders of medium importance, so I thought they could beused as "count-level" title. If you know about some better title, fot that tier, I'm eager to hear.
Also I really want to have clear distinction between those "sedentarized"/Iranized Turks like the Seljuks and Otomans, and the wilder nomadic Turkic peoples, and the titles are one of the nicest way how to distinguish them. That said, for the nomadic cultures I'd like to avoid titles, which were used by the Ottomans and Seljuks (that's why I'd prefer not to use Bey for th nomads if possible).

Duke title for peoples using Yabhgu as king's title can be "baigu". I know there's a discussion around the use of this title, but consensus seems to be that "baigu" was distinct title, probably subservient to Yabghu. It was for sure used in the same Oghuz-Turkmen continuum, as Yabghu.

So you think that Yabghu and Idiqut should be king-tier rather than duke? I thought it would be better to have them as dukes because that is how I prefer to simulate most of the tribal states, except large and powerfull confederations which are on the eve of creating an empire .

For instance I wanted the Qarluq, who subjected the Yaghma, the Chigil and the Tikhsi tribes, to hold the 'king' tier (the tribes being dukes), while the Oghuz and Uighur who were yet beore, or already after their zenith, to hold 'duke' tier. Then the Kimek, who were in 9th overlords of the Qipchaq, would also hold the 'king' tier.

PS: I have just described the 867 scenario for those who are interested in the de-facto map
o

Not sure how helpful this is, but "Tegin" would be the usual title for a prince, that is, a member of a royal Turkic family.

Yep, that is what I planned too. Nice to see an accord here

 

[ekorovin]

Well, searching for a province leader of Turkic nomads makes very little sense and can only be successfull in later eras, say, post-13C, but my main goal is to give the Turks and Turkic people back their nomadic character back (though there will be "sedentarized" Turkish cultures as well, to represent the later Seljuks and even the Ottomans), but maybe I'm bit too catchy and you meant a leader of some tribal group, which is where you are right. OTOH, Tarkhans, AFAIK were military leaders of medium importance, so I thought they could beused as "count-level" title. If you know about some better title, fot that tier, I'm eager to hear.

Well, yes, you're right, I meant "a leader of some tribal group". Though putting too fine line between nomadic and sedentary isn't right, all Turkic groups were have been talking about (Kypchaks, Oghuz, Kyrgyz) were at least half-sedentary and had cities, vassalised or even built from scratch (Sharukan' in the site of modern-day Kharkov, Sugrov in Western Ukraine or Cheshuev were built by Kypchaks, Ordu-Baliq of Uighurs etc)

But that's of no particular relevance. I've delved a bit into the history of Kyrgyz Kaganate and brought some new, exiting titles from there:
Elteber - ruler of vassal tribe, subservient to "kagan". In the days of Wesern Turkic Kaganate it was the title of Kyrgyz, Karluk, Uz and Uighur rulers.
Tutuk - (from words "tutmaq" - "to hold" and "oq/uq" - "clan", Bernshtam's reconstruction), ruler of vassal tribe of lesser importance, in Uighur and Kyrgyz kaganates - military rulers of subjugated lands. But I admit it does sound's kinda funny, at least for my ear.

Though I don't understand why do you believe "bey/beck" sounds Iranized.