Differences in the Roles of Secretaries and Government Officials in the Samanid and Ghaznavid Periods

Abstract

According to historical evidence, the Samanid dynasty, among its contemporary states, was more renowned and considerably more popular among the people compared to the Ghaznavid rule. Although the Ghaznavid rulers attempted to portray their government as a continuation of the Samanid system, they never succeeded due to various political and social factors. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the degree of freedom of action and thought enjoyed by secretaries and administrative officials during the Samanid period, and the absence of such freedom during the Ghaznavid era. The central research question is: what factors led to the cooperation of secretaries and officials with the rulers of the Samanid period, and to their conflict with the Ghaznavid sovereigns? The main hypothesis is that if the political strategies of the Samanid rulers had resembled those of the Ghaznavid sultans, the administrative performance of the secretaries and government officials would have yielded markedly different outcomes. This article, using a descriptive–analytical method, seeks to clarify the extent of professional and intellectual autonomy among secretaries and officials in structuring the bureaucracy of the Samanid state, as well as to illuminate the divergence and restriction of such autonomy during the Ghaznavid period. The findings indicate that the participation of various social classes in the governance of the Samanid era contributed to the stability and longevity of that dynasty and to the flourishing of the Islamic–Iranian civilization. In contrast, the Ghaznavid period was characterized predominantly by autocracy and fruitless wars, which failed to produce any enduring political or cultural achievements.