چکیده:
The Ministry has been always the genuine pillar of the government after Monarchy institute in the Iran's history. But the relation between these two institution are notable. In order to assess the relation between Monarchy institute and the Ministry in the time of Ghaznavid, the inner nature of two institutions, their places in the community and the political and social situations of the time should be considered. The assessment of sources from the Ghaznavid period indicates that there have been challenges among these two institutions, conflict and confrontaion have been existed. Beyond old and traditional competition of these two institutions of Monarchy and the Ministry (power struggles). Access to power by the Turks and differentiation and confrontaion of two opinion and theory of Iranian and Turks, competition between Iranian bureaucrats and the owners of thrones or sword from the other side, competition and conflict among them witnessing challenges on that period of the time. As the result of this mater hurt and stroked the Ministry and it decreased the constancy and security for continuation of this institute and made it unstable.
خلاصه ماشینی:
This was a tradition that had existed since antiquity and was also observed during the Samanid period; however, after the dominance of military men over governmental affairs and the formation of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the vizierate turned into an unstable and precarious position and became subject to the intentions and purposes of those in power, especially the monarchy.
In some articles written as case studies and monographs, certain aspects of the internal issues between monarchy and the vizierate have been addressed; for example, Mohammad Ali Homayoun Katouzian, in an article titled "Mention of the Execution of Amir Hasanak the Vizier",1 examines the various and fundamental dimensions of the disagreement and conflict between the Iranian and Turkic elements and the resulting clash and battle between them, and how ultimately, the Turkic military element (Sultan Masud) eliminates the Iranian bureaucratic element (Hasanak) due to its dominance.
The despotism and arbitrariness of Sultan Mahmud had reached a point where Ahmad ibn Hasan Maymandi, the vizier, during the era of Masud, said about him: «امير ماضي [سلطان محمود] مردي بود مستبد به رأي خويش » (Bayhaqi, 1350: 348).
Maymandi's dismissal after 18 to 19 years of vizierate, and with the actions he had taken towards the satisfaction of the people, the royal apparatus, and the prosperity and welfare of the Ghaznavid state11, on one hand, revealed the precarious and unstable position of the vizierate against the sultanate, and on the other hand, against other existing powers in society.
(
, 
, 
)
