Origins of Dehbed/Dihqan

[Death to the False Egyptians]

This sounds more like the words of a troll, rather than that of a supporter. But I don't expect much of a nick being "Death to the false egyptians"...

Obedience without question, loyalty until EBVERSE come, is this what you wish?

There's only one word for such people and that is kadag-#xwadāy, not Dehbed! and i don't know why the team would use these information without any proper academic approval? Oh, here's an article:

As the class structure of any given society closely reflects the socioeconomic realities, no single stage in the development of an eastern community can be equated exactly with a European counterpart. Western scholars who refer to Iranian “feudalism” have apparently been misled by the main feature that ancient Iranian and medi#eval European societies to some extent had in common: the relationship between lord and vassal. In contrast to European feudal states, however, Iranian societies had long been characterized by slavery and tribalism; Parthian society was thus divided between the aristocracy, on one hand, and peasants, tribesmen, and slaves, on the other. Despite the prevailing tolerance of the Parthian rulers toward other creeds and forms of social organization, the tenacity of Iranian social traditions connected with birth#right suggests that the main social strata must have been much the same as those of the Achaemenids (Lukonin, pp. 684-89; Frye, pp. 207-08; see ii, above). One exception, in that she managed to breach the ranks of the nobility, was Thesmousa (in mss. also Thea Mousa or Thermousa), an Italian slave girl who, according to Josephus, in the year 2 C.E. was made the legitimate wife (gametḗn) of Phraates IV but later conspired with her son Phrataaces, with whom she was also reported to have had sexual relations, against the king (Josephus, 18.40-43 [18.2.4], Loeb ed. pp. 34-35; cf. Debevoise, pp. 148-49; Bivar, pp. 67-68). It may also be surmised that, in those tribal and nomadic areas where class differentiation had developed at all, the main divi#sion was between tribal chieftains (ktk-ḥwtwy, Pahl. kadag-#xwadāy, NPers. kadḵodā) with their attendants (hamherzān; Draxt ī Asōrīg, p. 111), relatives, and de#pendents, on one hand, and the tribesmen, on the other.

And here's EB introduction on the so called Dehbed:

The Dehbeds are noble armoured cavalry, using the Kontos in a two-handed grip and able to charge home if needed. They rely on the composite horse bow kept in a Gorytos on the left side to weaken their enemy before closing for melee. They can afford a better class of equipment than typical horse archers, including a scale corselet split at the sides that hangs to the rider’s waist when he is in the saddle. They also carry lances, and are not afraid to close in for melee if the opportunity presents itself, but are sensible enough not to hurl themselves into the fray against unbroken infantry. The Dehbeds are much cheaper to raise and maintain than Cataphracts or Asavaran and form the majority of shock cavalry. The Dehbed cavalry is a very flexible force, being extremely mobile and able both to provide concentrated archery or when required to charge, fully able to drive home an attack.

Historically, the Dehbeds were the lesser nobility and village chieftains not yet having risen to their more prominent role under the Sassanids, men who led their Bandaka retainers to war. These units of the lesser aristocracy were composed of men of well above average station. The Dehbeds were members of the Azat nobility of Parthia. Descendants of the lords of smaller clans and the chieftains of tribal times, they formed the warbands of the great feudal lords (azat). They were a class of noble warriors, their vassalage to the Parthian King expressed in their duty and their privilege of serving in the feudal cavalry. They would evolve into the Dihqans of Sassanid times.

And here's a selected article about Dehqan/Dihqan:

The term dehqān was used in the late Sasanian period to designate a class of landed magnates (Mojmal, ed. Bahār, p. 420) considered inferior in rank to āzādān, bozorgān (Zand ī Wahman Yasn 4.7, 4.54), and kadag-xwadāyān “householders” (Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag 15.10, where dahīgān should be read for dādagān). According to some early Islamic sources, the rank of the dehqān in the Sasanian period was also inferior to that of the šahrīgān “chief of the small cantons” (Yaʿqūbī, Taʾrīḵ I, p. 203; Masʿūdī, ed. Pellat, I, sec. 662; Christensen, Iran Sass., p. 140).

The origin of the dehqān class is usually attributed in both Zoroastrian Pahlavi books of the 9th century and early Islamic sources to Wēkard/t, brother of Hōšang, the legendary Iranian king (Dēnkard, ed. Madan, pp. 438, 594, 688; Bīrūnī, Āṯār, pp. 220-21; Masʿūdī, ed. Pellat, I, sec. 662; Christensen, pp. 68, 134, 151, 156). In some sources the innovation is credited to Manūčehr (Ṯāʿālebī, p. 6; Ṭabarī, I, p. 434; Balʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 345; Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 37). Nevertheless, as the term dehgān is not attested in early Sasanian documents but is sometimes mentioned in the Pahlavi books and frequently occurs in descriptions of late Sasanian administration in early Islamic sources, it is admissible to suppose that dehqāns emerged as a social class as a result of land reforms in the time of Ḵosrow I (531-79). He is reported to have admonished future kings that they should protect the dehqāns, just as they would protect kingship, because they were like brothers (Ṯaʿālebī, Ḡorar, p. 6). According to one source (Mojmal, ed. Bahār, p. 73), his own mother had been the daughter of a dehqān descended from Frēdon. In the late Sasanian period dehqāns and princes (wāspuhragān; Ar. ahl al-boyūtāt) used to have audience with the king on the second day of the Nowrūz and Ḵorram-rūz (also Ḵorrah-rūz, Navad-rūz) festivals; the latter, celebrated on the first day of the tenth month (Day), was their special feast day, on which the king ate and drank with the dehqāns and cultivators (Bīrūnī, Āṯār, pp. 218, 225; for this feast, see idem, I, 1954, p. 264; Gardīzī, ed. Ḥabībī, pp. 239, 254; Qazvīnī,p. 83).

Management of local affairs was the dehqāns’ hereditary responsibility, and peasants were obliged to obey them (cf. Ṭabarī, I, p. 434; Balʿamī, ed. Bahār, p. 345; Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 37), but their landed estates must have been smaller than those of noble landowners. They probably represented the government among the peasants, and their main duty was to collect taxes (Christensen, Iran Sass., pp. 112-13). They were divided into five subgroups according to social status, each distinguished by dress (Masʿūdī, ed. Pellat, I, par. 662).

It sounds like you guys just trolling around with your version of history!