Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia?

[@emeraldblack8101]

Simple answer: The ottomans took the title Caesar and hence the curse of not conquering Persia came with it.

[@esramnor6734]

Augustus was very close to conquering Persia.

[@edrickhuge4637]

@@esramnor6734 no he was not. He was happy with haveing peace with their civlized neighbours. Augustus like Hadrian thought that rome had reached it logical max extend once it had conquered the lands up to the danueb, rihne and tygris. He knew that rome with it's tools of it's time could not govern so many people. It's exactly why the west fell and the east, which was abel to secure peace with the persians and only had th danueb region to petro was much more stabel for it.

[@nowayman1406]

@@esramnor6734 Trajan vassalized parthians.

[@vercingetorix1423]

@@esramnor6734 romanın perslere gücü hiçbir zaman yetmedi

[@esramnor6734]

@@nowayman1406 You don't know anything about history Parthians were a very weak state.

[@crimfan]

The old borders of the Roman and later Byzantine Empires with Persia more or less reappeared. Geography was destiny again.

[@-ahmed121]

It almost seems like universal or historical borders for Persia from the partheins to the savavids to modern republic

[@pb25193]

Laughs in Cyrus the great, and first caliphate

[@skland1619]

@@pb25193 caliphate?

[@pb25193]

@@skland1619 Islamic empire of 9th century went from India to Spain, in a single stretch

[@tylerellis9097]

@@pb25193 You mean 8th century.

[@primalforlorn]

When the Ottoman declared themselves the Kaisar of Rum, they inherited the curse of Roman, which would plunge them into eternal wars with Persia and die at hand of foreign powers when they were exhausted from war.

[@hamarta1006]

Wow, this is quite shocking

[@oghuzkhan5117]

hahaha. who is teaching you people history? There was no persia , the safavid is Turkish empire. The creator Shah Ismail is Anatolian Turk but he was from the Shia branch of islam.

[@elemparador]

@@oghuzkhan5117 no same Empire with different name safavid is not Turkish

[@oghuzkhan5117]

@Dictatorial Groyper haha another one without history and trying to steal Turkish history 😂😂😂

[@elemparador]

@Dictatorial Groyper modern Turks are anatolian not central asian i agree with you.

[@NewYorkPickers]

Love this. Thank you for making this video about a topic I knew nothing about. It reinforces the concept that geography plays a great role in war.

[@rosenbaum6976]

The ottoman not conquering Iran is basically history repeating itself

[@iraqi3150]

😱😱😱😱😱😱

[@iraqi3150]

😢😡😔😔😔

[@iraqi3150]

At least they are Muslims

[@ikkai2354]

@@iraqi3150 ??????????????????????

[@iraqi3150]

@@ikkai2354 😁👍

[@ishmamahmed9306]

Galaxy brain take: The Ottoman-Persian wars were merely a new iteration of the Roman-Persian wars

[@edrickhuge4637]

well it's very true. The Ottman empier was controlling literally the same amouth of land.

[@hannibalbarca2928]

Ishmam Ahmed The Ottomans and the Persians never fought. The Ottomans fought against the Safavids, another Turk dynasty, and the reason for the war was the Shiite-Sunni war.

[@anomaly5734]

@@hannibalbarca2928 safavids are azeri not turk

[@oghuzkhan5117]

Well you not-so-smart-hooman 1-There was no Persia 2-The Ottoman fought against Safavid. Both Turkic countries

[@ishmamahmed9306]

I make a joke statement that nobody was meant to take seriously and two people put in time to make "well, actually" statements. All this yappity-yap about the ethnic origins of the Safavids yet funnily enough nobody has yet to point out that the House of Osman were not Romans.............

[@IDBTitanosaurus]

Why didn't the Ottoman's conquer Persia? TLDR: The Zagros Mountains. /video.

[@FreedomPuppy]

Thanks

[@jacobbernard1393]

That was my immediate first guess.

[@user-si3gu8pm6j]

Q: (x) political issue? A: geography (99% of the time)

[@Galaick]

Another viable answer: It wasn't worth the trouble

[@ASh-oe9hm]

@@Galaick better answer is they couldn't do that

[@dbzsnakedante]

So it was the Zagros mountains, scorched earth, size of both Persia and Ottoman Empire and internal political struggles which stopped it. Very interesting- thank you!

[@-_whysoserious_-]

No ,the conclusions of these video is wrong.All reason was in religion .Ottomans and safavids werevboth from sane origin called Oghuz turks.They were united and both called Selchuk turkamans till 15th century till first shia turk Karakhoyunlu(blacksheeps) tripe congured others in Iran geograpy and after that shia population rised and in Safavids period it became major.Shia tribes in Ottoman empire like Runlu,Ustacli,Shahseven and etc alco joined to Safavids.These Zagros mountains never stoped turks.And that persians till Shah Abbas ,Safavids shah,neve been in army

[@ArthurMorgan-ux9jj]

True the mountains of Iran have always protected the country from many invaders. Iran is probably the oldest established country in the world. I believe it was called Iran since 3000 years ago.

[@Royyalflush]

Before the Ottoman Empire the Seljuk Turks did conquer Persia before conquering the Byzantine empire so depending on how you see it they technically did, just without the ottoman title.

[@tigersaid9156]

@@-_whysoserious_- It is true, have you ever been there? I have. You must see with your own eyes to understand. Safavids: "founded by Kurdish sheikhs" and the same Kurds where also who installed Shia Islam there. The opposite to Ottoman Empire where a Kurds installed sunni Islam. Kurdish creator of Safavid dynasty Ismail I installed Shia Islam to the east. While Kurdish Jabān al-Kurdī who was one of few of the profet Mohammed apprentices installed sunni Islam on Ottoman areas. Guess why the saying is still for the Kurds today: "No friends but the mountains". Zagros area is where Kurds come from, even mentioned by the Sumerians about them in Zagros.

[@-_whysoserious_-]

@@tigersaid9156 And mountain Zagros was the living place of ancient tribe named "Turukkies or Turkies" ,the main proof of that the clay tablets found in ancient city - Mari.

[@mehdi60888]

Some part of history missed here; when sulyman captured Iraq region from Persia, roughly a decade later Abbas I , king of Persia, recaptured Baghdad and Iraq, however Persia lost Iraq again 20 years later.

[@illyrianmc9169]

Sulejman give Baghdad to Persia because they send back his son Bayazid in ottoman empire.

[@umerrashid4940]

Ottomans ensured that Shah Ismail Safavi, an ethnic Turk himself, converted Iran from Sunni to Shia so that Persian intellectual challange to the Ottoman Caliphate did not rise.

[@mehdi60888]

@@illyrianmc9169 Ottomans lost Baghdad into a battle, it was after suleyman

[@illyrianmc9169]

@@mehdi60888 no sulejman give Baghdad to Persian without war they took back his son Bayazid. And in 1600 years Murd the lV captured it again

[@illyrianmc9169]

@@mehdi60888 tell me which soultan lost it. And why the persian kking give his son back to ottomans the Bayazid prince

[@sergiodma]

It's not "Airan" but "Eeran". That's how Iran is pronounced.

[@starwreck]

we speak english not farsi we dont care how it is pronounced in farsi

[@АлексейТабаков-ы8в]

​@@starwreck In English you don't say "Aitaly" instead of "Italy" (maybe you personally do, I don't know). And modern English language is a mess (to the vowels - thanks Great Vowel Shift).

[@sergiodma]

@@starwreck I'm talking about English! Go and look it up.

[@Daniel-lr6yz]

@@starwreck I know many English speakers who pronounce it the proper way, and not the retarded way.

[@docmurky]

@@starwreck As someone who actually lives in England, i can confirm that we dont pronounce it as 'Airan' lol dont talk about 'we don't care how its pronunced in Farsi' when actual English speakers in England say it the right way lol just stop it

[@serdarcite]

I guess Anatolian and Iranian empires are destined to fight each other as it has happened many times throughout history

[@neemapaxima6116]

They mainly fought over Armenia and Mesopotamia

[@louisxiv3850]

Even anatolian seljuk split from persian seljuks

[@monarchistheadcrab8819]

History repeats itself I assume...just look at the situation between Iran and Turkey right now.

[@Mohsen3372]

we fight together and jews and zionists and american pailed rulers enjoy

[@arshiaarjomandi6279]

@@monarchistheadcrab8819 we aren't fighting very much at the moment

[@jonlee2722]

10:29To Ottoman: difficult journey, difficult terrain to cross for large armies, constant conflicts with European nations, internal revolts, lack of resources needed for long campaigns. To Persia: the military capabilities of Persia.

[@averagephonkenjoyer7021]

Some have less some have more problems. It was often a back and forth in history.

[@TurquazCannabiz]

History Matters: "Why didn't the Ottomans colonize America?" Knowledgia: "Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia and Italy?" My brain: "Why didn't the Galactic Ottoman Empire conquer the universe?"

[@amarjeetsehmi8995]

Ottomans of Persia or Iskandar all collapsed with neglect of people, their education and progressive management and latest being terror win in Afghanistan killing for 20 years and making people leave country in thousands who were most educated and politically aware.

[@Nomadicenjoyer31]

🐦

[@lambert801]

Seriously. Ottomans are so overrated.

[@casper_z1259]

The colonize America got me like "bruh!". You know who doesn't have an Atlantic coastline? Ottomans. You know who controls the straights of Gibraltar, Spain. You know who hates each other?...

[@michaelthomas5433]

Because of the Ultimate Nullifier of course. It always stops things 'Galactic'.

[@rodbahrami4273]

Iran is the older name of the region. the name goes back to 4000 years ago way before Persia.

[@anak5183]

The name was first found in the writing of Kkng Darius.

[@eonthinker100yrago8]

@@anak5183 it means land of aryans

[@bernard3303]

Take note that this aryan, used in iran and indian subcontinent is different from the one regularly used in europe. aryan means someone noble in character and is what indians and iranians would call themselves without a racist component

[@paprikaman1124]

​@@bernard3303aria was a country in Eastern Iran in the ancient world

[@etolqa66]

Ama yönetenler 1000 yıldır Türk ;)

[@ashrunzeda4099]

5:13 - 5:14 So that's why I frequently see an AI Ottoman allying with France during my EU4 playthroughs.

[@windwaker105]

I prefer to play as France and the Ottomans make a good ally until I run out of rivals and have to rival them

[@OljeiKhan]

@@windwaker105 the rival mechanics are soooooooo dumb. You got so strong that no one can be considered your rival? You now have zero power projection kekw

[@gideonmele1556]

@@OljeiKhan dumb, yes however when you get to that point of no possible rivals you don’t need the power projection reward for extra tension that rivaling gives. Although other ways of getting power projection would be sweet, such as bullying others for a quick injection of power projection (dominating others in the area, pushing out soft power, while annoying everyone). Maybe an alternate AE gain for an area that you are done taking land in for the time/have no interest in controling Would model plenty of the big powers of the time pushing others around without war and the like

[@RubyDoobieScoo]

@@gideonmele1556 or if they let you rival coalitions. That said, EU4 mechanics are so reliably predictable that you should never involuntarily have a coalition against you if you're playing properly.

[@strider8662]

Historically France was one of the Ottoman's most common allies in Europe, so it makes sense that ai does that.

[@Mohamedmerwany3rd]

This channel is great

[@belalabusultan5911]

so in conclusion, two reasons: 1- Persia was strong itself. 2- the terrain is just impossible, like modern-day Afghanistan, where 3rd rate warlords defeated both Soviets and USA.

[@samloll2488]

And Britain too before them

[@jamilshekinski]

it wasn't Persia, but Azerbaijanis who ruled that land for many centuries.

[@Vizuru71]

@@jamilshekinskiShia

[@AGHaxio]

​@@jamilshekinski lol So the empires back then called Azerbaijan?? Ahhhhhhh Waitt Why I can't find it anywhere

[@xedaslopes3975]

With a lot of foreign support in the soviet case and in the usa just by being a endless mess so that is not really a correct statement, just check how many soviets died in the war and compare it to the afghan deaths

[@likklej8]

The train journey through the mountains and the crossing of Lake Van into Iran was great. Travelled to Tehran in early 70s in Feb /March snow on the mountains and desert.

[@MrB00mbang]

Cool tell us more!

[@nathanielmartins5930]

They had a back and forth with the Safavids for a while in Iraq, but after an Ottoman reclamation of land, they decided it was time to stop beating around the bush and end an obviously not working relationship, they had a seating, finalised their boundaries, and agreed to never cross them again.

[@jacobjonm0511]

Nadir Shah took Iraq back from the Ottomans, but he traded it with Cacasus.

[@AhsanKhan-bi3qu]

@@jacobjonm0511😂😂just for four year

[@jacobjonm0511]

@@AhsanKhan-bi3qu As I said he traded it with Caucasus. Learn to read 😁

[@elnazhajebi27111]

As an iranian i appreciate the unbiased content.well presented.

[@tigersaid9156]

Did you know that Safavids: "founded by Kurdish sheikhs" and the same Kurds where also who installed Shia Islam there under their rule. The opposite happened to Ottoman Empire where a Kurds installed sunni Islam. Kurdish creator of Safavid dynasty Ismail I installed Shia Islam to the east. While Kurdish Jabān al-Kurdī who was one of few of the profet Mohammed apprentices installed sunni Islam on Ottoman areas.

[@hydradragonantivirus]

​@@tigersaid9156Nah.

[@ahhdodbegyd]

everybody is kurd yes ​@@tigersaid9156

[@rafforjly]

The Safavid State is a Turkish state. It is a brother to the Ottomans.

[@Pentagram_edits]

iranian turks are no brother to roman​ born anatolians@@rafforjly

[@sarv8463]

Ottomans were the immigrant successors of Selçuk Empire which was established in Iran...so they came to Iran first from central Asia then moved to Anatolia after Manizgert battle which led to the huge loss of East Roman empire...they always considered Iran as their ancestors land and had enough respect for it... that's why Persian language was the second language in the empire of Turkish and today people of turkey still use many Persian words in their language...

[@Yazdegerdiranyar]

I appreciate your deep knowledge bro 👏 from Azarbaijan of Iran 💚🤍♥️

[@ramtin5152]

Actually the Persian language was the court and official language and lingua franca of Turkish empires that were established in Iran But most of them had turkish as their military language and all Turkish was their mother tongue I appreciate your knowledge 🙏 Love from Iran's Mazandaran 💚🤍❤️

[@mezro4283]

You are right but Salcuk become Iranian ,the way they rule , their culture and everything else like their lunguage was exactly like other Iranian as Iranian don’t think they was foreign they believe they are Iranian who was go to Anatolia and later on become ottoman are totally separate from who stay in Iran , many of them fight for Iran when war start between Iran and ottoman’s

[@sarv8463]

@@mezro4283 A while after Seljuks conquered Anatolia, they divided themselves from Iranian Seljuks and didn’t take command from them no more as they established an independent state by the name of Seljuks of Rome…their United States collapsed a while before Teimur attacked the Anatolia…after the collapse of Roman Seljuks Anatolia divided into a few smaller states and one of them were ottomans the only state could last against Teimur although they had to leave their sultan in Teimur captivity…so ottomans were a part of Roman Seljuks which came from Iran to Anatolia…

[@silveryuno]

Ancient Romans: Spent centuries trying to conquer Persia? Ottomans: Evet... Ancient Romans: You truly are the Heirs of Rome!

[@Emilechen]

some pretend that Ottoman be the heir of Roman Empire or the Huns/Gokturk, two empires far away, but in reality, Turkey is more exactly the heir of Anatolia people, Hatti and Hittie legacy,

[@dronur6194]

@@Emilechen yes.. 👍 Turkey = Ottoman Empire

[@omerfarukarslan4746]

@@Emilechen WTF

[@Emilechen]

@@dronur6194 so Anatolian History local nations = Hatti, Hittite, Lydia, ..., Seldjukide, Ottaman and finally Turkey, i think that Turkey is more legitimate to claim legacy of ancient Anatolian civilization legacy,

[@DirtyThug1]

@@dronur6194 Mongolia*

[@interestinglife934]

I dont think distance was a big factor to consider as to why the Ottomans didnt go further east. Many others before and after traveled across much greater distances.

[@zebedeecopland9598]

However, the land was very barren and was more difficult to hold than it was worth

[@r3xmundi1]

Agreed. The very maps in this video that show the Ottomans territory in Arabia prove that distance could be overcome. I think it’s the mountains and the strong national organisation and identity they couldn’t defeat. Persia has historically been invaded many times, but conquered far less, and only when it was disunited

[@gideonmele1556]

A lot of Ottoman land, like the Romans before then, could use the seas and rivers, Persia? Not so much. Even up to the Iran/Iraq war, the topography was a killer both for striking into Iran and supplying out of Iran, doable but a serious pain

[@idirani6298]

Hat up , for your first instinct ! The Truth : They are just jealous of eternal and master country of Iran , even today ! See , at embargos and making problems for Iran with their shitty freedom , stinky democracy and their fake Human-Rights ! This is why !

[@senthayfn]

Their interest was in Europe

[@AltaicGigachad]

By the end of the tenth century, with the Qarākhānid Turks conquering Sāmānid Central Asia and ushering in a millennium of Turkic rule across Iran and much of the Islamic World, the dynamic of the frontier had changed qualitatively. The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia (Early and Medieval Islamic World) Hardcover - June 27, 2019

[@abasmalekiii381]

Throughout history, the Persians had powerful empires such as the Achaemenids, Sassanids, Samanids,

[@ahmedkeremsayar]

as turks from huns to first gokturk khanate to seljuks to timurids to mughals to ottomans.

[@Original_BrosTV]

@@ahmedkeremsayar Timurids saw (Timur) saw himself more a Mongolian than a real turk, in a personal letter to Beyezid, he even made fun of the Turks, for not being able to govern at all. I can send you the Quote if you want.

[@stuntboyshourov2752]

Sassanids were totally consumed by Rashiduns. It’s hard to imagine that Arabs were so powerful at a time.

[@ahmedkeremsayar]

@@Original_BrosTV Calling Timur a Mongol is like calling II.Mehmed a Latin or Greek because he claimed to be “Caesar of Rome”. Calling him Persian or Mongol is a great historical crime. Please don’t do that. If you visit Uzbekistan, his homeland, you will face very bad reactions if you say that. He even insulted Bayezid’s Turkness in his letters. He said Ottoman soldiers were “devshirme slaves” (probably referring to Janissaries) and his soldiers were real Turks and would win.

[@abasmalekiii381]

@@stuntboyshourov2752 The Sassanids ruled for more than four hundred years and were one of the most powerful empires of that period. The reason for the Arab victory over the Sassanids was due to the weakening of the Sassanids over time.

[@abdulrahmanabdulaziz8742]

The old Roman-Persian conflict was transferred to the Ottomans-Iranians.

[@hackman669]

@Igor Zlatkovic So boys were fighting just for the hell of it?

[@oguzkagan4643]

@Igor Zlatkovic dude because Turks %40 Muslim Greek, %32,5 muslim armenian , % 21,9 kurds , % 9.31 arabs

[@oguzkagan4643]

@Igor Zlatkovic my father blonde asiatic Face asiatic Eyes (nomad teke tribe)…. ım a serb????

[@Kaan_is_myname97]

@Igor Zlatkovic go spill your bullshits elsewhere please

[@scottgrey3337]

I’m usually not picky with historical videos, especially when they cover overlooked topics, but boy was this a mess. This wasn’t even much of a “why” Iran resisted Ottoman expansion as it was a summary of what happened- and a poor one at that. We barely have a reason for why the two had hostile relations and no exploration of something like long-standing goals or geopolitical ambitions (did Iran want *all* of the Ottoman Empire? What were the Ottoman’s goals with this conflict?) and yet we get a mention that it’s far to walk from Constantinople to Iran. But why is Iraq achievable but the rest too far? If the mountains are an obstacle how did Khuzestan (the bottom left corner of Iran) stay unconquered? Were none of the wars worth exploring in-depth as a good example of long-standing obstacles both countries faced? I barely feel like I came out of this learning anything more than the basics. If someone took this video at face value, they would think walking is the critical danger to armies, rather than extended supply lines or overextension. Hell, we don’t even know *why* the Jannisairies got upset midway through the most successful invasion of Iran.

[@uguraydin12]

Jannisairies were professional troops of the Ottoman Empire and they had salaries from the crown. Their other source of income was looting from enemy cities. Persians destroyed their own land so there was nothing to loot. That's why they were not enthusiastic about that.

[@navidaban2856]

It was the Mongolian culture of the Ottomans that created many wars with their neighbors... it is always mistaken that it was Islam that made Ottomans attack Europe. No it was the Mongolian Culture of the Ottomans. The best example is their 300 years of conflict with Persia

[@azarakhshsawmen127]

@@navidaban2856 Chi migi dada baw mongolian culture kodume ? Har emperaturi mikhad sarzaminaye bishtari begire

[@omerpasa3328]

agree , video needs deeper answers

[@aidanbob2048]

Not to nitpick but the pronunciation is also quite a mess

[@nimash6273]

The reason Persians were defeated in the first couple of battles was that they still fought with swords, lances, and bows, whilst Ottomans had artillery from the begining, until England sent Sir William and Sir Robert Shirley to Persia to give Persians the technology to make guns and canons, in order to keep Ottomans from advancing in Europe. After Persians had Artillery they managed to retake their own territories and the balance was more or less maintained.

[@gojira4036]

*Persian instability go brrrrr* *40 different Persian dynasties go brr*

[@michaelweston409]

History changed

[@yan8964]

dude what are you talking about first use of canons and riffles was in central asia aka persia before even Europeans got to see gun powder

[@berkzyhd]

nice try with the non factual excuse Ottomans were always tough and brave thats why you lost fyi also persians had guns and cannons too geez your teachers lie so much to try and make yourselves feel better lol Just Sparta alone was fending off the persian empire imagine if Greece united and went to persia yall be gonnneeee

[@gojira4036]

@@berkzyhd Fun fact: Guns and canons were not invented during the time of the first Persian empire nor the Spartans, and Sparta wasnt conquered because the Persians had 30 other rebellious ethnic groups to deal with. Also the ottomans were more stable than Persia and would have easily lost to a stable Persian Dynasty not dealing with 20 different revolts, the Ottomans overall were able to outlast 4 different Persian dynasties which all had different styles of ruling.

[@retrogamermax8287]

One reason I can think of why Persia has only been conquered twice in history and never colonized during the Industrial Age is because of it's rocky and mountainy geography. Persia or Iran would be a very hard nation to conquer due to it's rocky geography alone as Persia/Iran might have one of the best defensive geographical advantages in the world compared to many countries. I think geography has been on the Persians' side throughout history.

[@soniahemmati2372]

Greeks or Macedonians, Arabs, so many diffrent turkic tribes and Mongols all conquered and ruled Iran for many long years.

[@everydayrubbish8962]

Everyone knows Ottomans Seljucks invaded persia for hundreds of years, there for there was nothing interesting in persia for ottomans. Seljuck Turks before Ottomans owned the Persia, this video is misleading information, it wasn't difficult to invade persia, Whilst ottomans and persia had several wars, and persia always lost the wars. Ottomans went to west

[@brightburnedits4278]

@@soniahemmati2372 they all lose and failed to iran

[@alirezaesfandiari5942]

@@everydayrubbish8962 said the dogmatic person who is heavily exposed to only turkish history!

[@kananabdullayev9257]

Who says it was not conquered? Iran was always depended on UK politically and economically

[@amiirezashojaee5291]

1821-1823 war was rather interesting, It happened on two fronts, one Persian army led by the Crown prince pushed deep into Anatolia defeating several minor Ottoman armies before routing a 50k strong force from Constantinople in the battle of Erzerum, while in the southern front eldest prince of Persia pushed into Iraq, capturing several towns and besieging Baghdad itself which came very close to falling, however, due to several problems; 1-Untimely and Suspicious death of Prince Dowlatshah, the commander of the force besieging Baghdad, 2- British Supported revolted in Herat and 3- the pressure of court members for peace, Shah of Persia was forced to order negotiations for peace and eventual status quo antebellum.

[@darklord1901]

so called 50.000 turkish trops of battle of erzerum wasn't mentioned in ottoman sources. It's unrealistic considering ottomans had to deal with greek revolts in those times and a war with russia was about to break. england and france were also had hostile attitudes towards turkey. so there is no way they could send that kind of big army to eastern frontiers.

[@turkistanturan8548]

thats not true. the ottoman army was not 50k. also there was a lot of revolt in ottoman lands.

[@Uptotheceilingdowntothefloor]

By the end of the tenth century, with the Qarākhānid Turks conquering Sāmānid Central Asia and ushering in a millennium of Turkic rule across Iran and much of the Islamic World, the dynamic of the frontier had changed qualitatively. The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia (Early and Medieval Islamic World) Hardcover - June 27, 2019

[@lambert801]

@@darklord1901 Of course it's not in Turkish sources. No one wants to look that bad...

[@extremistterrorist]

​@UP TO THE CEILING DOWN TO THE FLOOR u seem kind of jealous

[@abdollahmoossavi1397]

First thing first: the pronunciation of Iran is" /ɪˈɹɑːn/" and not" /aiˈɹɑːn/". Second: inhabitants of Iran from the time of Achemindas throughout history called their country "Iran ", not "Perse or Persia".This has been mentioned in inscriptions dating to 2500 years back up to modern times in books. The name" Persia" was given to this country by the Greeks and remained the same for Western countries till the 1930s when Iran formally declared to other countries that its ancient name "Iran" was the genuine and correct one. Perse and afterward Perias, a colloquial type of word "Pars" used by Greeks, is the name of the homeland of the Acheminedas dynasty and a small part of their empire that now is a province of Iran.

[@evidemment14]

Why do you call your language Farsi?

[@akiamini4006]

Trully appriciate the effort pal ! You see as ppl down the comment section said the religious and the political heart of the persian emipre was Tabriz and the order was first found in my city Ardabil ... the most of the pop was centered in north western part which were shiate Azari and since the morale and the terrain as you said were considerable so it came to be the written history of today

[@auxiliaryplays4804]

The Ottomans didn't need to conquer Persia, simple as that. If they had tried, they wouldn't even made it far- Tehran at most. Cause of the terrain lol, and its too far from Constantinople, it would of been hard to manage such a vast province far too far from the empire, plus constant rebellions and discontent amongst the shia population and ruling class

[@CagataySahin1]

You're right. Are u turk?

[@flyingberserker3965]

the terrain is so hard to even in modern warfare, its like and afghanistan with steroids.

[@willowisp415]

@@flyingberserker3965 it's like Afghanistan but you only have technology from the 1600's - 1800's

[@beepboopbeepp]

Why did alexander the great do it then? It's kinda confusing the usual explaination for these things written in comments is "because it was a pain in the ass/difficult to do" but yet someone else has done it before. So answer should be why they specifically chose not to do it. With their own written reasons, must be some explaination.

[@CagataySahin1]

@@beepboopbeepp ok but ottoman is sunni empire. Persia and its people are shia people. And shia dont like sunni. So, it would be very difficult for the Ottomans to control and subordinate the Shiite population. Even sokollu mehmed pasha told the administration that there was a risk in making an expedition to iran in 1578/79 and we can say that he was right.

[@arminabdi]

0:43 Just to clarify; The country isn’t just now called Iran. It was always Iran. Westerners called it Persia until Reza Shah formally asked all other countries to use the correct name.

[@hannibalbarca2928]

Armin Abdi iran wasn't always iran . iran remained under greek domination for 300 years seluicid, macedon empire and greco bactria.It remained under Arab rule for 300 years, muzaffarids, umayyads, rashiduns and abbasids etc..220 years of mongol rule great mongol empire,jalarids and Ilkhanate mongol empire etc..There is also 600 years of Turkic domination and 250 years of Turco-Iranian rule.

[@arminabdi]

@@hannibalbarca2928 I meant it was always Iran as opposed to Persia. Westerners used to call the country Persia and some think that was the name until the last century.

[@تورج-ص1ص]

@@hannibalbarca2928 lol

[@تورج-ص1ص]

Iran has been Iran since the time of the Sassanids. It was called Iranshahr in the Shahnameh of the fifth century.

[@ario2562]

@@hannibalbarca2928 lol😂😂😂😂 every single thing in universe is tŰrK now go

[@subhan8090]

The most successful of those were the Safavids of Ardabīl, a Turkic mystic order that had immigrated there from eastern Anatolia along with seven Turkmen tribes (called Kizilbash[“Redheads”] because of their use of red headgear to symbolize their allegiance); the Safavids used a combined religious and military appeal to conquer most of Iran. Source:Britannica

[@Pansistani]

Persian (Iranian) turk like Ali Khamenei

[@milliOnmilliOnmilliOn]

Safavid ❤🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿

[@soheildian371]

this was ghajar propaganda .they was iranian azari

[@milliOnmilliOnmilliOn]

@@soheildian371 You occupied Azerbaijani territory in 1926

[@soheildian371]

Azarabandegan is real name and they are persian@@milliOnmilliOnmilliOn

[@ایزدنشاندانا]

The issue is not about the impassability of the borders of the two countries, but if someone like Nader Shah Afshar did not appear in the history of Iran, perhaps Iran would have completely disappeared and did not exist; At the same time, the importance of Shiite and Sunni geography as a stronghold cannot be underestimated.

[@rapfarsibaza]

He's was a genius Commander

[@mehdimarkham5068]

One and only NADER shah the man who rescued Persia from all invader the commander of chief that was able to fight in four fronts and won most of his battles the kind of king that could defeat Mohammed shah of India took over Lahore and burn Delhi and took entire treasure of India we need this kind of leader once more to bring Iran to his previous would status as empire

[@ایزدنشاندانا]

@@mehdimarkham5068 He was almost the only person in the political history of Iran who was able to oppose the Ottoman Turks, it should not be forgotten that the Ottomans were a great threat to the world for many years.

[@yt-1161]

Afshar

[@LuisCastillo-jc8sv]

I came to conquer Uranus

[@precursors]

Ottoman Empire, Safavid Empire and Delhi Sultanate at the time were known as the gunpowder empires and all three had professional armies with heavy artillery. It was pointless endeavor for one to conquer the other.

[@krishibrahmania8432]

Dude it was not Delhi sultanate but Mughal Empire.

[@precursors]

@@krishibrahmania8432 True

[@ER-bh8dl]

All of they was turkic empires. Also add to this group Timurid s Empire!

[@e.c3734]

@Kareem Sarhan are you jokimg or you are really ignorant?? Safevid was Turkish. Şah Ismael was Azerbaijan Turkish. Even now Iran has 40 million Turk( Azerbaijan, Qasgay, Turkman..) population.

[@ramtin5152]

@@e.c3734 Shah Ismail I grew up bilingual, speaking Persian and Azeri His ancestry was mixed, from various ethnic groups such as Georgians, Greeks, Kurds and Turkomans Their official and court language was Persian as it can be seen on Safavid palaces or the poems written by Safavids such as Shah Tahmasp Shahnameh Though they also spoke and wrote in Azeri The Safavids were the first to use the term Iran as the name of their country and this can be seen in the Safavid map drawn by an Ottoman Turk, Ibrahim Muteferrika Iran's population right now is over 86 million but has 20-22 million Turkic population at max Azeris make 16% of Iran's total population I don't know from where do you get these absurd numbers Iran's total population is 86,729,411 right now in 2023 The Persians make 61% of the Population Combined with other Iranic people such as Kurds, Lur/Lors, Gilaks, Mazanis, Balochs, Armenians and Arabs, the number of non Azeris or non Turks surpasses 80% Around 18,000,000-20,000,000 of Iran's population is Azeri, 1,300,000 Turkmen and 400,000 Qashqai Except the source Azerbaijan has given, other non Iranian sources always said that there are between 16-18 million Azeris in Iran The highest number i saw was 20 million

[@majestichotwings6974]

I find it interesting to note that these types of geographic features have been stable borderlands for large empires dating all the way back to the earliest of empires. Hittites, Assyrians, Akkadians, Babylonian all empires who’s borders at one point stopped at those ranges bordering the Mesopotamian plains. Can you conquer beyond those lands? Oh absolutely as proven by madlads like Alexander, but it’ll take an exceptional amount of dedication and investment to expand outside your civilization’s natural borders and it inevitably results in those lands eventually breaking off, sure maybe you hold it for a few years, decades, Maybe a few centuries if you’re good, but inevitably your civilization defaults to its natural borders. I think the reason why the ottomans didn’t take Persia is purely practical, they had plenty of land to work with and plenty of problems associated with just keeping those, much less further flung ventures into the mountains of Iran.

[@o-wolf]

ppl forget as well as being a complete &utter nutcase alexander also used mass slaughter threats of genocide/oblivion & psychological warfare to maintain a what should have been rather tenuous foothold in these territories.. not to mention marrying his generals directly into the ruling hierarchy &having them submit to local customs/religion of his conquered territories as a matter of routine.

[@rashnuofthegoldenscales4512]

The reason isn't simply "practical". The reason why the Ottomans couldn't "take" Persia (a combined tract of land roughly the size of Western Europe) is because the Persians weren't sitting on their hands waiting to get attacked. They were formidable on their own merits and had the most formidable cavalry in West Asia. That goes beyond it being a "practical convenience" as you would have it.

[@majestichotwings6974]

@@rashnuofthegoldenscales4512 I wasn’t trying to imply that the native Persians weren’t able to defend their own land but I was implying that the ottomans would’ve been more successful had they the willingness to commit to the conquest.

[@rashnuofthegoldenscales4512]

@@majestichotwings6974 You must be joking. Some of the biggest musterings conducted by the Ottomans were for the Persian campaigns. To claim that there was a lack of will or commitment behind these levies is plainly a made up notion. Furthermore, implying that success is automatic for "wanting it more" (something you can't prove to begin with) is the same as invalidating Persian efforts. You do understand that this isn't how war is waged?

[@blueberrybuttercake2942]

Damn, I always feel sad when someone never heard about Cyrus

[@mahmutakbaba2802]

Fun fact: Both countries are rivals, yesterday and today. Both appreciate each other as a strong nation. And most important, both need the other country to be intact and functional for their political interests and safety 😉

[@nein236]

And the population of both isn’t really intelligent.

[@Revo_MRZ]

Safavid Turks

[@yarsaz4347]

​@@Revo_MRZ No the founder of the Safavid order was Kurdish mystic Safi-ad-din Ardabili. Iran has many different ethnic groups but Persian has always been the state language and Safavid Iran was no different.

[@Revo_MRZ]

@@yarsaz4347 An important aspect of this study is that in Ottoman historiography, the established views about the Battle of Çaldıran are being questioned. The assessment of the Venetian traveler, Giovanni Maria Angiolelloa, have to be taken into consideration. The Venetian traveler says: "If the Kurds did not call, the great turk Yavuz Sultan Selim would never dare to attack Shah Ismail." This statement required the examination of Shah İsmail, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Kürdler / Kurdistan relations at that time. Shah Ismail, in 1501, destroyed the Akkoyunlu State, took over Tabriz, the Safavids rule was established in Iran, the Twelve Imam Shia Sects were declared the official sect. Shah Ismail seized the lands of Sunni Uzbeks in the East, and dominated a wide area from the Caucasus Mountains in the North to the Persian Gulf in the South. Safavid's border with the Mamluks was the Euphrates River from South to North. Bilecik, Urfa, Harput, Erzincan, Çemişgezek (wide Dersim Region) came under Safavid rule. Safavids became neighbors with the Ottoman State in the west of Sivas, Amasya and Tokat. All this shows that most of Kurdistan is under the control of Safavids. Safavid administration and Shah Ismail do not treat the Kurds at all. For example;Shah Ismail invited the Kurdish tribal chiefs to the palace, arrested them and put them in jail. He used to exile some tribal chiefs to different corners of Iran. Nawşirwan Mustafa Emin explains the purpose of Shah Ismail in 3 points in his book "Kurd û Ecem": 1 To take the Myrs in the hands of the Kurdish Myrs, to move them away from their regions and to replace them with the Kızılbaş Turks, 2 Forcing Sunni Kurds to change sects, 3 To exert violence against the leaders, the people and the Kurds who protected their power at that time during the Akkoyunlu state… Nawşirwan Mustafa gives 3 Kurdish Myrs as examples: Çemişgezek Spell Hacı Rüstem Bey, Shah Rüstemi Lor and Zahir Bey Hakkari etc… Meanwhile, as it is known, Shah Ismail drove his military forces under the command of Nuri Ali Khalifa Rumlu, against Erzincan and especially Çemişgezek people, and put Han Muhammedhan Ustaclu against Diyarbekir Kurds. After Nuri Ali Khalifa Rumlu invaded the region, he carried out massacres against the Kurds in the region and sent the leaders of Çemişgezek to Ecem Iraq, including Mîr Hacî Rûstem. Of course, Mîr Hacî Rûstem and his accompanying people go to Xoy and inform Shah Ismail about their loyalty in order to return to their former power. However, Shah Ismail places Mîr Hacî Rûstem in another area, not to return to Kurdistan, depending on his existing policy against the Kurdish Myrs. Prior to the Battle of Çaldıran, Shah Ismail was liquidating the Kurdistan Myrs and deploying Turkmen (not Alevi Kurds) instead. For example, Turkmen officials assign the head of Kurdish cities such as Maraş, Hasankef, Diyarbekir, Erzincan, Kemah, Kiği, Erzincan etc. These assignments do not take place peacefully, but as a result of war and massacres. Bey of Hesenkêf fortress Mîr Mîr Xelil Eyyubi, one of the lords of Kurdistan, before the Çaldıran War, want to go to the city of Xoy with great gifts and report their loyalty to Shah Ismail. As it is known, although the dignity of Kurdish Eyyubi lost throughout the Middle East, Hesenkêf continued as the last fortress of the Ayyubids. Mîr Xelîl Eyyubî was the brother-in-law of Shah Ismail (he was married to his sister). Except one or two of the myrs, all of them who went to report their loyalty to Shah Ismail were arrested and replaced by Qızılbash Turks. Mîr Xelil is in prison in Tabriz for 3 years and then runs away. A number of Kurdish circles are able to carry out hollow and unrealistic analyzes by ignoring the Safavids' massacres in Kurdistan, Safavids policies and practices to purify Kurdistan from the Kurds and bring Azeri Turks and Turkmens to their place. In the face of this attitude of Shah Ismail and Safavids, seeking help from the Ottoman Empire was born as a serious thought among the Kurdish tribes.

[@Revo_MRZ]

@@yarsaz4347 This is how the Kurdish tribes introduced the Idris-i Bitlisi and did invite the Ottomans to the war against Shah Ismail. İdris-i Bitlisi was a bureaucrat that served Uzun Hasan and Saraya during the Akkoyunlular period. The father of İdris-i Bitlisi also served Akkoyunlu people. Reports were frequently sent to the Ottoman Palace about Shah Ismail's banning Sunni in Kurdistan, inviting the Kurds to Shiite. The number of these reports were increasing. The content of the reports was also getting heavier. Shah Ismail's anti-Ottoman and pro-Shiite policies in the Ottoman country were the main topics that were mentioned in these reports. Safavids ended the power of the overwhelming majority of the Kurdish Mirians in Kurdistan for decades before Yavuz Sultan Selim took power in 1512 and the Kurds of Îdrîsî Bedlîs took the alliance with the Ottomans. Yavuz Sultan Selim sat on the throne in 1512. İn 23 May 1512. Yavuz, as soon as he sits on the throne, is considering a trip to Hungary. The notables of the palace, viziers, commanders are also in favor of expedition to Hungary. However, the frequent application of the Kurds to the palace, the invitation of Yavuz Sultan Selim to Shah İsmail, leaves Yavuz in a privileged position. After all, the Kurds convince Yavuz. Although the commanders and viziers are eyebrows, a war decision is taken against Shah Ismail and Safavids. Source: 1 The book of Murad Ciwan (Kurdish) named "The Ottomans, Safavids and Kurds in the Battle of Chaldiran" 2 The book of Nawşirwan Mustafa Emin (Kurdish) named "Kurd û Ecem" 3 zagrosname.com/sah-abbasin-mukri-kuerdlere-karsi-katliamiek-1-cemisgezek.html (Kurdish site)

[@payamkhosravi3648]

The reasons: 1. the policy of burned land, means destroying the supplies in ottoman way and sometimes ottoman logistics.for example when Abbas took Baghdad back. which mentioned in video. 2. changing the ideology of the Persia to Shia and even Safavid rapeadly. 3. Cooperation of the people of the Iran. The Safavid empire was mostly based on Ghezelbash turks in army and Tajik (Fars) people governing civil aspects of the empire. Then in Abbas era a second army from Armenians, Georgians and kerkeses (not sure how to write the last one) added. For example Abbas gave Tabriz by an act between war and revolution. and Kurds let Safavids to go through mountains but attack ottomans, even Armenians, Georgians, ... were better with Safavids and even Armenians help persia in Qajar era. The Safavids also have good relationship with people inside their borders and evacuate them in run aways.

[@bernard3303]

I think of 2 words when hearing kerkeses, first is circassians and second is kirghiz. either way thanks for the info ❤

[@swedhgemoni8092]

@@bernard3303 He means Circassians. The Kyrgyz were affiliated with the Khanate of Bukhara, if I'm not wrong.

[@teemo9686]

Nice friday content. Thank you 👍

[@andyleighton6969]

Love the idea that the Ottomans would gather at Istanbul, in the far West, and march the length of Turkey to fight in the far East rather than mustering, resting and resupplying at an Eastern garrison town such as Erzurum [after 1514].

[@haninditabudhi6574]

What crosses though my mind is that sea travel from Constantinople to Trebizond wouldve saved some valuable time for the main army

[@massoudzahedi]

Very intresting👍

[@eboypilled]

It wasn’t officially known as Istanbul until after the Ottoman collapse. There is no “Treaty of Istanbul of 1590” of which you speak of…

[@alphaomega8373]

I would have loved to seen a Ottoman and Persian Romance/War movie about the time of those wars :D

[@masa4977]

Bro if If they make a film about our history, we will surely become the bad guy in the story, even if we are good😢😢

[@masa4977]

@Mehmed Said Pasha You want to talk about Nader Shah😂😂

[@rouldennn]

@Mehmed Said Pasha so all you care is someone being Turkish or not even tho he's coins just tells he considered himself Iranian, aside from that, why did sing some poems against the Ottomans then?

[@rouldennn]

@Mehmed Said Pasha yes, and that's why he sent the skull of the Uzbek king to the Ottoman sultan as a gift 😹 maschallah veri Torkik bröthərhōōd

[@rouldennn]

@Mehmed Said Pasha nah, Ottomans weren't hopeful of Uzbeks doing anything against the Safavids, when Uzbeks acted Ottomans looked for another chance and failed so badly. Safavids didn't give a sh- about you Turks.

[@Meysam_play]

Ottomans nearly conquered Tabriz and king Tahmasb changed the capital to ghazvin With local resistance and the imperial Army Iranians fought the ottomans that had cannons and rifles and Iranians fought with sword but they defeated them and kicked Ottomans out of Iran The reason that Ottomans were Enemy with Iran was that Iran is an independent empire and it was shia Muslim Ottomans nearly had all of the middle east except Iran

[@etiramlizad4118]

2 great Turkic dynasties - Sefevids & Ottomans ❤

[@projjwalray-6341]

A very well made and informative video. The only thing that kept bothering me was "Iran" being pronounced as 'eye-ran' instead of 'ee-ran'.

[@Amir-vd1zf]

Why didn't ottomans conquer Persia ?! Nadir shah : it's showtime Abbas the great : yea probably

[@mrtminer2723]

🇮🇷👍

[@kronzweld1008]

Breaking News: Safavids and Afshars were not Persians but in fact, Turks.

[@mrwho5877]

@@kronzweld1008 fun fact: iran is a multicultural alliance. and as a turk I am fully loyal to my country (iran) while proud of my ethnicity's culture.

[@mzero4769]

@@kronzweld1008 @Kronzweld fun fact 20 million of turkey's population is made by kurds (mountain turks you call) that speak an iranic language and another fun fact is that unlike turkey we are proud of being multicultural we might suffer from a corrupted regime but as turks kurds Persians balochies... We are one nation

[@Amir-vd1zf]

@@kronzweld1008 breaking news : who wrote this comment is also a Turk

[@gorg5494]

Thank you My ancestors were in Shah-Abbas army (qizilbash azerbaijani tribe) and it is always interesting for me that how those wars were. Although we lost Kurdistan during those wars, but Zagros mountains are like 3000-4000 meters wall, no one can conquer all parts of iran from west P.S: Iran is ee-run not eye-run Chaldiran is çäldırän or çaldorän not kaldiran

[@sevda.azari45]

You are turkish

[@gorg5494]

@@sevda.azari45 i'm persian speaker now

[@gorg5494]

@@sbd983 no we weren't

[@brightburnedits4278]

Safavid was Iranains whit kurdish origin

[@repvoo2399]

They were Turks

[@AltaicGigachad]

The Zand dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1751 to 1794 , was the first native Iranian regime in almost six hundred years, as opposed to the Turkic and Mongolian sovereigns who until then had governed the land. Frye, R. (2009). Zand Dynasty. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. : Oxford University Press.

[@kshab1]

From "Suleiman the Magnificent" by Andre Clot: On 2nd April 1535, the sultan and his army left Baghdad for Tabriz. They took 3 months to cross Kurdistan and the region of Lake Ourmia. Although it was a good time of the year, the march proved difficult and the sultan gave out gratuities to his soldiers when they arrived. He took up residence in the Shah's palace. He no doubt believed that he would be able to meet Tahmasp in battle straightaway and finish with the Persian menace once and for all. But the shah, as always, had retreated with his army. The terrain favoured his strategy, while for Suleiman the distance between his bases made provisioning difficult, not to say impossible. His army was too heavy and not mobile enough to fight an enemy which was so hard to pin down. To set off into the mountains or deserts of Iran would have been madness - the Turkish army would never have returned. Ibrahim's plan to conquer the whole Iranian plain as far as Ray, Qom and Kashan could never succeed. After spending 2 weeks at Tabriz, Suleiman gave the order for departure. The campaign which had brought great glory to the empire with the capture of Baghdad, but also great losses, could not be prolonged. About 30,000 men had died, mainly of hunger and cold, and 22,000 horses and camels had perished. The troops had neither the morale nor the stamina to face another winter on campaign.

[@aliazarmehralparslan6067]

Why is there no mention of Shah Abbas I in this video? I feel like he's too underrated in comparison to what he did. He single handedly defeated both Ottomans and Uzbeks and reclaimed some parts of Iraq

[@Amen-Magi]

Or nader shah

[@naturehousenaturehouse7546]

i duno u with toran or iran ? :D

[@CaesarSonOfMars]

Because the videos not about him

[@ShahStark]

The video mostly over focuses on the terrain element and makes it seem as if the Persians were being defeated left and right but simply got by thanks to their terrain and asymmetric tactics. The reality is before Chaldiran Safavids and their allies were making several successful incursions into Anatolia and only lost because Ismail refused to use cannons for that one battle, Suleiman actually suffered a few big defeats in his campaigns which forced his hand to sue for peace and cease any further gains, or how Abbas not only managed to reconquer the Caucuses but later managed to take Baghdad in the first phase of the 1623-1639 war. This isn't even accounting for a lot of the major military successes at the hands of the Persians from the 1700's on wards in which the Persians won nearly every war afterwards.

[@vuqarmustafayev8177]

Safavid No Parsia .On TURKMEN TURK IMPERIA

[@majidkhanii8340]

@@vuqarmustafayev8177 According to Roger Siuri, a researcher of the Safavid period: Signs of the present There is no doubt that the Safavid dynasty is definitely of Iranian origin, not the roots of writings that are sometimes unknown. It is possible that the family came from Iranian Kurdistan and later migrated to Azerbaijan. Where they learned the Azerbaijani Turkish language from the Turkic speakers there and finally settled in the city of Ardabil in the 11th century AD.

[@khorasani2071]

@@vuqarmustafayev8177safavid was persia

[@vuqarmustafayev8177]

@@khorasani2071 safavif parsia ? 🤣🤣🤣

[@khorasani2071]

@@vuqarmustafayev8177world call it persia

[@haleytakamura6772]

Videos like this make me realize how truly mind boggling Alexander the Greats' extensive conquests were.

[@nymaaez]

Do a video on nader afshar. He is considered napoleon of the east by the west and last sword man by the east

[@masoudnavard4436]

Napoleon was the Nader of the west Nader was there first

[@omgbruhohhellnahmanwtfman9558]

napoleon is nader of the west

[@radec1906]

Reality: Huge border covered by wide mountainous area with hundreds of miles long desolate lands not worth even traversing yet conquering Eu4: Full Annex go brrrrr

[@youtube-shorts]

more logical question i have while watching that map why they did not conquer Georgia?

[@mortezaabedi6537]

While persians was losing war in caucasus , they sobataged water supplies in that region and burned lands as well hence ottamans couldn't attack persia from caucasus

[@mustafayldrm3449]

The question is why would they? They came to Anatolia passing through that land. Ottomans were a Balkan Empire, decided from the beginning. (And Iran was a Turkic county for a long time, but this is another story)

[@abraham9324]

This perspective overfocus on politics and military while disregarding economic and social base for the conquest. 1) Politics; Persia have lasting tradition of statecraft which softened any military defeat, 2) Military; Geography of the border between two empires makes perfect sense for both side, 3) Ottoman Empire would not gain any economical benefit from conquering the east of the mountains permanently. Ottomans already conquered fertile lands around Mesopotamia. Also around 16th century Persia's main economical base "silkroad" started to dwindle with European colonialism. Therefore Persian lands don't offer any production or trade benefit to Ottomans unless they conquer all the way to India which was not sustainable at that time period. 4) Even most of the Iraq was and is majority Shia Muslim. If they conquered Western parts of the Persia, they need to deal with uprisings and other problems supported by near enemy Empire. As a result; Ottoman Empire did and could win the war against Persia the most of the time, however it did not conquer Persian lands mainly because of economical and social reasons rather than political and military ones.

[@juandeag5550]

It makes sense as to why Ottoman Empire did not conquer Persian Empire. Why inherit more problems when you have fertile lands and some European territories

[@fatalshore5068]

In a word? Geography. Persias geography has been a source of immense strength for millenia.

[@xyz41100]

I'm curious. How did Alexander the Great conquer these lands so.... successfully while others like Rome and the Ottomans simply could not overcome these obstacles.

[@miladkeshvari805]

Well, Persia also had lots of internal conflicts during those times; you also totally ignored the wars between Persia and Portuguese (and later Russians and British) during the same time that reduced the capability of Persians to fight Ottomans. In this video there’s lots of emphasis on difficulties of Ottomans, though not highlighting that their advances in Iran were partly thanks to the internal and other external conflicts that Persians had to deal with

[@ylmazuguz3986]

Hahah İran was a small enemy for Ottomans. They had the wars against Germens, Habsburgs, Venezians, and Russos as well, at that era. Ottomans problems was greater than Persians. But this is a reality, The Turks ruled Persia for 1000 years. Nothing would change this reality.

[@amirMohammed.]

@@ylmazuguz3986 Whoever says that the Safavids were a small enemy of the Ottomans, probably does not know Shah Abbas the Great and Nadir Shah

[@S3NTR7]

there is always that one bs comment that tries to spread lies and misinform the people unlike you i believe both were very strong empires and had strong enemies surrounding themafter all they were neighbours we are not talking about china and us on the otherside of the earth! @@ylmazuguz3986

[@mahdi4530]

​@@ylmazuguz3986Persia also had wars with Portugal, Russia and Uzbeks and the only reason that ottomans were stronger than Persia was that they had advanced weapons even though they couldn't conquer Persia in spite of having advanced weapons . And yes Iran had Turk iranian king and a large number of Turk people are still living in Iran beside Persians, Kurds and other iranian minorities.

[@saeedkamali2025]

@@ylmazuguz3986 turkish language people. People of Hittie, sumer, Elam, byzantine and ancient anatolia did not vanish! Actually new genetic evidence shows Turkey people has little of genes of Turk people and are mostly from ancient anatolians and linguistic studies show that their language before celjughs were indo-iranian-europian

[@cosmic_jon]

I love the videos, but I have to nitpick one thing: "Caucasus" (6:15) and "subsequently" (4:21) are pronounced with emphasis on the FIRST syllable, not the second ;)

[@amritraj41]

There always will be that one guy

[@oriffel]

This channel mispronounces stuff a staggering amount of the time. Given that its supposed to be an educational channel, it comes across as really sloppy.

[@miketimmerman6336]

@@oriffel It's not even just syllable emphasis, he seems like he is reading a script and has never heard these things pronounced correctly. I mean "cau-KASS-us" and "sub- SEE-kwent" are bad, but "Sunny Muslim" takes the cake for me.

[@Forlfir]

Also Iran, Iraq

[@thawhiteazn]

He also pronounces Safavid strangely.

[@speedomars]

The Treaty of Zuhab, concluded on 17 May 1639, finally settled the Ottoman-Persian frontier, with Iraq permanently ceded to the Ottomans. ... Eastern Samtskhe (Meskheti) was irrevocably lost to the Ottomans as well, making Samtskhe in its entirety an Ottoman possession. The Ottomans were stalemated by the Persians in the Ottoman-Sfavid war.

[@Geckotr]

We call it Treaty of Kasr-ı Şirin. Turkish-Iranian border today dates back from that treaty

[@Alpha-d4r]

SAVEFİD GREAT AZERBAİJAN EMPİRE 🇦🇿

[@luffy3695]

@@Alpha-d4r bruh azerbaijan1991 lol

[@Alpha-d4r]

@@luffy3695 bruh iran 1979 😂😂

[@Pansistani]

@@Alpha-d4r bruh iran is 3200bce lol

[@qapaghanqaghanssoldier9111]

Indeed, when Isma‘il captured Tabriz in 1501 he proclaimed himself in pre-Islamic Iranian political terms as Padishah-i Iran. In using the Persian term “Padishah,” to describe his status in “Iran,” he was repeating pre-Islamic Iranian political and geographical/political terminology that had only recently been revived by the Il-Khanid Mongols and used also by the Aq Quyunlu. His invocation of these terms suggests he thought of himself as a political heir of hismatrilineal relatives, the Aq Quyunlu. The ancient term “Iran” had fallen out of use following the Arab-Muslim invasions and had not been used by the Caliphs, or their successors, the Samanids, or the many Turkic dynasties that succeeded them. A final irony of Isma‘il’s use of the term “Iran,” or in one of his poems the phrasemulk-i ‘Ajam, the “state” or “kingdom of Iran,” is that even though Tabriz, Azerbaijan, and Mesopotamia represented provinces of the pre-Islamic Shahanshahs, the “kings of Kings” of Iran, there is no evidence that Isma‘il imagined himself to be reconstituting a new Iranian empire; rather he planned to establish a messianic Shi‘i state on Aq Quyunlu foundations. Within the decade following his capture of Tabriz in 1501, Isma‘il occu- pied the geographic center of the pre-Islamic Achaemenid and Sasanian Iranian empires. He did so, though, with Oghuz tribes whose knowledge of the Shah-nama and the glories of pre-Islamic Iranian kingship was almost certainly limited to inchoate oral traditions. Isma‘il was reconstituting the Aq Quyunlu state in these conquests, and like that of the Aq Quyunlu, the ultimate focus of his ambitions was eastern Anatolia, where his father and grandfather and he himself had proselytized among the Turks. Dale, S. (2009). The rise of Muslim empires. In The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals (New Approaches to Asian History, pp. 48-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818646.005

[@arolemaprarath6615]

If you say that the Hittites are rubbish then you must be jealous. As for the Hittites, they formed the second earliest civilisation of Indo-European origin only behind the Indus Valley Civilisation. Since the Indus Valley spoke mixed tongues, Indo-Aryan base and it happened to be a proto-dialect then the Hittite language is the oldest Indo-European language predating Sanskrit and Ancient Greek.

[@bosbanon3452]

I think Padishah is an Islamic term because Islam prohibiting kings to title themselves as "king of king" or Shahinshah in Persian because "king of king" is one of 99 name of Allah. Malik-al Mulk

[@bosbanon3452]

@@arolemaprarath6615 if i not forgotten ancient hindu text mentioned Yavana in Anatolia and greece as their cousin , maybe that's about hitties and greeja

[@bosbanon3452]

@پیاده نظام خان i think padishah or head of the king is a post islamic title to replace Shahinshah(king of king) that prohibited in Islam because that will be equal wil Allah's name Malikal Mulki

[@nomesa7374]

@The Imperishable Star "the Abbasids were called shahs by the Persian aristocracy": Only until Ma'moon (Early Abbassids). And Early Abbassids were highly Persianized, and specially Mamoon and Haroon were both highly secular. So one CAN say that the Shahanshahi system is a proto-secular and (definitely) a non-Islamic system.

[@alirezafarzi3537]

Think of that Ottomans and Persians make alliance and never let Europe control Middle East

[@Njelex]

😂😂😂

[@Farhad6th]

Iran has seen a lot of things in history. Iranian people are amazing at surviving and defending themselves.

[@Sjshakdh]

Safavid Azerbaijan 🇦🇿

[@رضامارمولک-ت1ك]

@@Sjshakdh no kid safavid for ardabil iran🇮🇷🇮🇷

[@yarsaz4347]

@@Sjshakdh Azerbaijan is Iran.

[@unclephabrizus6952]

during the battle of Chaldoran, it was the first time that the Persians have ever seen gunpowder and cannons in action.

[@kadirbaba46]

Persians? Sah ismail is turk

[@unclephabrizus6952]

@@kadirbaba46 yes , the safavid dynasty was from a group of people called Qizilbashi, the Qizilbashi were Turks

[@luffy3695]

@@kadirbaba46 half

[@unclephabrizus6952]

@@luffy3695 there's a small interesting tip here, Ismail's mother was half Greek 😁 during the Bayazid II rule over Ottoman Empire this wasn't important (Ismail Safawi still had friendly ties with Ottomans) but during Sultan Selim's he then also used this fact as something to justify his hostility towards the Ottomans 😁

[@unclephabrizus6952]

@@polystudy2787 naaah, there are concepts like nationality, Identities and legacies that won't let the Safavid dynasty be separated from Iranian people's history, Safavids were originally Turkish but they also had ancestries from other regional ethnicities like Kurdish and the rest, they spoke Azeri Turkish, many people did in their territory and still do in large parts of Iran, but Safavids were also interested in Persian legacies and Mythology, showed so much interest in Shahmamah and also named themselves King of Kings (Shahanshah) and they did a lot of work and favors to support the Arts and Cultures of the region, most of notable Persian Poetry books that exist today in museums as old handwritten books are actually from the Safavid Era. with their cultural and literature legacies it's along with their ideological differences and disagreements with Ottomans and Uzbeks, it was even naturally wiser for them to support other ethnic groups of the region to gain their support against Ottomans and they did succeed in doing so. Let's say, basically Ottomans and Safavids were playing Roles of Roman and Sassanid Empires in a both Islamic Sided Version 😁

[@raphlvlogs271]

the geography of Iran made it in to a natural fort.

[@AltaicGigachad]

In fact, Turkic-speaking peoples have played a major role in Iranian history, ruling the country from the eleventh century up to the early twentieth. Even today they represent more than a quarter of Iran's population. Foltz, R. (2016) Iran in world history. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. p.61

[@EmiliaSketches]

Narrator - "...would utterly exhaust the Ottoman troops" Alexander the Great - "Hold my beer 🍺"

[@arash4108]

There is no greatness in killing innocent people, destroying atashkades and burning cities. Better call him eskandar gajastak. Alexander the savage.

[@coreyjafari4760]

He was lucky

[@Turgineer]

Short Answer: Because he could not motivate the Ottoman army for this. It would be demoralizing for the army to fight another Muslim country, as the Ottomans often fought the Christians. The Ottomans thought of attacking Iran to reach the Turks in Central Asia, but Iran is not just a country you can take a part of, you have to occupy the whole.

[@sardunai952]

Oh, suuure, the Zagros mountains. The Zagros mountains, who doesn't know them? The insurmountable obstacle that stopped Alexander the Great, the Arabs and the Mongols!

[@sardunai952]

@Mohammed Alzahrani See, they had no excuse.

[@trewytrew6357]

Well Alexander destroyed persian army in Anatolia and Egypt. So there is no one left to stop him in Iran. Arabs destroyed Sassanid army in Iraq and Mongols conquered Iran from east. Ottomans have the same problem which Romans also had. You can’t beat Iran if their army scorched half of their own country and waiting behind zagros while invader army try to find them without any supplies.

[@sardunai952]

@@trewytrew6357 Nice counterargument! Though the video makes it look like it was more the Ottomans themselves who didn't really go all in, mostly because of internal conflicts.

[@saeedvazirian]

The Persians defeated all of them just the same, moron, lol. The Iranians always win. Iran won.

[@saeedasl8025]

Greetings from Tabriz, Iran. And please pronounce it right. It is EERÂN, not EYERAN.

[@y_a_1904_]

You aren't persian you are turk. Tabriz is ethnic turk city

[@radio_alfa2222]

​@@y_a_1904_yes it's turk and we are turk. But we are iran . Iran is not only for persians

[@arya_watchs_4545]

​​​iran is not just prsian in iran we have turk lur arab baluch turkaman kurd tajik and prsian pls dont say that agian ​@@y_a_1904_

[@austinreed5805]

Persia is a very hard country to invade, which is why the Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans stoped their eastward expansion.

[@thewarriorfrog]

Turks Macedonians Greeks Arabs Mongols invaded Persia so it is not hard

[@austinreed5805]

@@thewarriorfrog Most of those invasions were before the Romans, when Persia was weak. The Mongols were the only exception. Persia may have been easier to invade over a thousand years ago, but by the time the Ottomans tried it, the Persians were more developed and stronger.

[@the3zoooz1]

@@austinreed5805 the Arabs was after Roman

[@thewarriorfrog]

@@austinreed5805 There were no persian state in the time of Ottomans this video is nothing more than Wikipedia propaganda

[@thewarriorfrog]

@@austinreed5805 Ottomans literally fought with other Turks not Persians as sometimes claimed, like Nader Shah and Abbas Mirza The Zand dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1751 to 1794 , was the first native Iranian regime in almost six hundred years, as opposed to the Turkic and Mongolian sovereigns who until then had governed the land. Frye, R. (2009). Zand Dynasty. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. : Oxford University Press. For nearly a thousand years, Iran has generally been ruled by non-Persian dynasties, usually Turkish. Bosworth, C. (1968). THE POLITICAL AND DYNASTIC HISTORY OF THE IRANIAN WORLD (A.D. 1000-1217). In J. Boyle (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran (The Cambridge History of Iran, pp. 1-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521069366.002

[@Biblical.Magi_Persia_Iran]

Persia/Iran is one of the oldest civilizations, cultures and countries in the world. Persians have given many great scientists, poets, scholars and philosophers to the world. Persians/Iranians are responsible for many inventions, innovations, and customs. Persian is one of the oldest living languages in the world, and Persian literature is one of the most beautiful, oldest, and richest literature in the world that has influenced the literature of European and Asian countries. Innovations of ancient Persia/Iran and ancient Persian culture contributed to many of the aspects of the modern world. Persians introduced a number of novel concepts in innovations and inventions.

[@farrukhanthegreat8164]

Iran (Persia) is one of the richest countries in the world.

[@froglifes6829]

@@farrukhanthegreat8164 its not even in the top 20.

[@farrukhanthegreat8164]

@@froglifes6829 No, Iran (Persia) is one of the greatest civilizations in history. It's obvious that you have no historical knowledge.

[@froglifes6829]

@@farrukhanthegreat8164 Its not in the top 20 richest countries

[@farrukhanthegreat8164]

@@froglifes6829 No, it is.

[@nice5396]

Attrition was a major part of why the Ottoman Turks could not defeat the Safavid Iranians, but I believe one major part not discussed in this video is how was Iran adopted and learned from their losses. Let's say Abbas the Great's campaign. By all standard Iran had it worse, as both the Turkic qizilbash, and internal instability had crippled Iran. To not add the fact that the Ottomans had an far more modern army than Persia. Iran managed to successfully modernize their army, prevent internal stability and seemed help with the British, which helped Iran liberate Azerbaijan and the cacauses. Later the Ottomans also tried to take over Iranian land, and infact made treaties to split up Iran. Yet Iran, under Nader Shah, once again modernized its troops and bringed economical stability. Even under the Qajar, Iran's fast adoption of British and French infantry tactics made them win a war against an enemy far stronger than them.

[@everydayrubbish8962]

Everyone knows Ottomans Seljucks invaded persia for hundreds of years, there for there was nothing interesting in persia for ottomans. Seljuck Turks before Ottomans owned the Persia, this video is misleading information, it wasn't difficult to invade persia, Whilst ottomans and persia had several wars, and persia always lost the wars. Ottomans went to west.

[@ibrahimk5587]

You should start your sentence "Ottoman Turks could not defeat Safavid Turks..." Or "Ottoman Anatolians could not defeat the safavid İranians"... :)

[@majidkhanii8340]

@@ibrahimk5587 The Safavids were Kurds

[@foreverturkh]

@@majidkhanii8340 Kurds/ Persian is indian origin

[@luffy3695]

@@foreverturkh anatoalian turks are greek/balkan origin that came from janissary slaves

[@kevinbwtauer4190]

The Persians were incredible, wise, warriors, philosophers, nowadays they are blinded by a blind religion and a religious dictatorship. what a sad phase

[@ایرانبان-ظ3س]

All the hordes attacking Iran got either perished or Persianized. I honor my heritage as an Iranian and will defend it forever also respect sovereignty of old powers such as Eastern Roman Empire( and not Mongol Ottomans)

[@AnatolianHittite]

Turks conquered and ruled you for centuries.Not everyone can conquer . The Turks start out humble nomadic clan and within 100 years they create massive empires as is the case of Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Gokturks(formerly blacksmiths) It has repeated over and over again. It speaks volumes in both their warrior way of life and also to their intelligence to adopt. The Iranians for all their sophistication couldn’t rule beyond their realm. The Turks and Mongols and people who originated from North Asia such as the Manchus are only people who seem to have shown that capability and perhaps the early Arabs

[@brightburnedits4278]

@@AnatolianHittite Iranic people conquered and ruled you for centuries.iranic people destroyed everyone and conquer many lands our history is way older and better than yours ao dont cry here check this out :D kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2e6pmOHbN1oepI

[@brightburnedits4278]

@@AnatolianHittite Iranic people ruled turks more than 600 years turks only ruled iran about 500 years wich all of them was persiante or turko persian Safavid was Iranic Empire Of Kurdish origin If You want i will prove Qajar and Afsharid was iranian empires whit turkic origin same like Goturk it was turkish empire whit iranic origin the founder was iranic saka🤣so dont talk nonsence

[@McuThar]

Safavid Iranian(Iranic)Kurdish Empire🇮🇷🦁⚔Won All Wars The Empire Only Ended Cus Of Civil War Whit Iranic Pashton Hotak Dynasty🇮🇷🦁🇦🇫🦁🇹🇯🦁

[@AnatolianHittite]

@@brightburnedits4278 "Iranic people ruled turks more than 600 years"--hahaha You must stop believing the lies of the iranian mullahs.The Iran has been ruled by the Turks during 1000 years. The rulers' poems and state correspondence were in Turkish. Folk poems and songs are in Turkish. The army consisted of Turks. Iranian Turks knew the Persian language as well, but knowing a second language is not enough to assimilate a person. On the contrary, for 1000 years until 1920 Iran's official language was Turkish. United Kingdom made Persian the official language of Iran. Iran's regime is embarrassed that Turks have ruled for the last 1000 years. The regime invented lies such as "Turks are Iranians from the past, Turks are Persianized or Turks are of Aryan race" in order to assimilate Iranian Turks. These are propaganda taught only in the schools of the Iranian regime. It's not history Iran was beaten by Arabs first then Turks then Mongols . lol how many Turkic dynasties ruled Iran ?

[@lerneanlion]

If the Ottomans put a little more focus into the Balkans, they may not have lost Rumelia.

[@berserkenjoyer1138]

Russia was raising tension in balkans helping rebels in wars with russia and austria alliance destroyed us we were bad in Technology and janissary killing emperor Selim become only 9 years become emperor he died his father said to hım before die May your life be short, may your sword be sharp when Selim was going europe he died in way Like Mehmed conqueror.in time capitulations given to many countries too many reasons i cant tell my English not enough to tell

[@trewytrew6357]

You should read more History books about Ottomans. They did everything to save Rumelia. But in 19. Century they were no longer great power like in 16. Century and they couldn’t fight with rebels and great powers at the same time.

[@tanerkoc9607]

@@trewytrew6357 Osmanlı hasta adam denildiğinde tam 13 cephede savaşıyordu, aptal milliyetçilik akımı ve yönetimdeki hainler yüzünden yıkıldı

[@AmmarTaicho]

I think it's all about economics (when it comes to the non-European lands), the Ottoman didn't conquer Persia but the they Conquer Constantinople + Iraq + Egypt + Makkah and Madina. All these lands worth a lot economically compared to Iran.

[@xoigel8106]

Underrated! War needs to make sense to those who wage it. Iran is simply a very dry and mountainous land. It's easier to defend there, but harder to prosper.

[@esmaeilfarsimadan3025]

Iran didnt worth economically? Thats why turkish poeple still has a dream of tabriz?

[@AmmarTaicho]

@@esmaeilfarsimadan3025 now it worth a lot, cuz it's full of oil. But back then it was just an empty land filled with mountains

[@ottomanempire2786]

@@esmaeilfarsimadan3025 I have never seen any Turk saying "i wish we conquered tabriz" in my entire life

[@تورج-ص1ص]

He was funny when he said the same thing when the Ottomans lost😂😂

[@awibs57]

I'm grateful that you've made this, but it's starting to get me how you're saying my family's name. With all friendliness, may I please send you a recording of how to pronounce Safavi for future videos?

[@hammedmousavi2297]

in English it's pronounced differently.

[@mrparadox6878]

You didn't mention the great shah Abbas, May I ask why?

[@aocal]

because he is not great

[@PatrikVolkov1994]

Long live Persian empire 🇷🇺❤️🇮🇷

[@cbicbraylov832]

Azerbaijani Turkic impery 🇦🇿

[@Hvnak700]

@@cbicbraylov832 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣azerbaijan:1990🤣🤣🤣🤣🏳️‍🌈🇦🇿🏳️‍🌈

[@he4620]

@@cbicbraylov832 turks are persian, greeks and Russian😂

[@travelaz]

The name of Safari comes from the grandfather of Shah Ismail Sheikh Safiaddin. In fact, Safiyaddin of the Sunni faith had gained a great influence in Ardabil, the centre of this faith during Elkhanids and had attracted the attention of heads of Elkahnid state. Sheikh Safiaddin that laid a foundation of this faith, the grandfather of Ishaq, Firuz Shah belonged to Turkmen family moved to Ardebil from Anatolia in X century. When Safiaddin died in 1334, his son Sadraddin, and then Khaja Ali became sheikh. Their popularity was spread not only in Azerbaijan, but as well as in Iraq, Syria, Anatolia, Iran, even as Bukhara and Balkh. During Safavid period the Turkish tribes of ruling strata were: samly, ustajlu, turkman, rumlu, zulqadarli, afshar, gajar, gajar, khumuslu, talas. When the head of the Safavid dynasty Ibrahim died in 1447 his son Juneyd replaced him. Since 1456 to 1459, Juneyd was near then less known ruler of Diyarbakır Aghgoyunlu Uzun Hasan. Uzun Hasan had married her sister Khatija Beyim with Sheikh Juneyd in order to ensure the help of Safavids sheikhs in his fight against the enemy Jahanshah. In order to establish own state Juneyd decided to occupy Shirvan. He, along with 10000 supporters gathered from various countries during his campaigns, attacked Shirvanshahs to occupy the country and get the throne of Shirvanshas but has been killed in battle. His son Sheikh Heydar replaced him. Heydar married on daughter of Uzun Hasan, and gained a great reputation. He attacked Shirvan to get revenge of his father. Sheikh Heydar was killed in the battle but his family members and children were rescued by brother-in-law Yaqub Khan. Elder son of Heydar - Ali was declared as sheikh by murids. 6-year-old Ismail, younger brother of Ali was kidnapped by murids after the killing of Ali by Aghoyunlu and taken to Gilan. Here he was kept secretly during six years and at age of 13 years he left from Lahijan to sit at the throne of Uzun Hasan, his grandfather. He could capture some parts of Arran and Shirvan together with ustajlu, samlu, rumlu, mosullu, Indian, takali, chapanlu, garadagly zulqadarli, varsaq, afshar and gajars. He advanced toward Azerbaijan and run away losing in confrontation with the ruler of Aggoyunlu. He captured Isfahan, Kashan, Yazd, Shiraz and Gum cities. So, Aghgoyunlu state finished its existence. Except Khorasan, all lands of Azerbaijan, Iran, area around of Agrydagh, Iraqi Arab lands were in capture of Safavids in 1508. Shah Ismail continued efforts on the way to seize the entire state of Aghgoyunlu. At the beginning of the VXI century, all the states in neighborhood adopted that Safavids are heirs of the Garagoyunlu and Aghgoyunlu.

[@MirRim-w4i]

Stop the lie. Firuz Shah is Kurd, Shah Ismail is Kurd.

[@suy3287]

@@MirRim-w4i their ethnic is Turk( Persian Turks) but they were from Iran not Azerbaijan

[@soltanli02]

​@@suy3287Azərbaycan'dandılar

[@Pansistani]

Ali Khamenei is azeri or Iranian?

[@milliOnmilliOnmilliOn]

One of the important factors proving that the Safavid state was an Azerbaijani state is the fact that decrees and diplomatic correspondence were issued in the Azerbaijani language. As proof of this, we can show the original documents found: 1. Shah Ismayil's decree to Musa Durgutoglu. 2. Shah Tahmasib's letter to Sultan Salim II. 3. Ottoman sultan Suleiman Qanuni's letter to Shah Tahmasib I. 4. Shah I Tahmasib's decree on the writing of Zeynalabid Ali Abdi Bey's work "Takmilatul-akhbar". 5. Muhammad Khudabandi's letter to Farhad Pasha, the general of Sultan Murad III, the Ottoman sultan.6. Shah I Safi's letter to Austrian emperor and Hungarian king Ferdinand II. 7. Shah I Safi's letter to Russian Tsar Mikhail Romanov. 8. Shah II Abbas's letter to Shirvan Beylerbey Haji Manuchohr Khan. 9. Shah Sultan Husayn's letter to the Saxon prince and Polish king Frederick Augustus, etc. The mother tongue of Shah Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid state, was Azerbaijani Turkish. He wrote poems in this language under the pseudonym "Khatai". The official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkish, and the courtiers, as well as the military and religious figures of the state spoke in this language. Isgander Bey Munshi writes that Shah Ismayil had a great talent for writing in Turkish. German ambassador Adam Olyari, who lived in the Safavid state for a while, writes: "The Turkish language is so important in Isfahan that you rarely hear a Persian word there." Safavid rulers: 1. Shah Ismail I (1501-1524) 2. Shah Tahmasib I (1524-1576) 3. Shah Ismail II (1576-1577) 4. Shah Muhammad Mirza (Khudabandi) (1578-1587) 5. Shah Abbas I (1587-1629) 6. Shah Safi I (1629-1642) 7. Shah Abbas II (1642-1666) 8. Shah Suleiman (1667-1694) 9. Shah Hussein (1694-1722) 10. Shah Tahmasib II (1722-1732) 11. Shah Abbas III (1732-1736) ibn Ismail ibn Bazzaz, in which he found information about the history of the great ancestors of the Safavids, determined that the ancestors of the Safavids were not from the Sayyids, and wrote that Later, Safavid historians made up the version that their genealogy is related to Prophet Muhammad and included it in the text of the work "Safwat al-Safa". It is very interesting that Ahmad Kasravi, who rejected the Arab origin of the Safavids, in "Safwat al-Safa" put forward the idea that Sheikh Safi was of Kurdish origin, despite the many facts that he was a Turk, and this opinion was supported by many Iranian authors. ZVTogan, supporting this idea, notes that the sheikhs of Kurdish origin of Ardabil were completely Turkified already at the beginning of the 16th century. According to the author's opinion, Shah Ismayil I and Shah Tahmasib I tried their best to erase their Kurdish origin from history, to attribute the Kurdish Firuzshah to the Prophet's descendants, and to show that Sheikh Safieddin was a Turkish sheikh. First of all, ZV Togan and others do not explain why the Safavids tried to hide their Kurdish origins. It seems that they have not been able to find any solid evidence to prove it. On the other hand, despite ZVTogan's claim, during the period of Shah Ismail I and Shah Tahmasib I, the fact that Sheikh Safi was not a Turk, but rather an Arab origin was brought to the fore, and the Safavid chroniclers also brought up the concept that Sheikh Safi and his ancestors were descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. All of the above-mentioned researchers ignored the fact that Sheikh Safi was a Turk in Tawakkul ibn Bazzaz's work (Bayramli, Shabiyev, 2016:18). Despite Togan's claim, during the period of Shah Ismayil I and Shah Tahmasib I, Sheikh Safi's origin was not Turkish, but rather Arab, and the Safavi chroniclers came up with the concept that Sheikh Safi and his ancestors were descendants of Prophet Muhammad. All of the above-mentioned researchers ignored the fact that Sheikh Safi was a Turk in Tawakkul ibn Bazzaz's work (Bayramli, Shabiyev, 2016:18). Despite Togan's claim, during the period of Shah Ismayil I and Shah Tahmasib I, Sheikh Safi's origin was not Turkish, but rather Arab, and the Safavi chroniclers came up with the concept that Sheikh Safi and his ancestors were descendants of Prophet Muhammad. All of the above-mentioned researchers ignored the fact that Sheikh Safi was a Turk in Tawakkul ibn Bazzaz's work (Bayramli, Shabiyev, 2016:18). In the "Safwat al-Safa" chronicle, Sheikh Safi was repeatedly called "Pir-i Turk" (Piri of the Turks). In the work, the greater respect given to Turks in comparison to other ethnic groups in Sheikh Safi's residence in Ardabil was specially emphasized. Maulana Ahmad and Maulana Ibrahim Sarawi mention that when we were in Sheikh Safi's house in Ardabil, they brought black bread and water to the table for us. They brought white bread and honey for the few Turks who suddenly entered. Sheikh Safi of Tawakkul ibn Bazzaz wrote poems in Turkish, was the author of the work called "Black Collection" in Turkish, etc. such facts indicate that Sheikh Safi is undoubtedly a Turk (Bayramli, Shabiyev, 2016:19). The prominent orientalist VFMinorski has specially emphasized the three periods of Turkmen rule in Iran, the Seljuks period, the Karagoyunlu and Aggoyunlu periods, and the Safavid period, which are related to them (Bayramli, Shabiyev, 2016:20). Although the Safavid historiography shows the Arab origin of the genealogy of the Safavid dynasty from the 16th century onwards, Turkism was a red line in the ethnic identity, life and creativity, and political activities of all the Safavid rulers (Bayramli, Shabiyev, 2016:20). In his research based on primary sources, I.P. Petrushevski irrefutably proved that Azerbaijan and the ethnic feudal element of Azerbaijan played a leading, defining socio-economic and political role in the establishment of the Safavid state and in the first century of its history. He showed that Azerbaijani nobles used exclusive rights and privileges in this state. High positions in the palace, provincial governorships, military work, etc. While it was in the hands of Azerbaijani feudal lords, the role of Persian feudal lords in state affairs was limited to financial, clerical and partly judicial matters (Efendiyev, 2007:34). Criticizing the nationalist, pan-Iranian views of Iranian historiography, as well as similar concepts of Western reactionary historians, NDMikluho Maklay pointed out that the Shaibanis did not recognize the Safavids as the rulers of all of Iran. They considered the Safavids to be the successors and heirs of the Aggoyunul dynasty and recognized their authority only over Azerbaijan and Western Iran. He wrote: "All that has been said allows us to come to the conclusion that the Safavid state, which was created in the 16th century, was formed as the successor of the 15th century Karagoyunlu and Aggoyunlu authorities. He also referred to real grounds, that is, the Safavid state was not an Iranian state and was not considered as such" (Efendiyev, 2007:34). BNZakhoder wrote about the role of Azerbaijan in the establishment of the Safavid state: "Azerbaijan, standing at a relatively high level of socio-economic development, formed the core of that great state that emerged in the South Caucasus and Iran at the beginning of the 16th century. This state included many tribes and peoples. However, for a long time in this state, its military forces were dominated by Azerbaijani feudal lords, on whom the first Safavids relied (Efendiyev, 2007:34). Currently, the tendency to look at the 16th century Safavid state as the Azerbaijani state is gradually gaining ground in the science of history.If Safavid was iranian empire?Why All kings(Shahs) Turkic? Why State Language🇦🇿 Azerbaijani,Why did they live with Turkic Culture🇦🇿?,Why were the Azerbaijan states established before him [Atabek, Ilkkhanate, Karakoyunlu, Akkoyunlu] established in Urmia?🇦🇿,Why did the Qizilbash 🇦🇿hate the Persians, refusing them to come to the Dominion?

[@TheSaidShow_]

Persia was Turkish land for hundreds of years during Seljuk empire time (The Turkish Empire before Ottoman Empire). Also it was conquered by another Turkish empire called Gaznevids even before the Seljuk Turks for significant amount of time. So Persians have have actually been conquered by Turks for hundreds of years

[@yfgames65]

Shah Ismail is a Turk, and this can be understood from the poems he wrote in Turkish and the fact that he made the state language Turkish

[@armanirani6598]

Never forget: a lion is always a lion even it is getting old🦁🇮🇷👑

[@yakupbenzer4960]

Turks don't forget anything, they just pretend to forget.

[@armanirani6598]

@@yakupbenzer4960 i didn't mean turks. i meant generally

[@yakupbenzer4960]

@@armanirani6598 kastederek gibi konuşmuşsun ama

[@aliandrtr670]

Persia of 16th century is different than any other Persian country by it being a Turkic one

[@armanirani6598]

@@aliandrtr670 first: safavid were mixed of kurdish and ardebili and both of them were iranian origin not turkish.and of course azerbaijanis were iranian too. also they caled themselves shah of iran second: there is no racism inside iran and no one cares about the race of shah or leader. if he was good, people would have obeyed him. for example nader shah was of turkic origin and he was a great leader and no one cares about his race and people of iran obeyed him. also he called himself shah of iran and helped to recovering persian culture. so your sentences can make no sense.

[@svestenikajmo7790]

Because we are Persia, and Persia is us. We are 2 nations, 1 people. Ottoman and Safavid brotherhood

[@Nomadicenjoyer31]

In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74 Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.

[@bigdaddyeddy1252]

There are no turks in today’s Turkey. Only 3% of the turkish population is of turkic descent. Who are you trying to fool with your alternative history bs.

[@MrSky21448]

1st reason terrain. 2nd if they divide their troops, the mamluk or pole will attack them.

[@Bayard1503]

Poland? The Ottomans had a perpetual peace treaty with them for over a century... once Poland opted out of trying to control Hungary they had no reason to fight the Turks, they had bigger threats in Russia and Sweden.

[@MrSky21448]

@@Bayard1503 they have different religion, it is call religion heathens. Especially back in between 1300 to 1700 before the age of industrialization. Pole have almost half of the population follow othodox and half of the population follow catholic and as we all know ottoman is sunni muslim. Ottoman would not expand eastward because it will cost them more and over extend themself plus pole and austria might take advantage of such event if ottoman decide to risk everything to expand into their beloved same religion brotherland.

[@tabanseighali693]

It makes me think about all efforts that Romans, byzantine, Ottoman,etc hade made they never succeeded to seize and capture Persia(Iran). It shows that how much Iranians tried hard and fought to save their country from invaders with all possible technics and tactics.

[@GruzInferno]

IRANİCA: Nader's focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals. When describing Nader's coronation, Astarābādi called the assembly on the Moğan steppe a quriltäy, evoking the practice of Mughal and Timurid conclaves that periodically met to select new khans. In various official documents, Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a "Turkmen" ruler, Näder implicitly extended the word "Turkmen" to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Gozz tribes, but to Timur's descendants as well. Näder's novel concepts regarding the Ja'fari madhab and common "Turkmen" descent were directed primarily at the Ottomans and Mughals. He may have perceived a need to unite disparate components of the omma against the expanding power of Europe at that time, however different his view of Muslim unity was from later concepts of it. But both ideas had less domestic importance. On coins and seals, and in documents issued to his subjects, Näder was more conservative in his claim to legitimacy.(Qoddusi, p. 540).

[@kaldirdimgobegi]

Helal

[@safeviciyiz8012]

BAK BANA ARYEN TARİHİNİ CALMAYİ BIRAKIN ESHEKLER 🦗🦗🦗

[@GruzInferno]

@@safeviciyiz8012 dedi tarih hırsızı insan dışı varlık 😂

[@safeviciyiz8012]

@@GruzInferno yorumlarım siliniyor hay

[@mrtminer2723]

I dont read Nader was iranian Good bye liitle boy

[@AltaicGigachad]

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest known mistakes is that Firuz Shah is regarded as a Kurd. This is never possible. Firuz Shah Zerrinkülah is not a Kurd, his name is Kızıl Bork Firuz. Kızıl Bork came to Mugan and Arran with a ruler descended from Ibrahim Ethem, and after he conquered this place, he resided in Ardebil. The author in Safvetü's Safa that Firuz Shah came from Sencan, and Ahmed Kesrevî, by not making sufficient academic studies, said that there was no such region as Sencan, that since "Firuz Shah el-Kürdî" is mentioned in Safvetü's Safa, Sinjar is the closest to the word Sencan, He said that Ibn Bazzaz wrote it wrong. Sinjar's being in Iraq and the passing of al-Kurdi nisba made Firuz Shah a Kurd. However, it is wrong, in al-Baghdadi's work he wrote that a region called Sencan was near Merv . In the corpus of Hata'i, it is written that the Sencan region is located in Nishapur and its surroundings . In addition, the word "Kurd" in the nisba of Firuz Shah "al-Kürdi" is used differently even then and now even thought it was moreover used for Nomads. Even Mazenis still use the word Kurd, which means "Nomad and Shepherd", as shepherd. It was called "Ekrâdi (Kurdish) Turkmani” in order to introduce the nomadic Turkmens in the Ottomans . Also, we wrote in the title that Firuz Shah came with a commander from the lineage of İbrahim Ethem. Let's not forget that İbrahim Ethem was from Khorasan... Firuz Shah definitely came from the Khorasan or Turkistan region, he is clearly Turkish. In the important Safavid source the Âlemârâ, it is written that Firuz was a Turk. (Source: İskender bey Münşi, "Tarix-aləm Aray-i Abbasi", sah.109. Alemara (Sahib), p.1; Alemara (Şükri),p.3. İskender bey Münşi, "Tarix-i aləm Aray-i Abbasi", sah.28.)

[@anthonymanderson7671]

When the ottomans declared themselves as the new romans, the curse then inherited them and therefore the ottomans weren't able to conquer persia

[@Typhoonoverwatch]

Safavid Persia: exists Knowledgia: "Safafavids"

[@se-helen2022]

Safavids were turkish and ruled persia

[@mohsen2327]

@@se-helen2022 the safavids called themselves iranian. nice try though

[@e.h274]

From the beginning of the conquest of Persia by the Seljuks (Türkic ethnos) until 1935, Türkic dynasties, Safavids, Avshars, Qajars ruled in Iran - they are all Türks by origin.

[@baddbeliever]

some corrections: 1) it wasn't modern day turkey but modern day iraq 2) it wasn't a secession dispute but a succession dispute

[@GruzInferno]

In letters to Mughal and Ottoman rulers , Nādir , in a parallel way , recalled the past by appealing to his common ancestry with them . History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East. Studies in Honor of John E. Woods by Judith Pfeiffer, Sholeh A. Quinn, Ernest Tucker pp.338 In a 1736 letter to the Ottoman Grand Vizier, Nadir calls the throne of Iran "the hereditary possession of the noble people of the Turkmans" (mawrusi-yi il-i jalil-i turkman). E. Tucker, «Religion and politics in the era of Nadir Shah…», p.166

[@CengizNoker]

akkoyun karakoyun safevi were turkish states founder of safevi shah ismail was writing poetry in Turkish The Turks in the Ottoman Empire loved Shah Ismail very much and at that time the Turks were going to Shah Ismail's country, so Yavuz Sultan Selim settled the Kurds on the Iranian-Turkish border.

[@yaqubleis6311]

@@CengizNoker Safavid dynasty was Iranian dynasty of Kurdish Iranic origin not Turkic just search about there origin Shah Abbas The Great quoted saying "I'd rather kiss the soles of the lowliest Christian than the highest Turk" doesn't sound very Turkic Shah Ismail did some poem in Azeri and also in Farsi he was the king of Iran is flag was 100 percent Iranian but lets me tell you this All Ottoman and other Turkic Sultans spoke Persian and wrote poems in Persian! Even the Official language of Ottoman Empire was Persian. Only in late 17th century they gave up Persian as the court and administrative language. "The Turks were not content with learning from the Persians how to express thought; they went to them to learn what to think and in what way to think. In practical matters, in the affairs of everyday life and in the business of government, they preferred their own ideas; but in the sphere of science and literature they went to school with the Persian, intent not merely on acquiring his method, but on entering into his spirit, thinking his thought and feeling his feelings." Toynbee, Arnold J. A Study of History.This is why Pan-Turks hate Iranians specially Persians so much it's because they know without Persians they were nothing but Savages from the Altai Mountains

[@CengizNoker]

@@yaqubleis6311 Akkoyun name Turkish karakoyun name Turkish all Turkish states established in Iran Shah ismail He writes poetry like fascists about Turks you can read it Hatai word Turkish safevi word 'pure' arabic 'house' Turkish safevi means the house of those who do not have evil in their heart The word Kizilbash means Kurdish in Turkish instead of saying Iranian Shah Ismail does not like the Kurds at all. Shah Ismail was committing genocide against the Kurds. You can read the Kurdish letter to Yavuz Sultan Selim.

[@CengizNoker]

@@yaqubleis6311 yes, what you said is true, in a very strange way, the Turks and Mongols made the state language Persian and we learned the religion of Islam from the Iranians.

[@qapaghanqaghanssoldier9111]

@@yaqubleis6311 Indeed, when Isma‘il captured Tabriz in 1501 he proclaimed himself in pre-Islamic Iranian political terms as Padishah-i Iran. In using the Persian term “Padishah,” to describe his status in “Iran,” he was repeating pre-Islamic Iranian political and geographical/political terminology that had only recently been revived by the Il-Khanid Mongols and used also by the Aq Quyunlu. His invocation of these terms suggests he thought of himself as a political heir of hismatrilineal relatives, the Aq Quyunlu. The ancient term “Iran” had fallen out of use following the Arab-Muslim invasions and had not been used by the Caliphs, or their successors, the Samanids, or the many Turkic dynasties that succeeded them. A final irony of Isma‘il’s use of the term “Iran,” or in one of his poems the phrasemulk-i ‘Ajam, the “state” or “kingdom of Iran,” is that even though Tabriz, Azerbaijan, and Mesopotamia represented provinces of the pre-Islamic Shahanshahs, the “kings of Kings” of Iran, there is no evidence that Isma‘il imagined himself to be reconstituting a new Iranian empire; rather he planned to establish a messianic Shi‘i state on Aq Quyunlu foundations. Within the decade following his capture of Tabriz in 1501, Isma‘il occu- pied the geographic center of the pre-Islamic Achaemenid and Sasanian Iranian empires. He did so, though, with Oghuz tribes whose knowledge of the Shah-nama and the glories of pre-Islamic Iranian kingship was almost certainly limited to inchoate oral traditions. Isma‘il was reconstituting the Aq Quyunlu state in these conquests, and like that of the Aq Quyunlu, the ultimate focus of his ambitions was eastern Anatolia, where his father and grandfather and he himself had proselytized among the Turks. Dale, S. (2009). The rise of Muslim empires. In The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals (New Approaches to Asian History, pp. 48-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818646.005

[@amsalkhan4754]

I don't think they were mainly fighting for religion I think it was mostly for land and influence. As a Muslim there is just one to two small difference with sunni shia and it is nothing that is blasphemous in that small divide well unless u kill it was a difference between the ottomans and Persians but I don't think it was the main reason for fight. This divide is nothing like the Catholic protestant or orthodox spit in Christianity. I respect all Muslims sunni and shia as we nothing but Brothers. I also respect all other religions as well.

[@veyselturan6916]

Safawids were Azeri Turks. The problem started as a personal issue, as Shah Ismails parents were killed by Ottoman's allies in a strugle for power. So the religion became a perfect ideological tool to put Azeri Turks against Ottoman Turks.

[@z..a9562]

Iraninans are leaving islam so rapidly .they dont care about Islam.its about Iran's gove

[@abedinpanchbhaya4402]

Turkey shouldn't have helped Azerbaijan

[@gorg5494]

It's not true, Iran was sunni before Shah ismail, he tried to make people shia because they were avoiding to fight other sunni groups

[@z..a9562]

@@gorg5494 no.shia was made by Shah Ismaeil bc iraninans didnt want islam and they made up it to get rid of sunnis .im iraninan btw