Why did the Islamic Gunpowder Empires Decline? | History of the Middle East 1600-1800 - 2/21

Try Speakly free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription - speakly.app.link/jabzy
/ jabzy
/ jabzyjoe

[@christophernakhoul3998]

Finally someone talks about how the Ottoman empire barely held authority over half of its territory

[@sagagis]

Let's say, Sultans initially (1400s and 1st half of 1500s) had direct authourity, but gradually lost it

[@JabzyJoe]

Part 4 will pretty much be entirely dedicated to that.

[@ahmetghuzz]

🤓

[@ahmetghuzz]

@millio6238 learn to speak english

[@mint8648]

In the core terrritories of Antolia and Rumelia, they were far more centralized and bureaucratic than feudal Europeans

[@anon3336]

It is wild how few people were actually capable of reading and writing just a few centuries ago. Great video as always.

[@mint8648]

The Muslim world was likely more literate during the Abbasids

[@azmanabdula]

@@mint8648 In their defense they did set up madrassas for people to learn to read and write, but it was usually for some religious point As in furthering Islam

[@leaveme3559]

​@@mint8648Europe and china has always been more literate....Europe because of the church and china because of its meritocratic beauracracy

[@maarten1115]

​@leaveme3559 Medieval Europe was more literate but not by a huge margin. Most peasants would have only been able to read very simple texts.

[@JumboMceal]

Is this a joke? 900-centry abbassids were way more literate than anything european for like 6 centuries. The arabs litterly imported paper technology from China and perfected it. Meanwhile europeans were burning greek books because they were "evil". Until the 1800s if europeans wanted to read greek works they had to translate from arabic. LOL

[@ericc9321]

Russia, Spain, France and the Qing greatly resembled or even were "gunpowder empires" themselves. It would be interesting seeing a video comparing these 17th century powers to their islamic peers.

[@alangivre2474]

While Qing and Russia indeed were gunpowder empires, France and the Hasburgs were not able to monopolize gunpowder production by the Dutch (the Duchy of Burgundy): Belgium was kept by France while the Netherlands by the Hasburgs. It is believed that the failure of the Hasburg-Valois wars (also called Italian Renaissance wars) by both powers, created a competitive dynamic which is the cause Europe rose to power. Eventually (and because of french interference) Netherlands became independent, and thus capitalism developed.

[@Thurnmourer]

@@alangivre2474 The Dutch aren't and have never been "The Duchy of Burgundy," Burgundy has never even ruled the Netherlands, it ruled the County of Flanders.

[@mitchellanderson3960]

​@@Thurnmourerthe duchy of burgundy did rule the netherlands in the 15th century under Duke Phillip the good and ending when Duke Charles died and his lands were split between the Habsburgs and France.

[@joosttijsen3559]

Brabant (eindhoven) was burgundian@@Thurnmourer

[@angelcamachodelsolar]

​@@alangivre2474Gunpowder has been used in Spain since the 13th century. The main factories were in Seville. The Spanish Netherlands (Belgium and Luxembourg) belonged to the Spanish Empire between 1555-1711, and the Netherlands between 1555-1648.

[@justinrosenthal4000]

Every Jabzy video is like the answer to a question I didn't even know I had

[@aflanos]

Calling the Turkic ruler dynasties of Iran, "foreigners" is very much misleading. They were local elements. Iran had been home to many ethnicities, Persians being just one and not necessarily a big majority. These Turkic communities had been living in Iran, longer than they had been living in Anatolia for sure.

[@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb]

Persians are oldest recorded natives and oldest empire builders of the region, so it's obvious Turks were foriegners

[@Threezi04]

@@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb The Medians built an empire first and the oldest recorded were the Elamites.

[@King_of_Cards]

@@Threezi04 the Akkad made the first empire ever, they were Persian

[@King_of_Cards]

@@Threezi04 also the Mede were a Persian people

[@Threezi04]

@@King_of_Cards Akkadians were Semitic not Persian, how can you lie so boldly? And the Medes were not Persian either though they were Iranic so related to Persians (unlike the universally agreed to be Semitic Akkadians)

[@akramkarim3780]

At the beginning of the 13th century, the Islamic world reached a high degree of urbanization with the presence of some nomadism, but then came the Mongol invasion that began with Genghis Khan and did not end until Tamerlane. This invasion caused a very significant decline in urbanization and a major expansion of nomadism, which strengthened tribalism and made it difficult to build stable countries ,This is why the Islamic gunpowder empires were not stable internally despite their strength , this instbility with the lack of urbanization and the large number of nomads made this empires unable to modernize like European countries. All of these problems appeared clearly during the 18th century when European superiority became clear

[@user-dg5zm6fs8g]

Constantinople under ottoman rule was the largest city in europe for a very long time. This oriental despotism view of ottoman history is outdated and false.

[@akramkarim3780]

@@user-dg5zm6fs8g I did not mention oriental despotism , but since you mentioned it, I say that it is a correct theory and that it played a role in the deterioration of the Islamic world, but this oriental despotism was not as brutal as the Europeans portray it, and it was not linked to Islam as a religion like the Europeans say Constantinople was essentially a European city and far from the heart of the Islamic world. Therefore it did not suffer from the nomadism and tribalism that the rest of the Islamic world suffered from and the economic center of the Ottoman Empire was entirely in the western side, close to Europe, in which there was no nomadism.but in Anatolia and Behind the Ottoman empire was backward like the rest of the muslim world

[@user-dg5zm6fs8g]

@@akramkarim3780 There is no coal in Anatolia for industrial revolution you philistine stop watching neo liberal propaganda

[@dukes1993724]

What is Oriental Despostism

[@morriganmhor5078]

They also lost most of their jizya-paying Christian dhimmis, possibly the biggest source of income.

[@thelegendarymuglord7753]

Mir Jafar is that kid who blows up the bathroom and the whole class is punished as a result

[@FF-le3ps]

Tbh more like the guy who snitches on the whole class to the teacher

[@azzamziply3039]

​@FF-le3ps nah, he'd blew up the toilet a blame it on the fat kid

[@malbert7793]

Sounds a bit fucked that the whole class gets in trouble for a fatty blowing up. The toilet

[@uzochiokeke4328]

more like aurangzeb who plants a bomb in the toilets

[@JumboMceal]

One guy actully did destroy a toilet in HS and then every boy had to borrow a key from the teacher every time they wanted to use the WC. And the WC would be inspected everytime.

[@hassanminbaghdad]

it seems like the main reason for the collapse of these states is that they couldn't form a coherent entity. In the case of Persia, a dynasty replacing another is basically a total state collapse. Meanwhile in Europe the feudal states turned into centralised nation-states with durable institutions that weren't destroyed by bad rulership or dynastic change

[@auraguard0212]

The Chad Catholic Church (and state churches, and banks)

[@nahuelpiguillem2949]

If most of us reach the same conclution, it means it was a good video, without saying we all listened it

[@goggorbilbak2993]

Untrue, europe won because of possession of gold which they had stolen from america, then they hired architects from fallen byzantium, then they invested in the right thing which was the printing press, then they used the gold to open trade with other nations, then to conquer enslave and exploit their rescourses and then to keep their systems alive they implemented the greatest system known to mankind which was capitalism and they could implement it because of globalization which they underwent Also, don't attribute the success to all of europe, only countries like France most of Germany, GB and maybe Italy were affected by it, with spain and portual immediately wasting all their wealth by socialism and creating huge inflation that destroyed their economies for good

[@goggorbilbak2993]

​@@auraguard0212the chad p*dophiles in dresses that now run away from lefties and can't say no to their agenda. Contradicting themselves multiple times, worshilping idols, icons and some mere humans, attributing divinity to Mary, incorporating pagan holidays and creating the dumbest concept of god which is actually pagan and goes against their own book, and also, crearing the most corrupt institution that also goes agaist their own book

[@hyperion3145]

A lot of that comes from how laws developed. A lot of people overlook just how much national identity, individual identity and culture depended on what law you fell under in Europe. The laws didn't really change with the dynasty unless a completely new entity took over or if those laws had been revoked whereas laws under the Ottomans were largely bound by the House of Osman and probably aren't going to be seen as valid from anyone else taking over.

[@Patlichan]

Great video, probably the best introduction series for history of the middle east tbh. I like listening to this while working in the background.

[@nicbahtin4774]

an EU4 player like myself would say that they didn't prepare for the decadence mechanic to make new dawn.

[@decem_sagittae]

Hi Jabzy, pls never change the art style 🩵💛🩷

[@bentmetal666]

Great series of videos thank you

[@4CelciusDegree]

Beautiful work! Even as a middle easterner who knows a lot about middle eastern history, I learnt a lot from this video

[@arminiuscherusci4410]

Part 2 of 10? This is going to be very fascinating!

[@mickmickymick6927]

I have always wondered this, but never imagined a youtube video would be made answering it so well. The only thing missing is the sources so I can go into more detail myself. Do you list them somewhere?

[@emperorshowa8842]

Thanks anyway great job Jabzy

[@nolianpazac8440]

Excellent video as the first one !

[@Uzair_Of_Babylon465]

Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍

[@Der-Kaiser]

The Great Jabzy !

[@Winter-Alpha-Omega]

I regard this man as a sort of semi-god. He's such an iconic KZbinr, yet so overlooked.

[@yarnybart5911]

Wonderful material, fascinating history. Style wise, i think it would be beneficial if you slowed down a little Subbed

[@Number1Irishlad]

Can you please post a list of your sources in the descriptions or a top comment of videos? 🤗

[@cohomologygroup]

Thanks for the great video! I wonder if during your research you encountered the work of historian Richard Bulliet, and if so, what your impressions were?

[@MrScientifictutor]

Your videos are so good 👍

[@Shammer1]

The ottoman empire really struggled with fighting on multiple fronts including internal issues really stagnated them. Also i think the way they killed all the brothers when a new ruler came into power created soo much instability its amazing that they lasted for that long

[@nouhowlmao2809]

The video makes it sound like killing their brothers make the leaders actually competent and when that stopped every sultan became lazy and weak

[@goggorbilbak2993]

Not really, terrible economic choices were the real reason for their fall, the other ones would've been dealt with sooner or later, but if your empire stands on chicken legs then any push would've made it fall

[@goggorbilbak2993]

​@@nouhowlmao2809it's called legitimacy by charisma, or in this case, by better tactics and it is a valid system, at least more valid than legitimacy by elections done by stupid masses that have never studied the subject which they now have a part in (democracy)

[@nouhowlmao2809]

@@goggorbilbak2993 yeah but its also weak the persian section showed how an absolute great king got assasinated by nobles cause he was "cruel" and their country imploded

[@goggorbilbak2993]

@@nouhowlmao2809 assassinations aren't really what this systems expects to happen

[@jakubpiechota3533]

You are the best content creator in this genre, I hope you earn good enough money from these videos

[@justtheilluminativ282]

Popcorn-worthy, this series is. Keep up the interesting documentaries

[@sirusjohnsepar4248]

Wonderful 😍 thanks so much very informative good luck best wishes sirus London

[@2009worstyearever]

A big factor was that established elites (large landowners or hereditary former elites) in the Islamic Gunpowder Empires were powerful enough to retard reform. But this isn't unique to the Muslim world. Poland-Lithuania reached its apogee in the early 1600, but thanks to its large landowners was already erased from the maps by 1800 while the Islamic gunpowder Empires were still around. Spain in 1600 was the world-spanning empire, and 200 years and many bankruptcies later collapsed rapidly in the face of Napoleon. In Russia, reforms were only possible because Peter the Great carried out mass purges of the old elites - something the Ottoman Empire wouldn't get to until 1839. And the limit of Peter's reforms were clearly visible because by 1850 the contradictions of Tsarist Russia (giant slave owning class of landowners retarding most reforms, a military incapable of fighting of a naval invasion of its domestic territory from a *seaborn* enemy) began to push it towards a collapse. Muhammed Ali's big reform success in Egypt only began after he mass murdered his elites. And it collapsed in the face of both European pressure and his over-reliance on landowners as a class - abandoning the proto-industrialization he was carrying out in favor of cash crop exports to Europe. The real surprise isn't that so many large land-owner-centered empires collapsed. The real shock is that France, Prussia, and Austrian (and Japan later) were able to import just enough reforms to sustain their own empires and not collapse into civil wars (or that the winners in the civil wars for the most part continued with modernization reforms instead of reverting to feudalism). But if we look at the time period you are bookmarking in terms of "Great Power --> Verge of Collapse," many great and mighty non-Islamic states went through the same process (Qing, Poland-Lithuania, Burma, Spain) and some were, despite seeming at the top of their power actually sowing seeds of their own decline (France, Russia)

[@WhatIsThisForAgain]

Good take. However, one must keep in mind the role of population as well. Turks themselves numbered about 12 million when the rest of the Empire was about 100 million. And Europe pretty much exploded in population after 1300s. Europe always had much better lands, free irrigation, ample trade routes and water ways and a somewhat free flow of information and people. Had Turks been Christians, the history would have played very different I think.

[@2009worstyearever]

Its possible - the diffusion of technology certainly would have arrived sooner but they would still face the same tensions by being a large landowner empire. The more interesting hypothetical is if in 1914 they stay out of the Great War and then reap the benefits of all the oil beneath Iraq, Syria and parts of Arabia they control.

[@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863]

​@@2009worstyeareverThey won't be controlling it for long after 1914 I would imagine. The British and French will look at the near-dead state of the Ottoman Empire and their growing need for oil during WW1 and think "Maybe if we are the one who control where the oil would go". It would be like the scramble of Africa all over again.

[@2009worstyearever]

@@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863 I dont think so - they were both incredibly exhausted Empires. France surrendered territory to the Republic of Turkey, for example. Especially if the rest of the war goes more or less the same, with Russia collapsing.

[@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863]

@@2009worstyearever But then they would also have 1 less front to fight during ww1 and therefore less casualties. If they don't just decide to takeover during the war that is.

[@user-fb4bw4hm8c]

In a long Hadith with the prophet about the end of time which I don’t know the specific wording of, the prophet said something like “near the end of time, the Muslim people will be weaker than the foam on top of a running river” his followers said “o’ dear prophet, is it because of our small numbers?” He said “no, but because of how large they are”. “”THIS IS NOT EXACT WORDINGGGG””

[@SolracCAP]

Loving your Middle East series. Keep up the great work!

[@Janeka-xj2bv]

Brilliant video

[@aimanmarzuqi4804]

Ooh, now this is a very interesting topic.

[@lukaswilhelm9290]

In a nutshell, it wasn't Islamic empires or other Eastern empires including Qing dynasty that weaken. No, it was the European powers that got stronger due to renaissance, age of enlightenment and industrial revolution while Eastern powers were very late to catch up.

[@Orlando_P]

Less competion in that places bring stagnation.

[@mint8648]

Chinese and Indian GDP PPP per capita did decline by 20% during the 19th century. Free trade also contributed to Ottoman deindustrialization around the same time period

[@claudeyaz]

No the Qing dynasty ..and others... did weaken. .. And a better example instead of just weakening, they were complacent and refused to get any stronger.. It had the opportunity to have all sorts of trade trinkets and technology from the UK and other colonial trading powers. But the Imperial dictation was that they would only accept silver and exchange for tea.. They didn't want any of the books or technology or any of the other goods being traded... Ironically, only taking silver,? That UK traded for so much tea with the silver?? and this was silver that was from the Spanish/American colonies so there was a lot of silver... They traded so much silver for tea that it crashed the value of silver in China. Like it caused a mass inflation and loss a value of silver. A good example of one of The Times the Imperial power was weakening, was when the pirate empress was able to take over all the waterways basically... They really ignore their navy . Noble classes of these empires got very very disconnected from reality. They didn't see the consequences of their bribery and lies to the palace until the commoners were killing them So yes the West did get stronger but a lot of these empires got very complacent and straight up denied innovation because they worried it would affect their power and control

[@claudeyaz]

Yawning is also after Suleimann the magnificent with his lover...there were succession crises..cause they didnt kill their brothers like usual. But then multiple decades of killing their brothers? It had caused damage to the Imperial family's power. Ottoman family only had power in the capital in my opinion, while other empires would send Imperial family members to serve as dukes and other areas and provinces. Now that would sometimes become a threat where they wouldn't be happy being a Duke but would want to make a play for this Throne? But personally with how t Dangerous it is to be an emperor? I think if the Sons were raised to realize that they are able to survive because they are useful to the Royal family and that Them becoming Dukes would be able to increase the power of the Royal family? I think the ottoman Empire would have had More of a shot... But there were the remnants of the Kahn's and many other noble families that had a lot of the military power. Plus if they were raised as brothers, and were raised not with a constant threat that whoever doesn't get the throne dies? I think that would have caused a much stronger Imperial family.. And a stronger empire The religious institutions also held a lot of power... Because the autumn Empire was founded with Islam, and Islam allowed slavery as long as the slaves were not islamic, and also, Islam allows you to rape and sack the city for 3 days and you get to keep what you find. That's what really caused the state to form in the first place.

[@mint8648]

@@claudeyaz The Ottomans were far more centralized than feudal Europeans. The core provinces were governed by bureaucratically appointed officials. This put loyalty to the state above familial ties. If the Ottomans did not practice fratricide, they would be like the Byzantine Empire, experiencing a civil war every other decade

[@chenglongyin2232]

Thank you very much for this video. I myself is interested in studying gunpowder Empires. Such a detailed video !

[@heisenberg_3457]

This guy makes the best videos I swear

[@tedhubertcrusio372]

10:51 that Greek is a member of the Presidential Evzones, not the traditional evzone bandits who liberated Greece. The silhouetted man is wearing a beret and hackle instead of the traditional Phrygian cap.

[@antonival50]

FYG, in Bulgaria the Christian Bulgarians were setting rising after rising against the Ottoman suppression. Only in a single province you could count more than 54 organized rebellion attempts for a period of 490 years. Altogether there were hundreds of rising, some of them very well organized. In addition there were several general attempts of some Balkan provinses to share from the central power between 1700 and 1850 in which both Muslim and Christians fought together against the central power. Some European powers mainly France, even started to help the sultanas against the Bolkan Christian fighting actions.

[@eren.8577]

Bruh. Are you high or ignorant? France is the most major figure of Greeks gaining independence from Ottomans. They only helped Ottomans in Crimean War aganist Russia and that was of course to block Russians extend. Balkans rebels were always both financially and militarily supported by mostly Russians&Austrians and other Westerns. ww1 is not important. Even if ottomans didn't join ww1, they were already going to collapse and be occupied by France, GB and rebels after the ww1 or maybe during ww1

[@wankawanka3053]

​@@eren.8577the ottomans only started winning against the greek rebels when they asked egypt for help the very same egypt that defeated them and would most likely have conquered them if it wasn't for russia ...

[@Huehue-qf1ri]

@@wankawanka3053💀which coincides with the time that ottomans abolished janissaries, empire was without any proper land force, not to count the same European powers (including russia) burned ottoman and egyptian fleet in navarrin to support the greeks.

[@forgottenhistory249]

I may be the only one, but I think the audio in this video seems a bit “harder” then in the other ones

[@hadenpolk4408]

Hey your mic is kinda airy/ tingy, like theres a background noise when your talking Kickass video though.

[@aidenwilson8113]

Without watching the video I would have to say that because when they rose to power they were much stronger than there neighbours so they didn’t have to invent new weapons and such as quickly but then there neighbours learned the same technology and worked and improved on them fast, and because research was stagnant in the original gunpowder empires they weren’t able to catch up quickly if they were able, it will be to fun to see if I got anything correct when watching this video!

[@WhatIsThisForAgain]

It is the Westward expansion of Europe that did the Ottomans in; don’t know about others. Then came the Enlightenment, which was Game Over afterwards. That lasted 400 years. Now, power shifts again. To where? Who knows.

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

The “gunpowder empire” framework has not really been used in scholarship for a while, there were simply too many differences in origin and trajectory of these empires. Rudi Mathee’s Persia in Crisis discusses this in the Safavid context and Stephen F. Dale covers all of them in The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals. Additionally, the literacy numbers are questionable. Mosque and madrasa education was fairly accessible to learn basic literacy and writing in Ottoman cities.

[@totalcrash5006]

literacy numbers aren't really questionable, ottoman at its life had 84 madrasas from start to finish this was the height of the number, do the math. (ps. a turkish man)

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

@@totalcrash5006 the madrasas were not the only source of education

[@totalcrash5006]

​​@@Corvinuswargaming1444 there wasn't really a public education in ottoman empire, the literacy rate in 1915 was around %10 as a result. my great grandfathers as well as millions of others' couldn't even read or write. that is why during ww1 you can find countless letters written by british soldiers but very few by ottoman soldiers. that is why even today turkey has trouble catching up in education department. (even in 1970s literacy rate was around %70 percent if optimistic) ( i checked it again and illiterate rate during 1970 was %48. so yeah) hbo.meb.gov.tr/okumayazma/istatistik/31092639_19601980_0.pdf here is a link if you can read turkish

[@totalcrash5006]

​@@Corvinuswargaming1444 ottomans were never a home of enlightenment. not like abbasids, so it should paint a clear picture.

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

@totalcrash5006 they had strong intellectual output and knowledge production, its seen quite clearly in the manuscripts that survive

[@abhyudayasinhchauhan6499]

So unique and really informative content❤❤

[@jameswright5506]

some of the best history content on youtube, bravo

[@revivalist355]

Jabzy, whats your background sound you always use ?

[@ZS-rw4qq]

I'd like to see someone analyse the Middle East starting in 1492 (Columbus)

[@michaelhearne3289]

European powers destroyed the Islamic economy based on trade by rerouting the trade routes around the Islamic powers via sea routes. This removed a huge chunk of their ability to maintain the military and civilian economy. It also enriched Europe at their rival Islamic powers expense.

[@user-cg2tw8pw7j]

History: No, the Kingdom of Oman destroyed this line and controlled it. The reason is that the Europeans colonized a very large part of the country and this is what made them very, very, very rich.

[@Zquirrelthing]

what's with the audio towards the end of the video?

[@froodsmash]

Is there a citations list somewhere that I missed?

[@jaif7327]

ottoman history is so interesting especially the early period

[@Merle1987]

All these empires were just chillin'. They started at parity or above and ended up on their knees.

[@elidesportelli325]

I love this videos about the history of europe and the middle east during the 1600's

[@elidesportelli325]

My real name is Emanuele

[@kingusernamelxixthemagnifi3488]

Your big project are only becoming more interesting.

[@JIJCrow]

The Industrial Revolution rapidly shifted Economic and military power to those that embraced it, unfortunately African and Asian powers didn't embrace it fast enough or were already colonised and exploited for European colonial powers.The lack of embracing the Revolution in the Islamic world is a subject for which their decline can be attributed

[@franzjoseph1837]

No the industrial revolution never took off for african and asian emipires because they didnt have access to the New World's resources and thus wealth which was the foundation of the rapid industrial development on Western Europe. In fact Africa was weaken the most by this because the Trans Atlantic slave trade spawned wars exactly when the Songhai collapsed via British aid to Morocco. This lack of hegemonic force is West Africa saw the profits made from selling people even more diffused and thus not useful at building the immense wealth needed to industrialize. Western powers then used the wealth they got from their slave colonies in the Caribbean to power this transition. Asian empires could of industrialized like the proto industrialization in Bengal but European more specifically Britain conquered them due to that wealth from thr americas and divisions within India. Its was a bit more complex than decididng simply to embrace the revolution you actuallu need money, resources, and time to actually achieve this transformation.

[@sriharshacv7760]

It would have certainly worked for India considering their raw materials were powering the British industrial revolution. In this case, it was clearly the British that snuffed the rise of Indian states. @@franzjoseph1837

[@lukaswilhelm9290]

​@franzjoseph1837 it was the cotton plantations in India by the British that drive them to invented industrialization though, including Britain's coal richness that power it. That's why second nation to largely industrialized was Prussia without colonies, they simply trade with Britain for it while the Ruhr provide them with coals while France quite late to catch up but to be fair France almost lost all of its colonies. Half your point is true however by your logic it should be Spanish that invented industrialization since they were the first global colonial empires, the first to invent triangular trade and although many colonies succeed they still have the Caribbeans to produce cotton for them or maybe they just no longer #1 at that point it was the British.

[@franzjoseph1837]

@@lukaswilhelm9290 Spain never had the same economic control over their "colonies" compared to Britain or France. They basically sold territory to low ranking nobles or common men who then provided resources for the crown. Meanwhile the English spawned company lead enterprises in Jamestown or Jamaica which gave them more control over the resources hindering thr hyperinflation thay doomed the Spanish empire by the 1700s right when industrialization began. History isn't a hard science so just because your first doesn't mean you first to everything. I didn't explain all this in the prior comment because it was long enough already lolo

[@satyakisil9711]

Technologies such as treadmill crane and printing press helped massively.

[@markthern]

BEST lecture I've heard on Middle Age Islamic Empire(s). I had no idea of the intrigue and machinations of this Islamic Era

[@Azrael1st]

They never teach it in schools or universities

[@sobhanhayati3962]

Safavids weren't foreigners, they were of Sufi Khanats of Ardabil, Azerbaijani descendents Iranians, which saw the opportunity to unify Iran under one centeralized government, and after establishing themselves as the main player in Iranian plateau, for further legitimizing themselves, declared rivalry to Ottomans and Shia the official religion.

[@hamidreza3627]

I am of Azeri descent from Iran, from Ardabil, the Safavids were not Azeri, they were Persians, please don't lie

[@sobhanhayati3962]

@hamidreza3627 If you read my comment one more time, you'll notice what I said is the same thing that you are saying. Azeri people are Iranian, and the Safavids were Azeri. Therefore, they were Iranian.

[@Ali-bu6lo]

@@hamidreza3627 They were actually Kurdish, the eponym of the dynasty, Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kolah, was a Kurdish dignitary and Safi-ad-din Ardabili the founder of the order (some six generations after Firuz-Shah) also married the daughter of Zahed Gilani, (Taj Al-Din Ebrahim ibn Rushan Amir Al-Kurdi Al-Sanjani) a Kurdish mystic. two generations before Shah Ismail I, they married with the daughters of Aq Quyunlu Turcoman rulers and were turkified.

[@hamidreza3627]

@@Ali-bu6lo No, they are not Kurdish brothers, but many of the soldiers of the Safavid army were Kurds, and the Nadir cavalry of Shah Afshar were also Kurds.

[@hamidreza3627]

@@Ali-bu6lo The departure of the Kurds caused a small part of them to pledge allegiance to their homeland, Iran

[@Life_is_Misery]

The reason the ottomans didn't adopt the printing press is because it would have put a lot of people out of work. Not because the scholars rejected it.

[@a.thales7641]

It was a mixture of 3 reasons. Two of them were pointed out by you.

[@fayhay8011]

@@a.thales7641 What is the 3rd

[@1Manda1]

No its because scholars rejected it, because they feard the quran would get distorted.

[@1Manda1]

Your comment is so fkn stupid and illogical. This is a shariah law, every law was made by the scholars of that time. Who else would have banned it? the liberals in the government?

[@Life_is_Misery]

@@1Manda1 I don't believe that is true because they were already making copies of the quran by hand before the press was invented. The press just made it faster therefor removing the need for scribes put 1000s of people out of work. The west didn't produce many scribes so it didn't effect them much. The invention allowed them to mass produce books and spread knowledge, information and propaganda much faster and made it more accessable to a much larger part of the population there by advancing their civilisation.

[@safi164]

I think if we look at the bigger pictures it was not just the Islamic Gunpowder Empires but in fact all empires with absolute monarchies were falling apart by the 18th and 19th centuries... This has to do with the events triggered by French revolution and the rise of nationalism and republican form of govt or constitutional monarchies which led to many European empires becoming highly centralized meanwhile those which cannot adopt or failed adopt fell apart.. Among non-European Empires only the Japanese were able to do successful reforms.. You know like Russia used to call its arch-rival the Ottomans the sick man of Europe yet the Russian empire itself suffered from the same kind of problems it was falling apart within the same time period. The gunpowder empires simply did not adopt.... Ottomans were aware of it by the 19th century and tried to do several reforms which was ultimately too little too late though their reforms did led to the evolution of the core territories of the Ottoman Empire into Republic of Turkey. The events triggered by the French revolution and Napoleon led to the WW1 and WW2 a century or so later and led to the collapse of even the most powerful of traditional empires.. Those empires like Britain, Dutch and French which survived WW1 collapsed after WW2. The period of 18th and 19th century was also the time when we were having rapid technological advancement triggered by the Industrial revolution and we had technologies never seen before.. along with rapid globalization. And many countries were changing from agrarian rural societies to the urbanized and industrialized ones... so in such environments the old feudalistic and semi-feudalistic forms of govt were not sufficient anymore. Hence those states which did not adopt were falling apart left, right and center..

[@goggorbilbak2993]

You completely forgot about the economy tho which is the main reason for all of these empire's fall. The tyrany of government included also economical despotism and state interventions which led to being backwards and not building any strong corporations that would help in the proces of globalization which is crucial in building a strong economy which as a result will bring prosperity and thus create a stable and strong empire. All these countries thought you can fix an economical problem by state's decree and this is why they failed miserably

[@safi164]

​@@goggorbilbak2993 i have mentioned that in my last paragraph.. industrial revolution, the global trade and age of discovery are the no 1 reason why it happened...

[@user-nh6wn7ul1b]

French revolution or other European ideology had no impact on Safavid Empire of Iran and Mughal Empire of India. They collapsed due to other reasons.

[@user-nh6wn7ul1b]

@@goggorbilbak2993 Mughal Empire was actually the richest Empire of its time. It's economy was blooming and thriving. Main reason of decline was Nadir Shah's invasion of India, incompetent ruler after Farukhsiyar and rebellions of regional Kingdoms .

[@goggorbilbak2993]

@@user-nh6wn7ul1b kingdoms don't revolt for no reason and even mad rulers don't cause an empire to collapse if it works properly, i'm not well familiar with the Mughal history, and especially their fall, but i'm certain that the problem must have been at least partially in the administration of the empire, perhabs the general lack of centralization and unity

[@miketacos9034]

You know it’s bad when Jabzy says a war is a complicated mess.

[@maryamcheema8427]

What about after the monghal invasion? Btw, great work!

[@loussykhan]

knowledge is important to age up. it is the only key

[@K55365]

Bakhtiaris played a major role in Nader Shah's siege of Kandahar.

[@maddogbasil]

*i Would Like to See a video on the Horn of Africa and the different peoples and Kingdoms that have existed there*

[@shzarmai]

Agreed, especially the Somali states and East African/Indian Ocean slave trade plus the Swahili Coast.

[@Lte1861]

Very interesting video

[@goggorbilbak2993]

2:53 nope, or at least not only, the thing was, that it wasn't as efficient as you'd imagine current printing machines and also the caligraphy played a huge role in muslim cultures in general and printing machines would deal a damage to their tradition

[@ailediablo79]

All of this is overall just silty more than normal. They didn't stagnate the European powers where going abnormally fast especially in 1840s with full industrial revolution of UK. Add to that Ottoman are fighting too many wars with many powers from all fronts at sametime and some teamup against them sometimes most importantly Persia and Russia, they basically didn't catch a brake plus Napoleon Bonaparte came to Egypt. UK are lucky to be at right time in India to twist something that happens normal at ending government authority.

[@JabzyJoe]

You watched the vid or just got angry at thumbnails?

[@ailediablo79]

@@JabzyJoe i did watch it and am not angry ??????!!!!!! I just pointed additional stuff. Did u read the entire thing? The addition is if you look at historical behavior they are normal, it is west whom abnormal fast.

[@subhan8090]

The Qajar dynasty stemmed from Turkic tribal groups that entered the Iranian plateau after the eleventh century. The Qajar tribe achieved histori cal visibility during the Safavid period (1501-1722) as part of the Qizilbash confederacy that brought the Safavids to power. Two of its branches, the Qavanlu and Davallu, emerged as contenders for the throne after the down fall of the Safavids and the assassination of Nadir Shah Afshar in 1747. Almost half a century later, in 1794, Agha Muhammad Khan, from the Qavanlu branch, became the territory's unchallenged ruler, having defeated his diverse Davallu, Afshar, and Zand rivals. He chose the town of Tehran, close to the ancestral home of the Qajar tribe in Gorgan, as his capital. Many salient features of the kingdom that Agha Muhammad Khan came to rule were similar to those of previous Turkic kingdoms. The military was composed almost entirely of a Turkish-speaking tribal elite and its follow ers. Turkish was the unofficial spoken language of the dynasty's members until the end of the nineteenth century. Beck, L. and Nashat, G., 2004. Women in Iran from 1800 to the Islamic Republic. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, p.5.

[@Mr_Stav]

It’s all due to economics & geography: with enough money all human stupidity can be papered over! As you mentioned, the death of the Silk Road meant stagnation of the continental Asia and any extra draught meant more misery.

[@jakobraahauge7299]

The agricultural circumstances are often overlooked

[@bensonfang1868]

With nomadic origins of the ruling family and declining to European powers during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Chinese Qing empire should be counted as a gunpowder empire too

[@mint8648]

The Manchus weren’t nomadic

[@mint8648]

The Manchus weren’t nomadic

[@johnward5102]

Absolutely bewildering, but I feel you give an accurate idea of the history of the region. Thank you. This lot conquers, then declines or implodes, to be replaced by others, who murder x,y,or z until they too fall. Then the British come, and stay. Weird.

[@SuperKeithers]

& then the british declined and imploded? to be replaced by others, who murder x,y,or z, until they too fall. Then the aliens come, and stay. Weird.

[@johnward5102]

Yes, but they lasted nearly 200 years, quite good by local standards. The population of the area they governed increased 4X over that period and the Brits left behind them better systems of governance, justice, food distribution, transport and health. They did not measure their achievements in the height of a pile of skulls. Oh, and better air quality: no more smell of burning widows.@@SuperKeithers

[@rigelbound6749]

"Weird". What exactly is the message that you are trying to convey? Are you afraid to fully reveal your opinion? Because it seems like a dog-whistle.

[@johnward5102]

Perhaps 'remarkable' would have been a better choice. I am saying that amongst all those conquests, the British (which was by no means all a military conquest) left an enduring and beneficial legacy. The British, a tiny and undoubtedly war-like nation, had an agenda significantly different from all previous conquerors. This is weird, remarkable, what-you-will. Not sure I understand the 'dog whistle' comment though. Please elucidate. @@rigelbound6749

[@feintfaint7213]

Seems like John spent a bit of time in the pub eh?

[@antoniosdimoulas3566]

It’s very mixed history… Even (Turkey) Asia Minor today, is a mix of different ethnic groups, that been forced to speak only Turkish kind of a language and forced to become Muslims.. In 1923 adapted the Greek Latin alphabet to be expressed that Turkic dialect language in writing…

[@joshuajwars4271]

Wonder Woman would appear very much later in some point specifically around 1917 as World War 1 rolled on but after it surrendered via Versailles Paper they had to wait until World War 2 luckily Fantastic Beasts covered the years 1920 - 1945 also Wonder Woman will return sometime in 1941 alongside Captain America beginning the event known as Goddess Avenger and Wonder Woman alongside the Avengers but around the 70's to 90's Captain Marvel will have a meeting with Supergirl sometime around 1999 at the turn of the millennium basically opening the realm of superhero comics and spilling it in 2 ways 1 inside historical periods in films or they would appear in video games either as standard or with DLCs which make fighting enemies and completing quests a breeze.

[@billballbuster7186]

Because Christians got gunpowder too and then it became a case of payback. Islam was forced out of Europe and in WW1 the British destroyed the remains of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. Turkey has recently tried to meddle in the Middle East, but always backed the loosing side.

[@Freigeist2008]

Short answer: Because of Islam

[@rickyyacine4818]

True its too strick to let new ideas

[@sriharshacv7760]

It is quite obvious that the Ottomans expanded too rapidly to be able to unite the people within their border. The British did the same, but they were very clear on their objectives: Loot as much as you can before you are forced to withdraw for some reason as another. That helped the British in the long run because they were able to consolidate the loot from the colonies instead of cribbing over the lost territories. I like the way India is organized today because no state in India has the 'primacy'. It is a true federation, and we teach our kids right from Kindergarten that we are all Indians despite our language, faith and other differences. At least we are not making the same mistakes all the other larger empires did in the past. Only time will tell how this is going to pan out.

[@Michael-bn1oi]

Yeah...I think India is a little more messed up than you think. Pretty hostile towards its Muslim minority for example. Pat yourself on the back less and don't just listen to state propaganda. Every state does it.

[@asmrnaturecat984]

India is literally failed states, its citizen run away to all over the world for better living and not looking back Be it in europe or arabian countries Heck, plenty indian migrate to southeast asia like malaysia and singapore That alone speaks volume how successful india is

[@satyakisil9711]

Indian federalism is more of a matter of luck than anything else. The most populous cultures of India are the most desolate and destitude, having to bear the brunt of millenia of brutality which nullifies their advantage over other cultures with lesser population.

[@alejandromaldonado6159]

​@@Michael-bn1oiCalling India "messed up" is insulting. Sounds like far left media propaganda. India is the biggest democracy in the world. Thank God it's Hindu majority are composed of the most reasonable and intellectual people on Earth.

[@TheSkcube]

@@Michael-bn1oi The hostility towards muslims and sikhs are mostly a result of partition and decades of sectarian conflct preceding it. States closer to the border to Pakistan are more hostile as India is a young country, and there are stil people who have lived through partition and its after effects. It requires more nuance than trying to equate it to other majority/minority conflicts.

[@loner1562]

Great video. But something I noticed that didn't feel quite right was the lack of the name "Iran". Please keep in mind that the word "Persia" comes from western origins(Persis), Greeks and Romans, dating back to 2 thousand years before. The country has been called "Iran" by the people for as far back as the Achaemenid era. That's the main reason why even to this date, there are so many ethnic groups living together in the nation peacefully. It doesn't represent any specific ethnicity! There are rock reliefs dating back to the Sassanian era with the word "Eran" carved on them, the famous poet Ferdowsi has always used the word "Iran" in his poems, the coins from the Afsharid era have the word "Iran" minted on them. The famous "Salam-e Shah" song from 1876 during Qajar dynasty contains the word "Iran" not "Persia". It was only during the Pahlavi dynasty, the founders of modern Iran, that the name was officially changed in international scene by the request of the Iranian government. So whether the rulers of were from Turkic origin or Afghan origin, is somewhat irrelevant, they are all from the Iranian family.

[@allelss-oh8sj]

Yep the Persians sounds better though ngl

[@monikah.g1918]

That happens with Bizantines too... They were just Romans. But the enlightenment used Bizantium to separate them from the rest of the west and think that France and Spain and Italy were the real successors of the Romans

[@benismann]

Idk what's the problem with that. We also call germany "germany" and not Deutschland yet i dont see germans complaining about that

[@usernotfound40412]

19:40 This was also not true in India because in the first half of 18th century the British were totally absent in North India. They gained a foothold in Bengal by the 1770s and later in Southern India by 1790s. Deobandi and all other fundamentalist movements can be traced to the loss of state power after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 and the dismantling of the Mughal empire in the next 5 decades. It was largely a response to the resurgence of Marathas, Jats and the Sikhs. as well as declining central authority of any figurehead. Shah Waliullah Dehlawi's example is pertinent here. He resented (to use a good word) the Hindu powers and largely believed that the Islamic rulers had been corrupted by "infidel" practices and hence had lost state power. Hence he hearkened back to some golden age and dreamed of genocide of the infidels (not joking, check it out). He was schooled in Hejaz around the time as Muhhamad Wahab and hence the similarity in thought. His jihad was carried on by Syed Ahmed Barelvi against the Sikhs in the 1830s and by his successors against the British from 1840s-1890s. The Deobandi and Barelvi movements largely trace their fundamentalism from these two people.

[@maamass]

Interesting read. Are there any papers/books that further discuss this?

[@usernotfound40412]

@@maamass Don’t know the level of your familiarity but you can start from the Wiki pages of 19th-century Indian history and those of Shah Waliullah/Syed Ahmad Barelvi. A general list of books that deal with this specific topic: Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband (Barbara Metcalf) India, Bharat and Pakistan (J S Deepak) The Wahabi Movement in India (Qeyamuddin Ahmad) Shah Wali Ullah and His Times (S A A Rizvi) Partisans of Allah: J*had in South Asia (Ayesha Jalal) These papers should suffice: Allen, Charles. “The Hidden Roots of Wahhabism in British India.” World Policy Journal 22, no. 2 (2005) SYROS, VASILEIOS. (2012). An Early Modern South Asian Thinker on the Rise and Decline of Empires: Shāh Walī Allāh of Delhi, the Mughals, and the Byzantines. Journal of World History. Qadir, Altaf. (2015). Roving Preachers, Fund Raising and J*had: Organization of the Muj*hidin Movement in Northern India (1830s-1858). Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. HAROON, SANA. (2011). Reformism and Orthodox Practice in Early Nineteenth-Century Muslim North India: Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed Reconsidered. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

[@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb]

And now Judeo-Christian western deep estate , global elites and gulf sheikhs and kings finance the entire islamisation projects & institutions in India.

[@houseplant1016]

Hero@@usernotfound40412

[@mazakantc5532]

16th 17th century are the golden ages of the ottomans in the late 18th century it starts going downwards very very rapidly... then again lasted 150 years before its colapse.

[@natemorrow2911]

i havent watched the whole video but i assume a common denominator would be a certain tea loving empire that ruled the waves

[@JabzyJoe]

Not at all. The British propped up the Ottoman Empire for a long time - stopping Russia and Muhammad Ali from tearing it apart.

[@belakovdoj]

8:54 "Now Russians were using gunpowder..." Even 150 years before the moment Russia had the biggest artillery park in Europe and very successfully used it at the beginning of the Lyvonian War.

[@mint8648]

Russia had the finest artillery during the late 18th century

[@bigbootros4362]

Great video. Must have done a hell of a lot of research. History is crazy complicated. Mant people want to simplify things but this video shows how complicated things really are/were.

[@chri7im]

"man's heart is evil from his youth" is all I can think of... How much bloodshed throughout all of man's existance for no other reason than men's ambition

[@lookatmyfeet3527]

Just wondering but what are your sources?

[@user-dg5zm6fs8g]

The trade of spice was still more prevalent in the red sea region which ottomans controlled, you can't occupy that much of mediterranian and have trade "completely bypass" you

[@Mutazili]

Algeria was more of a vassal than a province, many Europeans referred to it as the republic of Algiers.

[@houseplant1016]

*Regency of Algiers

[@Mutazili]

@@houseplant1016 Many Europeans in the time called either republic or kingdom. The Dey being elected for life ...

[@collaborisgaming2190]

14:44 No, i can see better bayonet training actually determining a war. That's how the Americans began to match the british in pitched battles during the revolutionary war.

[@ahkl77]

Violent greed, along with failure to develop and reform their civilisation within is the ultimate downfall of empires.

[@HansLemurson]

Important lesson: Don't be stuck playing Crusader Kings when your rivals are playing Europa Universalis.

[@benismann]

they played some weird ck3 with gunpowder and shit while europeans were already playing vic2 (not 3 because war existed)

[@bayramaktas4135]

The reason is simple,the Islamic empires simply missed two major events,the first is the Renaissance and the second is the industrial revolution.What was invented in the Renaissance? It was a time of great awakening,epoch-making inventions and discoveries.These include the invention of printing around 1455,the invention of Note printing in 1475 and the discovery of America in 1492.The Industrial Revolution,the first country to experience industrialization,was Great Britain(1750 and 1850).Later,Germany,other countries in Europe and USA came along.Many pioneering inventions occurred during this period,such as the steam engine and the mechanical loom.

[@draakoss1492]

yep it's that simple. Arabs holding onto religion ans stagnation led them to their downfall.

[@bayramaktas4135]

​@@draakoss1492Yes that's right.Islam is a burden on Muslim countries that has hindered any progress so far.

[@aghileshemdani3144]

@@draakoss1492 ..not only arabes but turks too and other Muslim

[@ColasTeam]

Technology isn't everything, if the British invent the steam engine you can simply buy some and copy them. What's more important is social and political reforms that favor strong rule of law instead of the rule of strongmen. State organization that doesn't leave people behind, a national identity that is at least strong enough to get everyone working sort of on the same thing at the same time.

[@fayyazzaman139]

​@@draakoss1492The Europeans held onto Christianity as well. Secularism started gaining popularity only in the early 20th century. But you'll only target Islam as you are biased. Muslims had a lot of scientific inventions during the Abbasid Caliphate.

[@nahuelpiguillem2949]

If i dont mis understand and simplyfing a lot, these kingdom were weak because in the modern era, in order to thrive you should have a centralized administrative system aka modern state and both kingdom were an union of diferent people and leaders who were more or less loyal to their kings. Descentralized systems good for middle ages, bad for modern times

[@Brian-----]

23:45 "remarkably well equipped... ...equipped with whatever they brought to the field... ...and they were slowly being equipped with modern 18th century firearms." "...too costly... ...without loot, bankrupt..." "his greatest accomplishment... ...1739... ...sacked Delhi... ...steal so much wealth... ...building towers out of the skulls..." Does this sound like an empire headed for a modern future? Did European empires finance themselves by "sacking" each other's capitals in 1739?

[@notkingali1798]

Yea look at what Napoleon did to Italy for example, look at what France did to Algeria and Mali and Vietnam and many more nations. Why do you think France has one of the largest gold reserves in the world huh??? It was fucking stolen from Mali almost all of it , but hey you people are “civilized” so what do I know.

[@napoleonbuonaparte8975]

I don't get your point.

[@Brian-----]

Financing your empire correctly matters. Look at the United States (Hamilton) and France (revolution) in 1789.

[@notkingali1798]

@@Brian----- which revolution lol? Because there were plenty of shitty governments during the French Revolution, if it wasn’t for napoleon France probably wouldn’t be a thing nowadays. But that’s a whole other discussion.

[@Brian-----]

@@notkingali1798 Did the European empires that defeated Napoleon, sack Paris, loot France, or build towers out of the skulls of French KIA troops?

[@orlandolopezdevictoria243]

I have disagreements with you. I believe the Ottoman stagnation started when they rejected the introduction of the printing press and devoted the majority of their educational investments into religious studies instead of the sciences and economics. I’m open to anyone contesting my opinion.

[@talzzz1546]

Sultan mahmud 2 and his successors began to modernize the empire but failed

[@orlandolopezdevictoria243]

@@talzzz1546 Suleiman the Magnificent had a good chance to keep the empire ahead of the Habsburgs. I think that was his biggest mistake of not adopting this machine that could vastly increase the production of books and information. Mahmud II at least tried to make the right changes.

[@TahaTaha-xi6bo]

You have an outdated and simplistic belief regarding the ottoman collapse then. History is more complicated than “science good religion bad”. If something feels like you can just go back into history and correct “stupid people’s stupid mistakes” then it’s a wrong view, because people in the past were just as logical as you were. Ottomans didn’t have the intellectual environment that could capitalize on the printing press due to various reasons. This is why imported books or the introduction of the printing press didn’t help the Ottomans, and a real modernization required a lot more bureaucratic and economic reforms

[@kakkakapwppwow]

16:31 safavids were not turkic foreigners, they were from a kurdish tribe that had migrated into would be Azerbaijan shia, islam is also an iranian brand of islam Also "persia" isn't a correct term to refer to iran, as iran means land of the iranians/aryans while persians are just one iranian ethnic group. Other groups would be azeris(they are ancestrally and culturally iranian), baluchis, afghans, kurds etc...

[@kral16643]

1. Ismail was only half Kurdish, and he didn't care about his Kurdish origin. He saw himself as a Turkmen, like you can see in his poets, and didn't speak one word Kurdish. Also, Kurds hated the Safavids and sided with the Ottomans. Calling them Kurds is an insult towards both Azerbaijanis and the Kurds. 2. Persians literally practice the Turkish version of shia islam, adopted by the Qizilbash Turks. Only shia islam gave them a unique identity, a lot different from other groups, especially to other Iranic people like the Pashtuns and Kurds. 3. Stop simping for foreign barbarians😂. Are Persians really that desperate calling foreign barbarian rulers as Iranic?

[@kakkakapwppwow]

​@@kral16643 "he saw himself as Turkmen" No, safavids saw themselves as descendants of Ali and Iranians nothing more or less. Safavids also did in fact have Greek and Georgian ancestry of course. "kurds hated the safavids" except Ismail had an entire army of Kurdish sunni's. "Turkish version of shia Islam" now that's just schizophrenia Qizilbosh's main leader was haydar safavi, who was of course as established of Kurdish origins. Secondly, Persians didn't get their unique identity because of shia Islam, their unique identity comes from being the only Iranian ethnic group, that existed from the ancient times up until to this day, great poets, and having their language be the lingua franca in iran throughout it's entire history. And no, first of all I'm not Persian, secondly, when did i call foreign barbarians the rulers of Iran? I have made no mention of mongols or Turks(although Nader afshar was not a barbarian unlike many of his other turkic counterparts) nor any mention of Arabs.

[@cenkedits1777]

Lol. Butthurt detected.Safavids were Turkic foreigners

[@kral16643]

@kakkakapwppwow 1. Look at his poets. He says clearly that he was Turkmen, not Kurdish, Iranian, etc. Ismail never had a sunni Kurdish army. He killed and skinned alive Kurdish and Persian imams for not believing his fake version of islam. So no, he was just a Turkic barbarian. 2. The Ilkhante saw themselves as the succesors of the Sasanians, etc. as well. It was just a trick to justify their foreign rule. That's literally what the Safavids did. The same thing did the Manchus when they ruled China, and they labelled themselves as the succesors of Tang, Ming, etc. but they weren't Chinese. 3. "Qizilbash main leader was haidar safavi, who was (...) of Kurdish origin." Now, show me one source where he label himself as a Kurd. They might be of Iranic origin, but what's the point if they saw themselves as Turks and didn't speak Kurdish at all? They are still foreigners. The Qizilbash composed if Turkic tribes if Afshar, Qajar etc.. How are they Kurdish? 4. Shia Islam made Persians REALLY different towards other ethnic groups. In the past, they had more common with other ethnic groups, especially with Afghans, Kurds, etc. but shia is Islam and Safavid tyranny isolated Persians from other groups. Yeah, the Persians were already different towards other ethnic groups, but the Safavids made them even more unique

[@KoroushRP]

@@cenkedits1777 turkics literally look kazakh and yakut why didnt shah ismail look like them if he was turkic?

[@Boric78]

Clever guy that Muhammed Ali. Imagine dominating Boxing and Egypt at the same time. No wonder they call him the greatest.

[@auraguard0212]

6:24 The Ottomans' biggest rival, the Mamluks, had this problem in the 1400's! All their Circassian imports were pretty bad at leadership, as it turned out.

[@Yazdegerdiranyar]

Ottoman Empire was considered the center of the Islamic Caliphate (A Caliph is a successor of Muhammad), so naturally, all Muslims (Sunnis) thought of themselves as subjects of the Caliphate, whether they had autonomous rulers or not. So, when it comes to Ottoman territory, we usually don't define it with the modern standards of a country but rather as an area of influence. In Iran, on the other hand, the Safavid Shah was not happy that its subjects would obey the Ottoman rulers. So they decided to change the religion of Iran to Shiasim, a mix of Islam and Zoroastrianism, which was not even considered Islam by many Sunni Muslims. That way, with a new religion of Shiasim, the Iranian people would no longer feel obligated to obey the Ottoman Sultan or wouldn't be hesitant to fight against him. And, of course, this did not happen overnight or without bloodshed. Safavids took many aspects of Iranian nationalism that were somewhat abandoned after the fall of the Sassanid Empire; this included calling the country strictly Eran (or Iran-Zamin), changing the royal title from Emir or Sultan to Shah or later Shah-an-Shah (the King of Kings) and building their mosques with a Zoroastrian fire-temple architecture, rather than the more common perso-sematic middle eastern pattern, or that of Roman basilica that was common in Ottoman territory. Btw, you pointed out an important aspect that is often overlooked; so my appreciations as an amateur historian 🤗🤍

[@SafavidAfsharid3197]

That's why Mughals never acknowledged Ottomans as caliph and regularly sent massive amount of gold to the Mecca and Medina to compete with Ottomans.

[@jaif7327]

reminds me how the moro revolt in the philippines was stopped with the ottomans eventually having to send a letter to them

[@aghileshemdani3144]

You are wrong..

[@Yazdegerdiranyar]

@@jaif7327 That’s interesting never heard about it 👍👍

[@alixpowrt3456]

The Safavids were originally from Iran and all the ancestors of Shah Ismail were Shia. His grandfather's father, Sheikh Safi, was a Shia cleric in Ardabil who had a lot of influence in Ardabil and Gilan. They were completely iranian, as the Moghol Empire and many Ottoman Pashas spoke Persian, so it is not surprising that their group language was Turkish due to their connection with the Qazalbash.

[@alisharafi2484]

Shut your mouth tajik

[@Griffith717]

It is funny that the weak gunpowder empires occupied the sacred places for those living in a golden age and prosperity in Europe. What would have happened if those kingdoms had been prosperous and powerful?

[@OmegaFares]

I wouldn't call it Islamic revival, it was a regress. Also I am curious to know, why did the Ottomans create ethnic military regiments based on Kurdish tribes but not on arab nomad tribes ?

[@auraguard0212]

Imagine if US States were constantly fighting each other. XD