Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2024
- Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia?
The Ottoman Empire secured its place as one of the most powerful and large empires throughout its 600 years of history. It was the empire that seized Constantinople and collapsed the Byzantine Empire, and its cultural expansion still remains throughout some of its former vassal states today. But there will always be curious as to why any empire stopped where it did, and what prevented further growth before the ultimate collapse. In the case of the Ottomans, one question that comes to mind is why didn’t the Ottomans conquer Persia?...
♦Consider supporting the Channel of Patreon and gain cool stuff:
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Sources :
McCaffrey, Michael J. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. IV.
Mikaberidze, Alexander. Historical Dictionary of Georgia.
Matthee, Rudi. The Ottoman-Safavid War of 986-998/1578-90: Motives and Causes.
Parizi, Mohammad-Ebrahim Bastani. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. X.
Sicker, Martin. The Islamic World in Decline: From the Treaty of Karlowitz to the Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
♦Script & Research :
Skylar Gordon
#History #Documentary #Ottoman
Simple answer: The ottomans took the title Caesar and hence the curse of not conquering Persia came with it.
Augustus was very close to conquering Persia.
@@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.
@@esramnor6734 Trajan vassalized parthians.
@@esramnor6734 romanın perslere gücü hiçbir zaman yetmedi
@@nowayman1406 You don't know anything about history Parthians were a very weak state.
The old borders of the Roman and later Byzantine Empires with Persia more or less reappeared. Geography was destiny again.
It almost seems like universal or historical borders for Persia from the partheins to the savavids to modern republic
Laughs in Cyrus the great, and first caliphate
@@pb25193 caliphate?
@@skland1619 Islamic empire of 9th century went from India to Spain, in a single stretch
@@pb25193 You mean 8th century.
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.
And Britain too before them
it wasn't Persia, but Azerbaijanis who ruled that land for many centuries.
@@jamilshekinskiShia
@@jamilshekinski lol
So the empires back then called Azerbaijan??
Ahhhhhhh
Waitt
Why I can't find it anywhere
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
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!
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
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.
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.
@@-_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.
@@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.
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.
This makes way more sense than it has any right to🤣
Wow, this is quite shocking
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.
@@oghuzkhan5117 no same Empire with different name safavid is not Turkish
@@oghuzkhan5117 Ismail was from a Kurdish sufi clan with intermarriage between turkmen Turkish are basically turkified greeks anyways kek
The ottoman not conquering Iran is basically history repeating itself
😱😱😱😱😱😱
😢😡😔😔😔
At least they are Muslims
@@iraqi3150 ??????????????????????
@@ikkai2354 😁👍
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.
This channel is great
Galaxy brain take: The Ottoman-Persian wars were merely a new iteration of the Roman-Persian wars
well it's very true. The Ottman empier was controlling literally the same amouth of land.
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.
@@hannibalbarca2928 safavids are azeri not turk
Well you not-so-smart-hooman
1-There was no Persia
2-The Ottoman fought against Safavid. Both Turkic countries
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.............
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.
Sulejman give Baghdad to Persia because they send back his son Bayazid in ottoman empire.
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.
@@illyrianmc9169 Ottomans lost Baghdad into a battle, it was after suleyman
@@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
@@mehdi60888 tell me which soultan lost it. And why the persian kking give his son back to ottomans the Bayazid prince
As an iranian i appreciate the unbiased content.well presented.
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.
@@tigersaid9156Nah.
everybody is kurd yes @@tigersaid9156
Hello. On this topic, get acquainted with the Turkish and Persian sources about the Georgian royal principalities in this era. Because in the current events between these two empires, one of the most important roles was assigned to the Georgian kingdoms in the East and they actively interfered in the current events in the region.
It's not "Airan" but "Eeran". That's how Iran is pronounced.
we speak english not farsi we dont care how it is pronounced in farsi
@@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).
@@starwreck I'm talking about English! Go and look it up.
@@starwreck I know many English speakers who pronounce it the proper way, and not the retarded way.
@@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
I guess Anatolian and Iranian empires are destined to fight each other as it has happened many times throughout history
They mainly fought over Armenia and Mesopotamia
Even anatolian seljuk split from persian seljuks
History repeats itself I assume...just look at the situation between Iran and Turkey right now.
we fight together and jews and zionists and american pailed rulers enjoy
@@monarchistheadcrab8819 we aren't fighting very much at the moment
Now Iranians try to speak not only their mother tongue, but also Turkish. Especially in Shirvan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Baghdad and Yerevan, where the Turks often pass and are under their rule, children are mostly educated in the Turkish language. In Isfahan, in the royal palace, they speak Turkish enthusiastically, you rarely hear Persian words there... And in Fars province (Iran was actually here in ancient times, now its capital is Shiraz) they speak pure Persian without exception.
Adam Oleary. travelogue Book Five, Chapter 23, p. 814
iraq doesnt speak turkish iraqis speak Mesopotamian arabic
All these areas you mentioned either speak Farsi or Kurdish and Arabic, even in Azerbaijan we have large areas that speak Talshi. Please do not speak emotionally and use reliable and correct sources in your studies
Very intresting👍
Why didn't the Ottoman's conquer Persia?
TLDR: The Zagros Mountains.
/video.
Thanks
That was my immediate first guess.
Q: (x) political issue?
A: geography (99% of the time)
Another viable answer:
It wasn't worth the trouble
@@Galaick better answer is they couldn't do that
5:13 - 5:14 So that's why I frequently see an AI Ottoman allying with France during my EU4 playthroughs.
I prefer to play as France and the Ottomans make a good ally until I run out of rivals and have to rival them
@@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
@@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
@@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.
Historically France was one of the Ottoman's most common allies in Europe, so it makes sense that ai does that.
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?
as a iranian thank for making that video
Thank you for making this video. This was a really interesting topic that I knew very little about. While I was watching it, I kept thinking of all the wars that occurred between the Roman and later Byzantine Empires and various Persian dynasties, and how those conflicts kinda continued, only with the Ottomans replacing the Romans. Thanks for teaching me something.
უსმალებმა შეცვალეს რომაელებიდა ამით დავკარგეთ მართმადიდებლური ქვეყანა ბიზანტია სწორედ მაშინ წავიდა ჩვენისაქმე უკან რიცა ამ ურჯულოებმა ხელში ჩაუგდეს ქრისტუანული სამყაროს მთავარი ხივილიზაციის ცენტრი და მეჰმეტ მეორემ ბიზანტია გამოაცხადა ოსმალეთის კუთვნილებად
თურქებუ საიდანაც მოვიდენ იქით მიუწევთ გაქცევა ტრაკშუ წიხლების რტყმით
@@RadRust safaids and afsharids were Iranic , you are a troll account
@@RadRust the origin of safavids is mixed with kurdish and greek and armenian and azeri only a troll account would call them "turkish" they didn't kill hundreds of ottomans for you to call them that
@@knotdead5783 Safavids was persians??? Are u mad???
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?"
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.
🐦
Seriously. Ottomans are so overrated.
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?...
Because of the Ultimate Nullifier of course. It always stops things 'Galactic'.
You may want to add a few updates to the video:
1. Iranians have always (since 2500 years ago) called the country Iran, not Persia. It is foreigners who insist on calling it by the wrong name Persia, so Iranians formally registered the country as Iran in 1935 so others would stop calling it Persia. Persia only one of States in Iran. In the example of US, do we call USA, New York? Of course not!
2. Also Iran is not pronounced how you pronounce (I Ran!), the correct pronunciation is EErAAn. The correct pronunciation is not "I Ran" or "A Run". Iran means land of Aryans. But the term Aryan does not have the Nazi connotations that since 1940s the world has associated the German Nazis. Although, several thousand years ago, Iranian tribes lived on Danube near where today is eastern German. Over the millennia Iranians went east and first settled in where today in Ukraine and southern Russia and you probably know the rest.. Iranian tribes settled in current Iranian geography are not native to that land.
3. Remember that the Eastern Roman Empire where the Country of Turkey is located at, was at war with Iran for about 800 years which exhausted both Iran and Eastern Roman Empire and weakened their economies and populations to the extend that when Arab hordes attacked Iran (7th century) it took the Arabs 200 years to impose their religion on Iran.
4. The weakened Eastern Roman empire was also exhausted and became ripe for invasion by Central Asian Turkic tribes and the Arabs that the Turks had conquered..
5. Iran has a very difficult geography and Iranians can defend that territory pretty well, with a few devastating exceptions. Even with today's techno based militaries it will bleed a foreign invader.
6. Monday night quarter backing: It would have been advantageous for both Eastern Roman Empire and Iranians to settle their issues after over 700 years of fighting diplomatically so neither would be invaded by non-European armies. If that had happens, I doubt if the Mongols could have defeated the Sassanid militaries of Iran, or the Seljuks ....
Iranians weren't German, nor were they the original Aryans or Indo-Europeans. The original Indo-Europeans were from the Eurasian Steppes, and it took them a long time before reaching Iran. Iranians are a mixture of various people. Of course they were made better when they got mixed with the Indo-Europeans.
@@freepagan You may want to take this up with Archeological, Linguistic Anthropologist & Genetics specialists and history professors. None of what you claim is supported. PS. I never claimed that Iranians are Germans (that is what you said).
A question what can u tell abt so called kurdish?
@@sabahalhushkizi4192Iran made buy group of people one of the main one are Kurd , Iran is belong to Kurd people and Kurdistan is belong to Iran
2. Only yanks call it EYE-ran. İn Britain we say EE-ran
Persian rule in Iran broadly ended with the Islamic conquest (mid 7th century) resulting with a dominant Arab, Turkic, and Mongol rule whereas only 2 Iranian dynasties, Buyids and Zands, managed to rule Iran
Foreign rule in Persia ;
Macedonians(Hellen)
Seleucids(Hellen)
Rashiduns(Arab)
Umayyads(Arab)
Abbasids(Arab)
Ghaznavids(Turk)
Seljuks(Turk)
Eldiguzids(Turk)
Khwarezmids(Turk)
Chingissids(Mongol)
Ilkhanids(Mongol)
Muzaffarids(Arab)
Timurids(Turk)
Karakoyunlu(Turk)
Akkoyunlu(Turk)
Safavids(Turk)
Afsharids(Turk)
Qajars(Turk)
being turkic doesnt mean you arent iranian, there are around 30 million turkic iranians in iran today, beside, iran has always been a multicultural place
Whatever to make you sleep😂
Yeah turks who hated being turk and proud to be an iranian beside they hated the other turkic tribes
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.
Cool tell us more!
Iran is the older name of the region. the name goes back to 4000 years ago way before Persia.
The name was first found in the writing of Kkng Darius.
@@anak5183 it means land of aryans
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
@@bernard3303aria was a country in Eastern Iran in the ancient world
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.)
ottomans couldn't take persia "because of mountains", and yet Alexander had no trouble doing it before.......
Oh wait maybe its because that Loser huy betrayed the Persian that were allies of Macedon and surprised attacked them while they were in the middle of a political ceisis because of curupt leader. I wonder how lobg did Alexander enjoy his occupation of Persia? Oh wait not even 20 years😂
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
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.
Nadir Shah took Iraq back from the Ottomans, but he traded it with Cacasus.
@@jacobjonm0511😂😂just for four year
@@AhsanKhan-bi3qu As I said he traded it with Caucasus. Learn to read 😁
Excellent history I love older history I got good history 🙏🏻❤
some corrections:
1) it wasn't modern day turkey but modern day iraq
2) it wasn't a secession dispute but a succession dispute
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'.
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.
However, the land was very barren and was more difficult to hold than it was worth
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
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
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 !
Their interest was in Europe
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
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.
Some have less some have more problems. It was often a back and forth in history.
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...
I appreciate your deep knowledge bro 👏 from Azarbaijan of Iran 💚🤍♥️
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 💚🤍❤️
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
@@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…
Nice friday content. Thank you 👍
While Kasravi argues that the Safavids were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (i.e., Indo-European rather than Turkic), various early editions of Safvat al-Safa call Sheykh Safi al-Din 'Pir-i Turk', or 'Master/Guide of the Turks'. Later scholars, on the other hand, postulate various other possibilities for the family's ethnic and linguistic background, including Arab and Kurdish.
Safavid chronicles begin their narrations of the origins of the Safavids with Safi, who was burning with the love of God' even at a young age and was known for his inquisitive nature. 26 He was not only wise and fluent in six languages (Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Mongolian, Kurdish and Gilani), but also showed signs of 'blessed ness' as the ancestor of a dynasty that would rule the entire time and place.
Matthee, R. (Ed.). (2021). The Safavid World (1st ed.). Routledge. pp.18
Safi al-Din was indigenous to Iran and was an ethnic Kurd but he spoke a Turkic language because Azeris became assimilated during the Seljuk invasions.
@@yarsaz4347hahahahahaha şah ismail alevi tarikatından gelir ve o dönem alevilik sadece türklerde yaygındı ve ayrıca şah ismail şiirlerinde ve devlet içi konuşmalarında türkçe kullanırdı,götünüzden uydurmayın bişeyleri
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 occupied 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 one of his poems the prasenik-i Ajail, he "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 occupied 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.
Ancient Romans: Spent centuries trying to conquer Persia?
Ottomans: Evet...
Ancient Romans: You truly are the Heirs of Rome!
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,
@@Emilechen yes.. 👍 Turkey = Ottoman Empire
@@Emilechen WTF
@@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,
@@dronur6194 Mongolia*
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.
*Persian instability go brrrrr*
*40 different Persian dynasties go brr*
History changed
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
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
@@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.
"Because its impossible to march troops all the way there sucessfully"
Proceeds to show how it was very much possible 2mins later
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.
Throughout history, the Persians had powerful empires such as the Achaemenids, Sassanids, Samanids,
as turks from huns to first gokturk khanate to seljuks to timurids to mughals to ottomans.
@@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.
Sassanids were totally consumed by Rashiduns. It’s hard to imagine that Arabs were so powerful at a time.
@@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.
@@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.
I would have loved to seen a Ottoman and Persian Romance/War movie about the time of those wars :D
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😢😢
@Mehmed Said Pasha You want to talk about Nader Shah😂😂
@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?
@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
@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.
Darius didn't wanted to apply scortched earth policy against A3. The Safavids learned the lesson.
Invading them is almost impossible due to difficult terrain.
Hannibal: Hold my beer 🍺
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.
I think of 2 words when hearing kerkeses, first is circassians and second is kirghiz. either way thanks for the info ❤
@@bernard3303 He means Circassians. The Kyrgyz were affiliated with the Khanate of Bukhara, if I'm not wrong.
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.
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.
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
@@navidaban2856
Chi migi dada baw mongolian culture kodume ? Har emperaturi mikhad sarzaminaye bishtari begire
agree , video needs deeper answers
Not to nitpick but the pronunciation is also quite a mess
Today it takes 1 day to travel from Istanbul to Eastern Anatolia by car. Just imagine how long would it take to walk that distance let alone mountanious terrain you have to cross at the end of journey..
it was also big challange to find and fight with iranian army. most of the time ottoman army marched hundreds kms into the iranian territory in harsh conditions and still couldnt find the enemy. there was even filty chat between selim and ismail. selim tried to lure ismail into fight and succeded.
The old Roman-Persian conflict was transferred to the Ottomans-Iranians.
@Igor Zlatkovic So boys were fighting just for the hell of it?
@Igor Zlatkovic dude because Turks %40 Muslim Greek, %32,5 muslim armenian , % 21,9 kurds , % 9.31 arabs
@Igor Zlatkovic my father blonde asiatic Face asiatic Eyes (nomad teke tribe)…. ım a serb????
@Igor Zlatkovic go spill your bullshits elsewhere please
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.
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.
thats not true. the ottoman army was not 50k. also there was a lot of revolt in ottoman lands.
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
@@darklord1901 Of course it's not in Turkish sources. No one wants to look that bad...
@UP TO THE CEILING DOWN TO THE FLOOR u seem kind of jealous
Topography was not the main reason. The Iranian empire's strength was the main factor. For instance, at the end of the Safavid Empire when Iran was in chaos and Afghans occupied the Iranian capital (Isfahan) the Ottomans captured a large chunk of Western Iran and Eastern Iraq which was under the control of Safavids. Nader Shah later dealt Ottomans a decisive defeat and later on even the Qajar dynasty defeated them when they were not at the height of their power.
All along its long history, Iran has been either very powerful with substantial influence in the region and beyond or it was occupied by the foreigners when the central government was weak.; there was no middle ground due to its strategic location in the world.
It was not just Ottomans that were stopped at the border of Iran, Romans also tried very hard to conquer Iran or at least annex part of it but they failed because at that time powerful dynasties (Parthian and Sassanian) were in power.
At min 1:01 you say "irreversable". You should have said "unsurmountable".
Why didn't ottomans conquer Persia ?!
Nadir shah : it's showtime
Abbas the great : yea probably
🇮🇷👍
Breaking News: Safavids and Afshars were not Persians but in fact, Turks.
@@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.
@@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
@@kronzweld1008 breaking news : who wrote this comment is also a Turk
Do a video on nader afshar. He is considered napoleon of the east by the west and last sword man by the east
Napoleon was the Nader of the west
Nader was there first
napoleon is nader of the west
You are making a video about Turkish history, but why are there no Turkish subtitles?
For the first tine in many years mention was made of the "Iranian Turks" issue in a programme, in which it was stated that, "There are Turks living in every region of Iran who remained under Turkish rule for a millenium. Azeris in the West, Turkmens and Horasan Turks in the East, Kaskai and Eynalhis in the South constitute the majority of Iran's population". The programme was also an answer to the Iranian claim to be a 2500-year-old empire and recalled that 1000 of these passed under Turkish rule. It noted that with Persian education ig primary school , the Iranians are making the Turks forget their mother tongue . Thus for the first time , Turkey is taking an interest in the Iranian Turks and warning the Iranians about their extremist reaction to the new transit tolls .
The Pulse: Daily Review of the Turkish Press. Vedat Uras. 1980.
shah abbas was the greatest safavid shah. The real nightmare of the Ottomans. Would have loved seeing him mentioned in this video.
Shah Abbas the Great won more battle against the Ottoman than all Ottoman rulers did vs Iran
Shah Abbas won more battle against the Ottoman than Ottoman rulers did vs Iran Shah Abbas the Great won like 7 battle vs Ottoman alone some of the best Ottoman rulers didn’t even won 5 battle all there life 🤣🤣🤣 Shah Abbas the Great and Shah Ismail >>> all Ottoman history
@@yaqubleis6311 They don't want to show how great Persia was and it best shahs like shapur the second and shah Abbas and nader shah and many more.
@Mohammed Alzahrani 🤣🤣😂😂😂😂 1000 years ??? NAME the dynasties kid
@Mohammed Alzahrani kid 😂😂😂😂🤣 Safavids were Iranic origin descendent of Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kolah they were Iranic origin
Because the Persians have been very tough and very skilled for millennia, combining military strength and high culture. Even when they were conquered by Turkic nomadic empires, they assimilated their conquerors (like the Greeks did with the Romans) You can still see it today: Iran controls a New Persian Empire, with huge influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. And through the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah it has managed to do more damage to Israel than all Arab states combined.
Best comment
🤣🤣
@@alonequeen8020 Scytians are iranic not turk you turks are so funny
@@alonequeen8020 Gokturk rulers was iranic origin and they made turkic people knel.
When turks was not even in this world two iranic people Persians and Scytians Conquered half of the world hahahahah.
Why march aceoss Anatolia? My first thought would be to sail with an army to Georgia or a nearby Ottoman controlled beach, and then attack the western part of Persia from the Caucasus region.
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
You're right. Are u turk?
the terrain is so hard to even in modern warfare, its like and afghanistan with steroids.
@@flyingberserker3965 it's like Afghanistan but you only have technology from the 1600's - 1800's
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@hannibalbarca2928 lol
Iran has been Iran since the time of the Sassanids. It was called Iranshahr in the Shahnameh of the fifth century.
@@hannibalbarca2928 lol😂😂😂😂 every single thing in universe is tŰrK now go
Videos like this make me realize how truly mind boggling Alexander the Greats' extensive conquests were.
This video doesn't cover the most successful period of The Persian dominance though. From 1629 to 1666 it were the Persians who had the upper hand and controlled eastern Anatolia, Syria and Iraq.
Persia have never controlled Eastern Anatolia and Syria 16th century onwoards. Iraq, partly yes. But then reconquered by the Ottomans short time after.
@@deusex1104 Shah Abbas The Great did. He Also re conquered the Persian Bahrain with the help of Dutch Navy wich is UAE, Parts of Oman and parts of Saudi Arabia. That is why he has got the title Great.
@@Mithradatesi Oh, i dont know about these parts really. I just opposed to Eastern Anatolia and Syria thing.
@@Mithradatesi Shah Abbas was not Persian 😉
@@veyselturan6916 Shah abbas was Part Persian Part Kurdish Part Turkman and Part Byzantine Part Georgian. But his Great Great grandfather was From The Zarrin kolah clan of Nihavand who are of Parthian Pahlavi descent. So Technically he is Iranian/Persian.
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.
Dude it was not Delhi sultanate but Mughal Empire.
@@krishibrahmania8432 True
All of they was turkic empires. Also add to this group Timurid s Empire!
@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.
@@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
What about the Hotak Dynasty?
0:44 I ran, you ran, we all ran to: Iran(pronounce: “E-run”)
more logical question i have while watching that map why they did not conquer Georgia?
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
Damn, I always feel sad when someone never heard about Cyrus
Maybe talk a little about Iran's success against Ottomans. Like, during Nader Shah's time
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
Persian (Iranian) turk like Ali Khamenei
Safavid ❤🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿
this was ghajar propaganda .they was iranian azari
@@soheildian371
You occupied Azerbaijani territory in 1926
Azarabandegan is real name and they are persian@@milliOnmilliOnmilliOn
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.
Greeks or Macedonians, Arabs, so many diffrent turkic tribes and Mongols all conquered and ruled Iran for many long years.
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
@@soniahemmati2372 they all lose and failed to iran
@@everydayrubbish8962 said the dogmatic person who is heavily exposed to only turkish history!
Who says it was not conquered? Iran was always depended on UK politically and economically
From what I understand, the Ottomans and Persians fought various wars threw out the centuries until the 1900s roughly. While the Ottomans won more, it's not by much and it ends up being a near tie. They just finally agree on a border and that is about it.
Russia, on the other hand, pretty much dominated both of them.
They fought 10 wars, each won 5
@@arashsa711 in the end it comes down to one battle
Battle of Chaldiran
Also in my Alternative World History, I add at least the 7 years war as well in which Ottoman goes with Britain and Persia with France. Considering that, you know how it can turn out :)
russia fell before the ottomans
Russia has dominated everyone at some point or another except Britain and the US.
@@KangaKucha I agree.
Like the Byzantine Greeks and the Sassanid Persians, after all the constant fighting, eventually, the Arabs dominated both of them except the Greeks were powerful enough to remain exist while the Persians were incorporated to the Arab empire.
Similarily to the Persians and now the Ottoman(Turkified Greeks) were dominated by Russia and conquered much of their territories.
At that time, the country's name was Iran too(and also before that) but just in other countries, they called it Persia. by the way, the correct pronunciation is Eeran.
>impossible
Now let me tell you about this alexander fella
You didn't mention the great shah Abbas, May I ask why?
It's not the ottomans who made the Byzantine empire collapse. After the 1071 battle of mazikert Byzantine recovered but then the catholics came and literally destroyed our beloved city Constantinople and the areas near it
Catholics op
Hmm is it the venetian that destroyed the city?
There was also a crusade against Constantinople too.
The Byzantines destroyed the empire by themselves with their civil wars and they even are the reason the Ottomans ever got a foothold into europe in the first place by using them as mercenarys.
Yeah, the Ottomans just dealt the final blow to a dying state.
In Safavid Iran, tensions between Iranian bureau-crats and Turkic soldiery were well-known. Iran proper had been under Turkic rule , in one form or another , since Ghaznavid and Seljuk times . This tradition largely continued under the Afshar ( 1736-1796 ) and Qajar ( 1779-1925 ) dynasties .
Johanson, L. and Bulut, C. (2006) Turkic-Iranian contact areas: Historical and linguistic aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. p.32, 33
The simple answer is they did try but both were a match for each other!
Not to mention Ismail was a cousin to the ottomans and he knew all their moves, both used turkick troops and knew each other tricks.
Greetings to İran from Turkey.
We fought in the past but we are sharing one of the oldest border in history now.
PEACE O/
Thats sweet
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].
What crosses though my mind is that sea travel from Constantinople to Trebizond wouldve saved some valuable time for the main army
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)
The Battle of Chaldiran took place on 23 August 1514 and ended with a decisive victory for the Sunni Islamic Ottoman Empire over the Shia Islamic Safavid Empire. As a result, the Ottomans annexed Eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq from Safavid Iran.
Ottoman-Safavid War (1532-1555) was the Ottoman victory over the Safavids. Ottomans gain large parts of Mesopotamia (Iraq), Western Iraq, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia.
...
Ottoman-Safavid war (1603-1612) was the Safavids' victory over the Ottomans. Safavids regained control over the territories ceded in 1590 to the Ottomans; Azerbaijan, Georgia, Erivan Province, Daghestan, Shirvan, Karabakh, Lorestan, and Khuzestan.
Ottoman-Safavid War (1623-1639) was the Ottoman victory over Safavids that resulted in the recognition of Ottoman control of Iraq.
I had a discussion about the borders of the ottomans and came to the conclusion that they stopped where they did because on the other side was a major power. Russia, the HRE, Poland and even Spain were all of similar stature to the Ottoman Turks, hence why they’re borders ended where they did. But it’s also interesting to note that they also stopped at natural borders like the mountains of Iran, Ethiopia and the caucuses and the deserts of Africa and Arabia. Those mountains in Iran are a disaster to move soldiers and rule and empire on the opposite side of, the only real successful people who managed it were the Ancient Persians with their de-centralised local governments which essentially meant they didn’t have to directly control the empire over the mountains, at least not directly.
It’s interesting to me that the ancient Persians managed to rule an empire across those mountains, but no one else really succeeded, Alexander, the mongols and the caliphate would all kinda splinter along that very line, but the Persians managed to hold it together, as I said my theory is the satraps and the de-centralisation made it a lot easier than the empires that would follow 🤔
Well said
The Persians didn't conquer these lands, this is their homeland. The various cultures that existed in these lands before the Median confederation formed to fight the Assyrians, became the central pillars of the later Achamenid empire, and eventually evolved to what became the Aryan people, which is where the name Iran comes from. The Persians were and are still just one of the many groups of people that make up modern Iran. So no one has conquered and ruled these lands. It has always been the land of the Aryan people, and still is.
An interesting theory.
It is interesting that you have a lot of information about the satraps of Iran. where are you from ?
@@TheScienceofnature
It is interesting that you have so much historical information about Iran. are you Iranian ?
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.
He's was a genius Commander
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
@@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.
Afshar
I came to conquer Uranus
I don't understand, if those mountain are an obstacle, how did Alexander pass that?
Must have sucked for the people in Mesopotamia, Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran for having to endure a state of near constant warfare for a not so small part of three centuries.
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
You are turkish
@@sevda.azari45 i'm persian speaker now
@@sbd983 no we weren't
Safavid was Iranains whit kurdish origin
They were Turks
The Language of the imperisal court in the Ottaman Turk was Persian. Still all the palaces walls are covered by the Persian Poetry .
Nope. Writing persian poetry doesn’t mean that
history says it !
@@AbbasValanejad wikipedia propagandas do you know anti turkism and euro centrism?
@پیاده نظام خان Persian wasn't arabasid.Many Turkish words come from Persian language
@@ASh-oe9hm the turks are connected to the mongols, wich also ruled the persian area so them having persian words makes sense
This shows how impressive Alexander’s conquest of Persia really was
There are many reasons for conquering a place, but in my opinion, the most important reason is the stability of the government. This was evident during the period of instability in the Achaemenid Empire when Alexander attacked Persia. Similarly, the defeat of the Sassanid Empire by the Arabs was due to the division of the Iranian army into several factions, along with numerous civil wars during the end of the Sasanian era. Hence, the primary factor is government stability. Of course, the military and power are also another important part too, but still, the first step is stability.
@@faraz8135 yeah absolutely Persian empire was multicultural with many different people so their loyalty to the king probably wasn’t that great vs 1 group of people with only 1 purpose
@@ourpetsheadsarefallingoff6654 This is also an interesting reason😅👍
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
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…
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 ;)
There always will be that one guy
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.
@@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.
Also Iran, Iraq
He also pronounces Safavid strangely.
_The briefe history of major powers of the near east:_
*Assyria Empires (950 b.c. to 750 b.c.)*
Medea & Assyria (750 b.c. to 610 b.c.)
Medea & Babylon (610 b.c. to 550 b.c.)
*Achamenid Dynasty/Persian Empire* (550 b.c. to 330 b.c.)
Selucid & Parthia (300 b.c. to 100 b.c.)
Rome & Parthia (100 b.c. to 225 a.d.)
Byzantium & Sassanian (225 a.d. to 620 a.d.)
Byzantium & Abbasid Caliphate (650 a.d. to 1080 a.d.)
Byzantium & Seljuks & Khwarazm (1080 a.d. to 1230 a.d.)
Byzantium & Mongols (1230 a.d. to 1300 a.d.)
Ottoman Empire & Saffavid Persia (1360 a.d. to 1750 a.d.)
Ottoman Empire & Qajar Dynasty (1800 a.d. to 1900 a.d.)
England & Middle Eastern Nations (1840 a.d. to 1970 a.d.)
Erdugan & Khamenei & Al-Saud (1980 a.d.. to 2024 a.d.)
😅
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 😉
And the population of both isn’t really intelligent.
Safavid Turks
@@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.
@@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.
@@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)
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.
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
Or nader shah
i duno u with toran or iran ? :D
Because the videos not about him