At what cost ? Even if they conquered Persia they will be so weakened by it that they wouldn't be able to hold those conquest. You don't just conquer and occupied another big empire for just warm water ports.
Nitpicking, but -You skipped the Afsharid Dynasty under Nader Shah who took a large chunk of Persian caucasian territory back from the Russians. -At 7:53 this is the Qajar Dynasty, not the Afsharid Dynasty -At 10:43 This is the picture of Mohammadreza I (his son and heir), not Reza I otherwise an "allright" oversimplified summary of 500 years of Russo-Persian conflicts in the caucasus
You just skipped the nader shah and how he taking back the persian territory and went to india and center asia and caucasus and ottoman borders. he was also known as persian Napoleon and last conqueror of east.
@@rashadahmadov3929 They were Persian-turks, I don't think either had any relation to The Azeris, the Safavids make more sense cuz their origins were close to that area, still the defining part of those dynasties overall is that they were Persian
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 There is no thing called persian turks. They were ancestors of modern day azerbaijanis and spoke the exact same language that we speak in the republic of Azerbaijan
Brief summary of this video. When it comes to Turks, even the greatest enemies can become friends. However, in the end, one side breaks its promise and betrays the other side.
Russia has always been a coward throughout history... during the time of Darius the Great. When Russia was attacked by the Persians, they abandoned the cities and fled. Until the weather got cold, Darius returned. During the time of Napoleon, they also fled... in During Hitler's time, he ran away... the best Russian soldier is just cold... not a brave or brave man. Just ice
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف not strictly true, it’s more the way of their military command, and so far apart from perhaps the Mongols no body has successfully invaded Russia
Even then, a lot of the information in this video is inaccurate. I really wish the owners of this channel would hire actual Iranian scholars because western sources always struggle with eastern history.
Yes... until Moscow got tired of the raids of the Crimean Tatars and the southern borders were fortified with fortresses and defensive earthen ramparts and ditches. The Meshcheryaki Tatars were resettled by Moscow to the Don River and subsequently became Don Orthodox Russian-speaking Cossacks (not to be confused with the Zaparozhsky Cossacks). Runaway peasants also fled here. Nogai and Circassian women were taken as wives.
Yeah, it’s more like the maximum extend of Crimean Khanate(ottoman vassal)raids into Russia rather then an established Ottoman territory as it shown here.
Biggest problem with Colonialism is that 'if I don't take it, my enemy will' which of course will make them stronger and you weaker putting your Country at risk. Its really a lose lose situation. It's hard to think any world leader can come out a good person with the hard choices that must be made.
This logic only really worked though in the pre-industrial era where the mercantilist zero sum view of geopolitics was valid. Once the industrial revolution kicked in, things changed quite a bit, though unfortunately it took some time and two world wars for the great powers to get out of the colonial mindset.
I am surprised the lion of persia nader shah you forgot to cover. He recovered a great deal of the caucasus and also defeated the ottomans and indians. Comman man.
Russians tried, know as the great game. British in India slowed Russian expansion in Central asia. By bribery, intimidation, blackmail even life ending and support rebellion or opposing forces. Closest Russian got was in ww2 when Russia occupied top third, British bottom 3rd. For supplies to Russian front against the moustache man. But both withdrew under the terms of intervention by 1947.
In 1916, Russian Cossacks were marching through Tabriz, Mashhad, Tehran and a march of Russian Imperial cavalry in the Naqsh-e Jahan square of Isfahan.
Two reasons: 1) They kinda did when they annexed the caucuses and deprived the region from both Iran and Turkey. They also took modern-day Tajikistan, which is culturally Iranian. 2) Like Afghanistan, Iran was a buffer between the vast Russian central Asian region and the British Raj. And both of those powers really didn't like touching each other. So they decided to vie for influence via proxy.
prior to 1500, the territory of modern Tajikistan was primordial lands of Timurid Empire, which actually built the identity of modern iran in cultural sense
@@jamjar1948 Tamerlane invaded Persia. It is illogical to call Timurids persian. Timurid culture had existed long before they annexed persia. Therefore, it would be logical to say that persians were Timurized. Look at Persia before Timurids, it was in chaos, no chance to talk about culture, but when Timurids began to enlighten, Persia came to its shape that we know it as modern iran today
@@ramtin5152 How could these perso-mongol influence of Timurids? It is actually, Timurids, who destroyed Mongol legacy in the middle east, and established a flourishing science and culture in Transoxiana. It is persian poets, who wrote the beauty of Samarkand Bukhara in their books. The Timurid legacy in modern persian culture is like an elephant in the room!
As a matter of fact, Russia DID conquer parts of the persian empire: Azerbaijan, Turmenistan, a.s.o. For a time Russia even dominated the northern part of Iran
Russia has always been a coward throughout history... during the time of Darius the Great. When Russia was attacked by the Persians, they abandoned the cities and fled. Until the weather got cold, Darius returned. During the time of Napoleon, they also fled... in During Hitler's time, he ran away... the best Russian soldier is just cold... not a brave or brave man. Just ice😂
@@sidp5381 he's equating the ancient scythians with the russians. Territorially that's not really right, and linguistically and ethnically they were actually cousins of the Iranians. He got the narrative wrong too, Darius got his ass clapped by the scythians
The Russians had no reason to conqerer Persia, they did however wanted persia as a puppet (because oil,etc), Annexing such a foreign land would be ridiculous.
@@PatriotOfPersia I agree they wanted warm water ports but I'm just saying that Conqerering Persia would undoubtedly spark Revolt and resentment towards the Russians, Russia could get everything from Persia without the need to rule it. With a puppet regime the Russians newly built railways to warm ports would be much more safer and protected. They may take some land from Persia but no total conquest would ever have happen.
@@lMrRedl dude wake up. Nuclear ice breakers are Russian answer in modern times. We are talking about historical 16-19th century where industrialization was just beginning. So back then ya russkies definitely needed warm water ports. Now they really doesn't with those m fkn nuclear ice breaker fleet
I strongly disagree with the content of your video, as they contain numerous inaccuracies. Following World War II, the Russians indeed harbored intentions of permanent occupation in Iran. However, due to the astuteness of Iranian politicians like Qavam and other statesmen, coupled with assistance from the United States, the Russians were ultimately expelled. Furthermore, Iran's historical resilience against foreign conquests, evidenced by its formidable empires, prevented not only Russia but also the Ottomans from subjugating it. Had Russia possessed the capability to conquer Iran, they would have done so, akin to their actions in Central Asia. Moreover, historical documents, such as the Tsarist letters of the Russian court, attest to Russia's perennial ambition to access the warm waters of the Persian Gulf, a goal that remained unattainable. your video overlooks these critical points and contains other factual errors as well.
“Had Russia possessed the capability to conquer Iran, they would have done so”. - In case you didn’t notice, Russia has large borders and fronts to protect, from enemies on all sides. And there were other Empires that would support Iran, to resist Russia’s expansion. It’s not as simplistic and b/w as your brain.
That is the answer bro, Britain and France helped the ottoman empire against Russia if not the whole okroman empire could have been Russian land and Britain was scared if Russia conquered Persia,it could distract it's attention in India
Russia has always been a coward throughout history... during the time of Darius the Great. When Russia was attacked by the Persians, they abandoned the cities and fled. Until the weather got cold, Darius returned. During the time of Napoleon, they also fled... in During Hitler's time, he ran away... the best Russian soldier is just cold... not a brave or brave man. Just ice😂
Britain was defending Iran, Türkiye, and the Arabian Peninsula against Russia But they did not expect that Russia's invasion would favor them. They would then be sane enemies The current situation with Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Algeria is miserable This means that the situation of the Central Asian republics under Russian occupation is better than the situation in the Middle East, which is free and independent from Russia, but it has become more hostile to the West because of religion. I believe that the Russian occupation would have reduced Islamic tendencies in the Middle East
I'm not sure about that. First, the situation in Iran today is the result of the incompetency and fanaticism of the current regime, unlike the arab countries whose ethnic, religious, and geopolitical issues are creating an unstable situation! Second, Muslims from the countries under Russian/Soviet rule turn out to be as fanatic as their MidEast counterparts, like Chechens, Uzbeks, and Tajiks (as seen recently!) Third, as the Soviets tried (and failed!) to take Afghanistan, a smaller country with far less population than Iran (and I'm not even talking about the rest of MidEast or Turkey!) in the 20th century with the tech advancements in weapons and vehicles and no direct interference of western countries, we can imagine what would it be like for them to try and conquer Iran (or the rest of the region for that matter). So that would be a logical hesitation on their part. All in all, I think we can agree that it would not have been easy, wise, or viable for the Russians to take over and hold such a vast territory of fundamentally different people, and even if that happened it would not benefit the situation of the MidEast today, as it has not helped the situation in any Muslim country that was part of the Russian Empire or the USSR afterward.
@@SilverViper219 I don't know if you would be surprised if I told you that it is difficult for any European country to give appropriate treatment to the Middle East currently. Because they need compulsory treatment to leave Islam These methods follow the Middle Ages Therefore, it is difficult and almost impossible for the Islamic world to change unless an infidel ruler is the one who tries to get rid of Islam from its roots, and this depends on the coincidence factor. The European occupation could have benefited us during the time of the Crusaders if they had come in large numbers and implemented something similar to the Inquisition in the Middle East. But European colonialism in the 19th century became uninterested in religion, and this does not help the Islamic world, because no matter how much democracy or modernity you give them, they will reject it because of Islam.
Britain and France wanted the Mideast for their own sphere of influence. They made it clear that Russian expansion into the Mideast would provoke WW0. That's also why the British and French allied with Turkey against Russia over Russian expansion in the Black Sea.
That's the only Victory turkey got over Russia and one more win I believe. But Britain betrayed turkey in WW1. They had a lot to do with ottoman rule being broken.
Lies, do you know the west sided with the Muslims many times in history against Russia,but still Russia is standing They stood with the ottoman empire against Russia several times
The Roman Empire couldn't defeat the Persians. Iran has a very complex geography, it is much more dangerous than Afghanistan. The Russians are not stupid enough to fight the Persians in the Iranian mountains.
The British never meant to help anybody but themselves man. Brits are responsible for breaking up the Turkish vassles in the early 1900s. They betrayed turkey. British are grimey people when it comes to allies.
@@parsarustami774 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی شود توسط هخامنشیان اداره می شود😜 ایران نوسط ایرانی اداره نمی شود توسط اشکانیان اداره می شود😜 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی شود توسط خاندان ساسان داره می شود😜 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی سود توسط خاندان سامانی و بویه اداره می شود😜 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی سود توسط صفوی ها اداره می شود😜 و تا اخر... هیج می فهمی چی داری میگی؟؟ واسه یه خارجی توضیح میدی اخوندا ایرانی نیستند😂😂😂 اونا از تحلیل های چرت پرت تو سر در نمیارن این تحلیل چرت پرت فقط تو ایران انتن میده😂😂😂
That's bc of persian/iranian people resilience after arab conquest we swear that we would never be surrender to foreign rulers even if they conquer us we will never break nor they can't destroy our culture and heritage
Cool video, but some of the color choices are less then ideal. Why did the USSR get nearly the same color as Britain and Persia a color so close to the neighbouring sea?
Russia is #33 in the world by consumption of alcohol (first 10 are Moldova, Germany, Lithuania, Ireland, Spain, Uganda, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania). UK is #15 and US is #38. so, stop being ridiculous.
You didn't mention the epic resistance of local people in the north against Russians and in the south against Brits. Their courage against invaders have been reoccured many times throughout history. The people of Gilan and Tabaristan fought many battles against Arab, Mongol and Ottoman attacking forces and won most; And one major reason was the extremely rough terrian of the Elborz mountains and also the creativity of the locals in utilizing the densely forested environment to build fortresses (like Rudkhan Castle). In early 1900s Russians succeeded in taking control of the region, using Caspian sea to penetrate though the naturally defenseless area, and Reza Shah helping Russians against the resistance of locals with the command of Mirza Kuchik, which resulted in a cruel control over the region; Young men got emasculated, women were r@ped and the state was robbed off its resources, particularly food and wood.
By the end of the 19th century, Britain's dominance became so pronounced that Khuzestan, Bushehr, and a host of other cities in southern Persia were occupied by Great Britain, and the central government in Tehran was left with no power to even select its own ministers without the approval of the Anglo-Russian consulates. If not colonization, then what is it ?!
This is not colonialism. Colonialism was what happened in India. Who told you that Iranian ministers were appointed by England?? The Qajar government was weak, but not so much that ministers were appointed by the British.
@@rezasatan 1) Please, don't compare yourself with a gigantic land! India never changed its name, and India had always been culturally and technologically more advanced than your feudal kingdom. 2) Colonization has no final definition, so you can't use "one size fits all" approach. Colonization appears in various ways in different periods. Hence, Persia was de facto colony because of two reasons: a) Foreign powers' control over persian natural resources; b) Foreign powers' control over government
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5fIran never changed it's name, it was always Iran to Iranians. They changed it internationally because the Greeks never knew the name of the land. Just like Mesr was never Egypt to Egyptians and The Netherlands was never Holland to the Dutch. Also, it's interesting you mention this when India could become Bharat....
@@pouyajabbari3912 1) Egypt has always been and still is Egypt. Egyptians are the oldest nation in the world and unlike Iran, Egyptians are not in identity crisis 2) Netherlands is not an English word, it is indeed a Dutch word. I have lived there, and all Dutch native speakers called their land and landguage "Nederland". Holland is just one region in the Nederlands 3) Bharat is just a myth invented some religious nationalists, while this movement represents only tiny part of diverse multibillion nation. So, India will never change its name and accept that you can't compare your middle eastern kingdom with India. 4) Iran means land of Ayran people. Aryan race is an obsolete historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping. However, anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept. So, how come persia come Iran for its people, while "aryan myth" is relatively new phenomenon?
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f What are you talking about? Not one Egyptian in the history of Egypt has ever called it Egypt. And what do you mean by Iran has an identity crisis??? That is exactly what I'm saying, foreigners who call the Netherlands "Holland" are wrong. I don't think you are reading my post properly.... please read. You don't need to tell me what Iran means. I'm pointing out that you know nothing if you think Iran changed it's name.
@@Azerchayforever221 Persian Propaganda For What ?? It's Clear The Name Of Azerbaijan is Stolen From Iran, Iran officially sued Lenin twice for this theft in 1918 and 1920
The other major linguistic shift in Iran seems to have been triggered by Turkic tribes migrating to Iran. They have played a major role in in politics by establishing Turkic empires such as Ghaznavids (977-1186 AD) and the Seljuks (1037-1134 AD). Still, in this period, Turkic variaties were not the dominant language even in the major cities and regions such as Azerbaijan (Abolghasemi 2019). Nevertheless, the establishment of these Turkic governments resulted in the migration of more Turkic tribes to Iran. The increase in migration of Turkic tribes, coupled with the rise in their political and military power, created a wave of linguistic shift in the Iranian plateau, especially in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th ceuntries, in the 14th ceuntry, Persian and other Iranian languages were still dominant (Mustawfi [ca. 1339 AD] 2002) in Tabriz, Maragheh, and Zanjan. Due the succession of Turkic empires such as Timurids (1370-1506 AD), Safavids (1501-1722), Afsharids (1736-1796 AD), and Qajars (1789-1925), and more local monarchies such as Aq Qoyunlu (1378-1501 AD) and Qara Qoyunlu (1374-1468 AD), whose rule primarily concentrated in the northwest of historic Iran including Azerbaijan, a linguistic shift to Azeri in some cities and regions (e.g., Azerbaijan) led to gradual decline of the other languages (i.e., prominent among them Persian) in many sociolinguistic domains. (Iranian and Minority Languages at Home and in Diaspora - page 180,81)
After WW1, Reza Shah was the leader of Iran, only after the end of WW2 did his son, Mohammad Reza Shah game control. The Zand dynasty was also much larger, controlling parts of khorasan and all of Azerbaijan, hence the territory of the Qajars when they took power. Instead of looking at western sources, check out some maps and books from the Iranian libraries, I believe they would know more about their territories than other people
They actually tried and did capture most of the lands of conquered from Persia which was and is now Azerbaijan and several other countries. Despite the fact Majority land known as Azerbaijan remained in occupied by Persia and now Iran.
Polish tribes( including most of Eastern Europe) swedish(finish) tribes, Chinese tribes, etc. is crazy And if it wasn’t for the uk, Persia would’ve fallen in no time, they were literally occupied for centuries and not fully colonized because of outside disagreements, same situation as siam
What u mean by strength? Strength is a relative term. Those countries were weak , that's why Russia was able to take over them. Btw, Russian empire was unable to take over Chukotka and Chukchi tribes through military actions. @@maxthetube8466
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
@@shadowborn1456 In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74 (Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.)
@@rezasatan Nobody is calling them weak or powerful. The question here is about their background! Pahlavi family was just farmers from far away Mazandaran. Pahlavi family had no royal blood . pahlavi dynasty is just illegitimate to rule in Persia due to their illegitimate take on power!
@@rezasatan Okay, sorry about that. However, it is not accurate to blame only these two kings in these losses. They were not aliens. They were iranians. Iranian society brought them up. They were the fruits of their own environment. These kings didn't deliberately fail Iran. They were just incapable of good governance and management. This only blame can go for the land where they grew up. Had Iran possessed a great education system, or powerful economy, or capable generation of political establishment, these kings could have performed better. Even Russia or England had stupid kings or Prime ministers, but it didn't bring the downfall of their empire
Iran has been colonized the same way Siam did, surviving in technicality all the while being occupied for half a century If you wanna call not being able to take any Decisions without permission from outside powers for decades „independence“ go aheD
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f What do you smoke, Iran was called always Iran by Iranians. Greeks called our country Persis (or Persia) and European adopted it.
The ottomans were not the problem, the uk was Russia dealt with any Turkish threat by 1800, after that it was the uk who tried to keep Russia out of the Middle East to secure india
This list of qualities reads like a catalogue of all that he found wanting in the Persians he met.29 His view was that Persia had no real nobility; by that he ruled out the Turkman military élite which had monopolized all the pro- vincial governments and most of the important offices since Safavid rule began at the beginning of the sixteenth century. He was contemptuous of their aristocratic pretensions; their coarse, ignorant behaviour confirmed their origins as mere soldiers of fortune and Turkish at that. Persians-real Persians who lived under that intolerable subjection, and could trace their descent back beyond the Turkman supremacy-he saw in a different light.30 This was not simply a reflection of della Valle's snobbish concern with pedigree; there was still a marked distinction between these different elements in Safavid society. Pietro della Valle: The Limits of Perception J. D. Gurney Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Vol. 49, No. 1, In Honour of Ann K. S. Lambton (1986), pp. 103-116 (14 pages) Published By: Cambridge University Press
As it has become more clear by the recent declassification of US Diplomatic data (the Brits are still refusing to declassify their data about their role) and the recent books written about the number of Iranians killed by the famine induced by the Brits and Russians the estimates of the dead range between 7 to 9 million dead Iranians (not the two million mentioned in this video). Also many more died due to the Spanish flu that Russian and British troops brought with them.
This essay examines Nader Shah Afshar's attempts to legitimize his rule by dint of his Turkic background. Over the course of his rise to power and reign, Nader consistently argued that his Afshar and Turkman affiliations granted him the right to rule over Iranian territory as an equal to his Ottoman, Mughal, and Central Asian contemporaries. Aided by his chief secretary and court historian, Mīrzā Mahdī Astarābādī, Nader's assertions paralleled those found in popular narratives about the history of Oghuz Turks in Islamic lands. This element of Nader's political identity is often overlooked by historians because it did not outlive the brief Afsharid period, but it demonstrates how the Safavid collapse led to the circulation of dynamic new claims to Iranian and Islamic political power. Karamustafa, A. (2022). The Hero of “the Noble Afshar People”: Reconsidering Nader Shah's Claims to Lineage and Legitimacy. Iranian Studies, 1-15
Nader Shah demanded to be addressed as the king of Persia and in his correspondence with other kings signed king of Persia and promoted Persian language as the sole official language of his kingdom, then of whatever ethnic background he might have been , he did not want to have anything to do with Turkic identity .
@@majidbineshgar7156Thats a lie. They were pretty aware that they are Turkic. He used persian identity to control non Turkic people of the empire. But they did not ditched Turkish identity
@@majidbineshgar7156 again pseudo history 🌝 To justify his stance and claim a common heritage with the Ottomans, he invoked the history of Chinggis Khan: In the time of Chingiz Khan, the leaders of the Turkman tribes, who had left the land of Turan and migrated to Iran and Anatolia, were said to be all of one stock and one lineage. At that time, the exalted ancestor of the dynasty of the ever-increasing state [the Ottoman Empire] headed to Anatolia and our ancestor settled in the provinces of Iran. Since these lineages are interwoven and interconnected, it is hoped that when his royal highness learns of them, he will give royal consent to the establishment of peace between [us]. In a letter presented to the Ottomans after his assumption of the title of shah in 1736 Nadir claimed legitimacy simply as a Turk, stating that “kingship is the ancestral right of the exalted Turkmen tribe.” Thus the rulers of the regional states - the Chinggisid khans of Khiva, the Timurid/Chinggisid Mughals, the Ottomans, and Nadir himself, all had equal legitimacy. Furthermore, in a deliberate attempt to reverse the abandonment of the glorification of Genghis-Khanid descent as a ''branch of the tree of unbelief'' by Ismacil, Nadir tried to revive the pre-Safavid Turkman tribal principles of legitimacy, which had not been given currency since the fifteenth century. In a letter to the Ottoman grand vizier, Nadir states that the dignitaries of Iran gathered in the plain of Mughan "elected our august Majesty to kingship and sovereignty which are the hereditary prerogatives of the noble Turkman tribe." Mulla cAli Akbar, his Mulla-bashi, opens his pan-Islamic sermon in Kufah with the eulogy of Nadir not only as the shadow of God on earth, but also as the scion of the Turkman tree and heir to Genghis Khan. However, after Nadir's death, Safavid descent, often with a marked emphasis on its religious character, remained the most viable ground of legitimacy for rulership. Expectation of the Millennium : Shiìsm in History Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. State University of New York Press pp.194
Yes, I am Spanish, I use English more than a translator, unfortunately, in the translation, when we write in Iran, it is translated by Persians, the reason is that in the ancient past, it used to say the west of Persia.@@maxthetube8466
@@maxthetube8466Until now, many times the people of Iran have warned me to correct the translation. There are many ethnic groups in Iran. We are all Iran together
They would’ve collapsed under the differences in culture and sheer size, the Turks were already struggling to keep their nation together by the late 1700
Interesting to note that the cross-roads of these long sought after territories is historic Armenia, which explains the root causes of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey.
Fath All Shah seems to have aimed at ruling in accordance with those concepts of Iranian Shahanshahl which the age of the Safavids had come to symbolize. He did not possess the sacral charisma enjoyed by the descendants of Shah IsmaiI I, but he stressed his family's links with the heroic past of the Oghuz, with the migrations of the Turkmens in the days of the Il-Khans and the Aq Quyunlu, and with the age of Qizilbash hegemony. Court chroniclers lent their eloquence to the historicity of this tribal heritage. Court chroniclers lent their eloquence to the historicity of this tribal heritage. Hambly, G. (1991). IRAN DURING THE REIGNS OF FATH ‘Alī SHāH AND MUHAMMAD SHāH. In P. Avery, G. Hambly, & C. Melville (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Iran (The Cambridge History of Iran, pp. 144-173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Qājār dynasty, descended from a tribe whose early traces in Iran date to the eleventh century, held the reins of power until 1925. Much like the Safavids, they were Turkmen and spoke Turkish: their ethnic group of about 10,000 people led a nomadic life in northern Iran when it conquered the principalities that had fought over the Iranian plateau after the death of Nāder Shāh (1747). Richard, Y. (2019). Iran under the Qajars. In Iran: A Social and Political History since the Qajars (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. İ
you guys are funny... claiming Iranians, Arabs, Greeks, Geogians, Armainas and even Russians to be turk. a -_- guy is claiming a o_o guy to be turk. :))) about safavids: An Iranian dynasty rooted in the Sufi Safavid order[34] founded by Kurdish sheikhs,[35] it heavily intermarried with Turkoman, [36] Georgian,[37] Circassian, [38][39] and Pontic Greek[40] 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 sources: Matthee, Rudi. (2005). The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500-1900. Princeton University Press. p. 18; "The Safavids, as Iranians of Kurdish ancestry and of nontribal background (...)". Savory, Roger. (2008). "EBN BAZZAZ". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. VIII, Fasc. 1. p. 8. "This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams." Amoretti, Biancamaria Scarcia; Matthee, Rudi. (2009). "Safavid Dynasty". In Esposito, John L. (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford University Press. "Of Kurdish ancestry, the Safavids started as a Sunni mystical order (...)" Roemer, H.R. (1986). "The Safavid Period" in Jackson, Peter; Lockhart, Laurence. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge University Press. pp. 214, 229 Blow, David (2009). Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B.Tauris. p. 3 Savory, Roger M.; Karamustafa, Ahmet T. (1998) ESMA`IL I SAFAWI. Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol. VIII, Fasc. 6, pp. 628-636 Ghereghlou, Kioumars (2016). HAYDAR SAFAVI. Encyclopaedia Iranica
@@amir7890 scholars like Matthee for example switched and accepted Safavids as Turkic origin most of your sources are outdated and unreliable because ibn bazzaz is not a evidence while all medieval sources wrote that they were Turkic even ibn bazzaz said that they came from Khorasan this would already debunk his claim 🤣 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.)
@@amir7890 This list of qualities reads like a catalogue of all that he found wanting in the Persians he met.29 His view was that Persia had no real nobility; by that he ruled out the Turkman military élite which had monopolized all the pro- vincial governments and most of the important offices since Safavid rule began at the beginning of the sixteenth century. He was contemptuous of their aristocratic pretensions; their coarse, ignorant behaviour confirmed their origins as mere soldiers of fortune and Turkish at that. Persians-real Persians who lived under that intolerable subjection, and could trace their descent back beyond the Turkman supremacy-he saw in a different light.30 This was not simply a reflection of della Valle's snobbish concern with pedigree; there was still a marked distinction between these different elements in Safavid society. Pietro della Valle: The Limits of Perception J. D. Gurney Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Vol. 49, No. 1, In Honour of Ann K. S. Lambton (1986), pp. 103-116 (14 pages) Published By: Cambridge University Press
@@amir7890 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.
That country was called "Qajar kingdom", and most of the population were Turkic. Besides they had no sovereignty over Turkmanistan. Persia was erased during Alexander's inbasion. current self proclaimed Persians are actually TAJIK immigrants brought to the area by Mahmoud Afghan during Afghan invasion and fall of Safavid Turks.
It was called Iran not qajar kingdom. plus persia didn't erased after alexander. haven't you read about parthians and sassanids? Also f**k off with your turkic thing
@@KanuniSuleyman4857sasanians iranians, zands iranians safavids turks afsar & gayjar also turks the turkish empires belong to azerbeycan & the iranian empires of zand belong to kurdistan, sasanians are both belong to kurdistan & iran
>Why didn't Rome conquer Persia? >Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia? >Why didn't the Russians conquer Persia? Sounds like Knowledgia is really upset that so many people missed out on conquering Persia.
How did greeks wipe persia off the surface of Earth? How did Arabs cavalry swallow Persia? How did Seljuks conquer Persia? How did Timurids dominate Persia over two centuries? How did Stalin invade Persia in 5 days? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@franciscoflamenco A good question😁 1) Just wanted to show if the channel is so committed to cherry picking some mediocre powers who failed to conquer Persia, it does make Persia unreachable. Even Stalin conquered it within 5 days. 2) I don't think channel is disappointed, they were attempting indirectly to glorify Persia, which actually served as Karavansaray for great empires. 3) Actually one would need a degree in failure not to be able to invade Persia
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f So you just have a hate-boner for Persia? I'm not interested in whatever political view of history you want to promote here, but I'd like to leave you with a piece of advice. The entire point of this video, and the other ones I referenced to in my _joke,_ is that it's surprising that these powerful Empires didn't manage to conquer Persia at any point during their long histories. They operate under the presupposition that they should have been able to conquer Persia. In other words, they _agree_ with your view that Persia is weaker than these powers. The way you express your views is clearly biased and more likely to have people end up disagreeing with your view, so I think you're better off letting the videos do the talking undisturbed.
@@franciscoflamenco 1) There is no reason for me to hate or love Persia. I just showed than many other Empires comfortably swallowed Persia in its entirety. 2) My point here is that no nation has the right to claim to be superior than others. Persia, Peru, Panama, Palau or Poland. They are all equal. None of them is superior than others.
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f And how long did it last genius? Even his puppet regimes in northern Iran after withdrawing from Iran like republic of Mahabad etc was crushed by the Shah in less than a year.
@@outlawfly664 The partition of this new state, Iran, was seriously considered by the Soviet Union and the United States in the years following World War II. However, the two superpowers were unable to reach an agreement, and the partition plan was eventually abandoned. Modern day persia is just a lucky to exist only because two giant sharks couldn't agree on.
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f They (especially Russia) literally tried to partition Iran as i clearly mentioned and it's documented but failed miserably, try harder. Whataboutism and assumptions doesn't carry any substance of the real outcome unfortunately for you .
@@outlawfly664 It is not a failure ! It is an agreed plan of two giant predators to leave the lamb and withdraw. Don't try to take credit for parsian nationalism out of this Soviet-American disagreement over persia.
He spoke as though the Russians wouldn't have hesitated to conquer Iran if they had the capability, akin to their conquests in Central Asia, especially given their strategic interest in gaining access to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf
Nomadic horseback tribes were historically the only people who conquered Persia with relative ease, but moving a modern military through the Iranian plateau now seems like a total nightmare. The Anglo-Soviet invasion worked cuz 2 great military powers (who already surrounded Iran) surprised attacked & the Iranian government didn’t even put up much of a fight in the first place
@@essaadeel3676 the Achaemenid conquest was not considered “easy” by any historian, nor by Alexander himself or any of his generals at the time, Alexander managed to unite all the Greek states, & invaded the extremely overstretched & decaying Persian empire that was beginning to crumble decades before hand. It was a remarkable military achievement that no Greek state could ever replicate ever again, & yet Alexanders empire broke apart the moment he died, not too different than any other nomadic empire that conquered Persia.
In the late 1800s Iran fell if HARD, corruption and all, so Russia could’ve swept them if it wasn’t for the uk Later it came under joint occupation for half a century
@@essaadeel3676Macedonians not Greeks Calling Alexander Greek is the biggest lie in history. Even the Greek historians and even the Iranian Persian and Islamic sources did not mention that Alexander was Greek as far as I know.
@@IlkinMemmedov-cy3hc Why Should I Cry? Even name of Azerbaijan is stolen From Iran, Even Safavids had Greek Roots but nothing from Turks Coca cola 1886🇺🇸 Azerbayjan 1918🇷🇺
Then i guess Iran is not Iran today to given the fact that the supreme ruler Ali Khaminei is ethnic Azeri according to your logic? Even the former queen of Iran Farah Diba was Azeri to, so am i, i don't recall any of us referring ourselves as Turks or Iran as a Turkic state. Pan-Turks 😂🤣
@@ashkanh4276 no, the name Soviets is not a name of a tribe, so the ruler can be anyone. But the name “afshar” is name of oghuz turkic tribe. Afshar turk created the empire and it ended with him, ofc the empire is turkic,
The powerful empires of Rome, Byzantium, Ottoman, Russia.... could not conquer Iran, but Iran was conquered in a strange way by the emerging powers (Arabs and Afghans), it is really strange.
reasons: arabs conquered Iran becasue that time Iran was busy fighting within itself which led to 32 different kings in the last 10 years before arabs invasion. Afghans also took Iran because shah sultan hosein of persia decided no to fight them untill afghans were already at the gates of capital city
Поход полковника Карягина против персов в 1805-ом году не похож на реальную военную историю. Он похож на приквел к "300 спартанцев" (40 000 персов, 500 русских, ущелья, штыковые атаки, "Это безумие! - Нет, блять, это 17-ый егерский полк!"). Золотая страница русской истории, сочетающая бойню безумия с высочайшим тактическим мастерством, восхитительной хитростью и ошеломительной русской наглостью.
Taking Iran would mean warm water ports. They were interested but it isn't an easy country to take.
He completely overlooked this crucial fact
It was pretty easy during ww2
At what cost ? Even if they conquered Persia they will be so weakened by it that they wouldn't be able to hold those conquest.
You don't just conquer and occupied another big empire for just warm water ports.
In the late 1800s they could have easily conquered it but if you actually knew geopolitics the uk didn’t want that as it threatened india
@@maxthetube8466 So they couldn't and they didn't
Nitpicking, but
-You skipped the Afsharid Dynasty under Nader Shah who took a large chunk of Persian caucasian territory back from the Russians.
-At 7:53 this is the Qajar Dynasty, not the Afsharid Dynasty
-At 10:43 This is the picture of Mohammadreza I (his son and heir), not Reza I
otherwise an "allright" oversimplified summary of 500 years of Russo-Persian conflicts in the caucasus
You really know your stuff.
not just in this video, to be honest almost all of the video of this channel has ignored vital parts and some mistakes in information and geography.
All Iranians know their proud history
hear hear
russia is a 18c fake construction, the original name of this mongol empire is Muscovy
You just skipped the nader shah and how he taking back the persian territory and went to india and center asia and caucasus and ottoman borders. he was also known as persian Napoleon and last conqueror of east.
Persian Napoleon lol
he is İranian Turk not ethnically persian
@@lacomplation so what? Napoleon wasn't French but world consider him as french. same as other conquerors and rulers.
Hes perso turkaman @@lacomplation
@@bydlaq well your right, Napoleon wasn't even born that day. so he's just nader shah.
Btw you mistakingly put the afsharids after the Qajars which is wrong the Qajars came after the afsharids
@tonyantonio8956 dadash, I'm literally from there, Afsharids were before Qajars
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 yes, and both Azerbaijani dynasties
@@rashadahmadov3929 They were Persian-turks, I don't think either had any relation to The Azeris, the Safavids make more sense cuz their origins were close to that area, still the defining part of those dynasties overall is that they were Persian
@@rashadahmadov3929 Shut it!!
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 There is no thing called persian turks. They were ancestors of modern day azerbaijanis and spoke the exact same language that we speak in the republic of Azerbaijan
Bro act like u can just go there and conquer it. Nahhhhh 💀💀
Right? People just think conquest is a easy thing to do 💀💀
Alexander did
@@Pharaoh.618 that was the first and last time they ever did.
Everyone gangsta until Ea Nasir conquered Mars in 1700 BCE
Isn't that what Alexander the Great as well as the Rashidun Caliphate did?
5:38 HOTAKS were trying to bring a new dynasty in persia but because of modern Afghanistan independence they try to show them as foreign invaders
Alternate video title: Caucusus History during the Ottoman, Persian, and Russian Empires💀
Brief summary of this video. When it comes to Turks, even the greatest enemies can become friends. However, in the end, one side breaks its promise and betrays the other side.
Thanks for educating me on an area not often covered in school History lessons
Russia has always been a coward throughout history... during the time of Darius the Great. When Russia was attacked by the Persians, they abandoned the cities and fled. Until the weather got cold, Darius returned. During the time of Napoleon, they also fled... in During Hitler's time, he ran away... the best Russian soldier is just cold... not a brave or brave man. Just ice
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف not strictly true, it’s more the way of their military command, and so far apart from perhaps the Mongols no body has successfully invaded Russia
Even then, a lot of the information in this video is inaccurate. I really wish the owners of this channel would hire actual Iranian scholars because western sources always struggle with eastern history.
@@ibrahimsayedi9632 yeah a good variety of sources is always essential for history
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف congratulations that was the dumbest thing ive read in a long time. truly an achievement
0:47 I'm sure the Ottomans did not have that much land in Russia.
their vassal crimea had after conqering the remnants from the golden horde
Yes... until Moscow got tired of the raids of the Crimean Tatars and the southern borders were fortified with fortresses and defensive earthen ramparts and ditches.
The Meshcheryaki Tatars were resettled by Moscow to the Don River and subsequently became Don Orthodox Russian-speaking Cossacks (not to be confused with the Zaparozhsky Cossacks). Runaway peasants also fled here. Nogai and Circassian women were taken as wives.
Yeah, it’s more like the maximum extend of Crimean Khanate(ottoman vassal)raids into Russia rather then an established Ottoman territory as it shown here.
Biggest problem with Colonialism is that 'if I don't take it, my enemy will' which of course will make them stronger and you weaker putting your Country at risk. Its really a lose lose situation. It's hard to think any world leader can come out a good person with the hard choices that must be made.
everyone is evil!!!
lol
This logic only really worked though in the pre-industrial era where the mercantilist zero sum view of geopolitics was valid. Once the industrial revolution kicked in, things changed quite a bit, though unfortunately it took some time and two world wars for the great powers to get out of the colonial mindset.
@@TRLHistorythey only got out of the overt colonialist mindset because Europe as a whole was weakened heavily.
The author of the channel, a freaking Russophobe, all the videos about Russia are fake. He should go to a psychologist and take pills.
I am surprised the lion of persia nader shah you forgot to cover. He recovered a great deal of the caucasus and also defeated the ottomans and indians. Comman man.
Nice work
Russians tried, know as the great game. British in India slowed Russian expansion in Central asia. By bribery, intimidation, blackmail even life ending and support rebellion or opposing forces.
Closest Russian got was in ww2 when Russia occupied top third, British bottom 3rd. For supplies to Russian front against the moustache man.
But both withdrew under the terms of intervention by 1947.
Finally somebody not coping about „strong Iran weak Russia“
In 1916, Russian Cossacks were marching through Tabriz, Mashhad, Tehran and a march of Russian Imperial cavalry in the Naqsh-e Jahan square of Isfahan.
Two reasons:
1) They kinda did when they annexed the caucuses and deprived the region from both Iran and Turkey. They also took modern-day Tajikistan, which is culturally Iranian.
2) Like Afghanistan, Iran was a buffer between the vast Russian central Asian region and the British Raj. And both of those powers really didn't like touching each other. So they decided to vie for influence via proxy.
meanwhile Georgians trying to defend their country and themselves 🥲🇬🇪
Yes, they united with Russia for that goal, against raids of the Caucasian mountaineers
@@ponos8632 you forget one small and totally insignificant factor - Muslim Ottoman Empire.
They did conquer Tayikistan, which prior to 1500 was part of Persian empires
prior to 1500, the territory of modern Tajikistan was primordial lands of Timurid Empire, which actually built the identity of modern iran in cultural sense
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f Temurids and Gorkanids were Persianate state, and they contributed a lot in culture and civilization and poetry.
@@jamjar1948 Tamerlane invaded Persia. It is illogical to call Timurids persian. Timurid culture had existed long before they annexed persia. Therefore, it would be logical to say that persians were Timurized. Look at Persia before Timurids, it was in chaos, no chance to talk about culture, but when Timurids began to enlighten, Persia came to its shape that we know it as modern iran today
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f They were Persianised
That doesn't mean they were Persian
@@ramtin5152 How could these perso-mongol influence of Timurids? It is actually, Timurids, who destroyed Mongol legacy in the middle east, and established a flourishing science and culture in Transoxiana. It is persian poets, who wrote the beauty of Samarkand Bukhara in their books. The Timurid legacy in modern persian culture is like an elephant in the room!
As a matter of fact, Russia DID conquer parts of the persian empire: Azerbaijan, Turmenistan, a.s.o.
For a time Russia even dominated the northern part of Iran
0:32 When did the Ottomans had those borders?
They never did hold territories so north in modern day Russia.
The Crimean Khanate was vassal to the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottomans held those territories for a time but lost it to russia later, borders change over time
They held it through 1503 to 1556
@@Open__56 I am talking territories above Azov and Crimea . They show a way bigger territory, which was controlled by the Golden Horde at the time.
@@dantetre They were probably tributaries to the ottomans
There were quite a few mistakes and misinformation in this video.
Russia has always been a coward throughout history... during the time of Darius the Great. When Russia was attacked by the Persians, they abandoned the cities and fled. Until the weather got cold, Darius returned. During the time of Napoleon, they also fled... in During Hitler's time, he ran away... the best Russian soldier is just cold... not a brave or brave man. Just ice😂
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف Russia didn’t even exist in antiquity for you. Don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@sidp5381 alll know what i am saying...just u🤣
@@sidp5381 he's equating the ancient scythians with the russians. Territorially that's not really right, and linguistically and ethnically they were actually cousins of the Iranians. He got the narrative wrong too, Darius got his ass clapped by the scythians
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف lol gj making shit up like a loser
The Russians had no reason to conqerer Persia, they did however wanted persia as a puppet (because oil,etc), Annexing such a foreign land would be ridiculous.
Russia Wanted to Connect to Indian Ocean and Warm Waters
Also Iran Geopolitically Is Important
Russia wanted to conquer Persia to also be in a position to threaten British India, their main rival at that time
@@PatriotOfPersia I agree they wanted warm water ports but I'm just saying that Conqerering Persia would undoubtedly spark Revolt and resentment towards the Russians, Russia could get everything from Persia without the need to rule it. With a puppet regime the Russians newly built railways to warm ports would be much more safer and protected. They may take some land from Persia but no total conquest would ever have happen.
теплые порты не нужны, когда есть атомные ледоколы :)
@@lMrRedl dude wake up. Nuclear ice breakers are Russian answer in modern times. We are talking about historical 16-19th century where industrialization was just beginning. So back then ya russkies definitely needed warm water ports. Now they really doesn't with those m fkn nuclear ice breaker fleet
I strongly disagree with the content of your video, as they contain numerous inaccuracies. Following World War II, the Russians indeed harbored intentions of permanent occupation in Iran. However, due to the astuteness of Iranian politicians like Qavam and other statesmen, coupled with assistance from the United States, the Russians were ultimately expelled. Furthermore, Iran's historical resilience against foreign conquests, evidenced by its formidable empires, prevented not only Russia but also the Ottomans from subjugating it. Had Russia possessed the capability to conquer Iran, they would have done so, akin to their actions in Central Asia. Moreover, historical documents, such as the Tsarist letters of the Russian court, attest to Russia's perennial ambition to access the warm waters of the Persian Gulf, a goal that remained unattainable. your video overlooks these critical points and contains other factual errors as well.
Alexander the Great. The Mongols, the Seljuks and the Kwazimians conquered Persia.
The Ruskies accessed the Persian gulf through trade alliance.
“Had Russia possessed the capability to conquer Iran, they would have done so”.
- In case you didn’t notice, Russia has large borders and fronts to protect, from enemies on all sides.
And there were other Empires that would support Iran, to resist Russia’s expansion.
It’s not as simplistic and b/w as your brain.
Your own premises defeated your own daft conclusions.
@@flashgordon6670 A dumbass with 0 knowledge about history is trying to play it smart. Sure buddy. Cope harder.
Short answer 🇬🇧
That’s literally what I’m spamming under every comment saying Russia was „too weak“😂
Britain are coming in last 100 years
That is the answer bro, Britain and France helped the ottoman empire against Russia if not the whole okroman empire could have been Russian land and Britain was scared if Russia conquered Persia,it could distract it's attention in India
im so shocked how i sat through this and still found every last bit AMAZING
Very quality content❤❤❤
I am glad to see video about Georgia ⚘️ here is one part of Georgia history🌷
Russia has always been a coward throughout history... during the time of Darius the Great. When Russia was attacked by the Persians, they abandoned the cities and fled. Until the weather got cold, Darius returned. During the time of Napoleon, they also fled... in During Hitler's time, he ran away... the best Russian soldier is just cold... not a brave or brave man. Just ice😂
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف Absolute nonsense. It was the russians who beat hitler and the nazis all by themselves.
ძალიან დამცირებული რომაა ჩვენი როლი და ირანის პროვინციას რომ გვიწოდებენ ეგ არაფერია ჰო?
@@نیماصالحی-خ5ف Russia has never lost a war against another country except for Japan.
@@basil9528 მე ვენდობი ვიდეოში გადმოცემულ ინფორმაციას
What happened to the skenderbeg video part 2?
first Iranian viewer😎🇮🇷
Possibly first Irish viewer
Britain was defending Iran, Türkiye, and the Arabian Peninsula against Russia
But they did not expect that Russia's invasion would favor them. They would then be sane enemies
The current situation with Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Algeria is miserable
This means that the situation of the Central Asian republics under Russian occupation is better than the situation in the Middle East, which is free and independent from Russia, but it has become more hostile to the West because of religion.
I believe that the Russian occupation would have reduced Islamic tendencies in the Middle East
I'm not sure about that.
First, the situation in Iran today is the result of the incompetency and fanaticism of the current regime, unlike the arab countries whose ethnic, religious, and geopolitical issues are creating an unstable situation!
Second, Muslims from the countries under Russian/Soviet rule turn out to be as fanatic as their MidEast counterparts, like Chechens, Uzbeks, and Tajiks (as seen recently!)
Third, as the Soviets tried (and failed!) to take Afghanistan, a smaller country with far less population than Iran (and I'm not even talking about the rest of MidEast or Turkey!) in the 20th century with the tech advancements in weapons and vehicles and no direct interference of western countries, we can imagine what would it be like for them to try and conquer Iran (or the rest of the region for that matter). So that would be a logical hesitation on their part.
All in all, I think we can agree that it would not have been easy, wise, or viable for the Russians to take over and hold such a vast territory of fundamentally different people, and even if that happened it would not benefit the situation of the MidEast today, as it has not helped the situation in any Muslim country that was part of the Russian Empire or the USSR afterward.
I think the situation in Egypt is worse
@@rezasatan hhhhhhhh
@@liberalegypt What are you laughing at?? Because your people sleep in the cemetery??
@@SilverViper219
I don't know if you would be surprised if I told you that it is difficult for any European country to give appropriate treatment to the Middle East currently.
Because they need compulsory treatment to leave Islam
These methods follow the Middle Ages
Therefore, it is difficult and almost impossible for the Islamic world to change unless an infidel ruler is the one who tries to get rid of Islam from its roots, and this depends on the coincidence factor.
The European occupation could have benefited us during the time of the Crusaders if they had come in large numbers and implemented something similar to the Inquisition in the Middle East.
But European colonialism in the 19th century became uninterested in religion, and this does not help the Islamic world, because no matter how much democracy or modernity you give them, they will reject it because of Islam.
Britain and France wanted the Mideast for their own sphere of influence. They made it clear that Russian expansion into the Mideast would provoke WW0. That's also why the British and French allied with Turkey against Russia over Russian expansion in the Black Sea.
That's the only Victory turkey got over Russia and one more win I believe. But Britain betrayed turkey in WW1. They had a lot to do with ottoman rule being broken.
Iran always sided with a Christian country to destroy the Ottoman empire😅This is what led to the Muslim world losing their dominance in the world.
The British had a lot to do with these nations rebellion against Turkey.
Lies, do you know the west sided with the Muslims many times in history against Russia,but still Russia is standing
They stood with the ottoman empire against Russia several times
The Roman Empire couldn't defeat the Persians. Iran has a very complex geography, it is much more dangerous than Afghanistan. The Russians are not stupid enough to fight the Persians in the Iranian mountains.
It would take a lot of nations working together to defeat them
Why didn't they conquer Anatolia? why didn't they conquer Manchuria? why didn't they conquer Korea? why didn't they conquer Afghanistan?
Why didn't they conquer Eurasia?
Because Soviets invaded the space in 1957, which is still even after 70 years remaining unreachable for anatolians, persians, koreans, whatever🤣
England should've been more helpful to Persia instead of setting her up to fail...
The British never meant to help anybody but themselves man. Brits are responsible for breaking up the Turkish vassles in the early 1900s. They betrayed turkey. British are grimey people when it comes to allies.
Persia Iran: at least i am bigger then Ottoman which is Turkey now.
If Iran invades turkey, turks won't even stand a chance and Istanbul would be conquered with ease
Unless Nato comes in Turkeys help, then that would be a different case
@@KanuniSuleyman4857 Then Russia will come to Iran's aid
Imagine the USSR having control over the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz... The world today would have been completely different.
There would probably be a world war if they tried to conquer it
Russia and Iran are best friends forever, love from Indonesia 🇷🇺🤝🇮🇷❤🇮🇩
Russia and Iran can never be friends. if iran today have good relationship with Russia is because Iran isn't run by iranians, it runs by mullahs.
@Right-Wing-Meth-Squad What's that crappy flag behind the Zoroastrian Faravahar on your dp?
🇮🇷❤️🇮🇩
💩🤝💩❤💩
@@parsarustami774 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی شود توسط هخامنشیان اداره می شود😜 ایران نوسط ایرانی اداره نمی شود توسط اشکانیان اداره می شود😜 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی شود توسط خاندان ساسان داره می شود😜 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی سود توسط خاندان سامانی و بویه اداره می شود😜 ایران توسط ایرانی اداره نمی سود توسط صفوی ها اداره می شود😜 و تا اخر... هیج می فهمی چی داری میگی؟؟ واسه یه خارجی توضیح میدی اخوندا ایرانی نیستند😂😂😂 اونا از تحلیل های چرت پرت تو سر در نمیارن این تحلیل چرت پرت فقط تو ایران انتن میده😂😂😂
Nader Shah was one of the most important figures in this period and was not even mentioned!
I was just reading this part in Nader Shah's history
11:03 The USSR was reminded by the UN, but the US threatening to nuke the red army was the reason they left.
You completely Skipped "Nader Shah"
Legendary leader
Such a weird topic 😂 do a video of "why Persia didn't conquer Russia?" next
You are funny because there is none in history,it is rather why Russia didn't conquer Persia
7:12 why american called her Catherine not yekaterina?
Feel sorry for Persia as it's been played by so many nations over the years..
@@paulfri1569 good
Russian Iran is called Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, wdym?
They did. They conquered Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan which were Persia.
That's bc of persian/iranian people resilience after arab conquest we swear that we would never be surrender to foreign rulers even if they conquer us we will never break nor they can't destroy our culture and heritage
We'll you did surrender to the SELJUK TURKS MONGOLS TIMURID BRITAIN and SOVIETS
turks conquered you guys after lmao
😂😂😂😂 what the fuq
@@the3zoooz1 and they become persinate lol
@@blacksheep6174 said the truth troll
Cool video, but some of the color choices are less then ideal. Why did the USSR get nearly the same color as Britain and Persia a color so close to the neighbouring sea?
Because it's harder to drink vodka in places that the temperature is warmer than Russia.
Russia is #33 in the world by consumption of alcohol (first 10 are Moldova, Germany, Lithuania, Ireland, Spain, Uganda, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania). UK is #15 and US is #38. so, stop being ridiculous.
You've been brainwashed by propaganda. I don't drink vodka at all. And I have a lot of friends who don't drink much, and some don't drink at all.
You didn't mention the epic resistance of local people in the north against Russians and in the south against Brits. Their courage against invaders have been reoccured many times throughout history. The people of Gilan and Tabaristan fought many battles against Arab, Mongol and Ottoman attacking forces and won most; And one major reason was the extremely rough terrian of the Elborz mountains and also the creativity of the locals in utilizing the densely forested environment to build fortresses (like Rudkhan Castle). In early 1900s Russians succeeded in taking control of the region, using Caspian sea to penetrate though the naturally defenseless area, and Reza Shah helping Russians against the resistance of locals with the command of Mirza Kuchik, which resulted in a cruel control over the region; Young men got emasculated, women were r@ped and the state was robbed off its resources, particularly food and wood.
By the end of the 19th century, Britain's dominance became so pronounced that Khuzestan, Bushehr, and a host of other cities in southern Persia were occupied by Great Britain, and the central government in Tehran was left with no power to even select its own ministers without the approval of the Anglo-Russian consulates.
If not colonization, then what is it ?!
This is not colonialism. Colonialism was what happened in India. Who told you that Iranian ministers were appointed by England?? The Qajar government was weak, but not so much that ministers were appointed by the British.
@@rezasatan
1) Please, don't compare yourself with a gigantic land! India never changed its name, and India had always been culturally and technologically more advanced than your feudal kingdom.
2) Colonization has no final definition, so you can't use "one size fits all" approach. Colonization appears in various ways in different periods. Hence, Persia was de facto colony because of two reasons: a) Foreign powers' control over persian natural resources; b) Foreign powers' control over government
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5fIran never changed it's name, it was always Iran to Iranians. They changed it internationally because the Greeks never knew the name of the land. Just like Mesr was never Egypt to Egyptians and The Netherlands was never Holland to the Dutch. Also, it's interesting you mention this when India could become Bharat....
@@pouyajabbari3912
1) Egypt has always been and still is Egypt. Egyptians are the oldest nation in the world and unlike Iran, Egyptians are not in identity crisis
2) Netherlands is not an English word, it is indeed a Dutch word. I have lived there, and all Dutch native speakers called their land and landguage "Nederland". Holland is just one region in the Nederlands
3) Bharat is just a myth invented some religious nationalists, while this movement represents only tiny part of diverse multibillion nation. So, India will never change its name and accept that you can't compare your middle eastern kingdom with India.
4) Iran means land of Ayran people. Aryan race is an obsolete historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping. However, anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept. So, how come persia come Iran for its people, while "aryan myth" is relatively new phenomenon?
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f What are you talking about? Not one Egyptian in the history of Egypt has ever called it Egypt.
And what do you mean by Iran has an identity crisis???
That is exactly what I'm saying, foreigners who call the Netherlands "Holland" are wrong. I don't think you are reading my post properly.... please read.
You don't need to tell me what Iran means. I'm pointing out that you know nothing if you think Iran changed it's name.
Persia is everlasting. Let's put it this way...the oldest fortress in Russia is Persian....
Fortress of VI century
There were a LOT of mistakes in this video so good job on that
*There was mistake. Everyone makes them
@@PastInNumbers i wrote this comment at 5 am so yeah
@@PastInNumbers also those were not small mistakes
They completely messed up the timeline
It’s really *there are now that I’m rly thinking about it. So don’t worry I was wrong as well
@@PastInNumbers no i edited the comment
either way ty for pointing out my grammar mistake
Why didn't Russia conquer China?
That's why 😊
North of Aras River is called Aran and Shirvan in the historical timeline you showed. The name of Azerbaijan was stolen during the Soviet era.
Lies.Persian false propoganda
@@Azerchayforever221
Persian Propaganda For What ?? It's Clear The Name Of Azerbaijan is Stolen From Iran, Iran officially sued Lenin twice for this theft in 1918 and 1920
Azerbaijan is pahlavi persian name. Adur Payegan (Fire keeper)
Iran and Azerbayjan republic are one nation and one history. In fact russians seperated us.
@@Azerchayforever221 Iran va Azerbayjan jumhuiati bir millat va bir tarixdir. Ruslar bizi ayirdi.
Persia absolutely held their interest - it was simply not logistically feasible for them.
The other major linguistic shift in Iran seems to have been triggered by Turkic tribes migrating to Iran. They have played a major role in in politics by establishing Turkic empires such as Ghaznavids (977-1186 AD) and the Seljuks (1037-1134 AD). Still, in this period, Turkic variaties were not the dominant language even in the major cities and regions such as Azerbaijan (Abolghasemi 2019). Nevertheless, the establishment of these Turkic governments resulted in the migration of more Turkic tribes to Iran. The increase in migration of Turkic tribes, coupled with the rise in their political and military power, created a wave of linguistic shift in the Iranian plateau, especially in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th ceuntries, in the 14th ceuntry, Persian and other Iranian languages were still dominant (Mustawfi [ca. 1339 AD] 2002) in Tabriz, Maragheh, and Zanjan. Due the succession of Turkic empires such as Timurids (1370-1506 AD), Safavids (1501-1722), Afsharids (1736-1796 AD), and Qajars (1789-1925), and more local monarchies such as Aq Qoyunlu (1378-1501 AD) and Qara Qoyunlu (1374-1468 AD), whose rule primarily concentrated in the northwest of historic Iran including Azerbaijan, a linguistic shift to Azeri in some cities and regions (e.g., Azerbaijan) led to gradual decline of the other languages (i.e., prominent among them Persian) in many sociolinguistic domains.
(Iranian and Minority Languages at Home and in Diaspora - page 180,81)
No major language shifting , still 80% Iranic speakers and 61% Persians ,only a minority of 18% turkic speakers.
**One Major Error**
Persia was divided into THREE spheres of economic influence in 1907. The center remained Neutral under Iranian influence.
Because they couldn't
After WW1, Reza Shah was the leader of Iran, only after the end of WW2 did his son, Mohammad Reza Shah game control. The Zand dynasty was also much larger, controlling parts of khorasan and all of Azerbaijan, hence the territory of the Qajars when they took power. Instead of looking at western sources, check out some maps and books from the Iranian libraries, I believe they would know more about their territories than other people
Oh look, no Ukraine 🤷♂️
🤦♂️
Ukraine did not exist))
Isn't that something...
They actually tried and did capture most of the lands of conquered from Persia which was and is now Azerbaijan and several other countries. Despite the fact Majority land known as Azerbaijan remained in occupied by Persia and now Iran.
Russian Empire seemed invincible historically. But the reality is, all countries conquered by were tribes.
Polish tribes( including most of Eastern Europe) swedish(finish) tribes, Chinese tribes, etc. is crazy
And if it wasn’t for the uk, Persia would’ve fallen in no time, they were literally occupied for centuries and not fully colonized because of outside disagreements, same situation as siam
What u mean by strength? Strength is a relative term. Those countries were weak , that's why Russia was able to take over them. Btw, Russian empire was unable to take over Chukotka and Chukchi tribes through military actions.
@@maxthetube8466
@@maxthetube8466 don't forget the Napoleon France tribe.
@user-mm7zi4ue7d is that supposed to be ironic
Romans not conquering Iran is due to the differences in religions and in trading.
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
The reason why panturks want to claim all the races is bc that they are in fact without an official identity and state
Donald Trump
@@shadowborn1456
In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74
(Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.)
North Azerbaijan must return to it's motherland Iran, inshallah soon 🇮🇷🤝🇦🇲
10:41 this is the picture of “Mohammad Reza Shah-e Pahlavi” the son of Reza Shah-e Pahlavi.
Both were two respectful Shah of Iran❤
Both were sons of dehqan🤣 pretty much legitimate rulers for persia
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5fIt is true that they were weak, but they are still a part of our history.
@@rezasatan Nobody is calling them weak or powerful. The question here is about their background! Pahlavi family was just farmers from far away Mazandaran. Pahlavi family had no royal blood . pahlavi dynasty is just illegitimate to rule in Persia due to their illegitimate take on power!
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5fI am not in favor of them. They did services to Iran, but the losses of these two kings were more than their services.
@@rezasatan Okay, sorry about that. However, it is not accurate to blame only these two kings in these losses. They were not aliens. They were iranians. Iranian society brought them up. They were the fruits of their own environment. These kings didn't deliberately fail Iran. They were just incapable of good governance and management. This only blame can go for the land where they grew up. Had Iran possessed a great education system, or powerful economy, or capable generation of political establishment, these kings could have performed better.
Even Russia or England had stupid kings or Prime ministers, but it didn't bring the downfall of their empire
It’s amazing that Iran and some few other countries still exist after thousands of years!
I am proud that Iran has no " Independence day " because it has never been colonised.
Iran has been colonized the same way Siam did, surviving in technicality all the while being occupied for half a century
If you wanna call not being able to take any Decisions without permission from outside powers for decades „independence“ go aheD
1935
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5fOn this date, the name of Persia was changed to Iran😐
@@rezasatan There had been no country called "iran" on world map before 1935!!!
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f What do you smoke, Iran was called always Iran by Iranians. Greeks called our country Persis (or Persia) and European adopted it.
Where is Nader Shah in this story, who took a lot of lands from Russia? Anyway thnx for this vid!!!
Distortion of history
Q: Why didn't the Russians Conquer Persia?
A: Because Ottoman Empire is in the way
The ottomans were not the problem, the uk was
Russia dealt with any Turkish threat by 1800, after that it was the uk who tried to keep Russia out of the Middle East to secure india
@@maxthetube8466 this was on the later part when Ottoman weakened significantly and can no longer oppose the other major power
Crap! Russians Cossacks were already marching towards Constantinople and Isfahan simultaneously
The king of Iran during the WWII was Reza Shah, not his son, Mohammad Reza, as stated in the video.
This list of qualities reads like a catalogue of all that he found wanting in the Persians he met.29 His view was that Persia had no real nobility; by that he ruled out the Turkman military élite which had monopolized all the pro- vincial governments and most of the important offices since Safavid rule began at the beginning of the sixteenth century. He was contemptuous of their aristocratic pretensions; their coarse, ignorant behaviour confirmed their origins as mere soldiers of fortune and Turkish at that. Persians-real Persians who lived under that intolerable subjection, and could trace their descent back beyond the Turkman supremacy-he saw in a different light.30 This was not simply a reflection of della Valle's snobbish concern with pedigree; there was still a marked distinction between these different elements in Safavid society.
Pietro della Valle: The Limits of Perception J. D. Gurney Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Vol. 49, No. 1, In Honour of Ann K. S. Lambton (1986), pp. 103-116 (14 pages) Published By: Cambridge University Press
As it has become more clear by the recent declassification of US Diplomatic data (the Brits are still refusing to declassify their data about their role) and the recent books written about the number of Iranians killed by the famine induced by the Brits and Russians the estimates of the dead range between 7 to 9 million dead Iranians (not the two million mentioned in this video). Also many more died due to the Spanish flu that Russian and British troops brought with them.
This essay examines Nader Shah Afshar's attempts to legitimize his rule by dint of his Turkic background. Over the course of his rise to power and reign, Nader consistently argued that his Afshar and Turkman affiliations granted him the right to rule over Iranian territory as an equal to his Ottoman, Mughal, and Central Asian contemporaries. Aided by his chief secretary and court historian, Mīrzā Mahdī Astarābādī, Nader's assertions paralleled those found in popular narratives about the history of Oghuz Turks in Islamic lands. This element of Nader's political identity is often overlooked by historians because it did not outlive the brief Afsharid period, but it demonstrates how the Safavid collapse led to the circulation of dynamic new claims to Iranian and Islamic political power.
Karamustafa, A. (2022). The Hero of “the Noble Afshar People”: Reconsidering Nader Shah's Claims to Lineage and Legitimacy. Iranian Studies, 1-15
Chatgpt ass response
Nader Shah demanded to be addressed as the king of Persia and in his correspondence with other kings signed king of Persia and promoted Persian language as the sole official language of his kingdom, then of whatever ethnic background he might have been , he did not want to have anything to do with Turkic identity .
@@majidbineshgar7156Thats a lie. They were pretty aware that they are Turkic. He used persian identity to control non Turkic people of the empire. But they did not ditched Turkish identity
@@majidbineshgar7156 again pseudo history 🌝
To justify his stance and claim a common heritage with the Ottomans, he invoked the history of Chinggis Khan: In the time of Chingiz Khan, the leaders of the Turkman tribes, who had left the land of Turan and migrated to Iran and Anatolia, were said to be all of one stock and one lineage. At that time, the exalted ancestor of the dynasty of the ever-increasing state [the Ottoman Empire] headed to Anatolia and our ancestor settled in the provinces of Iran. Since these lineages are interwoven and interconnected, it is hoped that when his royal highness learns of them, he will give royal consent to the establishment of peace between [us]. In a letter presented to the Ottomans after his assumption of the title of shah in 1736 Nadir claimed legitimacy simply as a Turk, stating that “kingship is the ancestral right of the exalted Turkmen tribe.” Thus the rulers of the regional states - the Chinggisid khans of Khiva, the Timurid/Chinggisid Mughals, the Ottomans, and Nadir himself, all had equal legitimacy.
Furthermore, in a deliberate attempt to reverse the abandonment of the glorification of Genghis-Khanid descent as a ''branch of the tree of unbelief'' by Ismacil, Nadir tried to revive the pre-Safavid Turkman tribal principles of legitimacy, which had not been given currency since the fifteenth century. In a letter to the Ottoman grand vizier, Nadir states that the dignitaries of Iran gathered in the plain of Mughan "elected our august Majesty to kingship and sovereignty which are the hereditary prerogatives of the noble Turkman tribe." Mulla cAli Akbar, his Mulla-bashi, opens his pan-Islamic sermon in Kufah with the eulogy of Nadir not only as the shadow of God on earth, but also as the scion of the Turkman tree and heir to Genghis Khan. However, after Nadir's death, Safavid descent, often with a marked emphasis on its religious character, remained the most viable ground of legitimacy for rulership.
Expectation of the Millennium : Shiìsm in History Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. State University of New York Press pp.194
@@majidbineshgar7156but he was turk ruling persia. Not native ethnic persian
they tried during ww2. Britain sent troops.
They tried multiple times, there the uk supported Persia(and later occupied half of Iran)
During ww2 they jointly occupied it by an agreement
@@maxthetube8466Go to Ukraine, baby
Persian Persian Empire 🇮🇷🇮🇷❤❤
Isn’t Persia insulting to Iranians
Yes, I am Spanish, I use English more than a translator, unfortunately, in the translation, when we write in Iran, it is translated by Persians, the reason is that in the ancient past, it used to say the west of Persia.@@maxthetube8466
@@maxthetube8466Until now, many times the people of Iran have warned me to correct the translation. There are many ethnic groups in Iran. We are all Iran together
@@maxthetube8466The Soviet Union does not insult Russia??
@@rezasatan that’s a love hate relationship, they hate the system but just want to be a superpower again
would love to see a series on the kingdom of georgia from the quest of the golden fleece all the way to the country of georgia it is now.
Imagine if Persia and the Ottomans unified. They would’ve been unstoppable In the middle east
I think they would be better Allies than a united country
They would’ve collapsed under the differences in culture and sheer size, the Turks were already struggling to keep their nation together by the late 1700
And also the Shia and Sunni difference would be problematic
if the Ottomans and Russian were allied, there will be no more Persia...
Interesting to note that the cross-roads of these long sought after territories is historic Armenia, which explains the root causes of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey.
Fath All Shah seems to have aimed at ruling in accordance with those concepts of Iranian Shahanshahl which the age of the Safavids had come to symbolize. He did not possess the sacral charisma enjoyed by the descendants of Shah IsmaiI I, but he stressed his family's links with the heroic past of the Oghuz, with the migrations of the Turkmens in the days of the Il-Khans and the Aq Quyunlu, and with the age of Qizilbash hegemony. Court chroniclers lent their eloquence to the historicity of this tribal heritage. Court chroniclers lent their eloquence to the historicity of this tribal heritage.
Hambly, G. (1991). IRAN DURING THE REIGNS OF FATH ‘Alī SHāH AND MUHAMMAD SHāH. In P. Avery, G. Hambly, & C. Melville (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Iran (The Cambridge History of Iran, pp. 144-173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Qājār dynasty, descended from a tribe whose early traces in Iran date to the eleventh century, held the reins of power until 1925. Much like the Safavids, they were Turkmen and spoke Turkish: their ethnic group of about 10,000 people led a nomadic life in northern Iran when it conquered the principalities that had fought over the Iranian plateau after the death of Nāder Shāh (1747).
Richard, Y. (2019). Iran under the Qajars. In Iran: A Social and Political History since the Qajars (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. İ
you guys are funny... claiming Iranians, Arabs, Greeks, Geogians, Armainas and even Russians to be turk. a -_- guy is claiming a o_o guy to be turk. :)))
about safavids:
An Iranian dynasty rooted in the Sufi Safavid order[34] founded by Kurdish sheikhs,[35] it heavily intermarried with Turkoman, [36] Georgian,[37] Circassian, [38][39] and Pontic Greek[40] 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 sources: Matthee, Rudi. (2005). The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500-1900. Princeton University Press. p. 18; "The Safavids, as Iranians of Kurdish ancestry and of nontribal background (...)". Savory, Roger. (2008). "EBN BAZZAZ". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. VIII, Fasc. 1. p. 8. "This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams." Amoretti, Biancamaria Scarcia; Matthee, Rudi. (2009). "Safavid Dynasty". In Esposito, John L. (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford University Press. "Of Kurdish ancestry, the Safavids started as a Sunni mystical order (...)" Roemer, H.R. (1986). "The Safavid Period" in Jackson, Peter; Lockhart, Laurence. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge University Press. pp. 214, 229 Blow, David (2009). Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B.Tauris. p. 3 Savory, Roger M.; Karamustafa, Ahmet T. (1998) ESMA`IL I SAFAWI. Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol. VIII, Fasc. 6, pp. 628-636 Ghereghlou, Kioumars (2016). HAYDAR SAFAVI. Encyclopaedia Iranica
@@amir7890 scholars like Matthee for example switched and accepted Safavids as Turkic origin most of your sources are outdated and unreliable because ibn bazzaz is not a evidence while all medieval sources wrote that they were Turkic even ibn bazzaz said that they came from Khorasan this would already debunk his claim 🤣 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.)
@@amir7890 This list of qualities reads like a catalogue of all that he found wanting in the Persians he met.29 His view was that Persia had no real nobility; by that he ruled out the Turkman military élite which had monopolized all the pro- vincial governments and most of the important offices since Safavid rule began at the beginning of the sixteenth century. He was contemptuous of their aristocratic pretensions; their coarse, ignorant behaviour confirmed their origins as mere soldiers of fortune and Turkish at that. Persians-real Persians who lived under that intolerable subjection, and could trace their descent back beyond the Turkman supremacy-he saw in a different light.30 This was not simply a reflection of della Valle's snobbish concern with pedigree; there was still a marked distinction between these different elements in Safavid society.
Pietro della Valle: The Limits of Perception J. D. Gurney Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Vol. 49, No. 1, In Honour of Ann K. S. Lambton (1986), pp. 103-116 (14 pages) Published By: Cambridge University Press
@@amir7890 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.
@@amir7890 It is the truth... You guys try to erase Turkish rule till today and call everyone iranian or persian...now that is funny.
Qajar was the weakest dynasty in history of Iran that why we lost to Russia
That country was called "Qajar kingdom", and most of the population were Turkic. Besides they had no sovereignty over Turkmanistan. Persia was erased during Alexander's inbasion.
current self proclaimed Persians are actually TAJIK immigrants brought to the area by Mahmoud Afghan during Afghan invasion and fall of Safavid Turks.
It was called Iran not qajar kingdom. plus persia didn't erased after alexander. haven't you read about parthians and sassanids? Also f**k off with your turkic thing
The Name Of Country Was " Memalke Mahrose e Iran"( Sublime States Of Iran) and Qajar Was Name Of Dynasty and Majority of Population were Persian!!!!
Who were Sasanians, Samanids, Buyids, Safavids, Afsharids, Zands if Persia was destroyed by Alexander??
Alexander never invaded Persia.
@@KanuniSuleyman4857sasanians iranians, zands iranians safavids turks afsar & gayjar also turks the turkish empires belong to azerbeycan & the iranian empires of zand belong to kurdistan, sasanians are both belong to kurdistan & iran
>Why didn't Rome conquer Persia?
>Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia?
>Why didn't the Russians conquer Persia?
Sounds like Knowledgia is really upset that so many people missed out on conquering Persia.
How did greeks wipe persia off the surface of Earth?
How did Arabs cavalry swallow Persia?
How did Seljuks conquer Persia?
How did Timurids dominate Persia over two centuries?
How did Stalin invade Persia in 5 days?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f I don't understand why you felt the need to make this comment.
@@franciscoflamenco A good question😁
1) Just wanted to show if the channel is so committed to cherry picking some mediocre powers who failed to conquer Persia, it does make Persia unreachable. Even Stalin conquered it within 5 days.
2) I don't think channel is disappointed, they were attempting indirectly to glorify Persia, which actually served as Karavansaray for great empires.
3) Actually one would need a degree in failure not to be able to invade Persia
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f So you just have a hate-boner for Persia? I'm not interested in whatever political view of history you want to promote here, but I'd like to leave you with a piece of advice. The entire point of this video, and the other ones I referenced to in my _joke,_ is that it's surprising that these powerful Empires didn't manage to conquer Persia at any point during their long histories. They operate under the presupposition that they should have been able to conquer Persia. In other words, they _agree_ with your view that Persia is weaker than these powers. The way you express your views is clearly biased and more likely to have people end up disagreeing with your view, so I think you're better off letting the videos do the talking undisturbed.
@@franciscoflamenco 1) There is no reason for me to hate or love Persia. I just showed than many other Empires comfortably swallowed Persia in its entirety.
2) My point here is that no nation has the right to claim to be superior than others.
Persia, Peru, Panama, Palau or Poland. They are all equal. None of them is superior than others.
They couldn’t, too big of a fish too swallow.
Stalin is giggling behind you😂 His Red Army invaded persia until 1947
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f And how long did it last genius? Even his puppet regimes in northern Iran after withdrawing from Iran like republic of Mahabad etc was crushed by the Shah in less than a year.
@@outlawfly664 The partition of this new state, Iran, was seriously considered by the Soviet Union and the United States in the years following World War II. However, the two superpowers were unable to reach an agreement, and the partition plan was eventually abandoned. Modern day persia is just a lucky to exist only because two giant sharks couldn't agree on.
@@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f They (especially Russia) literally tried to partition Iran as i clearly mentioned and it's documented but failed miserably, try harder. Whataboutism and assumptions doesn't carry any substance of the real outcome unfortunately for you .
@@outlawfly664 It is not a failure ! It is an agreed plan of two giant predators to leave the lamb and withdraw. Don't try to take credit for parsian nationalism out of this Soviet-American disagreement over persia.
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia? I feel like it's worth to point it out that other divisions of Caucasus were more pronounced back then then those
Persia is, as a land, VERY hard to conquer. Lots of mountains there.
He spoke as though the Russians wouldn't have hesitated to conquer Iran if they had the capability, akin to their conquests in Central Asia, especially given their strategic interest in gaining access to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf
Nomadic horseback tribes were historically the only people who conquered Persia with relative ease, but moving a modern military through the Iranian plateau now seems like a total nightmare. The Anglo-Soviet invasion worked cuz 2 great military powers (who already surrounded Iran) surprised attacked & the Iranian government didn’t even put up much of a fight in the first place
@@essaadeel3676 the Achaemenid conquest was not considered “easy” by any historian, nor by Alexander himself or any of his generals at the time, Alexander managed to unite all the Greek states, & invaded the extremely overstretched & decaying Persian empire that was beginning to crumble decades before hand. It was a remarkable military achievement that no Greek state could ever replicate ever again, & yet Alexanders empire broke apart the moment he died, not too different than any other nomadic empire that conquered Persia.
In the late 1800s Iran fell if HARD, corruption and all, so Russia could’ve swept them if it wasn’t for the uk
Later it came under joint occupation for half a century
@@essaadeel3676Macedonians not Greeks Calling Alexander Greek is the biggest lie in history. Even the Greek historians and even the Iranian Persian and Islamic sources did not mention that Alexander was Greek as far as I know.
long live Persians, the descendants of Medai, Noah's grandchildren
Safavid🇦🇿
Our History Is Your Dream
@@PatriotOfPersia Don't cry Safavid Azerbaijan empire Turk dynasty
@@IlkinMemmedov-cy3hc
Why Should I Cry? Even name of Azerbaijan is stolen From Iran, Even Safavids had Greek Roots but nothing from Turks
Coca cola 1886🇺🇸
Azerbayjan 1918🇷🇺
@@IlkinMemmedov-cy3hc😂😂
Sefevilar 🇮🇷 Iranli idi. Hatta Iran va Azerbayjan jumhuiati bir millat va bir tarixdir. Ruslar bizi ayirdi.
Muslims living in the Russian territory and Christians living in the Ottoman territory? What is that about? 1:42
It was never persia, those states were Safavid, Afsharidc Qajar. All of them were turkic oghuz Azerbaijani🇦🇿 tribes that ruled the state
They are minority intermarried with the local persians
Calling safavid and afsharid azerbaijani is like calling soviet union georgian bacuase stalin was georgian 💀average panturk logic
Then i guess Iran is not Iran today to given the fact that the supreme ruler Ali Khaminei is ethnic Azeri according to your logic? Even the former queen of Iran Farah Diba was Azeri to, so am i, i don't recall any of us referring ourselves as Turks or Iran as a Turkic state. Pan-Turks 😂🤣
@@ashkanh4276 Bingo, what can you expect from pan-toorks? They are a laughingstock on the internet 😂🤣
@@ashkanh4276 no, the name Soviets is not a name of a tribe, so the ruler can be anyone. But the name “afshar” is name of oghuz turkic tribe. Afshar turk created the empire and it ended with him, ofc the empire is turkic,
The powerful empires of Rome, Byzantium, Ottoman, Russia.... could not conquer Iran, but Iran was conquered in a strange way by the emerging powers (Arabs and Afghans), it is really strange.
reasons: arabs conquered Iran becasue that time Iran was busy fighting within itself which led to 32 different kings in the last 10 years before arabs invasion.
Afghans also took Iran because shah sultan hosein of persia decided no to fight them untill afghans were already at the gates of capital city
@@Noobmaster-sh5jnArabs destroyed the Sassanids when they united under the banner of Islam
Historical mistakes at 7:54 the map said Afshariads, while Afshariads were between Zandyans and Qajar.
Поход полковника Карягина против персов в 1805-ом году не похож на реальную военную историю. Он похож на приквел к "300 спартанцев" (40 000 персов, 500 русских, ущелья, штыковые атаки, "Это безумие! - Нет, блять, это 17-ый егерский полк!"). Золотая страница русской истории, сочетающая бойню безумия с высочайшим тактическим мастерством, восхитительной хитростью и ошеломительной русской наглостью.
Russians Conquer Persia in 1806 (partially)
And in 1941 (partially and temporarily)
Because Persia stronk 💪🏼🦁☀️
It is more accurate to say Russia tried but couldn't. There were people living in persia who fought back.
It’s all but a Russian colony now really and clearly propagandistically has forgotten that Russia was its main colonial oppressor.
Guess what. They did, Putin has it at no cost.
Iran was ruled, during WW2, by Reza Khan, the father of the Shah that is pictured.
reza shah was replaced by his son during the war