Why didn't the Russians Conquer Persia?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2024
- Why didn't the Russians Conquer Persia?
♦Consider supporting our work and Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @knowledgia
♦Consider supporting us on Patreon :
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Our general knowledge channel: / @masteringknowledge
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
Big Thank you to:
Николай Димитров, Tobias Tron, Mahmoud Shahin, Justin Bourke, Augustus Caesar, Chaim laser
Joshua Kerr, Slayer, John McKeon ,Michael Morale,Rory,Smithy3371,
The Angry Celt
♦Sources :
Rudeness and Revilement: Russian-Iranian Relations in the Mid-Seventeenth Century - Rudi Matthee
Anti-Ottoman Politics and Transit Rights: The Seventeenth-Century Trade in Silk between Safavid Iran and Muscovy - Rudi Matthee
From Civilizing Mission to Defensive Frontier: The Russian Empire's Changing Views of the Caucasus (1801-1864) - Mikail Mamedov
#History #Documentary #Russian
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 Shah (his son and heir), not Reza Shah
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
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
Btw you mistakingly put the afsharids after the Qajars which is wrong the Qajars came after the afsharids
U r wrong 😂😂😂
Go google it, babu 😂😂😂
@@tonyantonio8956 dadash, I'm literally from there, Afsharids were before Qajars
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 prove it, share some link.
@@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
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😂
@@user-xr7bv8cl3p 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
@@user-xr7bv8cl3p lol gj making shit up like a loser
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.
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
@@user-xr7bv8cl3p 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
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😂
@@user-xr7bv8cl3p Absolute nonsense. It was the russians who beat hitler and the nazis all by themselves.
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
@@spinxeditz5448 that was the first and last time they ever did.
Everyone gangsta until Ea Nasir conquered Mars in 1700 BCE
@@parsarustami774 arabs casually did it hy mistake.
But Ya if Ottomans and Byzantium struggled it is a good idea to not even try. Not to mention ottomans are next door and Persia hleps them fighting ottomans.
What happened to the skenderbeg video part 2?
Very quality content❤❤❤
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.
Nice work
Alternate video title: Caucusus History during the Ottoman, Persian, and Russian Empires💀
I was just reading this part in Nader Shah's history
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
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.
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.
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.
@@TRLHistoryin a way.
7:55 bro that Fat Ali Shah Kajar is suspicios bro
Short answer 🇬🇧
That’s literally what I’m spamming under every comment saying Russia was „too weak“😂
Can’t believe I’m this early I thought it was a notification I missed
Our Georgian king had done preaty bad choice while choosing russia, i know he did that to help his country but when attacks from all side one from ottoman and some from persia russia did not cared shit the fall of tbilisi was caused by several offensives done by not only persia but ottomans too and after that when our king left capital to defeat ottomans even so being massivly outnumbred he requested help from which they did and sent army but that freaking army left us in the middle of battle field and attacked Tbilisi they were not able to take bc for tyat time they were defeated by 600 man who had been late to join the king during battle and were at Tbilisi we won that battle later and fall of tbilisi as he said was caused by traitors bc that time persians were told that georgian had around 10k men and even so they were around 33k they dont wanted to fight and were leaving and that time traitirs catched up to persians and tild them that we had only 3-2k men
0:47 I'm sure the Ottomans did not have that much land in Russia.
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
@@Open89182 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
They did conquer Tayikistan, which prior to 1500 was part of Persian empires
And now they use the Cyrillic script to write Farsi and are russianized
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
@@user-pc3ts8yc5b 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
@@user-pc3ts8yc5b They were Persianised
That doesn't mean they were Persian
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
PAUL?! 😂
That's me 😅
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?
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.
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.
@@user-ox5kw7mz5r
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
@@user-pc3ts8yc5bIran 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?
@@user-pc3ts8yc5b 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.
meanwhile Georgians trying to defend their country and themselves 🥲🇬🇪
Such a weird topic 😂 do a video of "why Persia didn't conquer Russia?" next
idk bro why didnt they
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
@@EdarMustafayev
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.
@@EdarMustafayev Iran va Azerbayjan jumhuiati bir millat va bir tarixdir. Ruslar bizi ayirdi.
how did he made this map
Muslims living in the Russian territory and Christians living in the Ottoman territory? What is that about? 1:42
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.
Historical mistakes at 7:54 the map said Afshariads, while Afshariads were between Zandyans and Qajar.
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.
9:15 "Turkmen chay"(chai = tea) is actually not a bad tea.
chay also means small river in Turkish. there should be some river near area.
0:39 Major Powers? Is that Austin's military cousin? 😮 HuH?!!!🤓😎✌🏻🇬🇧
Why does the sound make my right eardrum spasm and shudder audibly? I pause and it stops. I play and it starts again. How annoying.
yo? go to a doctor
@@JackAtlassAnd say what, 'when i watch Knowledgia's videos on CZcams, my ear reacts to their audio settings'...?
@@biancabotanica yeah go to the doctor, that shouldn’t be happening
@@JackAtlassit doesn't usually happen 😅- just here. I think Knowledgia needs to see an audio doctor tbh
@@biancabotanica You, in all of the comments are the only one, get that checked out
Thank you for your useful video and its content. However, I need to mention something. There was no Azerbaijan in the north of Aras River. This name was given to this part later by Russian. The one and only Azerbaijan is located in nowadays Iran. Thus, when you review the history you should use historical name of that land. The north of Aras had other name during the history like Shervan, Aran, Albani, and Ganjeh to name but a few. This is a continuous Russian-Politics to trigger independence movements in Real Azerbaijan.
One of the countries in Asia, namely Indonesia, has very abundant natural wealth. There are even several European countries that once colonized Indonesia, but Persia did not dare to colonize Indonesia.
Where is Nader Shah in this story, who took a lot of lands from Russia? Anyway thnx for this vid!!!
8:00
He's showing the second Shah of the Qajar Dynasty while 'Afsharids" on the map. Lmao
Are we supposed to learn from these people lol
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.
Feel sorry for Persia as it's been played by so many nations over the years..
10:37 AKA Phil Leotardo. 😉
You completely Skipped "Nader Shah"
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
It was on point until you skipped great Nader shah who is literally called Persian napoleon and after that drew fathali shah who is agha Mohamed khan brothers son, sterritory as afsharid. You literally said he was qajar but ruined this very good educational video. Also some minor problems in ottoman map. I don't no anything about Russias history at that time so there might be something wrong too. Also. Keep on good job and I may can help you for coming videos.
There is a little bit of mispronounces and some not so popular narrations which are not wrong but not the main causes and stories. I can help with that to if you want.
**One Major Error**
Persia was divided into THREE spheres of economic influence in 1907. The center remained Neutral under Iranian influence.
Persian was always subdued by great invaders and leftovers their's outcast groups ,especially in grazed landscaper of Zagros mountain chains sides.
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
@@user-ox5kw7mz5r 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.
They did. They conquered Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan which were Persia.
first Iranian viewer😎🇮🇷
Possibly first Irish viewer
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
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
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
nice cover image. the russians were just waiting for the right time 🎉
Cossacks have nothing to do with Teimuraz I of Kakheti. It`s true however that he was forced to leave his kingdom and move to western Georgia because Shah Abbas I devastated Kakheti on four occasions between 1614-1617. The casus belli of those devastating campaigns was the annihilation of Shah Abbas I`s 15,000 men strong army at the head of Ali Quli Khan, in the Battle of Tsitsamuri in 1615. Before that, Teimuraz I had masterminded and executed a rebellion against the Iranians and massacred the Iranian garrison stationed in the Alaverdi Monastery.
Teimuraz I alongside Daud Khan Undiladze massacred 700 Iranians (Qajars) and then proceeded to ransack and devastat eastern Iran; namely Barda and Karabakh (modern day Azerbaijan). Upon hearing the news, Shah Safi I became furious and sent a huge army at the head of Rostom Khan aka Khosrow Mirza to dethrone Teimuraz I and occupy the throne of Kartli, which he did.
Persia is everlasting. Let's put it this way...the oldest fortress in Russia is Persian....
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.
Believe what the British say? LOL! What could go wrong? 😅😅
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
Viva IRANSHAHR
11:03 The USSR was reminded by the UN, but the US threatening to nuke the red army was the reason they left.
England should've been more helpful to Persia instead of setting her up to fail...
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.
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
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.
Because I said so.
Romans not conquering Iran is due to the differences in religions and in trading.
It kinda did...The persian cossack brigade was basicly the pretorian guard of iran until the Russian civil war.
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??
@@user-ox5kw7mz5r that’s a love hate relationship, they hate the system but just want to be a superpower again
1804 austria hungary?
Name...
Man you do many mistakes there like you completely deleted Nader Shah from the history of these provinces and make fath ali afshar? He war qajar
I see you also have funny hats...
this video is already wrong by the premise, unless you mean lands inhabited by ethnic persians
the country of azerbaijan used to be considered as integral to Iran as South Azerbaijan before Russia conquered.
Russia also conquered Tajikistan which are practically Persians that just migrated east.
Because Russia didn't play HOI4
It's called the Great Game.
👍👍
Interesting that Armenia was under influence of Persians/Iran as they are Christian whereas Azerbaijan is Islamic. I’m assuming they are were playing off each other’s religion.
It wasn't because of a lack of trying.😅🎉❤
the question u should ask why didnt persia conquer rusia
Same reason iraq didn't conquer Iran our geographic helps when classical army fails we can use irregular fight just like a 300 person general hold Alexander afterwards Alexander didn't want to kill him
11:37 / 11:39
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.
Nah.. the area is one of the main regional powers of Gunpowder Empires (Ottomans, Safavid and Mughals). Invading it is costly and not worth it.
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)
Timurids were Mongolic
No major language shifting , still 80% Iranic speakers and 61% Persians ,only a minority of 18% turkic speakers.
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
Because conquering the whole world is impossible to everyone.
The soviet did it in wW2
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.
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
@@user-pc3ts8yc5bIt is true that they were weak, but they are still a part of our history.
@@user-ox5kw7mz5r 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!
@@user-pc3ts8yc5bI am not in favor of them. They did services to Iran, but the losses of these two kings were more than their services.
@@user-ox5kw7mz5r 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
Clearly you have never hear of Nino Belov,Serbo Makeridov,Aleksandar Karanović,and slavic aryan migration in 3500BC or 2008 according to slavic aryan calendar.Otherwise you could notice russian conection with Persia,the same way as other smart people did.
Quite a lot of mistakes in this video
simply put they couldnt coz it wasnt easy