Which dynasty of Persia was the most prosperous?
Which dynasty of Persia was the most prosperous?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Achaemenids had the most wealth by far but the Sassanids were probably the most developed Persia ever was, imho.
>Sassanids were probably the most developed Persia ever was, imho.
Developed as in?
Idk
Their trade goods reached as far as japan
What do you think, you homosexual? They were the most urbanized, administratively and militarily centralized, their traded goods and products went all over the world far further then anything the Achaemenids, Seleucids, or Arsacids/Parthians produced; their legacy on religion and language is also the most impactful for Persian people.
The Achaemenid dynasty was the largest in both area and population
Safavids. Their achievement is taking a battered land (turko-mongol invasions) and somehow turning it into a prosperous state. They also reunified all of the core territory and is the 1st dynasty after the fall of the sassanids to do so. They left behind tons of great architecture and art and punched above their weight as their neighbouring enemies the Ottomans and Mughals had far more resources and biggeer populations. The former they had an even record against and the latter they consistently beat.
Honestly iran probably wouldnt have existed if they never came around
Were the safavids Turks?
>The Safavids were not Turks, they were a Persian dynasty that originated in the region of Azarbaijan in northwest Iran. The Safavid dynasty was founded by Shah Isma'il I, who was a member of a Sufi order known as the Safaviyya, from which the dynasty takes its name.
>While the Safavids were not Turks, they did have some Turkish-speaking soldiers and officials in their army and administration, many of them were recruited from the Turkoman tribes of the region, but they were not the main ethnicity of the dynasty. It's worth noting that the Safavids were of Kurdish origin, and the Safavid dynasty was not only important for Iran, but also for the Kurds who saw in the Safavids a symbol of their own power and identity.
>It's worth noting that the Safavids were of Kurdish origin
They were pontic greek/georgian
>The Safavid dynasty had its origin in the Safavid order of Sufism, which was established in the city of Ardabil in the Iranian Azerbaijan region.[6] It was an Iranian dynasty of Kurdish origin,[7] but during their rule they intermarried with Turkoman,[8] Georgian,[9] Circassian,[10][11] and Pontic Greek[12] dignitaries, nevertheless they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified.[13] From their base in Ardabil, the Safavids established control over parts of Greater Iran and reasserted the Iranian identity of the region,[14] thus becoming the first native dynasty since the Sasanian Empire to establish a national state officially known as Iran.[15]
Ismail had pontic greek ancestory from trebizond royalty
And where do you think Pontos / Trabzon is? Turkey
Nice bait
No such thing as "Turkey" existed in the 14-15th centuries, dipshit.
>Turk
>Kurd
>Circassian
>Georgian
>"Greek"
Genetically Ismail is just your average modern Anatolian Turk
Kurds are Iranian and part of his heritage is also Persian and Iranian Azeri (Adhani) as well. No, that doesn't apply to the average Anatolian Turk since their also mutts with tons of Levant Arab and Semitic admixture.
They spoke Persian and Turkish with persian being the official language
>Persia, also known as Iran, has a long and complex history with several dynasties ruling the country throughout the centuries. It's difficult to say which dynasty was the most prosperous as it depends on what criteria one uses to measure prosperity. However, two of the most notable dynasties known for their prosperity are:
> The Achaemenid Dynasty (550-330 BCE): The Achaemenid dynasty was the first Persian empire, and it was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the ancient world. During this period, Persia experienced significant economic and cultural growth, and the empire was known for its vast network of roads, its efficient administration, and its impressive architectural achievements. The Achaemenid kings ruled over an empire that spanned from Egypt to India, and from Central Asia to Greece. The king Darius built the famous Persian Royal Road that connected the different parts of the empire, and his son Xerxes built the grand palace of Persepolis.
> The Safavid Dynasty (1501-1722): The Safavid dynasty was a ruling dynasty of Persia that established the country as a major player in the political, economic and cultural landscape of the region. The Safavid kings were able to create a powerful centralized state and a strong military, and they made Persia a major economic and cultural power in the region. They also established Shi'a Islam as the official state religion, which helped to unify the country and gave rise to a distinctive Persian culture and art.
>It's worth noting that there are other dynasties that also contributed to the prosperity of Persia, such as the Sassanid dynasty, the Ilkhanid dynasty and the Qajar dynasty. Each of these dynasties has its own unique achievements and contributions to the history of Persia.
Achaemenids/safavids > Sassanids > Parthians > Buyids/Samanids > Elam > Qajar > other islamic dynasties (dayubids, bavanids, Baduspanid, Afsharids, Zand, tahirids, etc)
> Which dynasty of Persia was the most prosperous?
Either the Achaemenids or the 200 years of Seleucid rule from 320 to 120 BC was probably the most prosperous Persia ever.
All others were nomad tier warlord scum,
illiterate ooga booga Mongols being the worst, illiterate ooga booga Turks second worst.
>the 200 years of Seleucid rule from 320 to 120 BC was probably the most prosperous Persia ever.
Gayreek delusions
> Gayreek delusions
Is it?
200 years of entirely flowed trade as the initial Seleucid pacts with the Indians was never broken, and most of the Seleucid wars happened outside Persia proper.
The average Persian was chilling in wealth.
Seleucids didn't rule over their entire completely territory after 70 years, there was no "200' years of Greek/Macedonian rule in Iranian lands since they got continually pushed westwards further into Mespotamia and the Levant and out of Iranian hinterlands/Iranian plateau.
>revolt, uprising, and successful breakway Greco-Bactaria kingdom
>Parthia repeatedly revolting then having to be granted "autonomy" and then full independence because Seleucid rulers kept getting killed or defeated trying to reconqueror it most of the time
>Seleucia continually isolated from the rest of their Iranian territory
You are delusional
Hell the Persian kavi/local kings in Pars were already long known to be autonomous in the pre-Parthian revolt period of the Seleucid era lol
> Seleucids didn't rule over their entire completely territory after 70 years
I said Persia.
The fact that they lost Bactria and Parthia is not relevant to this discussion as that is not Persia.
> there was no "200' years of Greek/Macedonian rule in Iranian lands since they got continually pushed westwards further into Mespotamia and the Levant and out of Iranian hinterlands/Iranian plateau.
Yes, they got pushed from about 160 to 120 BC, before that their rule over all of Persia was total.
The Parthians didn't even hold Hyrcania until 160ish BC ffs.
Eastern Media didn't fall until 148 BC, it was only in the 130s that the Seleucids were properly being pushed out of western Persia, then the Battle of Ecbatana utterly crushed them.
> You are delusional
You are a pissy, pissy against Greeks for no fucking reason.
> Your first delusion. Parthians were in complete control of Iran before 120 BC
Ok, so 150-180 years, that is not the point you idiot.
The point was who was the most prosperous for Persia, and the argument is not tied to specific decade you silly seether.
> Completely overblowing indian trade
lol
> Seleucids didnt change anything related to trade routes they just occupied them
They literally had such wide and direct relation with India compared to that most of what we know of India of this period comes from them lol
Archaeology also proves that they hyped trade up to the max and made fuckloads of money doing so.
Greeks were urbanites in nature, of course they were better at settled civilization things.
> Thats because they got BTFO.
lol
>I said Persia.
>The fact that they lost Bactria and Parthia is not relevant to this discussion as that is not Persia.
lmao the absolute state. Lying little shit. If you meant Pars/fars you world have said Pars/fars or the region of persia
> lmao the absolute state. Lying little shit. If you meant Pars/fars you world have said Pars/fars or the region of persia
No, I wouldn't because I don't know what the fuck Pars even means.
Iran is Persia to me.
pic related
>moving the goalposts and making shit up
Not moving any goalposts pissy fuck
the question of the thread is quite clear, the timeframe of the rule being 20 years longer or shorter is not relevant to the question
>No, I wouldn't
you're so fucking stupid, Then why did you post
>The fact that they lost Bactria and Parthia is not relevant to this discussion as that is not Persia.
Parthia is literally a region inside iran so of course I would then assume you were referring to the province of pars as Persia. Just stop talking about things you have no knowledge of
>Not moving any goalposts pissy fuck
that's all you've been doing. Your pathetic attempts at shilling this meme dynasty are a joke
>Not moving any goalposts
>the timeframe of the rule being 20 years longer or shorter is not relevant to the question
yet you keep doing it. Also it was more like 50
The Greeks and the pan-Hellenic cultures ruled Persia for a millenium. Seethe Ahmed
Pars was a separate province in Western Iran, Parthia was in northeastern Iran that had borders to the Caspan Sea and laid between Hyrancia and Media, you stupid fuck. And even before 180 BC it was completely independent, the Seleucids lost full control over the plateau as early as the mid 3rd century BC.
>Iran is Persia to me
fucking retard
>moving the goalposts and making shit up
>Is that why we have mountains of archaeological remains and art from this period
coin hoards aren't mountains of archeological remains retard
>Yes, they got pushed from about 160 to 120 BC, before that their rule over all of Persia was total.
yeah that's why they had to keep repeating their royal anabasis. Either way not 200 years less than 150
>I said Persia
But you mean all of Iran, which is factually false because Seleucia was continually struggling and having fragmented control over Pars, much less the rest of the Iranian plateau. They were ruling primarily around Babylonia and Seluecia (modern day Iraq) and Parthia and Pars were both within less than a century excerising enough power and control to ignore Seluecid kings.
>They got pushed from 160 BC
They were losing control earlier then that and it wasn't just temporary:
Arsaces, the Arsacid/Parthian dynasty founder, already successfully completely broke Parthia off from Seleucid control in 247 BC. The Diodachi started in 323 BC; that's only 76 years since the Seluecids took over the entirety of most of the Achaemenid Empire's territory in mainland Asia. It started well before 160 BC, stop being dishonest. Even Seleucus Callincus, couldn't annex or retake Parthia and had to make a treaty with them.
>You are a pissy
Weird flex at trying to push an ad hominem but whatever.
>200 years
Your first delusion. Parthians were in complete control of Iran before 120 BC
>pacts with Indians was never broken
Completely overblowing indian trade. Seleucids didnt change anything related to trade routes they just occupied them
> most of the Seleucid wars happened outside Persia proper
Thats because they got BTFO. Seleucids and other hellenistic dynasties were barbarians who caused destruction due to their constant wars. The initial diadochi wars lasted decades. The hellenistic states were just as bad as the turks and mongols
>The average Persian was chilling in wealth
Dumbass we dont even know what the elites were like let alone the average person. Seleucid Iran was a complete dark age with only a few coins to use to determine the history of the period
cont;
> Seleucids and other hellenistic dynasties were barbarians who caused destruction due to their constant wars. The initial diadochi wars lasted decades.
> The hellenistic states were just as bad as the turks and mongols
Is that why we have mountains of archaeological remains and art from this period while from the Arab/Turk/Mongol period we have shitty fuckeries even though the Seleucids were 1000-1500 years older lol?
whose delusional
> Dumbass we dont even know what the elites were like let alone the average person. Seleucid Iran was a complete dark age with only a few coins to use to determine the history of the period
Utterly lacking in historical knowledge.
It became obvious now you are a wikipedia youtube video historian.
If you read actual historiography you would know how silly this sentence is lol
> 200 years of Seleucid rule
Can't get over just how insanely fucking more aestetic Hellens were compared to anyone else who came after them in the Middle East.
all shit after shit after
/thread
>illiterate ooga booga Mongols being the worst,
The Mongols were actually one of the most progressive empires of that time.
>The Mongols were actually good boys
If they were more European pop historians would claim otherwise. I like them, but let's be real about it.
Why has Western Iranian groups achieved more compared to east Iranians(Scythian, Sarmatian etc)?
>why group along high velocity trade routes achieve more than group along low velocity trade routes?
idk bruv
Achaemenids in terms of overall prosperotu
Sassanids in terms of centralisation