Why did Iran decline?

Why did Iran decline?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Too much bacha bazi.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It worked out for the greeks

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That's a pashtun thing and ultimately from the greeks

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Iranians are just Pashtuns with oil money. Without the oil, Iran would like Afghanistan.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Afghanistan is blessed with tons of natural resources as well

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Iranians are just Pashtuns
          What makes you think that?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          most moronic take I have seen.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Afghanistan didn't even have a government until the 1900s

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's bullshit. They have had governments for thousands of years.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Bacha bazi as a custom and practice was never relevant in mainland Iran.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Which of the dozens of declines are you referring to?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      all of them

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The silk road fading in importance

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Sea trade surpassing land trade.
    Climate change diminishing their fertile lands.
    Artillery and professional armies surpassing their cavalry tradition.
    Ultraconservatism and rigid power structure keeping them behind technologically and culturally.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Islam is why Iran is a shithole country today. Since 1979 when Islam was brought back into Iran, it's been nothing but trouble. Good thing after the Red Wave of 2022 and 2024 comes Iran won't be around much longer unless they stop practicing Islam and terrorism and turn to God and freedom.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Absolutely brainlet take. Modern Iran was literally built as a Shia theocracy by the Safavid in the 16th century, and Islam itself has been an integral part of the country for over a millennia. Why not learn why the Iranian Revolution took place in the first place? Pro-tip, despite their backwards perspective on things the Islamic Republic of Iran experienced a surge of development, despite the war with Iraq too; the Pahlavis were just that incompetent.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I saw pics and videos of what Iran used to look like before Islam took over that country. I don't need to know about the Mullah's revolution to know about that place. They chant "Death to America" and they blew themselves up for their moon God Allah and they worship a pedophile named Moohammad, piss be upon him. They ain't nothing but a third world country and that's gonna get bombed probably soon if they continue to attack America and our allies in the region.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >I saw pics and videos of what Iran used to look like before Islam took over that country.
          >le prostitutes in miniskirts and feminism = good and developed
          Yeah, because that's worked out great for you westcucks, huh? Now your parents are divorced, your sister has nude onlyfans, your daughter sucks black wiener. Thanks feminism!

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >criticize west for crumbling
            >would do anything in your power to live in that crumbling west
            many such cases

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > Now your parents are divorced, your sister has nude onlyfans, your daughter sucks black wiener
            None of this applies to me, you seething sandBlack person. Most of this doesn't apply to anyone outside of California and israelite York

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Most of this doesn't apply to anyone outside of California and israelite York
            the bbc obsession is mostly a flyover girl thing and really common in the south

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >le prostitutes in miniskirts and feminism = good and developed
            So these are automatically bad and to be shunned, is what you are saying? Don't you realise, like half of IQfy, that there is always a degree of complexity and nuance in the real world?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          maybe you shouldnt base your takes on what you see on reddit

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Is Ahmed still bullying you 🙁

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Modern Iran was literally built as a Shia theocracy by the Safavid in the 16th century,
        No, Iran was Shia a long time before the Safavid became the ruling dynasty of the country.
        >backwards perspective on things
        Yeah you're right, they need to become Westernized which means nuking their own culture, letting sexpats in, and lifting the ban on Western NGOs and degeneracy.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >No, Iran was Shia a long time before the Safavid became the ruling dynasty of the country.
          where is your proof. It's not just Sunni sources. All western historians who don't have a stake in this and thus aren't biased also always say Iran was Sunni until the Safavids

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The "Safavid turned Iran into Shia" lie is propaganda created by Westerners and Saudis.

            >where is your proof
            Where's your? That Wikipedia article is propaganda. All references in it are from non-historians who are on the payroll of Saudis and Western governments.

            >It's not just Sunni sources
            There are no sources.

            >All western historians who don't have a stake in this and thus aren't biased also always say Iran was Sunni until the Safavids
            It's hilarious how you anti-Iran weirdos are such pathological lying scums.

            You're so moronic for lying about such easily disproven myths and for denying the existence of the Buyid dynasty and the many other Shia dynasties from northern Iran who dominated everything from Syria to Sogdia.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You're so moronic for lying about such easily disproven myths and for denying the existence of the Buyid dynasty and the many other Shia dynasties from northern Iran who dominated everything from Syria to Sogdia.
            And what about the Sunni dynasties of Iran?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Weaker than the Shia Iranians as they fled to India and the outskirts of Sogdia.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You're so moronic for lying about such easily disproven myths and for denying the existence of the Buyid dynasty and the many other Shia dynasties from northern Iran who dominated everything from Syria to Sogdia.
            Shi'ism was more popular with Arabs in Bahrain, Lebanon, and North Africa. Can you explain why the Safavids imported foreign clerics if Iran was already shia? You can't

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Bahrain became Arab when Brits settled Arabs there. Rest of your post is equally absurd and nonsensical.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam#Arab_Shia_Ulama
            Your weird nationalist delusions aren't history

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Your Western weird propaganda site isn't a source. I love how anon's post

            The "Safavid turned Iran into Shia" lie is propaganda created by Westerners and Saudis.

            >where is your proof
            Where's your? That Wikipedia article is propaganda. All references in it are from non-historians who are on the payroll of Saudis and Western governments.

            >It's not just Sunni sources
            There are no sources.

            >All western historians who don't have a stake in this and thus aren't biased also always say Iran was Sunni until the Safavids
            It's hilarious how you anti-Iran weirdos are such pathological lying scums.

            You're so moronic for lying about such easily disproven myths and for denying the existence of the Buyid dynasty and the many other Shia dynasties from northern Iran who dominated everything from Syria to Sogdia.

            predicted what you were going to do.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >wikipedia
            >western propaganda
            holy shit you're delusional

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            have a nice day schizo

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The "Safavid turned Iran into Shia" lie is propaganda created by Westerners and Saudis.
            Then why were all dynasties before the safavids with the exception one all Sunni?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Buyid, Alid and every other dynasty in north Iran were Sunni

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Those are irrelevent. The Buyids were just as foreign as the turks to the Iranians south of the alborz. The Sassanids considered the people of mazandaran to be barbarians. Even im charitable and count them they all controlled tiny slivers of land only the buyids made lasting conquests and they were toppled by the Ghaznavids and Seljuks who were invited by iranians to get rid of the buyids

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Those are irrelevent
            Cope harder, shill.
            >The Buyids were just as foreign as the turks to the Iranians south of the alborz.
            Source: alarabiya
            >The Sassanids considered the people of mazandaran to be barbarians.
            Source: alarabiya

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The "Safavid turned Iran into Shia" lie is propaganda created by Westerners and Saudis.

            >where is your proof
            Where's your? That Wikipedia article is propaganda. All references in it are from non-historians who are on the payroll of Saudis and Western governments.

            >It's not just Sunni sources
            There are no sources.

            >All western historians who don't have a stake in this and thus aren't biased also always say Iran was Sunni until the Safavids
            It's hilarious how you anti-Iran weirdos are such pathological lying scums.

            You're so moronic for lying about such easily disproven myths and for denying the existence of the Buyid dynasty and the many other Shia dynasties from northern Iran who dominated everything from Syria to Sogdia.

            Prior to the sixteenth century, the religious scene in the Iranian plateau was complex but the population was predominantly Sunni, as elsewhere in the Muslim world.

            With the support of the Qizilbash, Ismail defeated the Aqqoyunlu Empire that dominated the Iranian plateau and built the new Shia state. He used various strategies of persuasion and coercion to transform Shiism from a tiny community to that of the whole state.

            Shia conversion began in 1501 when Shah Ismail assumed the tile of Shah and declared Twelver Shiism as the official religion of a new state that came to be known as the Safavid Empire.

            Making Shi’ism the state religion served to distinguish Iranians from subjects of the rival Sunni-ruled Ottoman Empire and importing what was largely a foreign creed restricted to centres in Bahrain, Iraq and Syria lessened the risk of any state religion exacerbating rivalries among Iranian tribes or the Safavids’ supporters.

            Initially, the Safavids brought clerics from the Arab world, particularly Jabal Amil, but eventually a new generation of Iranian Shia faqih emerged.

            The conversion of the population who lived on the Iranian plateau to Twelver Shiism during the sixteenth century constitutes one of the most important developments in Islamic history. Formally, Ismail sought to establish the new religion through official propaganda and requirements that highlighted fundamental doctrinal tenets of the new religion.

            He also required all subjects to publicly curse the first three caliphs of the early Islamic era, an anti-Sunni denouncement. To ensure obedience, his royal decree stated: “Whoever disobeys, he is to be beheaded”.

            Safavids not only persecuted Sunni Muslims, but also non-Twelver Shi'ites with different views and all other religions. Alien shrines were vandalised and Sufi mystic groups forbidden.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >With the support of the Qizilbash, Ismail
            They were his mercenaries.

            >but the population was predominantly Sunni
            That Wikipedia article isn't a source.

            >He used various strategies of persuasion and coercion to transform Shiism from a tiny community to that of the whole state.
            Iran's Shia population follows the Jafari school and it was spread by Nader Shah and in the Qajar era.

            >Shia conversion began in 1501
            Iran was Shia centuries before it.

            >Initially, the Safavids brought clerics from the Arab world,
            Lebanon is as Arabic as a Black basketball player is an Ancient Egyptian.

            >To ensure obedience, his royal decree stated: “Whoever disobeys, he is to be beheaded”.
            Source: alarabiya

            >Safavids not only persecuted Sunni Muslims, but also non-Twelver Shi'ites with different views and all other religions. Alien shrines were vandalised and Sufi mystic groups forbidden.
            A bit strange how it took centuries for Iran to become Sunni and how there's not a single source of a tiny minority of a few thousand men taking control of Iran and killing 90% of Iran's population.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The safavids themselves spread stories of Ismail threatening to kill everyone in tabriz by himself if they didnt curse the first three caliphs

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Hey moron, you got any proof for your moronic claim that his children went to a massive and developed city like Tabriz and did that?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They were his mercenaries.
            They were his core followers. Without them Ismail never would've held any power.

            >That Wikipedia article isn't a source.
            Iran's population was still Sunni under the Timurids. According to Twelver Shia Mortaza Motahhari, the majority of Iranian scholars and masses remained Sunni till the time of the Safavids.

            >Iran's Shia population follows the Jafari school
            Ismail spread it.

            >Iran was Shia centuries before it.
            It was Sunni and this is admitted by Shia scholars.

            >Lebanon is as Arabic as a Black basketball player is an Ancient Egyptian.
            It's stupid to deny it.

            >how there's not a single source of a tiny minority of a few thousand men taking control of Iran
            It's called Safavid rule.

            >and killing 90% of Iran's population.
            That didn't happen. They were forced to convert but those who did not were often killed.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >A bit strange how it took centuries for Iran to become Sunni and how there's not a single source of a tiny minority of a few thousand men taking control of Iran and killing 90% of Iran's population.
            You moronicly underestimate how easy it is for a small group of people to impose their own views on a populace and them eventually accepting after a period of oppression. People are extremely submissive.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What's so submissive about a country whose population has remained genetically heterogenous for 5000+ years, withstood Islam for 300+ years, resisted Arabization and kept its national identity for 5000+ years?

            Instead of gish galloping and making shit up, show a source of that 10 year old boy and one thousand of his mercenaries converting Iran to Shia in a single year.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            He was 14 and he had tens of thousands of soldiers

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah so where's the source

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >resisted arabization
            Half the country claims to be Arabic because Sayyidi=good
            >kept its culture
            They have medieval Turkish culture. They’re not Sassanians.
            >withstood Islam
            They’re all Muslims besides some edgy ones in the west or literal minorities in fact they follow the Shia Islam which is even more pro Arab than the Sunnis who are more universalist the Shias are all about various Arabic squabbles in the 7th c and gossip about medinah in the Abu bakr and Umar era
            >unique people
            Elamite+Neolithic mix and most have some Turkish or mongol. Ironically very little Arabic besides the actual Arabic minority.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They have medieval Turkish culture.
            Mehmet, Medieval Turks had no culture they were illiterates who adopted the culture of the nearest civilization. Your culture comes from Arabs, Greeks, and Persians in it's entirety.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Half the country claims to be Arabic because Sayyidi=good
            How many times did your parents drop you?
            >They have medieval Turkish culture. They’re not Sassanians
            Where in Iran do you see throat singers?
            >They’re all Muslims
            Learn to read, fricktard, it took over three centuries for most Iranians to convert.
            >Elamite+Neolithic mix and most have some Turkish or mongol.
            Genetic studies say otherwise.

            Do you do anything besides cry about Iran and spam disinfo?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Safavids were nothing like today's theocratic Iran of the Islamic Republic, you stupid fricking brainlet. The Safavids encouraged open-political discourse, among normal people and especially with European travelers and observers. Drinking and partying was allowed and headware was only seen for both men and women as a sign of wealth more so then religious obligation of Sharia law. Ishmail and Abbas would weep to see what the Mullahs have done.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Iran will be like thailand if they were not muslim

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire starting a new war every year. Should be noted that the Ottomans and the Russians gained tremendous experience from Europe while Iran was stagnant.

    Nader Shah became a schizo, left no good heir, and made it possible for the Brits to take India, something that Nader should've done.

    The French Empire and the British Empire backstabbed Iran. Iranians should've never trusted them.

    The Great Game. The Brits and the Russians weren't allies but gladly worked together to frick over Iran as much as possible.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Safavids were turks

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      we're all an Englishman then according to your wienerroach logic

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        more like african americans are englishmen according to turk logic

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        more like african americans are englishmen according to turk logic

        Cope iranian cucks

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    first of all, checked
    >turkic invaders
    >silk road diverted
    >traditional unifier of Greater Iran (Orthodox Zoroastrian) subverted by 2 flavors of islam and numerous peasant zoroastrian cults
    >The seven parthian houses were pushed into extinction, severing another of the mainstays of iranian empire/confederation
    >great houses traditionally marshalled cataphract armies to defend their realms (and thus, the confederation as a whole) against invasioks from asia; loss of this system lead to rapid turkicization of central asia and iran
    iranians let Rome bleed then and Islam cut them up like halal meat. You can see that the last gasps of the system lived on with the samanids, a cadet of Mihran, cadet of Arsaces (parthian), but the samanids held an untenable position without imperial reinforcements from the heartland. This was the system: lend house militaries for expeditions, so long as the shah lends his army for frontier defense.

    For classical iran to have lived, it would see three changes:
    >reformation of orthodox zoroastrianism to compromise with neighboring christianity and islam (this was in progress and totally reversed by khusrau and then the advent of islam)
    >formalization of frontier defense, agreement made with royal houses to never pull the personal armies away from the frontiers - the absolutist tendencies of the final shahanshah directly led to the implosion of the old Parthian confederation which had lasted into sassanian times, which we see with every great house fighting the arabs independently after Shahrvaraz's usurpation death-spiralled house Sasan.
    >development of navy out of the Gulf, to intercept Portuguese/european trade around the silk road (this is relevant as in this event, rome would also not fall to turks and europeans would seek to bypass roman/sassanid hegemony the same way). Alternatively, garrison armies with Ispahbudan and Zik and dump the 5 houses + Shah's army into india and persianize it before moguls do.
    kosrow moronic 🙁

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I’m not an Iranian but I’m also not an Arab or Greek so I don’t really care about them either. I wish I could go back in time to tell Khosrow to make a peace deal, getting the levant and Egypt from the Romans instead of pursuing his dumb Achaemenid larp to the end. Just think VGH what could’ve been, a Mediterranean early medieval Sassanid empire. Kino even.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Khusrau would have to be killed and replaced by farrokhan shahrvaraz at the very latest after heraclius retook anatolia ( farrokhan would have to convert back to zoroastrianism rather than pursue his autistic christian larp also, which is unlikely) or a more pliable sassanid to maintain the parthian clique's integrity. The other houses despised shahrvaraz for his stubbornness, like the boar of his namesake. They burned so much manpower by letting khusrau walk all over them. centralization killed persia; it was built to be a confederation, where the great houses combined kept the shahanshah and his infinite shit-tier levantine urban levies in check in return for mutual defense. Excellent case study on proto-federalism, and how absolute power can destroy 3000 years of hard work in the blink of an eye.

        Alternatively, you could argue that the parthians, as the last group of "nomadic" iranians to revitalize the empire, could not be sustained forever - after they swept in from the caspian steppe, what similar iranians would come after? This is why the great wall in Gorgan was built, after all; the parthian clique understood the dynamics of the steppe, and even if a good 15-20% of iranians lived in sogdia, bactria, sakastan, and arachosia outside of imperial control, they always could hire them, press them into service, control them informally through marriage...this is the power of the parthian houses. Khusrau was, in the end, too "westernized"; he saw everything through a lens of rabid anti-westernism, hating christians and romans above all else in his madness. Had the clique replaced him and pushed east, sassanid empire (or, perhaps Mihranid empire, had shahrvaraz or wahram choben successfully politicked - the Mihranzadeh curse was being predisposed to blatant despotism, as they were used as elite soldiers due to their proximity to the imperial core.) not veered into ironically romanesque tyranny.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >>The seven parthian houses were pushed into extinction, severing another of the mainstays of iranian empire/confederation

      some survive hidden among mobad families

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I don't doubt this at all, especially since the holdouts in mazandaran (maybe others i forgot) didn't even convert to islam until the 15th century iirc. The greatest shame is the destruction of aturpatakan, which is today turkic, as well as the total decimation of the Sarts in central asia by the chingisid and uzbeks- how many tajiks are there vs Turks and pathans again? Another is the loss of arachosia and india to the subcontinent; pakistanis dont even know their heritage despite using Persian names, speaking an indo- persianate language, etc. they used to march us out of gandhara and sindh to fight greeks in achaemenid through to roman times! and today we are at each others throats!

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Samanids claimed descent

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Which Turkic invasion? The ones that the Romans paid for? They were swiftly dealt with and didn't really damage Iran.

      There was no Turkic invasion into Iran when they became Muslims. Muslim Iran became hospitable to foreigners and even Iranianized them which made the nation a lot stronger.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        megacope

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          converting to islam and getting a green card into a islamified nation isn't invasion, wienerroach

          do something else on the internet instead of coping, try killing yourself

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            the turkics didn't ask for the approval of the persians to invade them. just like how the arabs didn't ask for the approval of the pre-islamic persians to invade them. keep coping.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >the turkics didn't ask for the approval of the persians to invade them
            Yes, they did. Seljuks were bribed by Iranian anti-Buyid factions to take them out in exchange for taking their place.

            >just like how the arabs didn't ask for the approval of the pre-islamic persians to invade them.
            They did. Backstabbing Iranian nobles caused the downfall of the Sasan dynasty.

            >keep coping
            Says the wienerroach getting paid to spam disproven propaganda.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, they did. Seljuks were bribed by Iranian anti-Buyid factions to take them out in exchange for taking their place.
            bet they regretted that. Seljuks were such a dogshit dynasty

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, they were. Iranian viziers carried the Seljuk dynasty till the end and they only gave up because other dynasties looked more favorable. But the Buyids were shit too, they wanted to become Araps, their descendants could only speak Arabic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Bruh the turks raped you and treated you as cattle for 1000 years
            Are you really gonna deny timur and the seljuks

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Timur hated everyone and didn't live for 1000 years

            Seljuks was a de facto Persian Empire

            Do you do anything besides coping and spamming disinfo about Iran?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >seljuks were persian
            WE

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >didn't really damage Iran
        Except for making you lose the Roman-Sassanid wars and enabling a 1000 year-long mixed Islamic Turco-Arabic rule which changed your culture and demographics forever. Talk about losing.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Iran's culture and demographics are still the same and it influenced the neighbors, Arabs have never ruled Iran, and Romans lost all of their wars against Iran. Go be a moron in the YouTube comments where you crawled out of, wienerroach.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            lmfao delusional revisionist farrouk

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Holy cope
        Turkics and mongols invaded, raped and conquered Iran for thousands of years

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    turkroaches, araps, vatniks and angloids conspired to keep the only real white aryan country from becoming too powerful and restoring their empire in the name of ahura mazda

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The last 'satrapy didnt have enough gunpowder for the moon but enough for a gay duel

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the Western site made in the US that puts the West and its allies on a pedestal and dehumanizes anyone on Pentagon's hate list isn't Western propaganda and if you think otherwise you're delusional 🙂

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Notice how the moron has no proof and keeps talking in circles and referencing a Western propaganda site.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It was always bound to happen. People forget but the only proper Iranian empire was the Archaemenids. The Parthians and Sassanians were non Iranian nomads who Iranized themselves to make life easy like the Manchus did in China.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The sassanids were from fars

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      parthians were not persians, they were iranians.

      Which Turkic invasion? The ones that the Romans paid for? They were swiftly dealt with and didn't really damage Iran.

      There was no Turkic invasion into Iran when they became Muslims. Muslim Iran became hospitable to foreigners and even Iranianized them which made the nation a lot stronger.

      mongol, timurids, uzbeks, turkmens, chagatais? the ones who replaced the previous iranian majority that resided between caspian sea and china? This constant decimation ruined the iranian empire, because half the land ruled by the former parthian houses was carved into afghan states (a la durrani) or uzbek and or timurid states

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >into afghan states (a la durrani)
        The Afghans were conquered by the Persians. Durrani himself was a low ranking officer who had submitted to the Persians against fellow Pashtun tribes.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >parthians were not persians, they were iranians.
        can I derail a little with a question about modern "persians"? what the frick are they? there's no way the trio of azeris, kurds and persians make up 90%+ of the modern population with the melting pot the iranian plateu used to be

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Theres still mazandaranis, lurs, so on and so forth...its still melting

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            they are a very small percentage compared to the rest, most of which are considered "persian". are "persians" of today truly persians?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            probably not, unless they are ethnically from fars. I think they just took the nationalismpill like the "han", "spanish" or "french" or "germans" did

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So what would a self-identifying persian from Teheran be ethnically?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          There's no such thing as Persians. It's just an antiquity greece term to describe the people of that ancient empire in a whole.
          All of these "muh ethnicity" thing we use in IQfy is an alien concept to Iranians from what I've seen, they're more a nationalistic people regardless of who's who in which region.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Darius said he was a Persian and another Achaemenid king did the same. They also mentioned their Aryan/Iranian identity and Herodotus pointed out that Persians, Medes and Scythians self-identified as Iranian.

            For Iranians, it's their nation (Iran) that's the most important and then it's the region.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What you're saying is a translation. Darius was from Pars tribe which Greeks translated as Persis and gave the adjective of Persians to them.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          My guess would be Neolithic farmers with Aryan steppe admixture like Europe

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A few decades before the safavids the shia sardabar dynasty in khorasan was formed by a commoner revolt and yet somehow Ismail was the one who made Iran shia.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    As far away as Kollam, the trading port in Kerala, Ibn Battuta, who had described the population of
    Aveh as rawāfid (Rihlat Ibn Battuta, 196), came across a wealthy and evidently influential merchant, a
    certain ʿAlāʾ al-Din Āvaji; the Moroccan traveler was struck by the overt display, on the part of the mer-chant and his companions, of their Shiʿi beliefs (huwa rāfidi wa-maʿahu ashāb lahu ʿalā madhhabihi wa-hum yuzhiruna dhālika) (Rihlat Ibn Battuta, 575). Ibn Battuta avers further that in Aveh, as well as in
    Mashhad-e Husayn, Hilla, Bahrayn, Qumm, Kashan, Saveh and Tus, the visitor who expressed a diver-gent position from that held by the local (Shiʿi) inhabitants risked his life, owing to the extremity of the
    people’s confessional engagement (he describes them as rāfida ghāliya) (Rihlat Ibn Battuta, 203)

    Wtf Sunnibros did Ismail travel back in time to convert these people? This shit is literally coming from a seething sunni.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Mashhad-e Husayn, Hilla, Bahrayn, Qumm, Kashan, Saveh and Tus, the visitor who expressed a diver-gent position from that held by the local (Shiʿi) inhabitants risked his life, owing to the extremity of the people’s confessional engagement
      Damn.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl-f
    >because it stopped running
    >0 results

    Come the frick on, guys.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Aryans (who were like Swedes genetically and phenotypically) would routinely invade weakened Iran, mix with the locals, become weak but decadent, and subsequent be invaded by those of the tribe who remained behind from the former invasion.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Islam. Islam has completely destroyed Iranian culture.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      India didn't decline with the Moghols, it was still a superpower like it had always been. India declined with the British.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Iran decline?
    It was the Turks(Azerbaijani) who boost Iran(Safavids, Qajars etc.), when Persians takes the power Iran become shithole

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Qajars were the most moronic dynasty ever and I am not surprised they were Turkic.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I am not well educated about MENA or Iranian history, but based on my limited knowledge
        seems like Iran was one of the relevant mainpowers of MENA while Turks on the charge, now its an islamic shithole

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >now its an islamic shithole
          It's literally a regional power. Qajar Iran was a failed state

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Okay Mehmet

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *