What's new

Iranian Empires and Dynasties

Status
Not open for further replies.
1/4 of Iran are Turks.
like afghanistan that was a part of our country and today is not,your country was part of our country,sometimes we owned it fully and sometimes we did not.
Do not mak yourself fool and talk about Iranian kingdoms and dynasties.
Just stating facts.
 
@kouroshkourosh @Kaan
Basically after immigration of Turks to this region, and Qaznavid dynasty, turks and mongols had always the power in Iran. Persians just had a few local governorates in some rare times, until they came into power with the british coup against Qajar Turks, which resulted the Pahlavi Dynasty, founded by Reza Khan, who was cleaning Stalls of British embassy in Tehran a few years before the coup.
 
There is really nothing to be debated. All of the empires mentioned in the second post of OP are Turkic/Mongol empires.

Nonetheless the name of the country remained Iran during the rule of all those Empires, so regardless of the ethnicity of ruling group they're in fact categorized as Iranian Empires. It would be like Bobby Jindal runs for president (he wins), all his cabinet members be Indian-Americans even in that such a highly unlikely scenario Indians couldn't claim his presidency period as Indian Reign over the United States. As Bobby Jindal and rest of his cabinet are considered American anyway.

I'm very well aware of differences between 21st Century and the respective time frame of those Empires, however in all Diplomatic correspondence between Iran and Foreign nations, Iran is identified as "Empire of Iran" and not anything else.
 
Nonetheless the name of the country remained Iran during the rule of all those Empires, so regardless of the ethnicity of ruling group they're in fact categorized as Iranian Empires. It would be like Bobby Jindal runs for president (he wins), all his cabinet members be Indian-Americans even in that such a highly unlikely scenario Indians couldn't claim his presidency period as Indian Reign over the United States. As Bobby Jindal and rest of his cabinet are considered American anyway.

I'm very well aware of differences between 21st Century and the respective time frame of those Empires, however in all Diplomatic correspondence between Iran and Foreign nations, Iran is identified as "Empire of Iran" and not anything else.

Dude, that's another BS. country was named after the ruling dynasty in each time. Exactly like Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is named after Saud family, and Its name is not kingdom of najd or Hijaz or Arabistan.
 
Seljuks are the ancestors of Turks and Azeris. They could speak Persian but they still considered themselves as Turkish.

The Khwarazmian rulers were all Turkic

Ilkhanate was obviously Mongol

Timurids were mixed Turkic-Mongols

Safavids were probably the most Iranian but the rulers were still Oghuz Turks and Qizilbashs, through they got completely Persianized as Isfahan became the captial of the empire

Afsharids were originally from Afshar tribe of the Oghuz Turks

Qajars were a Qizilbash Turkic family
 
Dude, that's another BS. country was named after the ruling dynasty in each time. Exactly like Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is named after Saud family, and Its name is not kingdom of najd or Hijaz or Arabistan.

I'm sorry but that is a fact, I actually try to find examples of such letters for you. Your comparison couldn't be more invalid, Saudi Arabia wasn't even a country before 1933, it was formed of tribes so of course in correspondence they would use the tribes' names. But such wasn't case of Iran during times of most of those Empires, during Safavids for example, Iran was quite solidified. All the diplomatic correspondence of importance had to go through key decision makers.
 
@kouroshkourosh

Some corrections:

These two maps of Achaemenid Empire are wrong. Achaemenid influence was till Indus river, not on it's eastern side.

AhemenidskoPerzijskoCarstvo490prKr.png

Achaemenid_Empire_~480_BC.png

This map of Achaemenid empire posted by you is correct.

pemassivesub3-copy-jpg.27582

1024px-Diadochen1.png
This map of selecuid empire is of time before selecus niktor ceded Afghanistan and Baluchistan to Chandra gupta Maurya.

769px-Sassanid_Empire_226_-_651_(AD).GIF
This map of Sassanids is wrong to such an extent that it shows capital of Gujara pratihara empire of North India, who were contemporaries of sassanids, in Sassanid empire.



you should study history more.

There is no need to get worked up buddy. In older days, boundaries between empires were hard to define.

[

No need to get so insecure my friend,nobody is trollng here.I have doubts on second last map i.e. Afsharid empire.

There are some other inaccuracies too.
 
Iran or Acem or whatever its called in different times is remained as a geographical term, just like how Rum or Anatolia remained as a Geoghraphical term, as long as "Iranian" here is used in such way and not in ethnic way , I don't have a problem with them being called Iranian.
 
Iran or Acem or whatever its called in different times is remained as a geographical term, just like how Rum or Anatolia remained as a Geoghraphical term, as long as "Iranian" here is used in such way and not in ethnic way , I don't have a problem with them being called Iranian.
That's the way I see it as well.

I neither have the patience nor the interest to educate myself about which ethnic group ruled what and when. But an entity with the name Iran has existed for thousands of years. That's pretty much how I see it.
 
That's the way I see it as well.

I neither have the patience nor the interest to educate myself about which ethnic group ruled what and when. But an entity with the name Iran has existed for thousands of years. That's pretty much how I see it.

Actually majority of successful Empires throughout history adopted multiculturalism and were highly diversified, meaning the Conqueror could have been of a certain ethnicity but that didn't mean the whole vital structure of that empire consisted of only one ethnicity. For example during Safavids reign, its rulers were quite "ethnically" close to Ottomans, yet rivalries were to a point that they each adopted different languages and religions. In my view, nationalism doesn't belong in 21st Century. A self-proclaimed intellectual that preaches this obsolete ideology is best described as a retard, not an intellectual he or she claims to be.
 
Call it iran empires not iranian since iranian means countries like Tajikistan,2/3rd of Pakistan,Afghanistan,parts of turkmenistan and uzbekistan etc

But none from the above county now identity themselves as iranians.

Beside this in the First thread the mentioned empires are central asians and not persian or even iranic
 
There is really nothing to be debated. All of the empires mentioned in the second post of OP are Turkic/Mongol empires.

@Kaan
Seljuq > Turkic
Khwarazmian > Turkic
Ilkhanate > Mongolian
Timurid > Turkic/Mongolian
Safavid > Turkic
Afsharid > Turkic
Qajar > Turkic

He also missed kara koyunlu and aq qoyunlu who were Turkic as well.

You guys should stop these 'Turkic this Turkic that' things, the same is right for those who try to prove that all these empires are Persian somehow.

These empires are all part of Iran's history and most of their rulers were born and raised in geographical boundaries called Iran now and were not 'foreign invaders'. Now being a Turk doesn't contradict being part of Iran's history, since Iran doesn't only belong to Persians. You don't have to be Persian to be part of Iran's history. They all have influenced our culture, language, history and even current borders of the country. So yes, they are Iranian empires, and they can be Turkic at the same time, these two does not contradict each other. Right now, a large portion of our country are Turks too, and they are Iranian Turks.

Only people who are obsessed with races participate in these kinds of debates.

If an American-Nigerian becomes president of US, no one will cry out loud that Africans are ruling Americans, everyone would say a citizen of the US, which is a multi-ethnicial and multi-cultural country, is ruling in America, however he may not be an Anglo-Saxon.

If everyone understands this, we wouldn't witness these childish fights in this forum anymore.
 
Some of these empires are of Turkic origin. No offense, but facts are facts. I can understand, though, that Iranians view this as a part of their history since they were ruled under Turkic leadership, hence their reference to these empires as their history. As long as they dont claim that some of these empires are of Persian origin, then fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom