Turkey-Iran Relations | News and Discussions

[ASQ-1918]

Ottomans called everything out of Iran as "Acem", just as Safavids in turn called Ottomans as "Rum", doesn't mean they were Roman. A geographical term more than anything else in this case.

Still haven't understood how could a religious sect of Islam have any ethnic identity, don't quote me their supposed ethnic origin as you always do, thats not what I'm saying. And how many times should it be noted, the followers of Safavid ideology were Turkic tribes for the most part, don't tell me they followed some mythical "Iranic ideology". As a matter of fact, the Turkic tongue of Safavids played an important role in attracting a large amount of followers (whom would not speak a word of Persian or Arabic) and as creating a spiritual bridge, obviously, which also explains the poetry (as a way of spiritual message to his followers) of Shah Ismail.

See this;

(from one of your "learned" favourites, Vladimir Minorsky)

 

[rmi5]

I still say safavids had partly Iranic ancestors, the safawiya were Iranic and formed the safavid ideology. It seems you're against facts. Yes they were "Acem" as Turks like to call them.

Uhh, dude, I don't have the energy or time or the will to continue talking with you. You are so brain dead and brain washed. previously you were saying that they are kurd or persian and Now you have made the level of your BS a bit lower and say they were partly Iranic. Dude, I don't care what you think. So, I am not really interested in talking with you. you also need not to poke your nose and meddle any where related to Azerbaijanis or other turks.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Honestly, its not even important. Don't worry, no one is stealing them away from Iran. And I'm not saying that they are not part of Iran's history and nation, that would be silly, as they are obviously, Isfahan is the prime example of it. Whether I like it or not, modern Iran is really the continuation of their state, carried on by other great men of Turkic descent such as Nadir Shah. But what I disagree with current version of Iran is that its solely based on cultural, linguistic, ethnical dominance of Persians, and some people also try to impose this current view on Iran's history, which is very wrong and inaccurate. A legacy of chuvanist Pahlavis, no doubt.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Uhh, dude, I don't have the energy or time or the will to continue talking with you. You are so brain dead and brain washed. previously you were saying that they are kurd or persian and Now you have made the level of your BS a bit lower and say they were partly Iranic. Dude, I don't care what you think. So, I am not really interested in talking with you. you also need not to poke your nose and meddle any where related to Azerbaijanis or other turks.

Partly Iranic in sense that the safawiya settled in Azerbaijan and started to mix with others.
I don't have time to teach you history. Whenever panturk-fake-stories are invented and written down you will see me back here.
Bye.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Honestly, its not even important. Don't worry, no one is stealing them away from Iran. And I'm not saying that they are not part of Iran's history and nation, that would be silly, as they are obviously, Isfahan is the prime example of it. Whether I like it or not, modern Iran is really the continuation of their state, carried on by other great men of Turkic descent such as Nadir Shah. But what I disagree with current version of Iran is that its solely based on cultural, linguistic, ethnical dominance of Persians, and some people also try to impose this current view on Iran's history, which is very wrong and inaccurate. A legacy of chuvanist Pahlavis, no doubt.

Modern Iran is the result of Sassanid king Ardashir the Unifier, so we are one of the oldest official states in the world.
Ardashir I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms Eranshahr () and Eran were in use in Sassanid Iran. From early Sassanid era (Ardashr and Shapur's elaborations), as a designation of their land they adopted Ērānšahr “Empire of the Iranians” and this served as the official name of their country.[3]

Ardashir I (reign until 241) the first king of the Sassanid empire had used the older word ērān (Parthian aryān) as part of his titles and in accordance with its etymology. At Naqš-e Rostam in Fārs province and the issued coins of the same period, Ardashir I calls himself Ardašīr šāhānšāh ērān in the Middle Persian version and šāhānšāh aryān in its Parthian version both meaning “king of kings of the Aryans.” Beside the royal title, the term "Eran" was also used as an abbreviation of "Eranshahr" and referred to the empire in the early Sassanid era. I

 

[doritos]

Uhh, dude, I don't have the energy or time or the will to continue talking with you. You are so brain dead and brain washed. previously you were saying that they are kurd or persian and Now you have made the level of your BS a bit lower and say they were partly Iranic. Dude, I don't care what you think. So, I am not really interested in talking with you. you also need not to poke your nose and meddle any where related to Azerbaijanis or other turks.

This dispute is confusing, not only about Safavids but Azerbaijanis, the Iranian says they originate from Iranic peoples, the Turk says they are Turkic peoples. Aside from that some say they are mixed.

 

[ASQ-1918]

This dispute is confusing, not only about Safavids but Azerbaijanis, the Iranian says they originate from Iranic peoples, the Turk says they are Turkic peoples. Aside from that some say they are mixed.

I know you are asking it as a genuine question, but it would only lead to trolling from people like above.

And why it should be confusing, or something of a debate? Azerbaijanis are Turkic the same way Iraqis are Arabic.

Let me answer as an Azerbaijani (and I hope trolls don't jump into something that are not their business, and spam here with meaningless wikipedia links).

1: Azerbaijanis speaks a unique dialect of Oghuz Turkic and have had its own literacy tradition since middle ages in Turkic world. Azerbaijanis consider themselves as Turk and Turkic, and always have.
2: Azerbaijani and Azeri are newly invented terms, the self-identity of Azerbaijanis have been and are (especially in Iran) plain "Turk", and how it has been known to its neighbours throughout the history (exception is "Tatar" by Georgians and "Moghul" by southern Dagestani peoples). Mind you, Persians still use "Turk" by and large, even though the official term has been "Azari" since Pahlavi era (like said, an invented term for Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis)
3: A significant part of Azerbaijanis before modern times were nomadic and had a tribe-clan confederations, those being Turkic ones, such as Afshars, Bayat etc. In 19th century, one fourth of Azerbaijani population were nomadic in Caucasus, I don't have a figure for Iran, but most likely even higher there. In middle ages it would be the most. Nomadic groups still exist (with the same old tribe-clan confederation structure), ie Shahsevens. A peculiar feature of Azerbaijani nomads in the region were and are the Alachuq tents, which resembles (or rather is) Central Asian yurts. Round, felt-covered, white tents.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Ottomans called everything out of Iran as "Acem", just as Safavids in turn called Ottomans as "Rum", doesn't mean they were Roman. A geographical term more than anything else in this case.

Still haven't understood how could a religious sect of Islam have any ethnic identity, don't quote me their supposed ethnic origin as you always do, thats not what I'm saying. And how many times should it be noted, the followers of Safavid ideology were Turkic tribes for the most part, don't tell me they followed some mythical "Iranic ideology". As a matter of fact, the Turkic tongue of Safavids played an important role in attracting a large amount of followers (whom would not speak a word of Persian or Arabic) and as creating a spiritual bridge, obviously, which also explains the poetry (as a way of spiritual message to his followers) of Shah Ismail.

See this;

(from one of your "learned" favourites, Vladimir Minorsky)

Safavids became heavily turkified, it's not strange that they would call themselves turks, as some Turkic dynasties saw themselves as ancient Iranian rulers.
Shah Esma'il described himself as a descendant, on their father's side, of the Prophet Mohammad and claimed to have royal Sassanian blood as well. Shi'ism became the state religion, Esma'il ignored the Sunni branch of Islam and tried to force people to become Shi'a, which was a difficult task with a variety of tribes and less than complete authority.
- See more at: History of Iran: Safavid Empire 1502 - 1736
Now we can also read the following about the turkic ghaznavid king Mahmud:

Mahmud traced his descent to the Sassanids and Achaemenids:

1. "Subooktugeen [Ameer Nasir-Ood-Deen Subooktugeen Ghiznivy] is said to be lineally descended from Yezdijerd (the last of the Persian monarchs) who, when flying from his enemies during the Caliphate of Uthman, was murdered at a water-mill near the town of Merv. His family being left in Toorkistan formed connections among the people, and his decsndants became Toorks.

His genealogy is as follows: Subooktugeen, the son of Jookan, the son of Kuzil Hukum, the son of Kuzil Arslan, the son of Ferooz, the son of Yezdejird, the King of Persia."[6] - See more at: Language of the armies, Urdu: A Derivative of Persian and Avestan

 

[rmi5]

I know you are asking it as a genuine question, but it would only lead to trolling from people like above.

And why it should be confusing, or something of a debate? Azerbaijanis are Turkic the same way Iraqis are Arabic.

Let me answer as an Azerbaijani (and I hope trolls don't jump into something that are not their business, and spam here with meaningless wikipedia links).

1: Azerbaijanis speaks a unique dialect of Oghuz Turkic and has its own literacy tradition since middle ages in Turkic world. Azerbaijanis consider themselves as Turk and Turkic.
2: Azerbaijani and Azeri are newly invented terms, the self-identity of Azerbaijanis have been and are (especially in Iran) plain "Turk", and how it has been known to its neighbours throughout the history (exception is "Tatar" by Georgians and "Moghul" by southern Dagestani peoples). Mind you, Persians still use "Turk" by and large, even though the official term has been "Azari" since Pahlavi era (like said, an invented term for Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis)
3: A significant part of Azerbaijanis before modern times were nomadic and had a tribe-clan confederations, those being Turkic ones, such as Afshars, Bayat etc. In 19th century, nearly half of the Azerbaijani population were nomadic. In middle ages it would be the most. Nomadic groups still exist (with the same old tribe-clan confederation structure), ie Shahsevens. A peculiar feature of Azerbaijani nomads in the region were and are the Alachuq tents, which resembles (or rather is) Central Asian yurts. Round, felt-covered, white tents.

That's exactly true. As a turk who had lived in Iran for more than a decade, I have not been called "Azeri" even 10 times, and always been referred to as "Tork". I have also heard just a few times using of the "Azeri" term in the government TV.
About the nomadic life, that's not only true Azerbaijan, but also it is true for almost all parts of Iran, except for the south caspian region. Except for that, 70% of the Iran population have been nomads.
About the language, you are right again.
@doritos ^^^

------------------
@ASQ-1918 Please avoid responding to that Farsi/Kurd troll. He always tries to troll Azerbaijan related threads in order to force mods to close them. Let them bark

 

[ASQ-1918]

Yes, but I should make myself clear here, there is actually differences to spot. That is why I mentioned Azerbaijani tents, they are radically different from Iranian ones (and I also would like to believe that the structure were different. Turkic nomadism was based on warrior culture, and not just practicing pastoralism. Though that can also apply to Kurds to some extent, but its very easy to spot the difference between Turkic and Kurdish culture and traditions). Also, in Azerbaijan, Iranian peoples such as Talysh and Tats have no history of being nomads. Tat itself means settled, foreigner, Iranian/Persian in old Turkic, this was a term used by Turks since old times for Iranians/Persians. This term was mostly associated with "settled people", so that even settled Turks were called "Tats" by nomadic Azerbaijanis. And I should explain it further, its a term only we have used and use, "Tats" themselves use their own local designations. Just small details that are in fact important with regards to such discussion.

 

[rmi5]

Yes, but I should make myself clear here, there is actually differences to spot. That is why I mentioned Azerbaijani tents, they are radically different from Iranian ones. Also, Iranian peoples such as Talysh and Tats of Azerbaijan have no history of being nomads. Tat itself means foreigner, settler, Iranian in old Turkic, this was a term used by Turks since old times for Iranians, today its usage is only exclusive to Azerbaijan. And I should explain it further, its a term we use, Tats themselves use their own local designations. Just small details that are in fact important.

Actually it would be interesting to one time have a discussion about Talysh people as well. As genetic studies have recently shown, Talysh people, and Gilak, and Mazandarani people are more close to south caucasians, specially azeris and georgians, than Iranians. Basically, it seems that they have migrated from South caucasus to south caspian and they have later adopted Iranian languages as they were close and neighbor with Iranian people. Even now, they have maintained their own unique culture, cuisine, their mythology, ... and it seems that we cannot even easily call them as Iranic people, anymore. I think we need to differentiate between them and Farsis/kurds/afghan/...

 

[ASQ-1918]

Maybe, but probably they are Caspian Iranians with Caucasian influence. I'm not familiar with Gilakis and Mazandaranis that you mention, but I can say that about Talysh (Caucasian influence). And indeed they have a rather "unique" culture.

 

[rmi5]

Maybe, but probably they are Caspian Iranians with Caucasian influence. I'm not familiar with Gilakis and Mazandaranis that you mention, but I can say that about Talysh (Caucasian influence). And indeed they have a rather "unique" culture.

Actually I have seen some of Mazandaranis and Gilak articles about this, and I also read a paper from Max Planck Institute, which was published in Elsevier about their genetic studies. One of Gilak articles which was named "We Are not Aryans" became very famous a few years ago. Anyway, the fact is that Iranologist and Pahlavis have hardly tried to attribute every thing in Iran to Farsis, ... while many of them are turned to be false. I have done some good research about these south caspian people(Mazerouni, Gaalesh, Gilak, and Talysh) and I can share them later with you.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

@doritos
Interestingly enough, the 17th-century Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Chelebi who traveled to Safavid Iran also states: "The majority of the women in Maragheh converse in Pahlavi".[21]

 

[ASQ-1918]

And you draw conclusions from that based on what? Not to mention that its a strange quote, women? Who are those women? And I'm not sure if Maragha equals Azerbaijan, as there is no question that during the time period you talk of, majority of Azerbaijan were Turkic speaking without a doubt. In all your posts about Safavids you have posted the same quote about Safavi ancestors moving to Azerbaijan and supposedly adopting the dominant Turkic there (much more earlier than 17th century), so at least listen to yourself and stop contradicting for once. Also care to read my post, including the third pharagraph. You find the answer.

Also, the same Evliya Chelebi notes Turkic spoken chiefly in Van and Diyarbakir (barely any left today), which was the Azerbaijani variety (hence, not Ottoman influence or Kurds using the language of Ottoman state), I'm not sure if anyone should draw some conclusions from it.