Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer. If you decide to continue your subscription, you’ll get a 50% discount when you use this link bit.ly/KhAnubis Also be sure to watch the companion video to this one over on the Faultline channel: th-cam.com/video/iIWXW8Uf5Dc/w-d-xo.html
That faultline video sucks ngl, it gives "iran before the islamic revolution (1979) colorized" vibes and acts like that was everywhere where people dressed like americans.
UK in WW1: "How DARE Germany invade NEUTRAL Belgium just to get to France! It's not even necessary to go through Belgium to get from Germany to France!" Also UK in WW1: Invades neutral Iran just because it's between British India and the Ottoman Empire, even though it's not necessary to go through it to get from British to Ottoman territory.
They didn't escape colonialism. They just had two equally matched colonialist empires that couldn't agree on who gets what and didn't have the ability to fight it out at that moment. Kinda like what's happening now to the region, honestly, between the US, India and China.
Nah I think Iran now is a completely different ballgame. Now (especially after their nuclear enrichment programmes) they’re much more of a military threat (maybe not against A tier world powers i.e China, US but definitely a substantial threat to B tier power countries i.e Saudi, Israel, most EU countries) and back then they seemed to be playing the neutral game where they tried to be diplomatic to both opposing ends but now they’ve pretty much made it vehemently clear that they are an enemy of the US and all their allies (especially their allies in the Middle East). Also I don’t think ur assessment on comparing current world hegemonies to old colonial empires is very suitable, as now the military playing field is still lopsided to the advantage of US, back then the military power was much more balanced. However China does have a major advantage in terms of economic reach as up to this point there are more countries with China as their main trading partner than the US. Even some Latin American countries close to the states are more economically linked to China now. So the dynamic and stakes are very different now.
Lmao you're completely wrong. China is partnering with Iran as a natural ally against the US and India has little to no influence in the region at all. It's not even comparable to the "great game".
China lacks any kind of influence that would even remotely count as 'colonialism', it really isn't competing with the US there. Definetly not India either lmao
@@FF-ch9nr good posts, it’s difficult to compare the colonial era powers to modern powers some Latin American countries close to the US do have more trade with China but few would be considered Allies of China which is why the U.S. Isn’t exceptionally worried about China in Latin America.
As an Iranian , I don't want my nation to be called "something like san Francisco" or "Hejaz"! I want every foreigner to remember our cause , "This is Iran , our National identity ; and we want to look like Iranian , neither western nor far eastern"
We were just a little smart and We were inciting France against Russia, England against Portugal, and Germany against England. And because of this, we were not colonized, also the mountains and the intense patriotism of Iranians helped Iran not to be colonized! 🇮🇷
@@cpj93070 Iranians are the smartest around. Cunning. Persians do the colonizing. Not the other way around. Just look at Iran - it runs 4 countries today.
You're right! The map he showed is wrong...There are Arabs in the coastal regions of Hormozgan but they aren't the majority population. Unlike the Arabs in Ahwaz/Khuzestan, Arab nationalism and secession tendencies are weak among the Arabs of Hormozgan. They don't mind speaking Persian and being part of Iran. Bandari Persian accent is actually their daily language spoken even in their homes. Many of them intermarry with the Persians of Hormozgan. The main reason for this is that the Persians of Southern Fars and Hormozgan are Sunni Muslims. Perhaps the only pocket of Persians in Iran that never converted to Twelver Shiism during the Safavids. I actually met a group of these Persians in Dubai...They self-identified as Persian Larestani! Very nice and friendly people!
@@Khaled91 arabs are only 20-25% of khuzestan actually not majority, and theyre all shia. In hormozgan arabs are like literally only a few percentage, though i think many there tend to be sunni instead of the arab population in khuzestan/ahvaz. Larestanis arent Arab, theyre ethnic Persians from the southern regions, though yea, genetically hormozgan people are Persian but theyre a mixture of native Iranians/Persians, semites, africans and south asians. Some maps mistakenly put them as arab for some odd reason while others dont.
This video is an example of not knowing anything about another country's history and just making something after watching other people's videos who were also wrong: 1. the 1871 treaty that gave all those resources to a British person was never implemented because it caused a national uprising and people forced the king to cancel the deal. 2. The 1907 treaty between England and Russia was also never implemented because Iranians never accepted it and they had no military force in Iran to make it happen at the time. Just because two foreign countries sit down and say I stay on this side of this line you stay on that line doesn't mean Iran was colonized. because for example a year earlier revolution of 1906 had happened and despite all the money and support Russia gave to new king to overthrow the new parliament, the parliamentary forces of Iran in 1907 defeated the Russia backed king and kicked him out. That's another example like 1871 how Iranians could and did push back against colonizers. 3. The treaty of 1919 to make Iran a protectorate didn't go through because the parliament refused it and unlike what the video says it had a lot of impact because the prime minister who signed the deal lost his job and there was massive resistance across Iran to the deal. they weren't sitting around and allowing England make Iran its colony. 4. Unlike what the video says the Iranians did allow the English and Russians to use their land during ww2 but those two later joined by the US invaded Iran anyway. The reason Iranians had a favorable view to Germans at the time was technical help they received during 1930s from Germans and Italians who sent hundreds of engineers to Iran to build up their industry. 5. prime minister Mosaddegh did not try to nationalize the oil, he actually did nationalize it in 1951 and even after the coup it remained nationalized. And the British after the coup of 53 did not get the oil back. Mosaadegh legacy which is nationalization of Iranian oil and kicking out the British lives on.
Interesting video! I would like to add a few things. For a very long time Iran was one of the world's strongest powers, even having the worlds largest standing army under the Afsharid dynasty. It was also allied to Britain for a very long time, Britain of course being a great power helped. Iran also had some luck with some good leaders and politicians such as Amir Kabir who helped modernise Iran. Iran also succefully also defeated major powers like Ottomans, Russia and every Portugal. It did also stand up to Britain. Because of this I would say that Iran was also not colonised for a very long time because it had an army to stand up against the colonial powers. Later of course as you say Iran became much weaker. There was a lot of luck there too. For example the Russians and British wanted to take over Iran after WW1, but because the Soviet union not wanting to be imperialist they denied Britain taking over Iran. After WW2 the Soviets wanted Northen Iran but America defended Iran. So I would say that Iran was not colonised because it had an strong army at the start, sometimes good politicians and a lot of luck. Edit: I would like to add a few things in the last part of the video too. The new oil deal with Britain under Reza Shah was much better than the previous one. It was not equal, but compared to what the deal was, it was much better. Reza Shah also built up Iran which helped Iran be more self sufficient even after his reign. It was also Reza Shah who refused the deal to turn Iran into a protectorate after WW1 when he came to power.
@@harrystyle6374 Dappers pfp is logo of SAVAK organization who basically just eliminated any different political parties and anyone anti-shah. The other guy pfp is about Cyrus the Great, a king who wrote the first human right declaration. Btw interesting 24 hour ago-made account
Not a particularly bad video regarding Iran’s “almost” colonized experience. However, I found your video a bit too oversimplified. There were many crucial details which were left out. If I am being honest, some parts of the country were unofficially somewhat colonized by the Anglo-Persian (later known as Anglo-Iranian) oil company in the province of khuzestan. There were specific areas built in Ahvaz for the comfort and luxury of the British employees of Anglo-Iranian; cafés, restaurants, tennis courts and dedicated bus lines with signs reading “not for Iranians”. Meanwhile, the Iranian workers of the oil company lived in mud brick houses in the ghettoes and slums of Ahvaz without proper sanitation, electricity, and plumbing of any kind. These slums were so bad that they would become massive hotspots for flies; swarms of flies looking like black clouds in the hot Iranian summer. Much of the foreign occupation prior to World War 2 under the Qajar dynasty of Iran was due to general corruption and incompetence. They were genuinely one of the most useless dynasties to ever rule Iran in its 2500-year history. There are accounts of Qajarid kings having more than 600 concubines and enjoying the greatest of luxuries. Kings who would diddle whores and run up hefty bills borrowed from European bankers and financiers while their people starved. Under this dynasty, Iran was also divided into various provinces held by tribal warlords (mostly consisting of the country’s migrant populations; Kurds, lors, and other Turkic groups). There was no resemblance of unity, whether it was political or social, just a mess of kleptocratic monarchs along with their advisory councils lacking any and all levels of competence.
Russia is also very diverse in various peoples too. For example, from the Dagestans & Karelians in the European half to various native peoples in Siberia, Russia has no shortage of diversity
Mr. KhAnubis seems to have a knack for pronouncing Persian/Irani/Farsi words... I'm impressed! He wouldn't be bad at English either, if he'd just slow down a bit... I have a really hard time understanding this guy sometimes, and I'm from Nevada!
@@mfaizsyahmi He is very much American... He's from Portland, Oregon, which is an odd place compared to all the other places in America... He has atrociously bad "millennial" diction, (slurred/mush-mouthed/lazy-yet-rushed; huge vocab, yet tons of mispronunciations in English and every other language besides Farsi for some reason; not that his Farsi is perfect, but it's better than his French and Korean, etc) ... but, his videos are really interesting, so I watch them anyway. I forgive him for his difficult-to-understand way of speech. If I got upset every time an English-speaking person called me an "Eye"-talian, I would be upset way too much... Some things are excusable, but intentional mispronunciation is just rude... There are rude people everywhere. I try to pronounce things correctly, but I don't assume that I'm always correct, lol.
@@mfaizsyahmi I fear that American English is becoming "agglutinative"; that is, mashing a bunch of words into one word: "Why do you never leave your house?" becomes "Waiyuoweeztrainastayupinnyahousallatine?" ("Why are you always trying to stay up in your house all the time"). It's difficult for a 20th century guy like me, but oh well.
Then Iranian prime minister nationalised the oil industry which made the brits who used to benefit from them very angry so they went there with other democratic nations to install an absolute monarchy.
He wanted to take over Iran and become reestablish the Qajar dynasty (he was of Qajar blood). He even wanted to destroy the democratic systems that put him in power in the first place.
4:05 THERE ARENT THAT MANY ARABS IN IRAN. ALSO U ONLY MENTIONED IRREDENTIST GROUPS LIKE BALOCHIS AND KURDS. AZERIS KURDS AND BALOCHIS AND LURIS AND TABARIS ARE IRANIAN
kurd - kurdistan - iran Lur - luristan - iran persian - persia - iran BTW if all persians say that kurds are iranian then why don’t you help us kurds from iraq and turkey and syria to re claim our land ?
@@bluemushroom7404 “Kurds (Kurdish: کورد ,Kurd) or Kurdish people are an Iranian[30][31][32] ethnic group native to the mountainous region of Kurdistan in Western Asia, which spans southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, and northern Syria.[33]” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds Are you saying Kurds are not Iranian? We can’t help you because we have our own problems as well.
Iran stayed independent because HM Reza Shah Pahlavi united all forces of the nations and systematically forced the British out of the country from the south and forced the Russians out of the country from the north. Nothing to do with disagreements between British and Russians as they were tending to invade as much as they could anyhow but to no avail!
I would like to learn more about the Iranian coups throughout the 20th century. Thank you for another interesting video and the link to the new channel! Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
In fact, Turkic-speaking peoples have played a major role in Iranian history, ruling the country from the eleventh century up to the early twentieth. Even today they represent more than a quarter of Iran's population. Foltz, R. (2016) Iran in world history. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. p.61
I wonder what would have happened if instead of competing for the land what would have happened if Russia and the UK just divided Iran the UK gets the south and Russia gets the north the Caspian Sea would belong entirely to Russia and the UK could connect India to its middle eastern mandates/colonies Honestly someone should make an alternative history on this
In Safavid Iran, tensions between Iranian bureau-crats and Turkic soldiery were well-known. Iran proper had been under Turkic rule , in one form or another , since Ghaznavid and Seljuk times . This tradition largely continued under the Afshar ( 1736-1796 ) and Qajar ( 1779-1925 ) dynasties . Johanson, L. and Bulut, C. (2006) Turkic-Iranian contact areas: Historical and linguistic aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. p.32, 33
Abbasid caliphate almost controlled by Iranians dude check history then talk. And also Iranians changed Mongolians culture, religion and beliefs ,they became Muslims.
@@Death-hp1lh I know, they were not colonized in modern sense but it was occupied and ruled by Ummayads and Rashiduns for nearly a century. Then later Persianized Turks and Mongols. The point is these forces also invaded and defeated Persia and yes didn't treat the territory like a colony where there is disciplined exploitry administration but still it had been under the captivity just like a colony.
@@alvesimam6618 Colonization happens when a highly civilized nation like Britain influences a less civilized or civilized but weak nation. Those nomads from steppe were not truely a national identity nor agricultural power. Caliph were a little closer to colonial thing but not completely identical as colonial powers.
Colonizing is just different than occupation. Colonization is done by the purpose of developing a land, hence it gets plundered as a matter of fact. In colonization the invader imposes his language or culture or even religion on the defeated, not only Mongolians or Arabs had invaded any lands for colonial reasons, they all got assimilated into the culture of the defeated nation so rather than colonizing they got colonized themselves. Take Ghaznavids for instance, a Turkic stock which was Persianated just right after then landed in Persia, they lost their religion, culture and so their language.
The Azerbaijanis derive in part from a heritage of Turkic rule over Iran, during most of the past 1,000 years. Iran adopted the Shi'a version of Islam under the rule of the Safavid Azerbaijani Turks beginning in 1500. The Turkic Qajar Dynasty (1779-1924) controlled all of present-day Iran and extensive territory in the Caucasus and Central Asia. When Colonel Reza Khan Pahlavi overthrew the Qajars, he promoted Persian language, culture, and identity at the expense of Azeri Turkish. Zartman, J.K. (2020) Conflict in the modern middle east: An encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and regime change. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p.136
Iran has been the name us Iranians have been referring to ourselves for thousands of years, Persia was just a province in south Iran & it was a mistake of Ancient Greeks to just call the entirety of Iran as just one province of it.
@3:00 - Not that the awkward straight lines were awkward for the people who made them, of course, since making them awkward for the people living there was the entire point, creating chaos and cutting the chances of united fronts forming.
disliked because of propaganda at the end there, it's always the same with some idiots showing a few pictures of Iran back then and implying this was the whole country, back then there were also many religious people and women dressing modestly but that doesn't suit the narrative, also the obsession with iranian women dressing like that is fking creepy.
I agree with you! They only show magazine photos from those times and compare it to the exact photos from Iranian suburbs or remote areas... Higher social classes were mostly affected by western fashion , that is true but not all the higher social classes were the same as westerns.
You are obviously not Iranian. It is not propaganda. Sure, there were also religious people but there were also many others that dressed the same way in the photos. It was around 50-50.
Iran ia a civilization with 7000 years old.Iran had great empires after islam such as safavid persian empire and afsharid empire nader shah also known as nightmare of turks❤🇮🇷☝️
We have been conquered and occupied, but we have not been COLONIZED, Like the entire region basically identifies as arabs and speaks arabic, even though many different languages, cultures and ethnicities used to live there, but Iranians still speak their languages and identify as their ethnicities and have their unique cultural identity
It was called Iran back then too. And no he did not. The Iranians retook all that land. The Parthians (Eastern Iranians), destroyed Alexander's Empire as soon as he passed away.
@khAnubis are you sure iran was never colonized im sure you forgot when saudi arabia ruled iran back in the rashidun caliphate and the islamic caliphate
first of all there was not saudi arabia at that time, you now better than me that saudia as a country is not that old, secondly people of iran were one off the main causes of that caliphates strength , it wasn’t like colonization it was the will of people to defend that caliphate because they simply seen it as theirs , caliphate means uniting off the people under the flag of islam and countries and nationalities are put behind
@@bluemushroom7404 not really many Iranians tried to plot to destroy the caliphate and actually hated the ummayed and Abbasids. But the Abbasids and ummayeds did not colonize Iran they were ruled by them.
Turks colonized Iran a few times. Mongols, Turco-Mongols and some others also colonized Iran before. Alexander the Great, etc… Iran was a colony more than not.
Homa Katouzian, "Iranian history and politics", Published by Routledge, 2003. p. 128: "Indeed, since the formation of the Ghaznavids state in the tenth century until the fall of Qajars at the beginning of the twentieth century, most parts of the Iranian cultural regions were ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time.
What do you mean? I don’t get why you’re so uneducated? There is a difference between invaded and colonized. Colonization is an European fabric which you wouldn’t know cause you weren’t taught anything by the looks of it
@@neonationalist1772 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 looool not even a real civilization hahahahaha. It came very late in history and it is nothing compared to ancient Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Assyria, Egypt, Hittite etc.
There's an interesting book called "The emergence of Iranian nationalism" by Reza Zia-Ibrahimi. He calls it "dislocative nationalism"...Where Iranians fantasize about a pre-Islamic past without knowing much about it other than being a mighty empire. They don't know how life was like for the peasants and farmers living under the Sassanids. They'll wear a Faravahar around their necks to attach themselves to that Romanic past. If you ask these Iranians about the Zoroastrian caste system...Or marrying their own mothers or sisters! You'll see them stutter and make excuses or perhaps never even heard of these practices. I then go on to mention how the lowest castes in modern-day India and those with no castes at all like the Dalits are converting to Islam at a rate that's sending shockwaves to the Hindu elite. Hinduism just like Zoroastrianism has a lot of imagery and symbolism...Plenty of mythical stories...Each God in Hinduism has its own story. Hinduism has deep roots in the Indian sub-continent! Dating back thousands of years. Now I ask you...Try and convince Pakistanis, Indian Muslims, and Bengalis of Hinduism...They'll slap you in the face just for even suggesting it! Iranians on the other hand...I'm talking about Shia-born Iranians by the way! Not Sunni Iranians, Christians, Jews! The latter know exactly who they are. Shia-born Iranians are confused individuals!
@@Khaled91 Ah, finally the comment I was waiting for, from a Muslim who knows nothing about Zoroastrianism. First of all, Iran had four Zoroastrian empires, the worst period of Iran's empire in terms of class differences, corruption, freedom, etc. was Sassanid The main reason was because Sassanid was attacked from all sides, From the right and north Göktork, from the left Eastern Roman Empire .When Muhammad and islam practiced slavery and allowed it in the Quran, Cyrus the Zoroastrian had abolished slavery thousands of years before him.When Muhammad and Islam called those who did not believe in Islam infidels and killed them and forced them to pay additional taxes, Cyrus the Zoroastrian respected all the religions of his people and ordered the reconstruction of their destroyed temples.(Surah Muhammad verse 4_Surah Towba Ayah 123_Surah Towba Ayah 29). Cyrus conquered three kingdoms and did not kill any of their kings، This is Zoroastrianism and learn not to talk about something you don't know. Your Abrahamic religions are worthless copies of the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism. There is no incestuousness marriage in Zoroastrianism, it's like if I see some gay Muslims and say that Muslims are all gay.Although Muslims are gay (Surah Toor Ayah 24). And do you want to know how a person becomes a Muslim? With knowing nothing about Islam and the Qur'an.The whole book of Islam and your quran and all the Abrahamic religions are nothing more than myth. Your Abrahamic religions say، You are born out of incestuousness marriage. Abel and Cain Married their own sisters. Lol
@@Khaled91 In all history after the Muslim attack on the people of Iran. They destroyed the temples and called them fire worshipers and forced them to convert to Islam and some of them went to India.the Hindus sheltered the Zoroastrians with their kindness and humanity.When Islam has nothing to say and wants to convert others to Islam with words and logic, it has no choice but to fight.
@@Khaled91 TH-cam keeps deleting my comments, but I’ll try and write another one. we are not Muslim. Mohhomad married a 6 year old. His followers would grab his spit and rub it all over him selves. They would drink his blood when he was wounded. Your “deen” allows slavery and concubinage. Our pre Islamic past is a million times better than your Bedouin desert cult. The black stone (Kabba) was always a part of Arabic polytheist tradition. Millions of Iranians were slaughtered, enslaved, raped and even worst; due to the Muslim conquests. You can cry all you want but it won’t change the fact that Iranians are leaving Islam in the masses. the country of Iran is not majority Muslim any more. Reza zia-ebrahimi is a scholar that is directly involved with the Islamic regime. He betrayed his scholarly oath by spreading deliberate propaganda.
In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74 Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Things got worsen after the revolution. The distance between social classes were tripled after revolution. Nothing changed but the tyrannt's cult of personality.
Actually Iran was a kind of colony of other empires, but much earlier. In the Middle Ages, the Arabs, Turks and Mongols dominated the area several times. And as everyone knows the Greeks invaded Persia even earlier, turning it into a proper colony even by modern standards, with large groups of Greeks being resettled there.
They occupied Iran, not colonize it lol. The Seleucids were their own dynasty, they never pledged any allegiance to Hellas or any other Greek establishment.
Colony is a modern term and concept actually. We were occupied not colonized! We weren't spoiled by any of the forces you mentioned and we solved them to ourselves. Non of colony forces let the colonized land enter the palace or be ministers or keep their language or keep the high prestige jobs for themselves and privilege themselves to the invaders! So, you don't know what does colony mean!
It was colonised culturally but not direct. Besides the European powers, Liberia was colonised by European Americans or mostly British Americans and of course the African Americans. It means, Liberia was colonised culturally as well as linguistics and political. Ethiopia is the real African country that resisted full colonisation, only occupied. Ethiopia still retain to its ancient language and culture hence manu African flags took Ethiopian flag as inspiration for resisting European powers.
My grandpa used to work with British in Iran . He said they smelled liked shit and Russian couldn't believe Iranian soldiers got fruits and they had fresh meat as an issued meal for everybody
We didn't smell like shit! The smell of shit was probably of your grandpa's clothes. Cause we use water not paper in toilet, we take off our shoes in homes but you, we take bath a lot because of Islamic Ahkam of Ghosl. Your grandpa was living in south of Iran in a hot place and didn't know how to live with tidiness in such hot weather and he thought his body's smell of shit was from us by mistake! 😂
Unfortuntly they dont read the history . Persia means the persians ( only one of the groups who live in the iran ) but iran mean land of the aryans and its mean more unity . The one who claim persia more likely dont know how many diffrent ppl live in iran
@@persiandude2378 "Persia" is a foreign name - but foreign names are not evil. I don't know how you call Greece, but almost all of Europe call this country "Greece", while Greece calls itself "Hellas". If Iran wants to call itself "Iran", it's great, it's normal, it's how it should be. But it would be great to allow other countries call foreign countries according to their own tradition and associations. And believe me, the name "Persia" has much more glorious connotations in the West than the name "Iran". I could bet that if the English name for your country was the Islamic Republic of Persia, you'd be having twice as many tourists :) But of course we respect the name "Iran" as well.
some truth and the rest your imagination as per what you like to be. I'm not belittling what some western powers could have accomplished at that time, but I know that Iran is not a country to be ruled with a non-Iranian force wherever she may be. at least not for long time.
In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74 Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.
The country was never a "Persian" country , it was called so but it was always a group of different ethnecities that lived in the region and formed the empires , That is true that the ruling emperors were usually Persians but not always, also the culture has stayed the same for nearly 2 thousand years , even the mongals in the area started adapting the iranian culture and language and started calling themselves iranian names
@@StoicHistorian colonizing and conquering are the same thing most of the time... colonizing literally means militarily subjugating another nation, settling in their region, and exploiting the resources. You see the pattern ?
Iran has continously been ruled by Iranians since the Safavids. Persian is mostly a western term that meant Iranian. Iranians themselves have never called their empire and themselves as Persians but as Iran and Iranians. For example Sassanid, Safavid and Afsharids called their country Iran and themselves as Iranians.
@@theburden9920 ask the government. People of Iran hate Russia but our government is the worst nightmare that anyone can have. In order to do some "anti west" shit and making a hybrid of monster-enemy outta west they got along with one of our actual "enemies" But... I mean even west itself isn't friend of us we should stand by ourselves
@@patriot5514 colonize had very bad effects on all countries dude not just Iran. Countries like Turkey, China, Japan and others. But Iranians did good job compare to others.
Bro, people in iran still celebrate their 3000 year old traditions, they are still called the same, and speak the same languages as before! What are you talking about?
the maps can be deceiving since most of the country is mountains theres valleys that are green all over iran, we live all over the country except for the desert on the north east
@@stonebro8941 no not most of the people. Iran has 80M people and Tehran houses about 15M of them. Most of them live in cities situated at the base of mountains(like Tehran)
@@thatshowyoudoit6583 As late as the 1660s and 1670s, a Frenchman at the Safavid court could still write: “Turkish is the language of the armies and of the court; one speaks nothing but Turkish there, as much among the women as among the men, throughout in the seraglios of the great; this comes about because the court is originally of the country of this language, descended from the Türkmens, of whom Turkish is their native tongue.”7 Chase, K. (2003). Eastern Islamdom. In Firearms: A Global History to 1700 (pp. 112-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806681.006 The Iranians thought the Turks coarse and uncouth, lacking any appreciation for poetry and the other fine arts. The Turks, on the other hand, looked down on the Persians as effete and unable to pacify and protect their own country. This conflict is said by one recent commen- tator to have been a major cause for the collapse of the regime. The Safavid emperors were never able to integrate the two types into a coherent, unified governing system." Blake, S. (1991). Courtly and popular culture. In Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India 1639-1739 (Cambridge South Asian Studies, pp. 122-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Because of their military prowess , the Qizilbash regarded the principal offices of the Safavid state as their natural due . In their eyes the functions of a Tajik ( a pejorative term for non - Turk ) were “ to look after the accounts and divan business . Blake, S., 1999. Half the World: The Social Architecture of Safavid Isfahan, 1590-1722 Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, p.7. The Zand dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1751 to 1794 , was the first native Iranian regime in almost six hundred years, as opposed to the Turkic and Mongolian sovereigns who until then had governed the land. Frye, R. (2009). Zand Dynasty. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. : Oxford University Press. For nearly a thousand years, Iran has generally been ruled by non-Persian dynasties, usually Turkish. Bosworth, C. (1968). THE POLITICAL AND DYNASTIC HISTORY OF THE IRANIAN WORLD (A.D. 1000-1217). In J. Boyle (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran (The Cambridge History of Iran, pp. 1-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
@@thatshowyoudoit6583 This essay examines Nader Shah Afshar's attempts to legitimize his rule by dint of his Turkic background. Over the course of his rise to power and reign, Nader consistently argued that his Afshar and Turkman affiliations granted him the right to rule over Iranian territory as an equal to his Ottoman, Mughal, and Central Asian contemporaries. Aided by his chief secretary and court historian, Mīrzā Mahdī Astarābādī, Nader's assertions paralleled those found in popular narratives about the history of Oghuz Turks in Islamic lands. This element of Nader's political identity is often overlooked by historians because it did not outlive the brief Afsharid period, but it demonstrates how the Safavid collapse led to the circulation of dynamic new claims to Iranian and Islamic political power. Karamustafa, A. (2022). The Hero of “the Noble Afshar People”: Reconsidering Nader Shah's Claims to Lineage and Legitimacy. Iranian Studies, 1-15 Besides territorial integrity, two alternative concepts of sovereignty to replace the crumbling dynastic ideal can be discerned in Nadir Shah's negotiations with the Ottomans in the 1730s. Nadir proposed equal relations based, first, on Ottoman recognition of the legitimacy of Twelver Shiism as a fifth school of orthodox Islamic law. And second, he proposed something akin to an ethnic or national concept - equal relations based on Nadir Shah's identity as a member of the noble Turkmen family of peoples." Howard, D. (2017). A History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.192 To justify his stance and claim a common heritage with the Ottomans, he invoked the history of Chinggis Khan: In the time of Chingiz Khan, the leaders of the Turkman tribes, who had left the land of Turan and migrated to Iran and Anatolia, were said to be all of one stock and one lineage. At that time, the exalted ancestor of the dynasty of the ever-increasing state [the Ottoman Empire] headed to Anatolia and our ancestor settled in the provinces of Iran. Since these lineages are interwoven and interconnected, it is hoped that when his royal highness learns of them, he will give royal consent to the establishment of peace between [us]. In a letter presented to the Ottomans after his assumption of the title of shah in 1736 Nadir claimed legitimacy simply as a Turk, stating that “kingship is the ancestral right of the exalted Turkmen tribe.” Thus the rulers of the regional states - the Chinggisid khans of Khiva, the Timurid/Chinggisid Mughals, the Ottomans, and Nadir himself, all had equal legitimacy. Furthermore, in a deliberate attempt to reverse the abandonment of the glorification of Genghis-Khanid descent as a ''branch of the tree of unbelief'' by Ismacil, Nadir tried to revive the pre-Safavid Turkman tribal principles of legitimacy, which had not been given currency since the fifteenth century. In a letter to the Ottoman grand vizier, Nadir states that the dignitaries of Iran gathered in the plain of Mughan "elected our august Majesty to kingship and sovereignty which are the hereditary prerogatives of the noble Turkman tribe." Mulla cAli Akbar, his Mulla-bashi, opens his pan-Islamic sermon in Kufah with the eulogy of Nadir not only as the shadow of God on earth, but also as the scion of the Turkman tree and heir to Genghis Khan. However, after Nadir's death, Safavid descent, often with a marked emphasis on its religious character, remained the most viable ground of legitimacy for rulership. Expectation of the Millennium : Shiìsm in History Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. State University of New York Press pp.194 The next effective ruler of Iran was Nadir Khan (r. 1729-47), a Redhead tribesman. Having seized power, he had a serious legitimacy problem,- he 'tried to revive the pre-Safavid Turkman tribal principles of legitimacy', and to justify himself on the grounds of descent from Timur and his manifest military exploits. At a Mongol-style assembly (1736), Iranian chiefs 'elected our august majesty to kingship and sovereignty which are the hereditary prerogatives of the noble Turkman tribe' (in Arjomand 1984: 221). Black, Antony, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001), pp.236 Ahmad's chroniclers also adapted and reconfigured various legitimating devices from Nader's ruling ideology. This included labeling the Afghans (and in particularly the Dorrani family) as the “il-e jalil-e Afghan” or “il-e jalil-e Dorrani” in imitation of the phrase “il-e jalil-e Torkman” used by Nader's court historians. Axworthy, M.. (2018). Crisis, collapse, militarism and civil war: The History And Historiography of 18th century Iran. pp. 65 The remains of the Moghul army had melted away, and the Moghul leaders had been slowly manoeuvred into giving Nader what he wanted. His task had been made easier by the common Turcoman/ Persian culture that the Moghuls and the invaders shared. The Moghul dynasty was originally Turkic or Turco-Mongol, descended directly from Timur himself, and for two centuries had enjoyed a refined Persian court culture. To emphasise their common origin Nader insisted that he and Mohammad Shah should speak together in the Turkic language of the peoples of Central Asia. The terms of the formal document ceding this territory, which we may take to have been directly dictated by Nader, referred again to the two monarchs’ shared Turcoman origin. It genuflected to the memory of the earlier Asiatic conquerors Timur and Genghis Khan in its mention of the family of Gurkan. In the document, Mohammad Shah said of Nader: And out of the Greatness of his Soul, and abundant humanity, in regard to the illustrious Family of Gourgan, and the Honour of the Original Tree of Turkan, [he] was graciously pleased to restore to me the Crown and Gem of Hindostan. Axworthy, M. (2006). Prologue: Zenith. In The Sword of Persia Nader Shah: From Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant (pp. 1-16). London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.. In letters to Mughal and Ottoman rulers, Nädir, in a parallel way, recalled the past by appealing to his common ancestry with them." He, too, sought to establish a world empire, but one that recognized the legitimacy of the contemporary rulers of India, Iran, Central Asia, and the Ottoman Empire, because, as his letters claimed, they each represented a people (an il) that constituted a legitimate Turkic or Timürid successor to the Mongols in particular regions of the Islamic world." Astarābādī described the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah as being "of the Turkmän tree and the scion of the Gürkânl (i.e. Timürid] family." A letter from Nädir to the Ottoman 1129 Sultan Mahmud I addressed Mahmüd as "the world-illuminating light of the Turkmän royal house.30 Avoiding any specific definitions of these ancestral Turkic ties, Nadir appealed to them as a way to reconnect disparate Muslim realms. In its audacity, Nadir's vision resembled Timür's grandiose plans. Both tried to invent the tradition of an imagined unity that had never actually existed, and could, in any case, only be implemented anyway by glossing over irreconcilable differences. Pfeiffer, J. and Woods, J., n.d. History and historiography of post Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East. pp.338, 339.
@@thatshowyoudoit6583 Page -72- Nadir laughed. ' The creatures of God. Bale. Yes. God is great. It has pleased Him to fill the world with dogs and asses. What am I that I should say a word ? But the Persians are not my people. I am a Turkoman.' Nadir Shah : Durand, Henry Mortimer, (Sir) 1850-1924
Laughing in xerxes accent (king of persia) accent while burning athen 😅 Btw , go read about the meaning of colonization !!! I think you dont know its meaning
Lesotho, Eswatani and Botswana were never colonized too, they were protectorates. Ethiopia was colonized a few times by the Arabs and by the Portuguese and Italians, Persia was a colony first of the Mongols and than of the Arabs.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer. If you decide to continue your subscription, you’ll get a 50% discount when you use this link bit.ly/KhAnubis
Also be sure to watch the companion video to this one over on the Faultline channel: th-cam.com/video/iIWXW8Uf5Dc/w-d-xo.html
Can you please do a video about the Republic of Liberia and why it wasn't Colonized by the Europeans
That faultline video sucks ngl, it gives "iran before the islamic revolution (1979) colorized" vibes and acts like that was everywhere where people dressed like americans.
They doxxed my great great grandma
Can you fix your first map because western Sahara was colonized by the Spanish not french also bits of Morocco was also colonized by the Spanish
Spherical globe
UK in WW1: "How DARE Germany invade NEUTRAL Belgium just to get to France! It's not even necessary to go through Belgium to get from Germany to France!"
Also UK in WW1: Invades neutral Iran just because it's between British India and the Ottoman Empire, even though it's not necessary to go through it to get from British to Ottoman territory.
Brits are best known for their hypocrisy and pretextes.
w*stoids 😒
Its a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario!
OIL!!!!!!
That was because Britain was one of the strongest countries in the world, at that time it was, what they say go's.
They didn't escape colonialism. They just had two equally matched colonialist empires that couldn't agree on who gets what and didn't have the ability to fight it out at that moment. Kinda like what's happening now to the region, honestly, between the US, India and China.
Which regions are you talking about specifically?
Nah I think Iran now is a completely different ballgame. Now (especially after their nuclear enrichment programmes) they’re much more of a military threat (maybe not against A tier world powers i.e China, US but definitely a substantial threat to B tier power countries i.e Saudi, Israel, most EU countries) and back then they seemed to be playing the neutral game where they tried to be diplomatic to both opposing ends but now they’ve pretty much made it vehemently clear that they are an enemy of the US and all their allies (especially their allies in the Middle East). Also I don’t think ur assessment on comparing current world hegemonies to old colonial empires is very suitable, as now the military playing field is still lopsided to the advantage of US, back then the military power was much more balanced. However China does have a major advantage in terms of economic reach as up to this point there are more countries with China as their main trading partner than the US. Even some Latin American countries close to the states are more economically linked to China now. So the dynamic and stakes are very different now.
Lmao you're completely wrong. China is partnering with Iran as a natural ally against the US and India has little to no influence in the region at all. It's not even comparable to the "great game".
China lacks any kind of influence that would even remotely count as 'colonialism', it really isn't competing with the US there. Definetly not India either lmao
@@FF-ch9nr good posts, it’s difficult to compare the colonial era powers to modern powers
some Latin American countries close to the US do have more trade with China but few would be considered Allies of China which is why the U.S. Isn’t exceptionally worried about China in Latin America.
Thank you for having us on!
Virgin: Restate what you already said
Chad: I'm bad at writing conclusions, Bye!!
As an Iranian , I don't want my nation to be called "something like san Francisco" or "Hejaz"!
I want every foreigner to remember our cause , "This is Iran , our National identity ; and we want to look like Iranian , neither western nor far eastern"
Even if the people call you hijazi you aren't, are you?
I mean do you know what does hijaz means?
@@zuheyrcade6239 no
unlucky then. you can't do jack about what others say.
@@zuheyrcade6239 im russian i dont get what you are talking about. What is hidjazi?
@@user-db5zc1nf4b the land that being ruled by the Saudi Kingdom .
Have you understood it?
We were just a little smart and
We were inciting France against Russia, England against Portugal, and Germany against England. And because of this, we were not colonized, also the mountains and the intense patriotism of Iranians helped Iran not to be colonized!
🇮🇷
😂What a load of rubbish, how exactly were YOU inciting all of this?
@@cpj93070 Iranians are the smartest around. Cunning.
Persians do the colonizing. Not the other way around.
Just look at Iran - it runs 4 countries today.
Dude western Sahara was colonized by the Spanish not french and bits of Morocco was also colonized by Spain
I loved the star trek refference, with world war the original series and world war the next generation!
Hormozgon/Bandar abbas and most of khuzestan is not arab, not sure why you counted them as Arabs. They’re Persian.
You're right! The map he showed is wrong...There are Arabs in the coastal regions of Hormozgan but they aren't the majority population. Unlike the Arabs in Ahwaz/Khuzestan, Arab nationalism and secession tendencies are weak among the Arabs of Hormozgan. They don't mind speaking Persian and being part of Iran. Bandari Persian accent is actually their daily language spoken even in their homes. Many of them intermarry with the Persians of Hormozgan. The main reason for this is that the Persians of Southern Fars and Hormozgan are Sunni Muslims. Perhaps the only pocket of Persians in Iran that never converted to Twelver Shiism during the Safavids. I actually met a group of these Persians in Dubai...They self-identified as Persian Larestani! Very nice and friendly people!
@@Khaled91 arabs are only 20-25% of khuzestan actually not majority, and theyre all shia. In hormozgan arabs are like literally only a few percentage, though i think many there tend to be sunni instead of the arab population in khuzestan/ahvaz. Larestanis arent Arab, theyre ethnic Persians from the southern regions, though yea, genetically hormozgan people are Persian but theyre a mixture of native Iranians/Persians, semites, africans and south asians. Some maps mistakenly put them as arab for some odd reason while others dont.
Anglo Persian oil company is the current BP
"flavor depravation" 🤣🤣🤣 I'M DYING!
first map is wrong
by the time the scramble for Africa had happened (1880s), Latin America already broke away from Spain (1820s)
The map isn't the map of European powers at and given point in time, it represents the regions colonized by Europe.
@@MimOzanTamamogullar Yes it's wrong western Sahara was colonized by the Spanish not french also bits of Morocco we're also colonized by the Spanish
Also the US a former British colony
@@MimOzanTamamogullar the usa was colonized too
This video is an example of not knowing anything about another country's history and just making something after watching other people's videos who were also wrong:
1. the 1871 treaty that gave all those resources to a British person was never implemented because it caused a national uprising and people forced the king to cancel the deal.
2. The 1907 treaty between England and Russia was also never implemented because Iranians never accepted it and they had no military force in Iran to make it happen at the time. Just because two foreign countries sit down and say I stay on this side of this line you stay on that line doesn't mean Iran was colonized. because for example a year earlier revolution of 1906 had happened and despite all the money and support Russia gave to new king to overthrow the new parliament, the parliamentary forces of Iran in 1907 defeated the Russia backed king and kicked him out. That's another example like 1871 how Iranians could and did push back against colonizers.
3. The treaty of 1919 to make Iran a protectorate didn't go through because the parliament refused it and unlike what the video says it had a lot of impact because the prime minister who signed the deal lost his job and there was massive resistance across Iran to the deal. they weren't sitting around and allowing England make Iran its colony.
4. Unlike what the video says the Iranians did allow the English and Russians to use their land during ww2 but those two later joined by the US invaded Iran anyway. The reason Iranians had a favorable view to Germans at the time was technical help they received during 1930s from Germans and Italians who sent hundreds of engineers to Iran to build up their industry.
5. prime minister Mosaddegh did not try to nationalize the oil, he actually did nationalize it in 1951 and even after the coup it remained nationalized. And the British after the coup of 53 did not get the oil back. Mosaadegh legacy which is nationalization of Iranian oil and kicking out the British lives on.
Interesting video! I would like to add a few things. For a very long time Iran was one of the world's strongest powers, even having the worlds largest standing army under the Afsharid dynasty. It was also allied to Britain for a very long time, Britain of course being a great power helped. Iran also had some luck with some good leaders and politicians such as Amir Kabir who helped modernise Iran.
Iran also succefully also defeated major powers like Ottomans, Russia and every Portugal. It did also stand up to Britain. Because of this I would say that Iran was also not colonised for a very long time because it had an army to stand up against the colonial powers. Later of course as you say Iran became much weaker. There was a lot of luck there too. For example the Russians and British wanted to take over Iran after WW1, but because the Soviet union not wanting to be imperialist they denied Britain taking over Iran. After WW2 the Soviets wanted Northen Iran but America defended Iran.
So I would say that Iran was not colonised because it had an strong army at the start, sometimes good politicians and a lot of luck.
Edit: I would like to add a few things in the last part of the video too. The new oil deal with Britain under Reza Shah was much better than the previous one. It was not equal, but compared to what the deal was, it was much better. Reza Shah also built up Iran which helped Iran be more self sufficient even after his reign. It was also Reza Shah who refused the deal to turn Iran into a protectorate after WW1 when he came to power.
@@AflatoXinOG during the war to reconquer the straight of Hormuz from Portugal. Yes they were. Britain and Safavid Persia were “allies”.
Javid Shah! thanks to the Pahlavi's the western influence in Iran was curvestomped!
That is exactly the opposite of what happened.
This is the funniest comment I've read. How deluded could one be.
@@alirezabhmanabadi4235 from his pfp, you can obviously tell he is demented
@@Ahmed-zj6ldWell.... I have the same kind of profile picture as him but i'm not like him.
@@harrystyle6374 Dappers pfp is logo of SAVAK organization who basically just eliminated any different political parties and anyone anti-shah. The other guy pfp is about Cyrus the Great, a king who wrote the first human right declaration. Btw interesting 24 hour ago-made account
Not a particularly bad video regarding Iran’s “almost” colonized experience. However, I found your video a bit too oversimplified. There were many crucial details which were left out. If I am being honest, some parts of the country were unofficially somewhat colonized by the Anglo-Persian (later known as Anglo-Iranian) oil company in the province of khuzestan. There were specific areas built in Ahvaz for the comfort and luxury of the British employees of Anglo-Iranian; cafés, restaurants, tennis courts and dedicated bus lines with signs reading “not for Iranians”. Meanwhile, the Iranian workers of the oil company lived in mud brick houses in the ghettoes and slums of Ahvaz without proper sanitation, electricity, and plumbing of any kind. These slums were so bad that they would become massive hotspots for flies; swarms of flies looking like black clouds in the hot Iranian summer.
Much of the foreign occupation prior to World War 2 under the Qajar dynasty of Iran was due to general corruption and incompetence. They were genuinely one of the most useless dynasties to ever rule Iran in its 2500-year history. There are accounts of Qajarid kings having more than 600 concubines and enjoying the greatest of luxuries. Kings who would diddle whores and run up hefty bills borrowed from European bankers and financiers while their people starved. Under this dynasty, Iran was also divided into various provinces held by tribal warlords (mostly consisting of the country’s migrant populations; Kurds, lors, and other Turkic groups). There was no resemblance of unity, whether it was political or social, just a mess of kleptocratic monarchs along with their advisory councils lacking any and all levels of competence.
World war 1 occupation of Iran was at the time of Qajars and World war 2 at the time of Pahlavis.
@@patriot5514 oh yes I mentioned that it was prior WWII (before).
Nepal and Bhutan too were never colonized
Maybe a video on how they escaped colonialism too?
Despite Britain's best efforts.
@@shauncameron8390 We will get them next time, can you believe an island people literally tried to take over the world.
Russia is also very diverse in various peoples too. For example, from the Dagestans & Karelians in the European half to various native peoples in Siberia, Russia has no shortage of diversity
Mr. KhAnubis seems to have a knack for pronouncing Persian/Irani/Farsi words... I'm impressed! He wouldn't be bad at English either, if he'd just slow down a bit... I have a really hard time understanding this guy sometimes, and I'm from Nevada!
Play it at 0.75 speed
Not being American helps. I'm sick of hearing Iran pronounced "I ran" and Iraq "I wreck" tbvh.
@@mfaizsyahmi He is very much American... He's from Portland, Oregon, which is an odd place compared to all the other places in America... He has atrociously bad "millennial" diction, (slurred/mush-mouthed/lazy-yet-rushed; huge vocab, yet tons of mispronunciations in English and every other language besides Farsi for some reason; not that his Farsi is perfect, but it's better than his French and Korean, etc) ...
but, his videos are really interesting, so I watch them anyway. I forgive him for his difficult-to-understand way of speech.
If I got upset every time an English-speaking person called me an "Eye"-talian, I would be upset way too much... Some things are excusable, but intentional mispronunciation is just rude... There are rude people everywhere. I try to pronounce things correctly, but I don't assume that I'm always correct, lol.
@@mfaizsyahmi I fear that American English is becoming "agglutinative"; that is, mashing a bunch of words into one word:
"Why do you never leave your house?" becomes "Waiyuoweeztrainastayupinnyahousallatine?" ("Why are you always trying to stay up in your house all the time"). It's difficult for a 20th century guy like me, but oh well.
@@mfaizsyahmi but there's that great Flock of Seagulls song... and Iran, I run so far away, I just ran, I run all night & day...
Lots of jokes in this one! Very enjoyable and educational.
Then Iranian prime minister nationalised the oil industry which made the brits who used to benefit from them very angry so they went there with other democratic nations to install an absolute monarchy.
Yup. Let's be real.
He wanted to take over Iran and become reestablish the Qajar dynasty (he was of Qajar blood). He even wanted to destroy the democratic systems that put him in power in the first place.
0:12
Germany: *"Am i a Joke to you?!"*
7:17
"20 Years in the Can"
4:05 THERE ARENT THAT MANY ARABS IN IRAN. ALSO U ONLY MENTIONED IRREDENTIST GROUPS LIKE BALOCHIS AND KURDS. AZERIS KURDS AND BALOCHIS AND LURIS AND TABARIS ARE IRANIAN
kurd - kurdistan - iran
Lur - luristan - iran
persian - persia - iran
BTW if all persians say that kurds are iranian then why don’t you help us kurds from iraq and turkey and syria to re claim our land ?
@@bluemushroom7404 “Kurds (Kurdish: کورد ,Kurd) or Kurdish people are an Iranian[30][31][32] ethnic group native to the mountainous region of Kurdistan in Western Asia, which spans southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, and northern Syria.[33]”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds
Are you saying Kurds are not Iranian? We can’t help you because we have our own problems as well.
پروفایل اون سجادی کیری رو بردار 💀
7:40 the oil stayed nationalised even after the so-called “coup”
Btw, everyone should watch Rudyard Kipling's Kim with Errol Flynn.
Iran stayed independent because HM Reza Shah Pahlavi united all forces of the nations and systematically forced the British out of the country from the south and forced the Russians out of the country from the north. Nothing to do with disagreements between British and Russians as they were tending to invade as much as they could anyhow but to no avail!
Btw
In WW1 Almost half the population of Iran died in famine
I heard that numbers heavily exaggerated
@@persianguy1524there are various numbers
But we know at least in West Azerbaijan province exactly half of us died
@@bghn4114 interesting. You have any source I could see?
Well done and indeed well explained! However, those old photos of Iran were actually from 70s.
Great video.
I would like to learn more about the Iranian coups throughout the 20th century. Thank you for another interesting video and the link to the new channel!
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
In fact, Turkic-speaking peoples have played a major role in Iranian history, ruling the country from the eleventh century up to the early twentieth. Even today they represent more than a quarter of Iran's population.
Foltz, R. (2016) Iran in world history. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. p.61
I wonder what would have happened if instead of competing for the land what would have happened if Russia and the UK just divided Iran the UK gets the south and Russia gets the north the Caspian Sea would belong entirely to Russia and the UK could connect India to its middle eastern mandates/colonies
Honestly someone should make an alternative history on this
In Safavid Iran, tensions between Iranian bureau-crats and Turkic soldiery were well-known. Iran proper had been under Turkic rule , in one form or another , since Ghaznavid and Seljuk times . This tradition largely continued under the Afshar ( 1736-1796 ) and Qajar ( 1779-1925 ) dynasties .
Johanson, L. and Bulut, C. (2006) Turkic-Iranian contact areas: Historical and linguistic aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. p.32, 33
you are here? 😅😂😂😂
still talking about great iran...
What about Mongol and Arab occupation? Yes those were medieval times but wasn't it kind of colonized at that time?
Abbasid caliphate almost controlled by Iranians dude check history then talk. And also Iranians changed Mongolians culture, religion and beliefs ,they became Muslims.
@@Death-hp1lh I know, they were not colonized in modern sense but it was occupied and ruled by Ummayads and Rashiduns for nearly a century. Then later Persianized Turks and Mongols. The point is these forces also invaded and defeated Persia and yes didn't treat the territory like a colony where there is disciplined exploitry administration but still it had been under the captivity just like a colony.
@@alvesimam6618 Colonization happens when a highly civilized nation like Britain influences a less civilized or civilized but weak nation. Those nomads from steppe were not truely a national identity nor agricultural power.
Caliph were a little closer to colonial thing but not completely identical as colonial powers.
Colonizing is just different than occupation. Colonization is done by the purpose of developing a land, hence it gets plundered as a matter of fact. In colonization the invader imposes his language or culture or even religion on the defeated, not only Mongolians or Arabs had invaded any lands for colonial reasons, they all got assimilated into the culture of the defeated nation so rather than colonizing they got colonized themselves. Take Ghaznavids for instance, a Turkic stock which was Persianated just right after then landed in Persia, they lost their religion, culture and so their language.
The Azerbaijanis derive in part from a heritage of Turkic rule over Iran, during most of the past 1,000 years. Iran adopted the Shi'a version of Islam under the rule of the Safavid Azerbaijani Turks beginning in 1500. The Turkic Qajar Dynasty (1779-1924) controlled all of present-day Iran and extensive territory in the Caucasus and Central Asia. When Colonel Reza Khan Pahlavi overthrew the Qajars, he promoted Persian language, culture, and identity at the expense of Azeri Turkish.
Zartman, J.K. (2020) Conflict in the modern middle east: An encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and regime change. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p.136
I kinda wish iran would become Persia again. Just sounds fun to me. Every country should at least have a throw back Thursday you know?
Persia is a foreign name.
@@zyanego3170 kinda like japan is nippon?
@@tracym8952 Yeah.
Iran has been the name us Iranians have been referring to ourselves for thousands of years, Persia was just a province in south Iran & it was a mistake of Ancient Greeks to just call the entirety of Iran as just one province of it.
And as a Kurdish Iranian, the name "Iran" is much more fair since it includes all the Iranian people. While Persia is just... yk for Persians :/
@3:00 - Not that the awkward straight lines were awkward for the people who made them, of course, since making them awkward for the people living there was the entire point, creating chaos and cutting the chances of united fronts forming.
7:54 "Iran in 1950" That's amazing..
im subscribed, but no notifications, since i dont want spam. i see this in my recommended, 7 views and only 40 seconds. cool.
0:10 Indonesia and Suriname is Russian colony?
Or Russia is a Dutch colony? :D
Bad choice of colors. :D
disliked because of propaganda at the end there, it's always the same with some idiots showing a few pictures of Iran back then and implying this was the whole country, back then there were also many religious people and women dressing modestly but that doesn't suit the narrative, also the obsession with iranian women dressing like that is fking creepy.
I agree with you! They only show magazine photos from those times and compare it to the exact photos from Iranian suburbs or remote areas...
Higher social classes were mostly affected by western fashion , that is true but not all the higher social classes were the same as westerns.
You are obviously not Iranian. It is not propaganda. Sure, there were also religious people but there were also many others that dressed the same way in the photos. It was around 50-50.
Iran ia a civilization with 7000 years old.Iran had great empires after islam such as safavid persian empire and afsharid empire nader shah also known as nightmare of turks❤🇮🇷☝️
Didn't you turn against your own king?
@@madlan2282 when?
😂😂 lol
@@Ahmed-zj6ld 1979. Bruh
@@madlan2282 Thats like more than 400 years away from what that guy is talking about
0:06
Indonesia colonized by Russia?
(Dark yellow color, like the countries of the USSR)
No,its was by the Netherlands.
(It have almost the same color)
you should do nepal or bhutan aswell
Loved this video, but in the thumbnail, shouldn't the Russian flag be on top to be geographically accurate?
Did Alexander not conquer Persia?
We have been conquered and occupied, but we have not been COLONIZED, Like the entire region basically identifies as arabs and speaks arabic, even though many different languages, cultures and ethnicities used to live there, but Iranians still speak their languages and identify as their ethnicities and have their unique cultural identity
Also, alexander had immense respect for persia, he did concure it but married the old shah’s daughter
It was called Iran back then too.
And no he did not. The Iranians retook all that land. The Parthians (Eastern Iranians), destroyed Alexander's Empire as soon as he passed away.
I mean, Portugal kinda tried.
Just 1 island but At end Lost Badly
@khAnubis are you sure iran was never colonized im sure you forgot when saudi arabia ruled iran back in the rashidun caliphate and the islamic caliphate
That’s being ruled colonized is a little different
first of all there was not saudi arabia at that time, you now better than me that saudia as a country is not that old, secondly people of iran were one off the main causes of that caliphates strength , it wasn’t like colonization it was the will of people to defend that caliphate because they simply seen it as theirs , caliphate means uniting off the people under the flag of islam and countries and nationalities are put behind
@@bluemushroom7404 not really many Iranians tried to plot to destroy the caliphate and actually hated the ummayed and Abbasids. But the Abbasids and ummayeds did not colonize Iran they were ruled by them.
Turks colonized Iran a few times. Mongols, Turco-Mongols and some others also colonized Iran before.
Alexander the Great, etc…
Iran was a colony more than not.
Colonized doesn't mean it was a colony
It was never. Iranians destroyed the Seleucids easily.
💪we are arian💪
Japan is an American colony currently
Homa Katouzian, "Iranian history and politics", Published by Routledge, 2003. p. 128: "Indeed, since the formation of the Ghaznavids state in the tenth century until the fall of Qajars at the beginning of the twentieth century, most parts of the Iranian cultural regions were ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time.
Looooool Iran was colonized dozens of times
Turks were Slaves of Persians for 200 years and got Persianized racially and culturally
What do you mean? I don’t get why you’re so uneducated? There is a difference between invaded and colonized. Colonization is an European fabric which you wouldn’t know cause you weren’t taught anything by the looks of it
because it's Persian and Persian are great people and civilization
what about the other ethnicities? ofc , you don't care about them , only persian lives matter
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
✌✌✌❤❤❤ The land of civilization
@@neonationalist1772 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 looool not even a real civilization hahahahaha. It came very late in history and it is nothing compared to ancient Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Assyria, Egypt, Hittite etc.
@@bcvxx8688 Persian civilization and empire existed before Egypt LOL what 💀 . and they also ruled all of these places you just named LOL 💀
*laughs in Greek, Arabic, Turkic languages*
Ahh my iran was so beautiful before islamic republic such a shame 💔
@Ευαγγελος Αγγελος Worse than that year was the Muslim attack on Sassanid. After Islam, Iran was never the same
There's an interesting book called "The emergence of Iranian nationalism" by Reza Zia-Ibrahimi. He calls it "dislocative nationalism"...Where Iranians fantasize about a pre-Islamic past without knowing much about it other than being a mighty empire. They don't know how life was like for the peasants and farmers living under the Sassanids. They'll wear a Faravahar around their necks to attach themselves to that Romanic past. If you ask these Iranians about the Zoroastrian caste system...Or marrying their own mothers or sisters! You'll see them stutter and make excuses or perhaps never even heard of these practices. I then go on to mention how the lowest castes in modern-day India and those with no castes at all like the Dalits are converting to Islam at a rate that's sending shockwaves to the Hindu elite. Hinduism just like Zoroastrianism has a lot of imagery and symbolism...Plenty of mythical stories...Each God in Hinduism has its own story. Hinduism has deep roots in the Indian sub-continent! Dating back thousands of years. Now I ask you...Try and convince Pakistanis, Indian Muslims, and Bengalis of Hinduism...They'll slap you in the face just for even suggesting it! Iranians on the other hand...I'm talking about Shia-born Iranians by the way! Not Sunni Iranians, Christians, Jews! The latter know exactly who they are. Shia-born Iranians are confused individuals!
@@Khaled91 Ah, finally the comment I was waiting for, from a Muslim who knows nothing about Zoroastrianism. First of all, Iran had four Zoroastrian empires, the worst period of Iran's empire in terms of class differences, corruption, freedom, etc. was Sassanid The main reason was because Sassanid was attacked from all sides, From the right and north Göktork, from the left Eastern Roman Empire .When Muhammad and islam practiced slavery and allowed it in the Quran, Cyrus the Zoroastrian had abolished slavery thousands of years before him.When Muhammad and Islam called those who did not believe in Islam infidels and killed them and forced them to pay additional taxes, Cyrus the Zoroastrian respected all the religions of his people and ordered the reconstruction of their destroyed temples.(Surah Muhammad verse 4_Surah Towba Ayah 123_Surah Towba Ayah 29). Cyrus conquered three kingdoms and did not kill any of their kings، This is Zoroastrianism and learn not to talk about something you don't know. Your Abrahamic religions are worthless copies of the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism. There is no incestuousness marriage in Zoroastrianism, it's like if I see some gay Muslims and say that Muslims are all gay.Although Muslims are gay (Surah Toor Ayah 24). And do you want to know how a person becomes a Muslim? With knowing nothing about Islam and the Qur'an.The whole book of Islam and your quran and all the Abrahamic religions are nothing more than myth. Your Abrahamic religions say، You are born out of incestuousness marriage. Abel and Cain Married their own sisters. Lol
@@Khaled91 In all history after the Muslim attack on the people of Iran. They destroyed the temples and called them fire worshipers and forced them to convert to Islam and some of them went to India.the Hindus sheltered the Zoroastrians with their kindness and humanity.When Islam has nothing to say and wants to convert others to Islam with words and logic, it has no choice but to fight.
@@Khaled91 TH-cam keeps deleting my comments, but I’ll try and write another one. we are not Muslim. Mohhomad married a 6 year old. His followers would grab his spit and rub it all over him selves. They would drink his blood when he was wounded.
Your “deen” allows slavery and concubinage. Our pre Islamic past is a million times better than your Bedouin desert cult. The black stone (Kabba) was always a part of Arabic polytheist tradition. Millions of Iranians were slaughtered, enslaved, raped and even worst; due to the Muslim conquests.
You can cry all you want but it won’t change the fact that Iranians are leaving Islam in the masses. the country of Iran is not majority Muslim any more. Reza zia-ebrahimi is a scholar that is directly involved with the Islamic regime. He betrayed his scholarly oath by spreading deliberate propaganda.
Do i believe this? Cuz history are not true much idk they say…..
In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74
Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.
I know I have a western view on things but I feel like after the Islamic revolution in Iran things got worse.
Ofc there's a lot of pressure from the west, internal problems , and their allies not as strong as the west
Things got worsen after the revolution. The distance between social classes were tripled after revolution. Nothing changed but the tyrannt's cult of personality.
@@patriot5514 hopefully one day Iran will become a democracy maybe even secular.
@@ianpokemon04 what democracy
@@naonzz5942 what? Im saying I hope Iran becomes a democracy
Iran got split between USSR and UK in ww2
Actually Iran was a kind of colony of other empires, but much earlier. In the Middle Ages, the Arabs, Turks and Mongols dominated the area several times. And as everyone knows the Greeks invaded Persia even earlier, turning it into a proper colony even by modern standards, with large groups of Greeks being resettled there.
Yes, many have invaded, none has colonized in the sense of removing our cultures
They occupied Iran, not colonize it lol. The Seleucids were their own dynasty, they never pledged any allegiance to Hellas or any other Greek establishment.
Kid this is conqest in this case grece was otomon colonie for 500years
Colony is a modern term and concept actually. We were occupied not colonized! We weren't spoiled by any of the forces you mentioned and we solved them to ourselves. Non of colony forces let the colonized land enter the palace or be ministers or keep their language or keep the high prestige jobs for themselves and privilege themselves to the invaders! So, you don't know what does colony mean!
Iranians rule West Asia today. Live in present.
Why USA is not marked in the map at the begining of the video ?
It should be red because it was created by England.
What about the USSR invasion of Iran and refusing to leave it until UN pressured heavily on them
I LOVE KHANUBIS
Japan: Nice brother
you might have a diverse heritage as well:
my mom getting 99% irish
Oh sweet, I love Faultline!
It was called occupation
Dident efeopia get annex by otely in ww2?????
It did by Italy
Occupied, not colonised.
Can you please do a video about the Republic of Liberia and why it wasn't Colonized by the Europeans
It was colonized by black Americans before any Europeans thought about colonizing Africa?
It was colonised culturally but not direct. Besides the European powers, Liberia was colonised by European Americans or mostly British Americans and of course the African Americans. It means, Liberia was colonised culturally as well as linguistics and political.
Ethiopia is the real African country that resisted full colonisation, only occupied. Ethiopia still retain to its ancient language and culture hence manu African flags took Ethiopian flag as inspiration for resisting European powers.
It was still called Persia back then. It's ok to call it Persia even today.
But why
It was ok to buy people back then, it's OK to buy them now
didn't get colonized + we consume more tea than the brits
"kind of" reminds me of Nepal.
My grandpa used to work with British in Iran . He said they smelled liked shit and Russian couldn't believe Iranian soldiers got fruits and they had fresh meat as an issued meal for everybody
We didn't smell like shit! The smell of shit was probably of your grandpa's clothes. Cause we use water not paper in toilet, we take off our shoes in homes but you, we take bath a lot because of Islamic Ahkam of Ghosl. Your grandpa was living in south of Iran in a hot place and didn't know how to live with tidiness in such hot weather and he thought his body's smell of shit was from us by mistake! 😂
@@aryana7253 im Iranian you water head.
@@o5306somone could think you said your grandpa was talking about the Iraninians not about the British the way you phrased it
I think there still is some conflict around the Iran/Persia thing. In Vancouver, Iranians prefer Persian/
Unfortuntly they dont read the history . Persia means the persians ( only one of the groups who live in the iran ) but iran mean land of the aryans and its mean more unity . The one who claim persia more likely dont know how many diffrent ppl live in iran
@@persiandude2378 "Persia" is a foreign name - but foreign names are not evil. I don't know how you call Greece, but almost all of Europe call this country "Greece", while Greece calls itself "Hellas". If Iran wants to call itself "Iran", it's great, it's normal, it's how it should be. But it would be great to allow other countries call foreign countries according to their own tradition and associations. And believe me, the name "Persia" has much more glorious connotations in the West than the name "Iran". I could bet that if the English name for your country was the Islamic Republic of Persia, you'd be having twice as many tourists :) But of course we respect the name "Iran" as well.
@@persiandude2378 most of the country is Persian and Iran is a Persian centric nation. Nothing wrong with that.
@@MrAdik861 Persia is the latinized version of Pars or Parsa, what Persians called their homeland, so it’s not a foreign name.
some truth and the rest your imagination as per what you like to be. I'm not belittling what some western powers could have accomplished at that time, but I know that Iran is not a country to be ruled with a non-Iranian force wherever she may be. at least not for long time.
iran was colonised by the macedonians, arabs and mongols
In contrast to those Iranian officials who claim that the Turks in Iran were actually originally Persians, the late IRGC Commander Qassem Suleimani claimed that the descendants of Turkic dynasties that live in Iran are not Iranian. Suleimani claimed: "Turks are aliens and non-Iranians. For hundreds of years (during Turkic rule in Iran), Iran had no history. Non- Iranians like the Seljuks invaded and ruled Iran."74
Shaffer, B. (2023) Iran is more than persia: Ethnic politics in Iran. Berlin: De Gruyter.
British took more then half of balochistan from Iran 🤣🤣🤣what you mean balochistan is 43 percent land of current day Pakistan
alexander the great: am i a joke to you?
Alexander is a big lie of history Documents obtained
Deryus the great: yes
1:00 you forgot the Macedonian Empire.
nice
#زن_زندگی_آزادی
Iran got ruled by non-Persians in most of history so they got colonized
The country was never a "Persian" country , it was called so but it was always a group of different ethnecities that lived in the region and formed the empires , That is true that the ruling emperors were usually Persians but not always, also the culture has stayed the same for nearly 2 thousand years , even the mongals in the area started adapting the iranian culture and language and started calling themselves iranian names
C'mon dude, at least look at the video before commenting
They got conquered not colonized
@@StoicHistorian colonizing and conquering are the same thing most of the time... colonizing literally means militarily subjugating another nation, settling in their region, and exploiting the resources. You see the pattern ?
Iran has continously been ruled by Iranians since the Safavids. Persian is mostly a western term that meant Iranian. Iranians themselves have never called their empire and themselves as Persians but as Iran and Iranians. For example Sassanid, Safavid and Afsharids called their country Iran and themselves as Iranians.
Iran is never colonized but our country lost so many land to russia and brittain
Then why u still friends with russia tho
@@theburden9920 because of our idiot goverment
@@theburden9920 because our economy relies on them. ( the west sanctioned us remember?
@@theburden9920 ask the government.
People of Iran hate Russia but our government is the worst nightmare that anyone can have. In order to do some "anti west" shit and making a hybrid of monster-enemy outta west they got along with one of our actual "enemies"
But... I mean even west itself isn't friend of us we should stand by ourselves
@@theburden9920
We are not
It's our government they have Communist root
It is right now, by Russia
Gg my homeland
If old colonies are in it, germany should be too
Why iran never be colonized? Look like why Britain never conquered by Napoleon? Same.
Iran was highly influenced and occupied several times. Britania were a major power.
@@patriot5514 colonize had very bad effects on all countries dude not just Iran. Countries like Turkey, China, Japan and others. But Iranians did good job compare to others.
Why Iran was never colonized is equivalent to saying Why Britain was never colonized
huh
No it is not , because in that times Britania were at its power peak unlike Iranians.
Bro, people in iran still celebrate their 3000 year old traditions, they are still called the same, and speak the same languages as before! What are you talking about?
I hate when people say Georgia is eroupean
Iran look so brown in images. Where do most of the people live? In the green part up north?
the maps can be deceiving since most of the country is mountains theres valleys that are green all over iran, we live all over the country except for the desert on the north east
It’s mountains mostly, the map doesn’t show fertile zones in mountains for some reason.
Most of people live in the capital Tehran it isn't the green part of North but it's North
@@stonebro8941 no not most of the people. Iran has 80M people and Tehran houses about 15M of them. Most of them live in cities situated at the base of mountains(like Tehran)
Tons of green and show.
Persian rule in Iran broadly ended with the Islamic conquest (mid 7th century) resulting with a dominant Arabic, Turkic, and Mongolic rule whereas only 2 Iranian dynasties, Buyids and Zands, managed to rule Iran
Foreign rule in Persia ;
Macedonians(Hellen)
Seleucids(Hellen)
Rashiduns(Arab)
Umayyads(Arab)
Abbasids(Arab)
Ghaznavids(Turk)
Seljuks(Turk)
Eldiguzids(Turk)
Khwarezmids(Turk)
Chingissids(Mongol)
Ilkhanids(Mongol)
Muzaffarids(Arab)
Timurids(Turk)
Karakoyunlu(Turk)
Akkoyunlu(Turk)
Safavids(Turk)
Afsharids(Turk)
Qajars(Turk)
Qatar Safavid asharid and wermedis were Persian dynasty with Turk origins. Never the less they were still a Persian dynasty
@@thatshowyoudoit6583
As late as the 1660s and 1670s, a Frenchman at the Safavid court could still write: “Turkish is the language of the armies and of the court; one speaks nothing but Turkish there, as much among the women as among the men, throughout in the seraglios of the great; this comes about because the court is originally of the country of this language, descended from the Türkmens, of whom Turkish is their native tongue.”7
Chase, K. (2003). Eastern Islamdom. In Firearms: A Global History to 1700 (pp. 112-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806681.006
The Iranians thought the Turks coarse and uncouth, lacking any appreciation for poetry and the other fine arts. The Turks, on the other hand, looked down on the Persians as effete and unable to pacify and protect their own country. This conflict is said by one recent commen- tator to have been a major cause for the collapse of the regime. The Safavid emperors were never able to integrate the two types into a coherent, unified governing system."
Blake, S. (1991). Courtly and popular culture. In Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India 1639-1739 (Cambridge South Asian Studies, pp. 122-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Because of their military prowess , the Qizilbash regarded the principal offices of the Safavid state as their natural due . In their eyes the functions of a Tajik ( a pejorative term for non - Turk ) were “ to look after the accounts and divan business .
Blake, S., 1999. Half the World: The Social Architecture of Safavid Isfahan, 1590-1722
Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, p.7.
The Zand dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1751 to 1794 , was the first native Iranian regime in almost six hundred years, as opposed to the Turkic and Mongolian sovereigns who until then had governed the land.
Frye, R. (2009). Zand Dynasty. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. : Oxford University Press.
For nearly a thousand years, Iran has generally been ruled by non-Persian dynasties, usually Turkish.
Bosworth, C. (1968). THE POLITICAL AND DYNASTIC HISTORY OF THE IRANIAN WORLD (A.D. 1000-1217). In J. Boyle (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran (The Cambridge History of Iran, pp. 1-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
@@thatshowyoudoit6583
This essay examines Nader Shah Afshar's attempts to legitimize his rule by dint of his Turkic background. Over the course of his rise to power and reign, Nader consistently argued that his Afshar and Turkman affiliations granted him the right to rule over Iranian territory as an equal to his Ottoman, Mughal, and Central Asian contemporaries. Aided by his chief secretary and court historian, Mīrzā Mahdī Astarābādī, Nader's assertions paralleled those found in popular narratives about the history of Oghuz Turks in Islamic lands. This element of Nader's political identity is often overlooked by historians because it did not outlive the brief Afsharid period, but it demonstrates how the Safavid collapse led to the circulation of dynamic new claims to Iranian and Islamic political power.
Karamustafa, A. (2022). The Hero of “the Noble Afshar People”: Reconsidering Nader Shah's Claims to Lineage and Legitimacy. Iranian Studies, 1-15
Besides territorial integrity, two alternative concepts of sovereignty to replace the crumbling dynastic ideal can be discerned in Nadir Shah's negotiations with the Ottomans in the 1730s. Nadir proposed equal relations based, first, on Ottoman recognition of the legitimacy of Twelver Shiism as a fifth school of orthodox Islamic law. And second, he proposed something akin to an ethnic or national concept - equal relations based on Nadir Shah's identity as a member of the noble Turkmen family of peoples."
Howard, D. (2017). A History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.192
To justify his stance and claim a common heritage with the Ottomans, he invoked the history of Chinggis Khan: In the time of Chingiz Khan, the leaders of the Turkman tribes, who had left the land of Turan and migrated to Iran and Anatolia, were said to be all of one stock and one lineage. At that time, the exalted ancestor of the dynasty of the ever-increasing state [the Ottoman Empire] headed to Anatolia and our ancestor settled in the provinces of Iran. Since these lineages are interwoven and interconnected, it is hoped that when his royal highness learns of them, he will give royal consent to the establishment of peace between [us]. In a letter presented to the Ottomans after his assumption of the title of shah in 1736 Nadir claimed legitimacy simply as a Turk, stating that “kingship is the ancestral right of the exalted Turkmen tribe.” Thus the rulers of the regional states - the Chinggisid khans of Khiva, the Timurid/Chinggisid Mughals, the Ottomans, and Nadir himself, all had equal legitimacy.
Furthermore, in a deliberate attempt to reverse the abandonment of the glorification of Genghis-Khanid descent as a ''branch of the tree of unbelief'' by Ismacil, Nadir tried to revive the pre-Safavid Turkman tribal principles of legitimacy, which had not been given currency since the fifteenth century. In a letter to the Ottoman grand vizier, Nadir states that the dignitaries of Iran gathered in the plain of Mughan "elected our august Majesty to kingship and sovereignty which are the hereditary prerogatives of the noble Turkman tribe." Mulla cAli Akbar, his Mulla-bashi, opens his pan-Islamic sermon in Kufah with the eulogy of Nadir not only as the shadow of God on earth, but also as the scion of the Turkman tree and heir to Genghis Khan. However, after Nadir's death, Safavid descent, often with a marked emphasis on its religious character, remained the most viable ground of legitimacy for rulership.
Expectation of the Millennium : Shiìsm in History Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. State University of New York Press pp.194
The next effective ruler of Iran was Nadir Khan (r. 1729-47), a Redhead tribesman. Having seized power, he had a serious legitimacy problem,- he 'tried to revive the pre-Safavid Turkman tribal principles of legitimacy', and to justify himself on the grounds of descent from Timur and his manifest military exploits. At a Mongol-style assembly (1736), Iranian chiefs 'elected our august majesty to kingship and sovereignty which are the hereditary prerogatives of the noble Turkman tribe' (in Arjomand 1984: 221).
Black, Antony, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001), pp.236
Ahmad's chroniclers also adapted and reconfigured various legitimating devices from Nader's ruling ideology. This included labeling the Afghans (and in particularly the Dorrani family) as the “il-e jalil-e Afghan” or “il-e jalil-e Dorrani” in imitation of the phrase “il-e jalil-e Torkman” used by Nader's court historians.
Axworthy, M.. (2018). Crisis, collapse, militarism and civil war: The History And Historiography of 18th century Iran. pp. 65
The remains of the Moghul army had melted away, and the Moghul leaders had been slowly manoeuvred into giving Nader what he wanted. His task had been made easier by the common Turcoman/ Persian culture that the Moghuls and the invaders shared. The Moghul dynasty was originally Turkic or Turco-Mongol, descended directly from Timur himself, and for two centuries had enjoyed a refined Persian court culture. To emphasise their common origin Nader insisted that he and Mohammad Shah should speak together in the Turkic language of the peoples of Central Asia.
The terms of the formal document ceding this territory, which we may take to have been directly dictated by Nader, referred again to the two monarchs’ shared Turcoman origin. It genuflected to the memory of the earlier Asiatic conquerors Timur and Genghis Khan in its mention of the family of Gurkan. In the document, Mohammad Shah said of Nader:
And out of the Greatness of his Soul, and abundant humanity, in regard to the illustrious Family of Gourgan, and the Honour of the Original Tree of Turkan, [he] was graciously pleased to restore to me the Crown and Gem of Hindostan.
Axworthy, M. (2006). Prologue: Zenith. In The Sword of Persia Nader Shah: From Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant (pp. 1-16). London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd..
In letters to Mughal and Ottoman rulers, Nädir, in a parallel way, recalled the past by appealing to his common ancestry with them." He, too, sought to establish a world empire, but one that recognized the legitimacy of the contemporary rulers of India, Iran, Central Asia, and the Ottoman Empire, because, as his letters claimed, they each represented a people (an il) that constituted a legitimate Turkic or Timürid successor to the Mongols in particular regions of the Islamic world." Astarābādī described the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah as being "of the Turkmän tree and the scion of the Gürkânl (i.e. Timürid] family." A letter from Nädir to the Ottoman 1129 Sultan Mahmud I addressed Mahmüd as "the world-illuminating light of the Turkmän royal house.30 Avoiding any specific definitions of these ancestral Turkic ties, Nadir appealed to them as a way to reconnect disparate Muslim realms. In its audacity, Nadir's vision resembled Timür's grandiose plans. Both tried to invent the tradition of an imagined unity that had never actually existed, and could, in any case, only be implemented anyway by glossing over irreconcilable differences.
Pfeiffer, J. and Woods, J., n.d. History and historiography of post Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East. pp.338, 339.
@@thatshowyoudoit6583 Page -72-
Nadir laughed. ' The creatures of God. Bale. Yes. God is great. It has pleased Him to fill the world with dogs and asses. What am I that I should say a word ? But the Persians are not my people. I am a Turkoman.'
Nadir Shah : Durand, Henry Mortimer, (Sir) 1850-1924
@@papazataklaattiranimam get a life I see you in every Iranian history video it seems to me that you are jealous of their history?
Laughing in Greek 😂
Laughing in the slum*
Laughing in the slums of Kabul with AIIahOakbar💣*
@@pritsingh9766 Always a street shitter making shitty jokes. Makes sense actually
Laughing in sacking of Athens 😂
Laughing in xerxes accent (king of persia) accent while burning athen 😅
Btw , go read about the meaning of colonization !!! I think you dont know its meaning
I read the title as "How i escaped Iran"
💀
I guess you guys only count Europeans as colonizers. The Mongols totally dominated Iran for centuries.
Conquering and colonising is different..
am i the only 13 yr old watching khanubis?
Me too
Actually it used to be invaded by Greek Macedonian and also Mongol
Wow, Persian invaded Greek states too. We don't consider that as colonization of Europe
Iran invaded Greece too, what is your point?
Greeks invaded only one time but Persia used to invade Greece every year.
@@neonationalist1772 🤣🤣
Lesotho, Eswatani and Botswana were never colonized too, they were protectorates. Ethiopia was colonized a few times by the Arabs and by the Portuguese and Italians, Persia was a colony first of the Mongols and than of the Arabs.