/Persian Empires general/

>>1852377
sassanid persia most aesthetic persia

Please respond to thread ;_;

File: tumblr_nfmj1g3IHZ1s0d4j5o1_1280.jpg (476KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1280x850px

>>1852383
>not safavid
pleb

File: Sassanid_Crowns.jpg (182KB, 595x980px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 595x980px

>>1852383
Yep.
>>1852420
Which Sassanid had the best crown?

File: 41_Safavid_Empire_2.jpg (52KB, 512x354px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 512x354px

>>1852377
funny how little these things change when the good times are rolling :)

Safavids a best
Sah Ismail Safavid is the reincarnation of Ali and thus god

>>1852377

Does anyone know why the official language of the Achaemenid empire was Aramaic and not their native Persian?

>>1852897
It was the lingua franca of most of the territory that they conquered. Persian was used in their native lands, but the empire didn't force the persian culture on their subjects much at all.

>>1852897
Because Aramaic was the language of previous empires for centuries if not millennia before the Medes and Persians. And it had many intelligible dialects and regional variants that made it logical to use it as the common tongue of their empire.

>>1852875
Ali Madad!

>>1852768
Iran and Anatolia will always hate eachother

>>1852377
>/Persian Empires general/

so pretty much /arab empires general/ since theyre the same thing?

File: OHAHAHAH.jpg (3KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 225x225px

>>1852377
Sassanids were literally responsible for the spread of Islam for breaking the truce with the Byzantines and making both of their empires expend a shit ton of resources on stupid wars which weakened them and eventually got BTFO'd by camel riding niggers,fuck you

>>1853103
>Because Aramaic was the language of previous empires for centuries if not millennia before the Medes and Persians.
definitely not for a millennia. even late in the bronze age Akkadian was the lingua franca. Aramaic only became widely used after Aramaeans rose in power after the Bronze age collapse. The Chaldeans, who ruled Babylon when they overthrew the Assyrian Empire, were Aramaeans.

File: 1475436194919.jpg (41KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x450px

>>1853428
>>1853477

>>1853590
Persians are all literally self hating arabs and this thread is proof of that

File: 1435866005185.jpg (213KB, 1600x1584px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1584px

>>1853600

>>1853614
Not an argument

File: 1335078495608.jpg (163KB, 600x524px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x524px

>>1853620
Neither is your shitposting.

>>1853640
I am trying to have a legitimate discussion, you are the one shitposting here

>>1853645
>legitimate discussion
>(You)
Nope.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>1853650
You are the reason /his/ is shit

File: 1472408660241.gif (867KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 480x336px

>>1853645
>>1853662
>Persians are all literally self-hating arabs
>"legitimate discussion"
>"his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character."

Great high level discourse, /pol/.

File: 1458779804697.jpg (38KB, 467x560px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 467x560px

Among the Persian sayings is The Arab of the desert eats locusts, while the dogs of Isfahan drink ice-cold water

>>1853664
>muh /pol/ boogeyman
>please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character

How about we have a legitimate discussion here instead of you shitposting and violating the board rules

File: 1397866010116.png (685KB, 785x623px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 785x623px

>>1853674
Are you trying to stonewall the fact you're being retarded with pure stupidity? If so I have to say that's a first here. I'm almost legitimately impressed by it, /pol//

>>1853672
>meanwhile iran is a shithole while saudi arabia is one of the richest countries in the world

>>1853664
Persians don't speak Arabic, don't consider themselves Arabic, and the earliest Persian cultures predate widespread Arabic cultures. I'm sure some anon with more expertise could go further into the differences, but tl;dr, fuck you.

>>1852377
Official persian empires power ranking:
-safavid
-seljuk
-achmenid
-sassanid
-parthian
-timurid
-ashfarid
-seleucid
-alexander's
This is a fact btw

>>1853679
Im not even from /pol/ you idiot, how about you try reading the board rules here instead of posting first , unless youre legitimately shitposting.

>>1853682
When did I say they were Arabs (You) silly samefag?

>>1853686
>Seljuks
>Ashfarid
>Seleucid
>Alexander
>"Persian"
Desperate bait.

File: 1474870218660.jpg (29KB, 528x543px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 528x543px

>>1853682
>>1853674
>>1853662
>>1853645
>>1853620
>>1853600
Did some Iranian guy cuck you in college?

>>1853700
Nope im actually a black muslim who cucked some iranian faggot. He got his brother to go after me but i beat him up. Ever since that day the persians forever declared themselves to be my eternal enemies

>>1853696
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire
Even fucking wikipedia agrees they all are persian empires, minus alexander's, but it is idiotic to this it's not, it's not like he administered babylon from pellae. It's just a matter of wording, even alexander himself wanted to fuse macedonia and persia in a single entity, administratively and cultutally speaking.

>>1853725
>wikipedia

>>1853734
>even fucking (wikipedia)
Reading comprehension is hard. We ain't on /r/askhistorian, I cant be bothered to look for authoritative sources.

>>1853785
>wikipedia
Again, 99% of those are modern histographical terms rather then actual terms used for various non-Iranian dynasties you fucking idiot.

>>1853798
Wow, I bet you dont pronounce it as Byzantine Empire, which is a modern historiographical term, but as Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων or Basileía Rhōmaíōna. I bet you dont call it the Hundred Years War, for it is a modern historiographical term. Need I go on?

>>1853681
Say that in 50 years time, and maybe it will mean something.

>>1853839
You completely missed the point. How are you this stupid?

>>1853873
Forgive me, Enlightened One. May I humbly reqest you shine your light of knowledge upon me?

File: sad_akbar.jpg (9KB, 117x149px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 117x149px

>mfw no love for Mughal empire

>>1852377
To actually answer your question, Soviet historiography is your friend here.
Off the top of my head, Sergey Tolstov and Bobojan Gafurov both wrote books on the history of the region, with special focus on the Khwarezmshahs. Dunno if they're available in English though.

>>1853711
>>1853700
>>1853696
>>1853694
>>1853679
If any of you were actually trying to have a real conversation, you'd disregard the reciprocal shitposting and say something relevant to the thread.

Achaemenid empire is favorite empire, but that's probably because it's just the one I know the most about. Roads, infrastructure, and cultural acceptance were dope. One of the largest empires in the world got fucked because a butthurt Macedonian wanted to fuck shit up and not take any responsibility for what came next.
If somebody wants to redpill me on the flaws of the Achaemenid, or put me on to some even cooler empire I'd appreciate it.

File: The_Court of gayumars jpg.jpg (3MB, 2000x3037px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x3037px

bump

>>1852377
Why is india labeled on the map as the sunga empire but the key as the gupta empire?

>>1854888
Who are you trying to fool with the meta level bullshit you faggot.

>>1855151
I'm not trying to fool anyone stranger, just trying to stay on topic.
I come to this board to learn, not to read raging strangers' irrelevant arguements.

>>1855200
Okay, so the autist throwing out the /stormfront/ nonsense gets a pass but anyone calling that person out has to be arbitrated by you

Funny

>Almost all post-Islam Persian dynasties are of Turkic origin
Truly the definition of TURKED

>>1855222
What about the Safavids?

>>1855355
Nader Shah and PROBABLY Ismail I

>>1855362

But Nader Shah wasn´t part of the Safavid dynasty, he´s Afshar.

>>1855378
He ruled the Safavids though. And Afsharids are Turkic iirc.

>>1855355
They were Mixed

>>1855355
They were really mixed. Ismail was even decended from the Byzantine Paleologue dynasty IIRC.
But mostly they represented an Iranic-Turkic cultural mix. Their early power base was largely Turkic or Turkicized Qizilbashi.

>>1855222
>Safavids
Not Turk
>Zands
Not Turk
>Samanids
Not Turks
>Buyids
Not Turks
>Safarids
Not Turks
>Pahlavis
Not Turks

>>1855355
Persian, Pontic Greeks, Azeris, and Kurds. Not Turkic.
>>1855380
No he didn't.

>>1855665
Irrelevant. The Safavids had no Turkic blood at all. Earliest confirmed genelogical ancestor is a Kurdish-Persian Sufists.

>>1852580
Early Sassanids: Shapur

Late Sassanids: Khosrow

I also like Bahram IV and Purandokht.

>>1852768
I'll say that Mesopotamia changing hands isn't, by any means, a little change.

>>1854998
It's labeled as the Gupta Empire, are you colorblind? They just show you the shungas were previously there.

>>1856817
I was referring to the pattern of the neighbors, one owning anatolia, the other persian, and the other north indian

>>1856850
I know, I should have added that I partly agree with you or something since I also see the pattern.

>>1852580
Kavad I most based Sassanid. Other noteworthies:

- Ardashir I the Unifier
- Shapur I the Great
- Shapur II the Great
- Yazdigerd I the Silent
- Peroz I
- Khosrau I the Immortal Soul/Deathless Immortal
- [spoiler]Khosrau II the Victorious[/spoiler]

>>1854538
>mughal
>persian
ISHYGDDT, mughals and persia fought wars against each other.

>>1855380
Nader Shah was general to the last Safavd king, before forcing hin to abdicate in favor of his son, of whom he became regent up until his "misterious" disappearence which allowed him to start his own dinasty, the Ashfarid.
>>1855211
So I'm /stormfront/ now? Sit down cuck, grown-ups are having a discussion here.

the more turkic a "persian" empire is, the better it is

>>1855665
paternally Ismail was a Turk, that is, his father's (Haydar) mother tongue was Oghuz Turkish and his grandfather's (Cuneyd) and greatgrrandfather's. His mother tongue was also Oghuz Turkish ofc.
His mother, who was an Akkoyunlu begum, was the daughter of Uzun Hasan and an Trapizond princess.

Oh here is an interesting thread...

TURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURKTURK TURK TURK TURK

File: idno.jpg (15KB, 177x278px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 177x278px

>t*rks ruin thread
>no sign of their tripfag leader

>>1858984
what do you expect?
can you speak of india without mentioning foreign conquerors? can you speak of china without mentioning nomadic conquerors?

>>1858547
It's more the other way around where the more Persian a Turkic empire is the better it becomes. People like to view figures like Timur and Babur as Genghis Khan sorts of dudes because they based their military style and rhetoric on them, but they forget that there was also a certain distaste among them about actually looking and acting in the characteristic nomad manner when not on the campaign, and they much preferred the Persian style of relaxed, lazy leadership and patronage of arts/architecture. It's why a bunch of the empires that formed in the period were called "Persianates"

>>1858517
Both the Ottomans and the Mughals spoke Persian at court and like to copy Persian court rituals and fashion.

This thread is proves that /his/ is the worst board on 4chan.

>>1859124
>ottomans spoke persian at court
wew

File: really_now.png (271KB, 443x415px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 443x415px

>>1859184

> Worse then /r9k/

> Worse then /pol/

> Worse then /soc/

Don't know much about Persian history - could anybody explain to me why the Sassanid Empire seemed to be so much more powerful than its Parthian predecessor.
From the Roman perspective it looks like they went from basically ignoring Persia most of the time and occasionally BTFOing them, to being locked in a pretty much permanent life-or-death struggle with this terrifying eastern rival.

>>1858525
Yes, you are.

>misusing cuck
Probably a 14 year old edgelord too.

>>1858547
>I'm retarded.

>>1860135
Parthians were horse nomads who easily took over a crumbling empire. Sassanids were native Persians and also incredibly well organized compared to their predecessors.

>>1859012
Yes you can and every thread on china will prove it. Even when nomadic conquerors are mentioned, it's not like this shitfest.

>>1857247
Khosrau was unironically a good king and could have achieved a different finale for the war if his faggot son and the court would've not murdered him. At the very lest, he would've made sure the more than 20 years war not ending on nothing.

>>1860963
Yeah the Parthians were horse nomads originally, but by 100 or 200 AD they'd ruled Persia for centuries and had effectively become Persian themselves. They can't still have been nomadic tribesmen at that point, so why were the Sassanids so different?

>>1860135
Sassanians had the will to build a relatively centralised state aparatus and to overall create a strong state.

>>1860997
The structure of the parthian state still owed a lot to it's origins. Lots of vassal kings inside the borders and overally powerful people outside the power of the monarch/state besides personal relationship or military intimidation.

In the Sasanian inscriptions you see how, progressively, the vassal kings in the empire's administration start disapearing or are titles monopolized by family members. With highs and downs, the Sasanian monarchy never stoped completely on his will to take power from the aristocracies.

>>1860963
Parthia was next to Persia in Iran. The Arsacids were a mix family of different Iranic backgrounds that took over the Dahae Confederation; a large affliation of different nomadic and semi nomadic Iranic tribes like those from the Scythians, Parthians, Parni, and so on.

>>1861028
That's not how the Sassanid state worked. The Sassanid rulers had more centralized authority and greater cohesive structure and influence over their vassals. They were still dependent heavily as much on their vassal kings, princes, and nobility to supply them with manpower and knightly castes for soldiers as their own personal retinues.