Were the Qajars the most pathetic dynasty to rule Iran?

>>2686296
Basically yeah.

Iran lost any great leaders once Nader Shah fucked up. Current Islamic Republic is probably the best it could muster, over time we may see a renaissance as all the Sunni muslims kill each other.

>>2686296
No, "Pahlavi" 's for sure, Qajars close second

>>2686296
Yes.

Though there was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Kabir who was good till the Qajar family had him murdered.

>>2686436
Low quality bait.

>>2686436
Pahlavis can't be worse then the Qajars because the entirety of the Qajars existence is literally JUST personified.

>keep losing wars
>keep losing land
>keep losing territory
>keep losing prestige and global standing
>even win or stalemate a war with Russia and STILL give them land and territory

Qajars only good things are their flag and the early modern Iranian national anthem.

Qajars are proof that Turks can't be trusted to rule Iran in a competent manner.

>In 1872, Nasir al-Din Shah, the Shah of Iran, signed an agreement with Reuter, a concession selling him all railroads, canals, most of the mines, all the government's forests, and all future industries of Iran. George Nathaniel Curzon called it "The most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has ever been dreamed of"

Literally the most cucked deal any government has ever made.

30 years after that they sold the rights to all the oil in their country to the Brits for $20,000 and only 10% of the profits, the same oil deal which Reza Shah constantly tried to renegotiate and the same oil deal that Mossadegh cancelled when he nationalized Iran's resources.

>>2686452
Didn't The Soviets nearly make an Azeribaijan Client state and only withdrawn due to Western pressure?

>>2687310
Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union

>>2686296
Pahlavi's really weren't as bad as western liberals and Iranian propagandists have spun them, Reza Pahlavi was a good leader. Mohamed was simply over-ambitious with his reform programs and ended up alienating both the extreme clerics and student leftists.

>>2686607
>what is Nader Shah

>>2687694

Nader Shah was a good conqueror, but a terrible ruler, that's why he was killed by his own soldiers and why his empire completely disintegrated upon his death. He was basically a Timur-lite, the only good thing Nader brought to Iran was the booty he captured from his invasion of India.

The only competent Safavid ruler was Shah Abbas, and he was half Mazandarani.

>in b4 Isma'il

No, his shitty Qizilbash lost against the Ottomans because they literally refused to use guns, then they proceeded to shit up Iran Janissary-style for the next 100 years until Abbas got rid of them.

>>2687318
I meant the Iranian one in 1946

>>2687721
the various turkic dynasties were pretty decent desu

>>2687791

Only the Seljuks, the Khawarezmids fucked Iran over tremendously when their retard king killed the ambassadors of Genghis Khan. Mongols killed like 70% of Iran's population because of that retarded dynasty.

>>2687811
There was no such thing as the Khwarezmids, that was Sunni Mongol ex post facto propaganda. Prove it.

>>2687811
>Mongols killed like 70% of Iran's population
Christ, is this hyperbole? How did the Safavids ever reassert Persian dominance after that?

>>2687852

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

>>2687855
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#Mongol_invasion_.281219.E2.80.931221.29

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

>The Mongols killed many Iranian civilians. Destruction of qanat irrigation systems destroyed the pattern of relatively continuous settlement, producing numerous isolated oasis cities in a land where they had previously been rare.[90] A large number of people, particularly males, were killed; between 1220 and 1258, the total population of Iran may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination, emigration and famine.

> How did the Safavids ever reassert Persian dominance after that

Safavids weren't Persian, and Iran did manage to recover, but slowly.

It's not too far-fetched anyways, the Thirty Years War killed like 50% of Germany's population, in both cases it usually takes a few centuries to recover the population loss.

In Iran's case though the real damage was ecological, the destruction of the extensive irrigation systems caused widespread desertification, the issue with Iran is that there are pretty much no rivers, so people historically got water using wells and irrigation canals (they had an underground aqueduct-like thing called a qanat).

Unlike in other places, the sort of razing and looting that happened under the Mongols screwed them over heavily in regards to agricultural output, you can't destroy a river, but you can easily destroy wells and irrigation systems, and when pretty much all your water comes from these things then it fucks you over horribly.

>>2687900
Could the destruction of their water system contributed to the Qajar's fuck ups against Russia?

>Safavids weren't Persian
Looking over Iran's history, not a single Persian dominated civilization existed since the Sassanids. Why is that? Also, are you Iranian? What do you think of the current state of Iran?

>>2687963
>Could the destruction of their water system contributed to the Qajar's fuck ups against Russia?

That's extrapolating a lot, Qajar's fuckups had a lot more causes than just the destruction under the Mongols.

The razing of the irrigation systems mostly did damage in the sense that Iran permanently lost a sizable chunk of its agricultural output and water table, and contributed to increased desertification (25% of Iran is uninhabitable desert, mostly in the northeast, i.e. where the Mongols invaded from).

>Looking over Iran's history, not a single Persian dominated civilization existed since the Sassanids

There was a period, from 850-1000 AD, when Iran was ruled over entirely by local dynasties (Buyids, Samanids, etc.)

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

>Why is that?

Turkics dominated pretty much all of Eurasia during 1000-1800 AD, their martial culture and horse-archery aptitude meant that they simply fought better than everyone else around them, they made up the bulk of the military elite everywhere they went, they seized power in Iran, Mesopotamia, and Egypt in the same way: by overthrowing their masters (Turkics made up the bulk of slave armies both in Arab caliphates and in the Iranian dynasties between 700-1000 AD).

Once modern firearms became a thing they lost power pretty much everywhere, the Ottoman Empire, Mughals, Safavids/Qajars, all the Turkic khanates in Central Asia and Southern Russia.

>Also, are you Iranian

Yes, but not living in Iran.

>What do you think of the current state of Iran

Better than any other point in its history, Islamism will die out in Iran over time the same way Communism died out in Russia. If anything, the IR was a good thing for Iran, it redpilled most of the country on Islamism, it resulted in Iran achieving a modicum of self-sufficiency and competence where there previously was none, and it massively raised living standards in Iran to the point where it has a higher HDI than Turkey.

>>2687993
>Eurasia

*Asia, I should have specified, although Turkics did also penetrate into Southeastern Europe and Southern Russia.

>>2687900
The claims of Mongols wiping out 1/2th to 2/3rds of the population of Iranians/Persians are clearly exaggerated. Did the Mongols/Genghis Khan fuck up a large part of the Khwarazmian Empire due to the Turkish ruler's retarded decision? Yes.

Were large numbers of towns and some cities razed or wiped out? Yes. That much of the total population killed? Doubt it.

>Safavids weren't Persian
Safavids were a primarily Iranic dynasty composed of Persianized Kurds, Iranian Azeris, as well as having some Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Georgian ties in their bloodline.