Why did ottomans never conquered safavid empire? Did they feared

File: Nader Shah.png (188KB, 250x317px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 250x317px

>>3330160
>this kills the Turk

I ceased my anti iran posting you can stop posting low quality bait threads persians are not even as bad as wh*Tes or amerimutts

>>3330178
I'm the guy from the other thread you were talking to. There will be shitposters on both sides who will try to end the peace.

Also watch out for Ameributts LARPing as Iranian-hating Turks and Turk-hating Iranians.

File: IMG_0134.jpg (669KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 2048x2048px

>>3330167
NADER'D

>>3330395
what went wrong?

>>3331337
No disciprine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdbORXEmbnk

They bunched up and did not expect the enemy to rush at them, and while distracted by a Van guard force they lost the high ground to the Persian musketeers who defeated their lines and took over the turkish guns.

Then the Raid...i mean Zambruks came and lots of roaches died

The Ottomans had done well militarily because they had used gunpowder against enemies without it. The Safavids used the exact same strategy in creating their empire. So when it came to trading blows, they were fairly evenly matched, and never conquered each other.

>>3330160
because majoos are slimy niggers and who would want a country filled with 40 million monobrowed fire worshippers?

Hit and run tactics combined with high attrition levels made Persia impossible to invade.

File: mongols.jpg (70KB, 800x540px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x540px

>>3331560
*blocks your path*

>>3331569
How can you block the path if you are running away Steppe Nig?

>>3331569
>Mongols
>relevant in the 15th, 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries
Literally the Safavids were raping their descendants in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

>>3330160
We just needed a second Ismail or Abbas to finish the Ottomans.

>>3332257
The mountains were still present during the mongol invasions p a l

File: 16th_century_ottoman_armor.jpg (118KB, 532x800px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 532x800px

>>3330160
its not like they didn't try
ottomans actually conquered large areas in west-iran but the iranians just took them back when the ottomans got busy with the european wars

>>3332320
Nah. Even when the Ottomans successfully defeated Ismail I at Chaldea, they were absolutely frightened by the prospect of fighting the Persians/Iranians deeper in Safavid territory. And more specifically, pushing dangerously ahead and then getting cut off. Its more realistic that if Ismail I didn't suffer such a mental breakdown and loss of confidence and died at such an early age, he would've been able to recover from his loss and expand the Safavids further into Anatolia permanently.

>>3330160
they did not conquer croatia either for the same reason
we did not let them

>>3333564
you mean austrians didn't let them conquer you

>>3333622
No, the mighty Ottoman Empire that put down Byzantium feared some Slav mountain dwellers, trust this man.

>>3333678
>that put down Byzantium
what was left of it
most of work was done by arabs and fourth crusade

>>3333702
I would know, I am Greek.
Still, you can't seriously think the massive empire feared the Croats, at that time.

>>3331380
Not really, Ottomans use of gunpower was way more heavy in the first century or so of conflict.

>>3332257
But Ismail lost hard to the Ottomans. And they literally had a second Abbas and he was actually pretty cool and succesful.

>>3333622
they were busy fucking around with the frenchies

>>3333708
>feared the Croats
never said that
they attacked all the time and failed

>>3333678
Why ottomans couldn't conquer Poland and Russia?
did they feared west slavic and east slavic warriors?

>>3333719
>Ismail lost hard to the Ottomans.
He lost the Battle of Chaldea, when the Ottomans attempted to annex further Safavid territory, they ended up causing an almost immediate chain of events that would see the Safavids entirely recover almost all of their territory.

>>3330167
>this kills the Afghan

>>3330395
>>3331375
The defeat the Persians and Nader did to the Mughals was away fucking worse than any victory he had over the Ottoman Turks.

ridiculous iranian tranny stop posting.

>Ottomans care mostly for european wars
>Small border shit with persian cucks not even looked at
>the one time ottomans really cared is when selim wanted to have his back clear for future generations to assault europe and blew out the mamluk turks and ripped the persians at caldiran

Ottomans didnt care about them.
Many "persian" dynasties were Turks anyways.

>>3334043
Not him, but you're nuts if you think the Safavids and Afsharids were just nuisances to the Ottomans.

Are persians proud that they kept attacking the ottomans in their rear flank when they were busy fighting europe?

Here's a quote from a holy roman ambassador.

>From this you will see that it is the patience, self-denial and thrift of the Turkish soldier that enable him to face the most trying circumstances and come safely out of' the dangers that surround him. What a contrast to our men! Christian soldiers on a campaign refuse to put up with their ordinary food, and call for thrushes, becaficos [a small bird esteemed a dainty, as it feeds on figs and grapes], and suchlike dainty dishes! ... It makes me shudder to think of what the result of a struggle between such different systems must be; one of us must prevail and the other be destroyed, at any rate we cannot both exist ]in safety. On their side is the vast wealth of their empire, unimpaired resources, experience and practice in arms, a veteran soldiery, an uninterrupted series of victories, readiness to endure hardships, union, order, discipline, thrift and watchfulness. On ours are found an empty exchequer, luxurious habits, exhausted resources, broken spirits, a raw and insubordinate soldiery, and greedy quarrels; there is no regard for discipline, license runs riot, the men indulge in drunkenness and debauchery, and worst of all, the enemy are accustomed to victory, we to defeat. Can we doubt what the result must be? The only obstacle is Persia, whose position on his rear forces the invader to take precautions. The fear of Persia gives us a respite, but it is only for a time.

>>3334043
You are pretty stupid if you think the Ottoman-Safavid Wars were some sort of "side game" to the Turks.

>>3334282
No, I'm pretty sure the Persians and Europeans are proud that they kept the Ottomans contained largely to the Balkans and prevented any further permanent expansions or annexation of territories past that point post-Vienna. Spain and Persia both hated the Ottomans, and along with Italian republics and the Germans, were the main force preventing the Ottomans from going further.

File: image.jpg (87KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x667px

>>3331573
>>3334282

persians were stronger than turks

Damn basically everyone hates Turkey lol