Mughal and Safavid Empires

lol at oghuzazarbaijanestan HAHAH nice i like it zagros.

And i believe Chaldiran WAS a big disaster for Iran, because it was the IRANIAN people (whoever they were ruled by) who lost that land for ever.. Safavids if they were Turks as you claim, then that does not make the whole population of persia in those times turks, they were and knew themselves as iranian, and the army of persia was not comprised of Turks, it was comprised of Iranian. You talk of the Safavids as if they were your ancestor, they obviously didnt think so as they knew themselves as iranian. Tell me this, you go to Bolivia what language do they speak? Spanish right, well then why dont they fell they are spanish, why doesnt the government claim they are spanish as opposed to bolivian...

SAFAVID'S were IRANIAN, do not make up your own thing, yes maybe they spoke Turkce or they might have been Turkish background but they were IRANIAN, please i invite you to show me a peice of recognised text (non- pan-turanist) thats states the SAFAVIDS , as turkic rulers of a turkic state, and that battle of CHALDIRAN was a great loss for TURKIC peoples! Do not take our history in your own hands ok, I do not appreciate you doing this, it is OUR history, has been accepted worldwide and you kine come along and claim otherwise?

My mom's family is Azeri, and my father aswell mostly Azeri/Lori , and also we have small claim to be decendant of Safavids, we continued to live in IRAN, why not in TURKEY were you claim we are part of ethnically? welove Iran, we are IRANIAN end of deal, you use foul language (previous page) and foul theory's which you can only back with your own understanding that whoever told you.

And i will back up my claim, if Safavids were really as you say your compatriots, then in i look in google, it should fully mention their links to turkey, turks, there love of turks etc etc.,

The Safavids were an Iranian dynasty that ruled from 1501 to 1736, and which established Shi'a Islam as Iran's official religion and united its provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting a pre-

Safavids, Iranian dynasty that ruled Persia from 1501 - 1736.

The Safavids descended from Sheykh Safi od-Din who led the Sufi order of Sasaviyeh in the 13th century. The order represented a puritanical reaction against the sullying of Islam by the Mongol infidels who had ruled Persia under the Il-Khans during the 13th century.

The rise of the Safavids marks the reemergence in Iran of a powerful central authority within geographical boundaries attained by former Iranian empires. The Safavids declared Shia Islam the state religion and used proselytizing and force to convert the large majority of Muslims in Iran to the Shia sect. Under the early Safavids, Iran was a theocracy in which state and religion were closely intertwined.

oo what happend my friend , it seems they don;t want you.!

Please do not claim for yourself, Safavids were from Turkic speaking tribes ,and maybe originally turkic, but they ruled iran as iranian rulers, not as turkish overlords.

Thankyou and please do not get offended.

Not at all. Acftually Safavid army had more Turks than the Ottoman army. It was mainly consisted of Turkmens and nonMuslims/converts of Armenia and Georgia.

The Ottoman army was divided into two concepts, the musellems who were horseman and the yayas who were skirmishers. The musellems were mostly Turks (Toprakli horseman, akincis, sipahis etc.) and the yayas were mostly janissaries (converts). So Islam was up to the hands of kafers according to Shah Ismail, and he was truely right...

Safavids arent the ancestors of Turks of Turkey, but the Turks of Iran. Yes, they (the dynasty-state) were geographically and after Shah Tahmasb, culturally, mainly Iranian. But they were ethnically Turks in origin and no need for trying to change historical facts here.

No you arent. You are part of the "Turkic world", not Turkey...

"During the 15th century, the Ottomans expanded across Anatolia and centralized control by prosecuting Shi'ism. They outlawed it at the turn of the century. In 1501, various disaffected militia from Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia collectively called the Kizilbash (Turkish for "Red Heads" due to their red headgear) united with the Ardebil Safaviyeh to capture Tabriz from the then ruling Sunni Turkoman alliance known as Ak Koyunlu (the White Sheep Emirate) under Alwand's leadership.

The Safiviyeh was headed by a fifteen-year old, Ismail I. He was Junayd's grandson and a descendant, on his father's side of Sheikh Safi Al-Din, and, on his mother's side, the grandson of Uzun Hasan, the founder of the Ak Koyunlu. BTW, the official language of their court was also Turkish and Shah Ismael was an Azeri.

Iranian claiming Azeris "ethnically" Iranian is funnier than claiming Kurds are ethnically Turkish...

I am curious that why you dont claim Ilkhanids and also Timurids as your own. Ilkhanids used Persian in their court, so I guess they were also Iranians right? Maybe right, but it should be a geographical description...

Thankyou oguzoglu., your post is really what I was trying to say, thankyou very much.

Hagulu, I don't see the point in why you're participating in this thread with what you are saying - DayI and Oguz understand the point, however you either lack cognitive ability to follow what is being said in here or just want to cause trouble.

1.  You jumped in claiming Safavids are not Iranic (no one had claimed they were Iranic)

2.  You ignore clear evidence that they knew themselves as Iranian (their country was called Iran and their imperial aims were to re-conquer territories amounting to the ancient Sassanian lands, because they saw themselves as the heirs of the Sassanids). Also their Imperial title was Shahanshah of Iran, they signed their letters tot he Ottomans with this title.  I would ask you to find such documents and see the evidence for yourself but you wouldn't be able to read it anyway.

It's like saying today that just because Ayatollah Khamene'i who is head of Iran's armed forces and is also Azari launched an attack against the Americans in Iraq and lost it would be a disaster for Azarbaijan and not Iran.

Alparsalan wrote:

>>Iran is a newly used country name which is adressed to very ancient historical name of the country<<

Iran is a new word only for western countries. Iranian called theire land always Iran from ancient times. Also in safavids era too.

>>Shah Ismail did not know himself as Iranian. This is nonsense. He was adressing himself as Shia and Safavid.<<

He did !

from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_I

"In 1501, Isma'il I proclaimed himself Shah, choosing Tabriz, in Iran's northernmost province of Azerbaijan, as his capital"

As you can see he proclaimes himself as Shah of Iran. Safavids Have applied to a rule, which was adopted from ancient times: the king of Iran must be Iranian. That's why they knew themselves as Iranians.

>>He is ethnically a Turk and the country that he lived was having very different identity compared to today. He was a shah and he had nothing to do with nationalism.<<

Shah has to be Iranian as i said above. So he could'nt be only Shah he has to be Iranian. Safavid didn't care at all about theire ethnics or blood lines. They knew themselves as Iranians. Unlike today in the Turkey there were no Ultra-Nationalist among them. You Turks accepted Ataturk as turkish too, although he was ethnically Greec.

>>It is a very obvious fact that the country which is called Iran today has been ruled by Turks nearly 1.000 years.<<

Most of them were Iranian citizens and called themselves Shah of Iran, also Iranian

>>If you define Turks of Iran as Iranian, do you agree in defining Kurds in Turkey as Turks?<<

Sure i do! You too have to accept them as turkish citizens!!!