Safavid "Kurdish/Iranic Theory"

the poems were ment to make it seem as though ismail was also turkic, and therefore would be pro turkic tribes and hopefully convincing them to join him.

atleast that is what these article is trying to say, and it makes sense. for example, the US army at the begining of the iraq war threw out pamphlets in arabic to convince the people that they were on their side.

but the islamic empire dissolved after only 200 years...

so there was no islamic empire in the time period we are talking about.

guys, I think when we try to look at our history and people from a western style point of view, such conflicts of "he was turkish, he was w/e,,,," happen.

The concept of Nationhood in European definition is way more different than ours. (except maybe Swiss..) It should not even be considered in our world.

Back then from safavids to russian conquest, the Turkmens (of today's Turkmenistan) were Iranians!

Iran (nor the Ottoman Empire) was about ethnicity or race. But about monarchy, culture, and even religion.  Iran is still is that (thank fully), it has a Persian core but also many related peoples.

The concept of Race or even ethnicity bare little fruit when we are talking about western asia (in particular). ideologies such as pan-iranism, pan-turkism, pan-arabism, and even pan-kurdism are fruits of European centrism that are absolutely alien and unhealthy to the region as we know today as middle-east and central asia.

Ethnicity was an ancient thing in the region in my opinion. we are all mixed and related (like it or not). In Iran this is even more of a case than Turkey. both countries have an official universal language that unites them and makes them communicate with themselves. in Iran's case its Persian. In central asian states RUSSIAN is the inter-ethnic communication language. A foreign language.

Iraq could have been a successful nation if pan-arabs never came to power. (nevermind on how they siezed power).

ps. I couldn't explain this better.

and also the Safavids eventually became secular specially under Shah Abbas. until the clergy became more powerful.

This forum needs more people like you Alborz 

I agree absolutely, the entire race/nationalism issue is getting lame.

no no, I meant they were Iranian by nationality. I didn't say they were Iranic in ethnicity or race. Like Armenians of Yerevan were of Iranian nationality since they were part of Iran back then. ... etc.

okay, I'm starting to confuse myself.

This is hilarious, one minute your crying that Turkey is doing this and that while at the same time you encourage doing exactly what you say you have a problem with, how ironic.

There was no concept of today's nationalism so you cannot begin to understand the issue's of those times with today's mentallity it simply didn't exist.

In the Ottoman Empire every language of all the many people's was taught, there was a system of multiculturism and even universal sufferage many European state theories come directly from this Empire ie giving help to the poor, a strong justice and beaurocratic system, giving refuge to people in need, allowing minority rights........................

In the Safavid Empire the situation was the same, many languages were spoke and taught, there was a high standard of law and justice, the arts were patroned, immense wealth was made..........

If you want the reality the Safavids were infact more Turko-central than the Ottomans, the Safavid Turkish was closer to the Turkish of the people and they governed over a larger population of Turks than the Ottomans did, don't forget at their extent the Safavids were inside Central Asia.

Regards