5 ms·

If your point is how horrible Islam is, and the British were protectionist, let's not forget that millions of Persians were starved to death by the British emba

If your point is how horrible Islam is, and the British were protectionist, let's not forget that millions of Persians were starved to death by the British embargo when Persia refused to fight in Europe's war against the Osman empire. Persia's history is a bit more complex than "then Islam came and everything went downhill". Most of Persia's territory was lost during its wars with the Russian empire by deeply incompetent, corrupt and massively uneducated Qajar kings which were basically a British client regime. I remember a book that outlined it quite well, but I don't remember if it was the following one[1] [1] https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/British_Imperialism_in_Qajar_Iran/LzKbjgEACAAJ?hl=en https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/British_Imperialism_i...

eternalban 4y ago
Unexpectedly find myself defending the detested Qajar dynasty on the internet. What a strange day it has been.)= The Qajars were not clients of the colonial powers until towards until the tail end of 19th century, and the dynasty got started in late 18th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_Iran Fun bit to tempt you: "Even when the French were in occupation of Moscow, Russian forces in the south were not recalled but continued their offensive against Persia," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1804%E2%80%931813)#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1804%E2%80%... And here I thought our modern world was strange. Can you imagine if they had our gadgets back then? The Russians would get demoralized and make a beeline to go defend Moscow and Iran would still have Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Oh well.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  > The Qajars were not clients of the colonial powers until towards until the tail end of 19th century I disagree and in fact for a lot of what the colonial powers did there are in fact very little references. Most of it are trickles of information decades sometimes centuries later. They wrote their own history books after all. The embargo famine in the 20th century got published from the archives so late that its barely a footnote worth mentioning. The British had a huge impact on the establishment of the modern Saudi kingdom as well as salafi islamism in the 18th century. > And here I thought our modern world was strange. Can you imagine if they had our gadgets back then? The Russians would get demoralized and make a beeline to go defend Moscow and Iran would still have Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. That is really a quite interesting point. Although it is worth noting that it was the Ukrainians(I'm including Donbass and LPR militias in there) and the Chechens that were fighting out tiktok wars. The Russian army itself was only recorded by military reporters, and always covered their faces. It seems like when they join the war theatre they are in fact stripped of personal electronic gadgets for obvious SIGINT reasons. One of the militia headquarters that was struck in western Ukraine was struck because western mercenaries were fiddling with their mobile phones[1]. My point being that while your comment is well received, I'm not sure it works on actual professional armies. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/19/british-volunteer-fighters-may-have-triggered-deadly-strike/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/19/british-vo...
  - eternalban 4y ago
    My point: The fiascos that lead to the loss of large chunks of Iran in the Caucus were not instigated by the British and Qajars were not clients of anyone at that time. We don't really require documentation to understand this. When, however, the British and Russian embassies (post defeat) de-facto setup a shadow government in Tehran, yes, at that point, the Qajars were basically an animated corpse and had lost all prestige internally. Which is why opportunistic (elite) traitors in Iran began to pick one of the two powers as patrons. The really embarrassing part about it all for me is that apparently the Brits didn't feel Iran was worth actually colonizing! :) The Russians were using the pretext of local unrest to come and "liberate" the caucus. But I think there was a possibly British military expert that very poorly "advised" the Qajar shah. What is really interesting, specially since ^ above should sound very familiar with the latest Russian liberation effort, is the thought that occurred after posting my OP. Qajar Iran was (if you squint) kinda like the Austro-Hungarian empire. Iran is, technically due to multi-ethnicity, an empire, though it sounds funny :) So the thought was that these empires actually did serve some positive purpose. There are places in the world were we have quilts of mini countries. For example, when the Caucus were part of Persian or Russian empire (or USSR) you didn't have Armenians and Azerbaijanis and Georgians having fights over borders. And whenever the empire goes bye bye (just w/ Austro-Hungarian empire) those constituent states go at it with each other. (Btw, to be perfectly clear, by above (and OP "Oh well") I most certainly do not mean that I do not understand or support the independent and successful existence of Armenia, or Georgia! Just analyzing, that's all and no offense is meant. I wouldn't want my country to be part of an empire either.)
qersist3nce 4y ago
> Persia's history is a bit more complex than "then Islam came and everything went downhill". Yeah, right. Generic PC talk. Just look at the state-of-affairs in the current uprising in Iran. What was the reason for it? Or look at some economic progress graphs comparing pre and post 1979 revolution. Or how the constitution revolution failed in the 20th century (law should come from Allah not Man). Or the atrocities of the Saffavids in 1500s. Or the "Arab-vs-Ajam" racism of Abbasid and Ummayids dynasties. Some names and hints for those willing to check for themselves: Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Qutayba ibn Muslim [and his campaign in Transoxiana], the concept of "Mawali" Basically Iran endured 3 catastrophic civilization-threatening level invasions. Alexander (Hellenistic), Arabs (Islamic) and Mongols. Though the latter didn't enforce Tengrism on the population. And the name of the country was always Iran. There are literally stone reliefs from 4th AD proving this.
- throwaway2202 4y ago
  Not to defend this government really, but the graphs tells us iran was in war and was sanctioned. The graphs still tell us it is sanctioned. The economic progress in gdp measures or revolution capacity measures? The shah himself thought it was the US who caused his situation. Atrocities of safavids were after iran was completely destroyed by mongols and timur. Safavid were not the most peaceful, but compared to their predecessors, they were very good. For example they did not cement men alive. Instead built mosques and reunified the land. Ajam and arab is valid. But sassanid empire was a caste society. So which caste were the arabs? I actually don’t know. Sassanid in its last 20 years have extensive war campaigns, regicide and mutinies. Mongols turning persian into main language seems like an anti-arab measure. But I am not sure.
  - qersist3nce 4y ago
    >but the graphs tells us iran was in war and was sanctioned Saddam initiated the attack but only because Khomeini weakened the Army and cleansed it from opposition to his ideology. They also wanted to export their Islamic revolution to the neighboring countries that scared the Arab monarchs into supporting Saddam. He destabilized the region and basically became the new Ummayids (shia-flavored). Khomeini and friends executed and banished the entrepreneurs that funded factories and industries. They put islam above the nation of Iran (he literally mocked nationalists who were saying "we are Iranian first and Muslim second" on recording). Khomeini and friends were advocating that "devout Muslims should be preferred against non-practicing experts for job positions". How does this help progress? >Atrocities of safavids were after iran was completely destroyed by mongols So? They could like "not" force-convert all population? Did mongols enforce Tengrism by sword? Also by "reunified the land" you mean disbanding the local governments, mutilating local Shahs that were around like 1000 years? (Shirvan-shahis, Bavands, etc). How exactly do you think a state could be "reunified"? Have you ever asked why Armenians are in Iran mainland in Isfahan? Or why Georgians asked their christian brothers (Russians) in 18th century to come help them get free from Qajars? >But sassanid empire was a caste society. So which caste were the arabs? Aniranians. Did Sassanids enforce Zoroastrianism by sword? Was the Mesopotamia Persianized in ~600 years Iranians had control of it? How come basically all of MENA is Arabized after the 700 AD? >Mongols turning persian into main language seems like an anti-arab measure Thank Samanids and Saffarids for that. They created the bureaucracy of Khorasan based on Persian culture. Turks and Mongols just adopted it. If the region was arabized before 12th century, mongols would have just used Arabic.

eternalban 4y ago

Unexpectedly find myself defending the detested Qajar dynasty on the internet. What a strange day it has been.)= The Qajars were not clients of the colonial powers until towards until the tail end of 19th century, and the dynasty got started in late 18th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_Iran Fun bit to tempt you: "Even when the French were in occupation of Moscow, Russian forces in the south were not recalled but continued their offensive against Persia," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1804%E2%80%931813)#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1804%E2%80%... And here I thought our modern world was strange. Can you imagine if they had our gadgets back then? The Russians would get demoralized and make a beeline to go defend Moscow and Iran would still have Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Oh well.

rjzzleep 4y ago
> The Qajars were not clients of the colonial powers until towards until the tail end of 19th century I disagree and in fact for a lot of what the colonial powers did there are in fact very little references. Most of it are trickles of information decades sometimes centuries later. They wrote their own history books after all. The embargo famine in the 20th century got published from the archives so late that its barely a footnote worth mentioning. The British had a huge impact on the establishment of the modern Saudi kingdom as well as salafi islamism in the 18th century. > And here I thought our modern world was strange. Can you imagine if they had our gadgets back then? The Russians would get demoralized and make a beeline to go defend Moscow and Iran would still have Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. That is really a quite interesting point. Although it is worth noting that it was the Ukrainians(I'm including Donbass and LPR militias in there) and the Chechens that were fighting out tiktok wars. The Russian army itself was only recorded by military reporters, and always covered their faces. It seems like when they join the war theatre they are in fact stripped of personal electronic gadgets for obvious SIGINT reasons. One of the militia headquarters that was struck in western Ukraine was struck because western mercenaries were fiddling with their mobile phones[1]. My point being that while your comment is well received, I'm not sure it works on actual professional armies. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/19/british-volunteer-fighters-may-have-triggered-deadly-strike/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/19/british-vo...
- eternalban 4y ago
  My point: The fiascos that lead to the loss of large chunks of Iran in the Caucus were not instigated by the British and Qajars were not clients of anyone at that time. We don't really require documentation to understand this. When, however, the British and Russian embassies (post defeat) de-facto setup a shadow government in Tehran, yes, at that point, the Qajars were basically an animated corpse and had lost all prestige internally. Which is why opportunistic (elite) traitors in Iran began to pick one of the two powers as patrons. The really embarrassing part about it all for me is that apparently the Brits didn't feel Iran was worth actually colonizing! :) The Russians were using the pretext of local unrest to come and "liberate" the caucus. But I think there was a possibly British military expert that very poorly "advised" the Qajar shah. What is really interesting, specially since ^ above should sound very familiar with the latest Russian liberation effort, is the thought that occurred after posting my OP. Qajar Iran was (if you squint) kinda like the Austro-Hungarian empire. Iran is, technically due to multi-ethnicity, an empire, though it sounds funny :) So the thought was that these empires actually did serve some positive purpose. There are places in the world were we have quilts of mini countries. For example, when the Caucus were part of Persian or Russian empire (or USSR) you didn't have Armenians and Azerbaijanis and Georgians having fights over borders. And whenever the empire goes bye bye (just w/ Austro-Hungarian empire) those constituent states go at it with each other. (Btw, to be perfectly clear, by above (and OP "Oh well") I most certainly do not mean that I do not understand or support the independent and successful existence of Armenia, or Georgia! Just analyzing, that's all and no offense is meant. I wouldn't want my country to be part of an empire either.)

qersist3nce 4y ago

> Persia's history is a bit more complex than "then Islam came and everything went downhill". Yeah, right. Generic PC talk. Just look at the state-of-affairs in the current uprising in Iran. What was the reason for it? Or look at some economic progress graphs comparing pre and post 1979 revolution. Or how the constitution revolution failed in the 20th century (law should come from Allah not Man). Or the atrocities of the Saffavids in 1500s. Or the "Arab-vs-Ajam" racism of Abbasid and Ummayids dynasties. Some names and hints for those willing to check for themselves: Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Qutayba ibn Muslim [and his campaign in Transoxiana], the concept of "Mawali" Basically Iran endured 3 catastrophic civilization-threatening level invasions. Alexander (Hellenistic), Arabs (Islamic) and Mongols. Though the latter didn't enforce Tengrism on the population. And the name of the country was always Iran. There are literally stone reliefs from 4th AD proving this.

throwaway2202 4y ago
Not to defend this government really, but the graphs tells us iran was in war and was sanctioned. The graphs still tell us it is sanctioned. The economic progress in gdp measures or revolution capacity measures? The shah himself thought it was the US who caused his situation. Atrocities of safavids were after iran was completely destroyed by mongols and timur. Safavid were not the most peaceful, but compared to their predecessors, they were very good. For example they did not cement men alive. Instead built mosques and reunified the land. Ajam and arab is valid. But sassanid empire was a caste society. So which caste were the arabs? I actually don’t know. Sassanid in its last 20 years have extensive war campaigns, regicide and mutinies. Mongols turning persian into main language seems like an anti-arab measure. But I am not sure.
- qersist3nce 4y ago
  >but the graphs tells us iran was in war and was sanctioned Saddam initiated the attack but only because Khomeini weakened the Army and cleansed it from opposition to his ideology. They also wanted to export their Islamic revolution to the neighboring countries that scared the Arab monarchs into supporting Saddam. He destabilized the region and basically became the new Ummayids (shia-flavored). Khomeini and friends executed and banished the entrepreneurs that funded factories and industries. They put islam above the nation of Iran (he literally mocked nationalists who were saying "we are Iranian first and Muslim second" on recording). Khomeini and friends were advocating that "devout Muslims should be preferred against non-practicing experts for job positions". How does this help progress? >Atrocities of safavids were after iran was completely destroyed by mongols So? They could like "not" force-convert all population? Did mongols enforce Tengrism by sword? Also by "reunified the land" you mean disbanding the local governments, mutilating local Shahs that were around like 1000 years? (Shirvan-shahis, Bavands, etc). How exactly do you think a state could be "reunified"? Have you ever asked why Armenians are in Iran mainland in Isfahan? Or why Georgians asked their christian brothers (Russians) in 18th century to come help them get free from Qajars? >But sassanid empire was a caste society. So which caste were the arabs? Aniranians. Did Sassanids enforce Zoroastrianism by sword? Was the Mesopotamia Persianized in ~600 years Iranians had control of it? How come basically all of MENA is Arabized after the 700 AD? >Mongols turning persian into main language seems like an anti-arab measure Thank Samanids and Saffarids for that. They created the bureaucracy of Khorasan based on Persian culture. Turks and Mongols just adopted it. If the region was arabized before 12th century, mongols would have just used Arabic.