Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia? 

Augustus was very close to conquering Persia.

@@esramnor6734 no he was not. He was happy with haveing peace with their civlized neighbours. Augustus like Hadrian thought that rome had reached it logical max extend once it had conquered the lands up to the danueb, rihne and tygris. He knew that rome with it's tools of it's time could not govern so many people. It's exactly why the west fell and the east, which was abel to secure peace with the persians and only had th danueb region to petro was much more stabel for it.

@@esramnor6734 Trajan vassalized parthians.

@@esramnor6734 romanın perslere gücü hiçbir zaman yetmedi

@@nowayman1406 You don't know anything about history Parthians were a very weak state.

It almost seems like universal or historical borders for Persia from the partheins to the savavids to modern republic

Laughs in Cyrus the great, and first caliphate

@@pb25193 caliphate?

@@skland1619 Islamic empire of 9th century went from India to Spain, in a single stretch

@@pb25193 You mean 8th century.

No ,the conclusions of these video is wrong.All reason was in religion .Ottomans and safavids werevboth from sane origin called Oghuz turks.They were united and both called Selchuk turkamans till 15th century till first shia turk Karakhoyunlu(blacksheeps) tripe congured others in Iran geograpy and after that shia population rised and in Safavids period it became major.Shia tribes in Ottoman empire like Runlu,Ustacli,Shahseven and etc alco joined to Safavids.These Zagros mountains never stoped turks.And that persians till Shah Abbas ,Safavids shah,neve been in army

True the mountains of Iran have always protected the country from many invaders. Iran is probably the oldest established country in the world. I believe it was called Iran since 3000 years ago.

Before the Ottoman Empire the Seljuk Turks did conquer Persia before conquering the Byzantine empire so depending on how you see it they technically did, just without the ottoman title.

@@-_whysoserious_- It is true, have you ever been there? I have. You must see with your own eyes to understand. Safavids: "founded by Kurdish sheikhs" and the same Kurds where also who installed Shia Islam there. The opposite to Ottoman Empire where a Kurds installed sunni Islam. Kurdish creator of Safavid dynasty Ismail I installed Shia Islam to the east. While Kurdish Jabān al-Kurdī who was one of few of the profet Mohammed apprentices installed sunni Islam on Ottoman areas. Guess why the saying is still for the Kurds today: "No friends but the mountains". Zagros area is where Kurds come from, even mentioned by the Sumerians about them in Zagros.

@@tigersaid9156 And mountain Zagros was the living place of ancient tribe named "Turukkies or Turkies" ,the main proof of that the clay tablets found in ancient city - Mari.

Wow, this is quite shocking

hahaha. who is teaching you people history? There was no persia , the safavid is Turkish empire. The creator Shah Ismail is Anatolian Turk but he was from the Shia branch of islam.

@@oghuzkhan5117 no same Empire with different name safavid is not Turkish

@@oghuzkhan5117 Ismail was from a Kurdish sufi clan with intermarriage between turkmen Turkish are basically turkified greeks anyways kek

@@bodatotalitarian7278 haha another one without history and trying to steal Turkish history 😂😂😂

Sulejman give Baghdad to Persia because they send back his son Bayazid in ottoman empire.

Ottomans ensured that Shah Ismail Safavi, an ethnic Turk himself, converted Iran from Sunni to Shia so that Persian intellectual challange to the Ottoman Caliphate did not rise.

@@illyrianmc9169 Ottomans lost Baghdad into a battle, it was after suleyman

@@mehdi60888 no sulejman give Baghdad to Persian without war they took back his son Bayazid. And in 1600 years Murd the lV captured it again

@@mehdi60888 tell me which soultan lost it. And why the persian kking give his son back to ottomans the Bayazid prince

😱😱😱😱😱😱

😢😡😔😔😔

At least they are Muslims

@@iraqi3150 ??????????????????????

@@ikkai2354 😁👍

Thanks

That was my immediate first guess.

Q: (x) political issue? A: geography (99% of the time)

Another viable answer: It wasn't worth the trouble

@@Galaick better answer is they couldn't do that

Did you know that Safavids: "founded by Kurdish sheikhs" and the same Kurds where also who installed Shia Islam there under their rule. The opposite happened to Ottoman Empire where a Kurds installed sunni Islam. Kurdish creator of Safavid dynasty Ismail I installed Shia Islam to the east. While Kurdish Jabān al-Kurdī who was one of few of the profet Mohammed apprentices installed sunni Islam on Ottoman areas.

​@@tigersaid9156Nah.

everybody is kurd yes ​@@tigersaid9156

The Safavid State is a Turkish state. It is a brother to the Ottomans.

iranian turks are no brother to roman​ born anatolians@@rafforjly

in English it's pronounced differently.

well it's very true. The Ottman empier was controlling literally the same amouth of land.

Ishmam Ahmed The Ottomans and the Persians never fought. The Ottomans fought against the Safavids, another Turk dynasty, and the reason for the war was the Shiite-Sunni war.

@@hannibalbarca2928 safavids are azeri not turk

Well you not-so-smart-hooman 1-There was no Persia 2-The Ottoman fought against Safavid. Both Turkic countries

I make a joke statement that nobody was meant to take seriously and two people put in time to make "well, actually" statements. All this yappity-yap about the ethnic origins of the Safavids yet funnily enough nobody has yet to point out that the House of Osman were not Romans.............

we speak english not farsi we dont care how it is pronounced in farsi

​@@starwreck In English you don't say "Aitaly" instead of "Italy" (maybe you personally do, I don't know). And modern English language is a mess (to the vowels - thanks Great Vowel Shift).

@@starwreck I'm talking about English! Go and look it up.

@@starwreck I know many English speakers who pronounce it the proper way, and not the retarded way.

@@starwreck As someone who actually lives in England, i can confirm that we dont pronounce it as 'Airan' lol dont talk about 'we don't care how its pronunced in Farsi' when actual English speakers in England say it the right way lol just stop it

Ottomans of Persia or Iskandar all collapsed with neglect of people, their education and progressive management and latest being terror win in Afghanistan killing for 20 years and making people leave country in thousands who were most educated and politically aware.

🐦

Seriously. Ottomans are so overrated.

The colonize America got me like "bruh!". You know who doesn't have an Atlantic coastline? Ottomans. You know who controls the straights of Gibraltar, Spain. You know who hates each other?...

Because of the Ultimate Nullifier of course. It always stops things 'Galactic'.

And Britain too before them

it wasn't Persia, but Azerbaijanis who ruled that land for many centuries.

@@jamilshekinskiShia

​@@jamilshekinski lol So the empires back then called Azerbaijan?? Ahhhhhhh Waitt Why I can't find it anywhere

With a lot of foreign support in the soviet case and in the usa just by being a endless mess so that is not really a correct statement, just check how many soviets died in the war and compare it to the afghan deaths

They mainly fought over Armenia and Mesopotamia

Even anatolian seljuk split from persian seljuks

History repeats itself I assume...just look at the situation between Iran and Turkey right now.

we fight together and jews and zionists and american pailed rulers enjoy

@@monarchistheadcrab8819 we aren't fighting very much at the moment

The name was first found in the writing of Kkng Darius.

@@anak5183 it means land of aryans

Take note that this aryan, used in iran and indian subcontinent is different from the one regularly used in europe. aryan means someone noble in character and is what indians and iranians would call themselves without a racist component

​@@bernard3303aria was a country in Eastern Iran in the ancient world

Ama yönetenler 1000 yıldır Türk ;)

Some have less some have more problems. It was often a back and forth in history.

Nadir Shah took Iraq back from the Ottomans, but he traded it with Cacasus.

@@jacobjonm0511😂😂just for four year

@@AhsanKhan-bi3qu As I said he traded it with Caucasus. Learn to read 😁

Cool tell us more!

Iranians weren't German, nor were they the original Aryans or Indo-Europeans. The original Indo-Europeans were from the Eurasian Steppes, and it took them a long time before reaching Iran. Iranians are a mixture of various people. Of course they were made better when they got mixed with the Indo-Europeans.

@@freepagan You may want to take this up with Archeological, Linguistic Anthropologist & Genetics specialists and history professors. None of what you claim is supported. PS. I never claimed that Iranians are Germans (that is what you said).

A question what can u tell abt so called kurdish?

@@sabahalhushkizi4192Iran made buy group of people one of the main one are Kurd , Iran is belong to Kurd people and Kurdistan is belong to Iran

2. Only yanks call it EYE-ran. İn Britain we say EE-ran

Safavid Kurdish from Safi din mazandarani gilani and Greece and azri not turk

You wish 😂😂 the Ottomas were not really Turkish neither were the Safavids

Ismail Shah had Kurd-Turk origin

I prefer to play as France and the Ottomans make a good ally until I run out of rivals and have to rival them

@@windwaker105 the rival mechanics are soooooooo dumb. You got so strong that no one can be considered your rival? You now have zero power projection kekw

@@OljeiKhan dumb, yes however when you get to that point of no possible rivals you don’t need the power projection reward for extra tension that rivaling gives. Although other ways of getting power projection would be sweet, such as bullying others for a quick injection of power projection (dominating others in the area, pushing out soft power, while annoying everyone). Maybe an alternate AE gain for an area that you are done taking land in for the time/have no interest in controling Would model plenty of the big powers of the time pushing others around without war and the like

@@gideonmele1556 or if they let you rival coalitions. That said, EU4 mechanics are so reliably predictable that you should never involuntarily have a coalition against you if you're playing properly.

Historically France was one of the Ottoman's most common allies in Europe, so it makes sense that ai does that.

Why do you call your language Farsi?

*Persian instability go brrrrr* *40 different Persian dynasties go brr*

History changed

dude what are you talking about first use of canons and riffles was in central asia aka persia before even Europeans got to see gun powder

nice try with the non factual excuse Ottomans were always tough and brave thats why you lost fyi also persians had guns and cannons too geez your teachers lie so much to try and make yourselves feel better lol Just Sparta alone was fending off the persian empire imagine if Greece united and went to persia yall be gonnneeee

@@berkzyhd Fun fact: Guns and canons were not invented during the time of the first Persian empire nor the Spartans, and Sparta wasnt conquered because the Persians had 30 other rebellious ethnic groups to deal with. Also the ottomans were more stable than Persia and would have easily lost to a stable Persian Dynasty not dealing with 20 different revolts, the Ottomans overall were able to outlast 4 different Persian dynasties which all had different styles of ruling.

some pretend that Ottoman be the heir of Roman Empire or the Huns/Gokturk, two empires far away, but in reality, Turkey is more exactly the heir of Anatolia people, Hatti and Hittie legacy,

@@Emilechen yes.. 👍 Turkey = Ottoman Empire

@@Emilechen WTF

@@dronur6194 so Anatolian History local nations = Hatti, Hittite, Lydia, ..., Seldjukide, Ottaman and finally Turkey, i think that Turkey is more legitimate to claim legacy of ancient Anatolian civilization legacy,

@@dronur6194 Mongolia*

as turks from huns to first gokturk khanate to seljuks to timurids to mughals to ottomans.

@@ahmedkeremsayar Timurids saw (Timur) saw himself more a Mongolian than a real turk, in a personal letter to Beyezid, he even made fun of the Turks, for not being able to govern at all. I can send you the Quote if you want.

Sassanids were totally consumed by Rashiduns. It’s hard to imagine that Arabs were so powerful at a time.

@@Original_BrosTV Calling Timur a Mongol is like calling II.Mehmed a Latin or Greek because he claimed to be “Caesar of Rome”. Calling him Persian or Mongol is a great historical crime. Please don’t do that. If you visit Uzbekistan, his homeland, you will face very bad reactions if you say that. He even insulted Bayezid’s Turkness in his letters. He said Ottoman soldiers were “devshirme slaves” (probably referring to Janissaries) and his soldiers were real Turks and would win.

@@stuntboyshourov2752 The Sassanids ruled for more than four hundred years and were one of the most powerful empires of that period. The reason for the Arab victory over the Sassanids was due to the weakening of the Sassanids over time.

I appreciate your deep knowledge bro 👏 from Azarbaijan of Iran 💚🤍♥️

Actually the Persian language was the court and official language and lingua franca of Turkish empires that were established in Iran But most of them had turkish as their military language and all Turkish was their mother tongue I appreciate your knowledge 🙏 Love from Iran's Mazandaran 💚🤍❤️

You are right but Salcuk become Iranian ,the way they rule , their culture and everything else like their lunguage was exactly like other Iranian as Iranian don’t think they was foreign they believe they are Iranian who was go to Anatolia and later on become ottoman are totally separate from who stay in Iran , many of them fight for Iran when war start between Iran and ottoman’s

@@mezro4283 A while after Seljuks conquered Anatolia, they divided themselves from Iranian Seljuks and didn’t take command from them no more as they established an independent state by the name of Seljuks of Rome…their United States collapsed a while before Teimur attacked the Anatolia…after the collapse of Roman Seljuks Anatolia divided into a few smaller states and one of them were ottomans the only state could last against Teimur although they had to leave their sultan in Teimur captivity…so ottomans were a part of Roman Seljuks which came from Iran to Anatolia…

And the population of both isn’t really intelligent.

Safavid Turks

​@@Revo_MRZ No the founder of the Safavid order was Kurdish mystic Safi-ad-din Ardabili. Iran has many different ethnic groups but Persian has always been the state language and Safavid Iran was no different.

@@yarsaz4347 An important aspect of this study is that in Ottoman historiography, the established views about the Battle of Çaldıran are being questioned. The assessment of the Venetian traveler, Giovanni Maria Angiolelloa, have to be taken into consideration. The Venetian traveler says: "If the Kurds did not call, the great turk Yavuz Sultan Selim would never dare to attack Shah Ismail." This statement required the examination of Shah İsmail, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Kürdler / Kurdistan relations at that time. Shah Ismail, in 1501, destroyed the Akkoyunlu State, took over Tabriz, the Safavids rule was established in Iran, the Twelve Imam Shia Sects were declared the official sect. Shah Ismail seized the lands of Sunni Uzbeks in the East, and dominated a wide area from the Caucasus Mountains in the North to the Persian Gulf in the South. Safavid's border with the Mamluks was the Euphrates River from South to North. Bilecik, Urfa, Harput, Erzincan, Çemişgezek (wide Dersim Region) came under Safavid rule. Safavids became neighbors with the Ottoman State in the west of Sivas, Amasya and Tokat. All this shows that most of Kurdistan is under the control of Safavids. Safavid administration and Shah Ismail do not treat the Kurds at all. For example;Shah Ismail invited the Kurdish tribal chiefs to the palace, arrested them and put them in jail. He used to exile some tribal chiefs to different corners of Iran. Nawşirwan Mustafa Emin explains the purpose of Shah Ismail in 3 points in his book "Kurd û Ecem": 1 To take the Myrs in the hands of the Kurdish Myrs, to move them away from their regions and to replace them with the Kızılbaş Turks, 2 Forcing Sunni Kurds to change sects, 3 To exert violence against the leaders, the people and the Kurds who protected their power at that time during the Akkoyunlu state… Nawşirwan Mustafa gives 3 Kurdish Myrs as examples: Çemişgezek Spell Hacı Rüstem Bey, Shah Rüstemi Lor and Zahir Bey Hakkari etc… Meanwhile, as it is known, Shah Ismail drove his military forces under the command of Nuri Ali Khalifa Rumlu, against Erzincan and especially Çemişgezek people, and put Han Muhammedhan Ustaclu against Diyarbekir Kurds. After Nuri Ali Khalifa Rumlu invaded the region, he carried out massacres against the Kurds in the region and sent the leaders of Çemişgezek to Ecem Iraq, including Mîr Hacî Rûstem. Of course, Mîr Hacî Rûstem and his accompanying people go to Xoy and inform Shah Ismail about their loyalty in order to return to their former power. However, Shah Ismail places Mîr Hacî Rûstem in another area, not to return to Kurdistan, depending on his existing policy against the Kurdish Myrs. Prior to the Battle of Çaldıran, Shah Ismail was liquidating the Kurdistan Myrs and deploying Turkmen (not Alevi Kurds) instead. For example, Turkmen officials assign the head of Kurdish cities such as Maraş, Hasankef, Diyarbekir, Erzincan, Kemah, Kiği, Erzincan etc. These assignments do not take place peacefully, but as a result of war and massacres. Bey of Hesenkêf fortress Mîr Mîr Xelil Eyyubi, one of the lords of Kurdistan, before the Çaldıran War, want to go to the city of Xoy with great gifts and report their loyalty to Shah Ismail. As it is known, although the dignity of Kurdish Eyyubi lost throughout the Middle East, Hesenkêf continued as the last fortress of the Ayyubids. Mîr Xelîl Eyyubî was the brother-in-law of Shah Ismail (he was married to his sister). Except one or two of the myrs, all of them who went to report their loyalty to Shah Ismail were arrested and replaced by Qızılbash Turks. Mîr Xelil is in prison in Tabriz for 3 years and then runs away. A number of Kurdish circles are able to carry out hollow and unrealistic analyzes by ignoring the Safavids' massacres in Kurdistan, Safavids policies and practices to purify Kurdistan from the Kurds and bring Azeri Turks and Turkmens to their place. In the face of this attitude of Shah Ismail and Safavids, seeking help from the Ottoman Empire was born as a serious thought among the Kurdish tribes.

@@yarsaz4347 This is how the Kurdish tribes introduced the Idris-i Bitlisi and did invite the Ottomans to the war against Shah Ismail. İdris-i Bitlisi was a bureaucrat that served Uzun Hasan and Saraya during the Akkoyunlular period. The father of İdris-i Bitlisi also served Akkoyunlu people. Reports were frequently sent to the Ottoman Palace about Shah Ismail's banning Sunni in Kurdistan, inviting the Kurds to Shiite. The number of these reports were increasing. The content of the reports was also getting heavier. Shah Ismail's anti-Ottoman and pro-Shiite policies in the Ottoman country were the main topics that were mentioned in these reports. Safavids ended the power of the overwhelming majority of the Kurdish Mirians in Kurdistan for decades before Yavuz Sultan Selim took power in 1512 and the Kurds of Îdrîsî Bedlîs took the alliance with the Ottomans. Yavuz Sultan Selim sat on the throne in 1512. İn 23 May 1512. Yavuz, as soon as he sits on the throne, is considering a trip to Hungary. The notables of the palace, viziers, commanders are also in favor of expedition to Hungary. However, the frequent application of the Kurds to the palace, the invitation of Yavuz Sultan Selim to Shah İsmail, leaves Yavuz in a privileged position. After all, the Kurds convince Yavuz. Although the commanders and viziers are eyebrows, a war decision is taken against Shah Ismail and Safavids. Source: 1 The book of Murad Ciwan (Kurdish) named "The Ottomans, Safavids and Kurds in the Battle of Chaldiran" 2 The book of Nawşirwan Mustafa Emin (Kurdish) named "Kurd û Ecem" 3 zagrosname.com/sah-abbasin-mukri-kuerdlere-karsi-katliamiek-1-cemisgezek.html (Kurdish site)

There are no turks in today’s Turkey. Only 3% of the turkish population is of turkic descent. Who are you trying to fool with your alternative history bs.

Shah Abbas the Great won more battle against the Ottoman than all Ottoman rulers did vs Iran

Shah Abbas won more battle against the Ottoman than Ottoman rulers did vs Iran Shah Abbas the Great won like 7 battle vs Ottoman alone some of the best Ottoman rulers didn’t even won 5 battle all there life 🤣🤣🤣 Shah Abbas the Great and Shah Ismail >>> all Ottoman history

@@yaqubleis6311 They don't want to show how great Persia was and it best shahs like shapur the second and shah Abbas and nader shah and many more.

@Mohammed Alzahrani 🤣🤣😂😂😂😂 1000 years ??? NAME the dynasties kid

@Mohammed Alzahrani kid 😂😂😂😂🤣 Safavids were Iranic origin descendent of Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kolah they were Iranic origin

exactly.

Its not true. Ottoman sultan Yavux Sultan Selim went on iran (before the battle of chaldiran) and invited shah ismail to an open battle, even sent him a woman dress because shah ismail avoided to battle with ottomans. While ottoman army was roaming inside iran. And the three main reasons are: Geography, Distance and Iran's behavior. Iran was waiting for ottoman army to leave iran and come back to turkey, then taking back cities which ottoman was captured.

@@postachamdi6286 You are referring to one particular battle, Battle of Chaldean. At that time Ottomans were at the peak of their power and Shah Ismail initially managed to reach Ottomans camp but because Iranian army didn’t have cannon, they lost. Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar all fought Ottomans and the number of times that each side won is equal. But Ottomans were decisively defeated by Nader Shah despite the fact that Ottomans Army was numerically twice the size of Nader Shah army. Nader Shah never lost a major battle neither to Ottomans, Uzbeks, Mogul Empire, Afghans or else. Russians withdrew from Iranian territory after they realized they can’t defeat Nader Shah. He was a military genius. Shah Abbas also dealt a decisive defeat to Ottomans.

@@postachamdi6286 What kind of logic is it? Ottomans captured territories in Eastern Europe, Balkan and Middle East and could hold those territories because their army were crushed and couldn’t resist anymore. The fact that Ottomans couldn’t hold Iranian territories was because Iran army wasn’t crushed and would come back. This is called strategic thinking and is part of war. Besides Iranian army had many head on battles with the Ottomans main Army and defeated them, some won some lost. But Iran’s ability to defeat Ottomans encouraged Europeans to seek alliances with Safavid dynasty and help to train Iranian artillery.

@@postachamdi6286 Topal Osman Pasha, the famous Ottoman general, head of main Ottoman Army lost his life in the battle of Kirkuk in 1733 against Nader Shah. He initially defeated Nader’s army in first stage of battle but Nader changed tactics and won decisively. The point is that neither Romans nor Ottomans who conquered many territories in Asia, Europe and Africa at the peak of their power succeeded to conquer Iran and advance Eastward. If it was only due to rugged terrain then Alexander of Macedonia, Arabs or Mongols must have not conquered Iran as well. They managed to take over because Iranian Empires at those time were engaging at internal rivalry and wars. Remember Iran is much older than Turkey and the first Empire in true sense was established by Iranians, Achemenian Empire.

They fought 10 wars, each won 5

@@arashsa711 in the end it comes down to one battle Battle of Chaldiran Also in my Alternative World History, I add at least the 7 years war as well in which Ottoman goes with Britain and Persia with France. Considering that, you know how it can turn out :)

russia fell before the ottomans

Russia has dominated everyone at some point or another except Britain and the US.

@@KangaKucha I agree. Like the Byzantine Greeks and the Sassanid Persians, after all the constant fighting, eventually, the Arabs dominated both of them except the Greeks were powerful enough to remain exist while the Persians were incorporated to the Arab empire. Similarily to the Persians and now the Ottoman(Turkified Greeks) were dominated by Russia and conquered much of their territories.

🇮🇷👍

Breaking News: Safavids and Afshars were not Persians but in fact, Turks.

@@kronzweld1008 fun fact: iran is a multicultural alliance. and as a turk I am fully loyal to my country (iran) while proud of my ethnicity's culture.

@@kronzweld1008 @Kronzweld fun fact 20 million of turkey's population is made by kurds (mountain turks you call) that speak an iranic language and another fun fact is that unlike turkey we are proud of being multicultural we might suffer from a corrupted regime but as turks kurds Persians balochies... We are one nation

@@kronzweld1008 breaking news : who wrote this comment is also a Turk

Persia have never controlled Eastern Anatolia and Syria 16th century onwoards. Iraq, partly yes. But then reconquered by the Ottomans short time after.

@@deusex1104 Shah Abbas The Great did. He Also re conquered the Persian Bahrain with the help of Dutch Navy wich is UAE, Parts of Oman and parts of Saudi Arabia. That is why he has got the title Great.

@@Mithradatesi Oh, i dont know about these parts really. I just opposed to Eastern Anatolia and Syria thing.

@@Mithradatesi Shah Abbas was not Persian 😉

@@veyselturan6916 Shah abbas was Part Persian Part Kurdish Part Turkman and Part Byzantine Part Georgian. But his Great Great grandfather was From The Zarrin kolah clan of Nihavand who are of Parthian Pahlavi descent. So Technically he is Iranian/Persian.

Best comment

🤣🤣

@@alonequeen8020 Scytians are iranic not turk you turks are so funny

@@alonequeen8020 Gokturk rulers was iranic origin and they made turkic people knel.

When turks was not even in this world two iranic people Persians and Scytians Conquered half of the world hahahahah.

However, the land was very barren and was more difficult to hold than it was worth

Agreed. The very maps in this video that show the Ottomans territory in Arabia prove that distance could be overcome. I think it’s the mountains and the strong national organisation and identity they couldn’t defeat. Persia has historically been invaded many times, but conquered far less, and only when it was disunited

A lot of Ottoman land, like the Romans before then, could use the seas and rivers, Persia? Not so much. Even up to the Iran/Iraq war, the topography was a killer both for striking into Iran and supplying out of Iran, doable but a serious pain

Hat up , for your first instinct ! The Truth : They are just jealous of eternal and master country of Iran , even today ! See , at embargos and making problems for Iran with their shitty freedom , stinky democracy and their fake Human-Rights ! This is why !

Their interest was in Europe

Greeks or Macedonians, Arabs, so many diffrent turkic tribes and Mongols all conquered and ruled Iran for many long years.

Everyone knows Ottomans Seljucks invaded persia for hundreds of years, there for there was nothing interesting in persia for ottomans. Seljuck Turks before Ottomans owned the Persia, this video is misleading information, it wasn't difficult to invade persia, Whilst ottomans and persia had several wars, and persia always lost the wars. Ottomans went to west

@@soniahemmati2372 they all lose and failed to iran

@@everydayrubbish8962 said the dogmatic person who is heavily exposed to only turkish history!

Who says it was not conquered? Iran was always depended on UK politically and economically

@Igor Zlatkovic So boys were fighting just for the hell of it?

@Igor Zlatkovic dude because Turks %40 Muslim Greek, %32,5 muslim armenian , % 21,9 kurds , % 9.31 arabs

@Igor Zlatkovic my father blonde asiatic Face asiatic Eyes (nomad teke tribe)…. ım a serb????

@Igor Zlatkovic go spill your bullshits elsewhere please

Jannisairies were professional troops of the Ottoman Empire and they had salaries from the crown. Their other source of income was looting from enemy cities. Persians destroyed their own land so there was nothing to loot. That's why they were not enthusiastic about that.

It was the Mongolian culture of the Ottomans that created many wars with their neighbors... it is always mistaken that it was Islam that made Ottomans attack Europe. No it was the Mongolian Culture of the Ottomans. The best example is their 300 years of conflict with Persia

@@navidaban2856 Chi migi dada baw mongolian culture kodume ? Har emperaturi mikhad sarzaminaye bishtari begire

agree , video needs deeper answers

Not to nitpick but the pronunciation is also quite a mess

You're right. Are u turk?

the terrain is so hard to even in modern warfare, its like and afghanistan with steroids.

@@flyingberserker3965 it's like Afghanistan but you only have technology from the 1600's - 1800's

Why did alexander the great do it then? It's kinda confusing the usual explaination for these things written in comments is "because it was a pain in the ass/difficult to do" but yet someone else has done it before. So answer should be why they specifically chose not to do it. With their own written reasons, must be some explaination.

@@beepboopbeepp ok but ottoman is sunni empire. Persia and its people are shia people. And shia dont like sunni. So, it would be very difficult for the Ottomans to control and subordinate the Shiite population. Even sokollu mehmed pasha told the administration that there was a risk in making an expedition to iran in 1578/79 and we can say that he was right.

alakası bile yok. O tarihteki sizin bildiğiniz bu Pers devleti Türk devletidir. Şii Safevi devleti Türk'tür. Olay basit. Mezhepler farklı. Burayı almak, yarardan çok zarar getirir. İki devlet arasında nüfus kaymaları olan bir kaç şehir var. Savaşlar da onların üzerinden yürüdü.

I think of 2 words when hearing kerkeses, first is circassians and second is kirghiz. either way thanks for the info ❤

@@bernard3303 He means Circassians. The Kyrgyz were affiliated with the Khanate of Bukhara, if I'm not wrong.

Dude it was not Delhi sultanate but Mughal Empire.

@@krishibrahmania8432 True

All of they was turkic empires. Also add to this group Timurid s Empire!

@Kareem Sarhan are you jokimg or you are really ignorant?? Safevid was Turkish. Şah Ismael was Azerbaijan Turkish. Even now Iran has 40 million Turk( Azerbaijan, Qasgay, Turkman..) population.

@@e.c3734 Shah Ismail I grew up bilingual, speaking Persian and Azeri His ancestry was mixed, from various ethnic groups such as Georgians, Greeks, Kurds and Turkomans Their official and court language was Persian as it can be seen on Safavid palaces or the poems written by Safavids such as Shah Tahmasp Shahnameh Though they also spoke and wrote in Azeri The Safavids were the first to use the term Iran as the name of their country and this can be seen in the Safavid map drawn by an Ottoman Turk, Ibrahim Muteferrika Iran's population right now is over 86 million but has 20-22 million Turkic population at max Azeris make 16% of Iran's total population I don't know from where do you get these absurd numbers Iran's total population is 86,729,411 right now in 2023 The Persians make 61% of the Population Combined with other Iranic people such as Kurds, Lur/Lors, Gilaks, Mazanis, Balochs, Armenians and Arabs, the number of non Azeris or non Turks surpasses 80% Around 18,000,000-20,000,000 of Iran's population is Azeri, 1,300,000 Turkmen and 400,000 Qashqai Except the source Azerbaijan has given, other non Iranian sources always said that there are between 16-18 million Azeris in Iran The highest number i saw was 20 million

its not iran its Turkic safavid empire

@@cengizsogutlu Iran has always been multicultural and all ethnicities were treated the same, as Iranians, for example Nader shah was an ethnic Turkic Iranian hero, Kaveh Ahangar (Kaveh the blacksmith) was an ethnic Kurdish Iranian hero and there are more examples. Ottomans on the other hand always pushed to convert people so I can somewhat understand why being Turkic or not is so important to today’s Turkish people

@@cengizsogutlu bro, you're not even Turks by blood and genes, it's only the language. Safavids and Qajars were remnants of Turkic speaking Iranians and Persians who were Turkified by Empires such as Seljuks. If you research deep, you'll see that Safavids and Qajars considered themselves Iranian and Persian and also used Persian language as official language and not once in the history they mentioned that they were Turks. I've seen many coins and moneys from that era which are written in Persian and is written the country of Persia or sometimes Iran, even though in those times. I'm Iranian from Azerbaijani part and I know what I talk about. So you freaking Panturk nationalists better stop spreading what your nationalist leaders say and try to make history for themselves. Because even Turkey and Azerbaijan are not Turkic basically by blood and it's mostly the language. Even if you go deeper you'll see that 30 percent of the Turkish vocabulary is made of Persian words and it's not a bad thing just because two countries politically have problems now, it's the sign of those days that we were connected

@@cengizsogutlu even Nader shah Afshar considered himself Persian even speaking Turkmen as mother tongue and considered Iran Persia. If you speak a Turkic language now is mostly because of the rule of the Seljuks who were partly Turkic and were considered Oguz Turks who even were not purely Turkic by blood and who you guys are trying to divide our two nations by speaking nonesense and saying such bullshits? Nowadays Turkey's people by many studies are only from 2 to 25 percent Oghuz Turks by blood and it's mostly the same for Azerbaijanies and it's only the remnants of Seljuks who mixed into local population. You guys saying that you are Turks is one of the funniest thing in the world. How can you say that some people came into my land in which we were mostly of Greek, Persian, Anatolian and Caucasian and fucked and pillaged us and turned our language to a Turkic based and claim that you're one of them?? I know politics and nationalistic movements are tricky and I know you have to find for yourself an identity and it mostly comes from what language you speak if you haven't any studies, but bro, how can you get blined by such bullshits like this? Instead of trying to find similarities that we have which are a lot, people like you and many Turkic speaking people prefer to rely on the bullshits nationalists repeat

@@rezamoharami9413 doesn't matter safavids were not Farsi. İt's like calling Seljuks İranian like a joke. Safavids were Turks.

Bro if If they make a film about our history, we will surely become the bad guy in the story, even if we are good😢😢

@Mehmed Said Pasha You want to talk about Nader Shah😂😂

@Mehmed Said Pasha so all you care is someone being Turkish or not even tho he's coins just tells he considered himself Iranian, aside from that, why did sing some poems against the Ottomans then?

@Mehmed Said Pasha yes, and that's why he sent the skull of the Uzbek king to the Ottoman sultan as a gift 😹 maschallah veri Torkik bröthərhōōd

@Mehmed Said Pasha nah, Ottomans weren't hopeful of Uzbeks doing anything against the Safavids, when Uzbeks acted Ottomans looked for another chance and failed so badly. Safavids didn't give a sh- about you Turks.

Persian (Iranian) turk like Ali Khamenei

Safavid ❤🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿

this was ghajar propaganda .they was iranian azari

@@soheildian371 You occupied Azerbaijani territory in 1926

Azarabandegan is real name and they are persian@@milliOnmilliOnmilliOn

Nope. Writing persian poetry doesn’t mean that

history says it !

@@AbbasValanejad wikipedia propagandas do you know anti turkism and euro centrism?

@پیاده نظام خان Persian wasn't arabasid.Many Turkish words come from Persian language

@@ASh-oe9hm the turks are connected to the mongols, wich also ruled the persian area so them having persian words makes sense

Armin Abdi iran wasn't always iran . iran remained under greek domination for 300 years seluicid, macedon empire and greco bactria.It remained under Arab rule for 300 years, muzaffarids, umayyads, rashiduns and abbasids etc..220 years of mongol rule great mongol empire,jalarids and Ilkhanate mongol empire etc..There is also 600 years of Turkic domination and 250 years of Turco-Iranian rule.

@@hannibalbarca2928 I meant it was always Iran as opposed to Persia. Westerners used to call the country Persia and some think that was the name until the last century.

@@hannibalbarca2928 lol

Iran has been Iran since the time of the Sassanids. It was called Iranshahr in the Shahnameh of the fifth century.

@@hannibalbarca2928 lol😂😂😂😂 every single thing in universe is tŰrK now go

so called 50.000 turkish trops of battle of erzerum wasn't mentioned in ottoman sources. It's unrealistic considering ottomans had to deal with greek revolts in those times and a war with russia was about to break. england and france were also had hostile attitudes towards turkey. so there is no way they could send that kind of big army to eastern frontiers.

thats not true. the ottoman army was not 50k. also there was a lot of revolt in ottoman lands.

By the end of the tenth century, with the Qarākhānid Turks conquering Sāmānid Central Asia and ushering in a millennium of Turkic rule across Iran and much of the Islamic World, the dynamic of the frontier had changed qualitatively. The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia (Early and Medieval Islamic World) Hardcover - June 27, 2019

@@darklord1901 Of course it's not in Turkish sources. No one wants to look that bad...

​@UP TO THE CEILING DOWN TO THE FLOOR u seem kind of jealous

Catholics op

Hmm is it the venetian that destroyed the city?

There was also a crusade against Constantinople too.

The Byzantines destroyed the empire by themselves with their civil wars and they even are the reason the Ottomans ever got a foothold into europe in the first place by using them as mercenarys.

Yeah, the Ottomans just dealt the final blow to a dying state.

You are turkish

@@sevda.azari45 i'm persian speaker now

@@sbd983 no we weren't

Safavid was Iranains whit kurdish origin

They were Turks

While persians was losing war in caucasus , they sobataged water supplies in that region and burned lands as well hence ottamans couldn't attack persia from caucasus

He's was a genius Commander

One and only NADER shah the man who rescued Persia from all invader the commander of chief that was able to fight in four fronts and won most of his battles the kind of king that could defeat Mohammed shah of India took over Lahore and burn Delhi and took entire treasure of India we need this kind of leader once more to bring Iran to his previous would status as empire

@@mehdimarkham5068 He was almost the only person in the political history of Iran who was able to oppose the Ottoman Turks, it should not be forgotten that the Ottomans were a great threat to the world for many years.

Afshar

I came to conquer Uranus

Hahah İran was a small enemy for Ottomans. They had the wars against Germens, Habsburgs, Venezians, and Russos as well, at that era. Ottomans problems was greater than Persians. But this is a reality, The Turks ruled Persia for 1000 years. Nothing would change this reality.

@@ylmazuguz3986 Whoever says that the Safavids were a small enemy of the Ottomans, probably does not know Shah Abbas the Great and Nadir Shah

there is always that one bs comment that tries to spread lies and misinform the people unlike you i believe both were very strong empires and had strong enemies surrounding themafter all they were neighbours we are not talking about china and us on the otherside of the earth! @@ylmazuguz3986

​@@ylmazuguz3986Persia also had wars with Portugal, Russia and Uzbeks and the only reason that ottomans were stronger than Persia was that they had advanced weapons even though they couldn't conquer Persia in spite of having advanced weapons . And yes Iran had Turk iranian king and a large number of Turk people are still living in Iran beside Persians, Kurds and other iranian minorities.

@@ylmazuguz3986 turkish language people. People of Hittie, sumer, Elam, byzantine and ancient anatolia did not vanish! Actually new genetic evidence shows Turkey people has little of genes of Turk people and are mostly from ancient anatolians and linguistic studies show that their language before celjughs were indo-iranian-europian

ppl forget as well as being a complete &utter nutcase alexander also used mass slaughter threats of genocide/oblivion & psychological warfare to maintain a what should have been rather tenuous foothold in these territories.. not to mention marrying his generals directly into the ruling hierarchy &having them submit to local customs/religion of his conquered territories as a matter of routine.

The reason isn't simply "practical". The reason why the Ottomans couldn't "take" Persia (a combined tract of land roughly the size of Western Europe) is because the Persians weren't sitting on their hands waiting to get attacked. They were formidable on their own merits and had the most formidable cavalry in West Asia. That goes beyond it being a "practical convenience" as you would have it.

@@rashnuofthegoldenscales4512 I wasn’t trying to imply that the native Persians weren’t able to defend their own land but I was implying that the ottomans would’ve been more successful had they the willingness to commit to the conquest.

@@majestichotwings6974 You must be joking. Some of the biggest musterings conducted by the Ottomans were for the Persian campaigns. To claim that there was a lack of will or commitment behind these levies is plainly a made up notion. Furthermore, implying that success is automatic for "wanting it more" (something you can't prove to begin with) is the same as invalidating Persian efforts. You do understand that this isn't how war is waged?

Damn, I always feel sad when someone never heard about Cyrus

What crosses though my mind is that sea travel from Constantinople to Trebizond wouldve saved some valuable time for the main army

Least delusional non turk

Well said bro

@Kaz Miller lol spare us from your fakenews, tojik. We better know what we are :) definitely not fars

@Kaz Miller Azeris are considered Turkic lol

@@TurquazCannabiz they are irano-turkic. Not fully turkic. Speaking turkic doesn't make you turkic. Same as safavids. Shah Ismael's mother was a turk and his father was a kurd

Safavid Azerbaijan 🇦🇿

@@Sjshakdh no kid safavid for ardabil iran🇮🇷🇮🇷

@@Sjshakdh Azerbaijan is Iran.

The Safavid army was not a Persian or even an Iranian army. Until the time of Shah Abbas, most of the soldiers were Anatolian Turks, and after that, half were Turks, and the rest were Armenians and Georgians.

No Persian safevi İsmail şah = Türk

Napoleon was the Nader of the west Nader was there first

napoleon is nader of the west

It had the technological superiority too

@Mehmed Said Pasha The Safavids also fought with Uzbek Khanates on NorthEast almost non stop.not to mention the Occasional Russians on the Caucausas and the Mughuls on the Southeast.and Even the Portuguese in the Persian Gulf,so yeah,not just the Ottomans had multiple fronts.

@Mehmed Said Pasha The Ottomans having more manpower is not exactly sth to debate about,It's a fact.You can check the Various Wars, battles and campaigns that both were involved in.For example(Numbers from wikipedia): Chadiran:100000 to 40000 Urmia:90000 to 70000 Seige of Baghdad(1638):110000 to 40000 Yeghavard(1735):80000 to 15000 And.... Last but not least,A certain front consuming more manpower(for a bigger,more populated Empire of all things)does not mean other fronts are safe town centers.in Central Asia and Uzbek-safavid conflicts for example,The front was a massive open desert,needing constant alert and forces to stop the invaders advance.

@Mehmed Said Pasha Hello friend, i would like to ask you a question, i am assuming that you are turkish and know Ottoman history well. During Russo-Turkish war of 1568, in our Russian sources it is noted that Ottomans tried to dig first Don-Volga canal in order to bring artillery on ships to conquer Astarkhan. So here is the question, why Ottomans never tried to dig something similar to Suez canal? Taking into consideration that by late 16th- early 17th century, Europeans could avoid Ottoman borders(which means high taxes) for Asian goods, Suez canal would really help turn tides, and reinforce Ottoman strategic position. Or am i missing something..

@@0ktyabrsky Because they were not smart people. Thats also why the ottoman empire doesnt exsist anymore.