Simple answer: The ottomans took the title Caesar and hence the curse of not conquering Persia came with it.

The old borders of the Roman and later Byzantine Empires with Persia more or less reappeared. Geography was destiny again.

Love this. Thank you for making this video about a topic I knew nothing about. It reinforces the concept that geography plays a great role in war.

This channel is great

When the Ottoman declared themselves the Kaisar of Rum, they inherited the curse of Roman, which would plunge them into eternal wars with Persia and die at hand of foreign powers when they were exhausted from war.

The ottoman not conquering Iran is basically history repeating itself

So it was the Zagros mountains, scorched earth, size of both Persia and Ottoman Empire and internal political struggles which stopped it. Very interesting- thank you!

Very intresting👍

Why didn't the Ottoman's conquer Persia? TLDR: The Zagros Mountains. /video.

Galaxy brain take: The Ottoman-Persian wars were merely a new iteration of the Roman-Persian wars

Topography was not the main reason. The Iranian empire's strength was the main factor. For instance, at the end of the Safavid Empire when Iran was in chaos and Afghans occupied the Iranian capital (Isfahan) the Ottomans captured a large chunk of Western Iran and Eastern Iraq which was under the control of Safavids. Nader Shah later dealt Ottomans a decisive defeat and later on even the Qajar dynasty defeated them when they were not at the height of their power. All along its long history, Iran has been either very powerful with substantial influence in the region and beyond or it was occupied by the foreigners when the central government was weak.; there was no middle ground due to its strategic location in the world. It was not just Ottomans that were stopped at the border of Iran, Romans also tried very hard to conquer Iran or at least annex part of it but they failed because at that time powerful dynasties (Parthian and Sassanian) were in power.

I'm grateful that you've made this, but it's starting to get me how you're saying my family's name. With all friendliness, may I please send you a recording of how to pronounce Safavi for future videos?

It's not "Airan" but "Eeran". That's how Iran is pronounced.

Some part of history missed here; when sulyman captured Iraq region from Persia, roughly a decade later Abbas I , king of Persia, recaptured Baghdad and Iraq, however Persia lost Iraq again 20 years later.

As an iranian i appreciate the unbiased content.well presented.

as a iranian thank for making that video

History Matters: "Why didn't the Ottomans colonize America?" Knowledgia: "Why didn't the Ottomans conquer Persia and Italy?" My brain: "Why didn't the Galactic Ottoman Empire conquer the universe?"

I guess Anatolian and Iranian empires are destined to fight each other as it has happened many times throughout history

Excellent history I love older history I got good history 🙏🏻❤

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

so in conclusion, two reasons: 1- Persia was strong itself. 2- the terrain is just impossible, like modern-day Afghanistan, where 3rd rate warlords defeated both Soviets and USA.

Iran is the older name of the region. the name goes back to 4000 years ago way before Persia.

Hello. On this topic, get acquainted with the Turkish and Persian sources about the Georgian royal principalities in this era. Because in the current events between these two empires, one of the most important roles was assigned to the Georgian kingdoms in the East and they actively interfered in the current events in the region.

10:29To Ottoman: difficult journey, difficult terrain to cross for large armies, constant conflicts with European nations, internal revolts, lack of resources needed for long campaigns. To Persia: the military capabilities of Persia.

Trully appriciate the effort pal ! You see as ppl down the comment section said the religious and the political heart of the persian emipre was Tabriz and the order was first found in my city Ardabil ... the most of the pop was centered in north western part which were shiate Azari and since the morale and the terrain as you said were considerable so it came to be the written history of today

5:13 - 5:14 So that's why I frequently see an AI Ottoman allying with France during my EU4 playthroughs.

First thing first: the pronunciation of Iran is" /ɪˈɹɑːn/" and not" /aiˈɹɑːn/". Second: inhabitants of Iran from the time of Achemindas throughout history called their country "Iran ", not "Perse or Persia".This has been mentioned in inscriptions dating to 2500 years back up to modern times in books. The name" Persia" was given to this country by the Greeks and remained the same for Western countries till the 1930s when Iran formally declared to other countries that its ancient name "Iran" was the genuine and correct one. Perse and afterward Perias, a colloquial type of word "Pars" used by Greeks, is the name of the homeland of the Acheminedas dynasty and a small part of their empire that now is a province of Iran.

The Battle of Chaldiran took place on 23 August 1514 and ended with a decisive victory for the Sunni Islamic Ottoman Empire over the Shia Islamic Safavid Empire. As a result, the Ottomans annexed Eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq from Safavid Iran. Ottoman-Safavid War (1532-1555) was the Ottoman victory over the Safavids. Ottomans gain large parts of Mesopotamia (Iraq), Western Iraq, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia. ... Ottoman-Safavid war (1603-1612) was the Safavids' victory over the Ottomans. Safavids regained control over the territories ceded in 1590 to the Ottomans; Azerbaijan, Georgia, Erivan Province, Daghestan, Shirvan, Karabakh, Lorestan, and Khuzestan. Ottoman-Safavid War (1623-1639) was the Ottoman victory over Safavids that resulted in the recognition of Ottoman control of Iraq.

The train journey through the mountains and the crossing of Lake Van into Iran was great. Travelled to Tehran in early 70s in Feb /March snow on the mountains and desert.

Thank you for making this video. This was a really interesting topic that I knew very little about. While I was watching it, I kept thinking of all the wars that occurred between the Roman and later Byzantine Empires and various Persian dynasties, and how those conflicts kinda continued, only with the Ottomans replacing the Romans. Thanks for teaching me something.

A fantastic video mate. 👏👏👏👏 Awesome graphics & mapping that made it so much easier to understand the topic. Could you please tell us who are the modern day Europeans that allied with the Persians & Turks/ottomans ? Thank you again.

some corrections: 1) it wasn't modern day turkey but modern day iraq 2) it wasn't a secession dispute but a succession dispute

They had a back and forth with the Safavids for a while in Iraq, but after an Ottoman reclamation of land, they decided it was time to stop beating around the bush and end an obviously not working relationship, they had a seating, finalised their boundaries, and agreed to never cross them again.

Nice friday content. Thank you 👍

You may want to add a few updates to the video: 1. Iranians have always (since 2500 years ago) called the country Iran, not Persia. It is foreigners who insist on calling it by the wrong name Persia, so Iranians formally registered the country as Iran in 1935 so others would stop calling it Persia. Persia only one of States in Iran. In the example of US, do we call USA, New York? Of course not! 2. Also Iran is not pronounced how you pronounce (I Ran!), the correct pronunciation is EErAAn. The correct pronunciation is not "I Ran" or "A Run". Iran means land of Aryans. But the term Aryan does not have the Nazi connotations that since 1940s the world has associated the German Nazis. Although, several thousand years ago, Iranian tribes lived on Danube near where today is eastern German. Over the millennia Iranians went east and first settled in where today in Ukraine and southern Russia and you probably know the rest.. Iranian tribes settled in current Iranian geography are not native to that land. 3. Remember that the Eastern Roman Empire where the Country of Turkey is located at, was at war with Iran for about 800 years which exhausted both Iran and Eastern Roman Empire and weakened their economies and populations to the extend that when Arab hordes attacked Iran (7th century) it took the Arabs 200 years to impose their religion on Iran. 4. The weakened Eastern Roman empire was also exhausted and became ripe for invasion by Central Asian Turkic tribes and the Arabs that the Turks had conquered.. 5. Iran has a very difficult geography and Iranians can defend that territory pretty well, with a few devastating exceptions. Even with today's techno based militaries it will bleed a foreign invader. 6. Monday night quarter backing: It would have been advantageous for both Eastern Roman Empire and Iranians to settle their issues after over 700 years of fighting diplomatically so neither would be invaded by non-European armies. If that had happens, I doubt if the Mongols could have defeated the Sassanid militaries of Iran, or the Seljuks ....

Darius didn't wanted to apply scortched earth policy against A3. The Safavids learned the lesson.

Ancient Romans: Spent centuries trying to conquer Persia? Ottomans: Evet... Ancient Romans: You truly are the Heirs of Rome!

The reason Persians were defeated in the first couple of battles was that they still fought with swords, lances, and bows, whilst Ottomans had artillery from the begining, until England sent Sir William and Sir Robert Shirley to Persia to give Persians the technology to make guns and canons, in order to keep Ottomans from advancing in Europe. After Persians had Artillery they managed to retake their own territories and the balance was more or less maintained.

Today it takes 1 day to travel from Istanbul to Eastern Anatolia by car. Just imagine how long would it take to walk that distance let alone mountanious terrain you have to cross at the end of journey..

it was also big challange to find and fight with iranian army. most of the time ottoman army marched hundreds kms into the iranian territory in harsh conditions and still couldnt find the enemy. there was even filty chat between selim and ismail. selim tried to lure ismail into fight and succeded.

A very well made and informative video. The only thing that kept bothering me was "Iran" being pronounced as 'eye-ran' instead of 'ee-ran'.

Throughout history, the Persians had powerful empires such as the Achaemenids, Sassanids, Samanids,

What about the Hotak Dynasty?

Maybe talk a little about Iran's success against Ottomans. Like, during Nader Shah's time

Ottomans were the immigrant successors of Selçuk Empire which was established in Iran...so they came to Iran first from central Asia then moved to Anatolia after Manizgert battle which led to the huge loss of East Roman empire...they always considered Iran as their ancestors land and had enough respect for it... that's why Persian language was the second language in the empire of Turkish and today people of turkey still use many Persian words in their language...

It's not the ottomans who made the Byzantine empire collapse. After the 1071 battle of mazikert Byzantine recovered but then the catholics came and literally destroyed our beloved city Constantinople and the areas near it

Indeed, when Isma‘il captured Tabriz in 1501 he proclaimed himself in pre-Islamic Iranian political terms as Padishah-i Iran. In using the Persian term “Padishah,” to describe his status in “Iran,” he was repeating pre-Islamic Iranian political and geographical/political terminology that had only recently been revived by the Il-Khanid Mongols and used also by the Aq Quyunlu. His invocation of these terms suggests he thought of himself as a political heir of hismatrilineal relatives, the Aq Quyunlu. The ancient term “Iran” had fallen out of use following the Arab-Muslim invasions and had not been used by the Caliphs, or their successors, the Samanids, or the many Turkic dynasties that succeeded them. A final irony of Isma‘il’s use of the term “Iran,” or in one of his poems the phrasemulk-i ‘Ajam, the “state” or “kingdom of Iran,” is that even though Tabriz, Azerbaijan, and Mesopotamia represented provinces of the pre-Islamic Shahanshahs, the “kings of Kings” of Iran, there is no evidence that Isma‘il imagined himself to be reconstituting a new Iranian empire; rather he planned to establish a messianic Shi‘i state on Aq Quyunlu foundations. Within the decade following his capture of Tabriz in 1501, Isma‘il occupied the geographic center of the pre-Islamic Achaemenid and Sasanian Iranian empires. He did so, though, with Oghuz tribes whose knowledge of the Shah-nama and the glories of pre-Islamic Iranian kingship was almost certainly limited to inchoate oral traditions. Isma‘il was reconstituting the Aq Quyunlu state in these conquests, and like that of the Aq Quyunlu, the ultimate focus of his ambitions was eastern Anatolia, where his father and grandfather and he himself had proselytized among the Turks. Dale, S. (2009). The rise of Muslim empires. In The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals (New Approaches to Asian History, pp. 48-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818646.005 They may have been Iranians or Turks, or even of Kurdish or Arabic origin, but their appeal was religious rather than ethnic or tribal. Devotion to the Safavid order was widespread among the Türkmen tribes of Azarbayjan and Anatolia. Safavid followers wore a distinctive red turban and were known as Qizilbash, or “red-heads.” The Safavid order was both Sufi and Shiite in orientation, and it is thanks to the Safavids that Iran is a Shiite country today. Religious overtones aside,in most other respects theirs was a typical turkish dynasty. As late as the 1660s and 1670s, a Frenchman at the Safavid court could still write: “Turkish is the language of the armies and of the court; one speaks nothing but Turkish there, as much among the women as among the men, throughout in the seraglios of the great; this comes about because the court is originally of the country of this language, descended from the Türkmens, of whom Turkish is their native tongue. Jeroen Duindam (2016). Dynasties: A Global History of Power, 1300-1800. Cambridge University Press. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-107-06068-5. The Qājār dynasty, descended from a tribe whose early traces in Iran date to the eleventh century, held the reins of power until 1925. Much like the Safavids, they were Turkmen and spoke Turkish: their ethnic group of about 10,000 people led a nomadic life in northern Iran when it conquered the principalities that had fought over the Iranian plateau after the death of Nāder Shāh (1747). Richard, Y. (2019). Iran under the Qajars. In Iran: A Social and Political History since the Qajars (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MY interest in Shāh Ismā'īl's poetry was aroused thirty-six years ago, when from my Ahl-i Ḥaqq friends I learnt that the Khāṭu'ī mentioned in one of their hymns was no lessa person than the founder of the Ṣafavi dynasty: Khatā'ī-dä nāṭiq oldï, Türkistanïn pīri oldï “(Godhead) came to speech in the person of Khatā'ī, (who) became the pīr of the Turks (of Āzarbāyjān)”, according to the explanation given to me. Minorsky, V. (1942). The Poetry of Shāh Ismā'īl I. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10(4), 1006-1029.

Think of that Ottomans and Persians make alliance and never let Europe control Middle East

I dont think distance was a big factor to consider as to why the Ottomans didnt go further east. Many others before and after traveled across much greater distances.

The reasons: 1. the policy of burned land, means destroying the supplies in ottoman way and sometimes ottoman logistics.for example when Abbas took Baghdad back. which mentioned in video. 2. changing the ideology of the Persia to Shia and even Safavid rapeadly. 3. Cooperation of the people of the Iran. The Safavid empire was mostly based on Ghezelbash turks in army and Tajik (Fars) people governing civil aspects of the empire. Then in Abbas era a second army from Armenians, Georgians and kerkeses (not sure how to write the last one) added. For example Abbas gave Tabriz by an act between war and revolution. and Kurds let Safavids to go through mountains but attack ottomans, even Armenians, Georgians, ... were better with Safavids and even Armenians help persia in Qajar era. The Safavids also have good relationship with people inside their borders and evacuate them in run aways.

"Because its impossible to march troops all the way there sucessfully" Proceeds to show how it was very much possible 2mins later

Fun fact: Both countries are rivals, yesterday and today. Both appreciate each other as a strong nation. And most important, both need the other country to be intact and functional for their political interests and safety 😉

Because the Persians have been very tough and very skilled for millennia, combining military strength and high culture. Even when they were conquered by Turkic nomadic empires, they assimilated their conquerors (like the Greeks did with the Romans) You can still see it today: Iran controls a New Persian Empire, with huge influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. And through the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah it has managed to do more damage to Israel than all Arab states combined.

Why didn't ottomans conquer Persia ?! Nadir shah : it's showtime Abbas the great : yea probably

As far as i heared the romans tried it many times and failed, im not an expert on this, but i heared rome wanted to make persia to its new capital after conquering it, but they lost the wars and could not conquer persia then rome collapsed, so then its not really desired to try to conquer a country like that, so others didnt try it anymore, thats my guess atleast.

shah abbas was the greatest safavid shah. The real nightmare of the Ottomans. Would have loved seeing him mentioned in this video.

The old Roman-Persian conflict was transferred to the Ottomans-Iranians.

I don't understand, if those mountain are an obstacle, how did Alexander pass that?

The simple answer is they did try but both were a match for each other! Not to mention Ismail was a cousin to the ottomans and he knew all their moves, both used turkick troops and knew each other tricks.

This video doesn't cover the most successful period of The Persian dominance though. From 1629 to 1666 it were the Persians who had the upper hand and controlled eastern Anatolia, Syria and Iraq.

I would have loved to seen a Ottoman and Persian Romance/War movie about the time of those wars :D

Why march aceoss Anatolia? My first thought would be to sail with an army to Georgia or a nearby Ottoman controlled beach, and then attack the western part of Persia from the Caucasus region.

Good

1821-1823 war was rather interesting, It happened on two fronts, one Persian army led by the Crown prince pushed deep into Anatolia defeating several minor Ottoman armies before routing a 50k strong force from Constantinople in the battle of Erzerum, while in the southern front eldest prince of Persia pushed into Iraq, capturing several towns and besieging Baghdad itself which came very close to falling, however, due to several problems; 1-Untimely and Suspicious death of Prince Dowlatshah, the commander of the force besieging Baghdad, 2- British Supported revolted in Herat and 3- the pressure of court members for peace, Shah of Persia was forced to order negotiations for peace and eventual status quo antebellum.

I find it interesting to note that these types of geographic features have been stable borderlands for large empires dating all the way back to the earliest of empires. Hittites, Assyrians, Akkadians, Babylonian all empires who’s borders at one point stopped at those ranges bordering the Mesopotamian plains. Can you conquer beyond those lands? Oh absolutely as proven by madlads like Alexander, but it’ll take an exceptional amount of dedication and investment to expand outside your civilization’s natural borders and it inevitably results in those lands eventually breaking off, sure maybe you hold it for a few years, decades, Maybe a few centuries if you’re good, but inevitably your civilization defaults to its natural borders. I think the reason why the ottomans didn’t take Persia is purely practical, they had plenty of land to work with and plenty of problems associated with just keeping those, much less further flung ventures into the mountains of Iran.

_The briefe history of major powers of the near east:_ *Assyria Empires (950 b.c. to 750 b.c.)* Medea & Assyria (750 b.c. to 610 b.c.) Medea & Babylon (610 b.c. to 550 b.c.) *Achamenid Dynasty/Persian Empire* (550 b.c. to 330 b.c.) Selucid & Parthia (300 b.c. to 100 b.c.) Rome & Parthia (100 b.c. to 225 a.d.) Byzantium & Sassanian (225 a.d. to 620 a.d.) Byzantium & Abbasid Caliphate (650 a.d. to 1080 a.d.) Byzantium & Seljuks & Khwarazm (1080 a.d. to 1230 a.d.) Byzantium & Mongols (1230 a.d. to 1300 a.d.) Ottoman Empire & Saffavid Persia (1360 a.d. to 1750 a.d.) Ottoman Empire & Qajar Dynasty (1800 a.d. to 1900 a.d.) England & Middle Eastern Nations (1840 a.d. to 1970 a.d.) Erdugan & Khamenei & Al-Saud (1980 a.d.. to 2024 a.d.) 😅

Well, Persia also had lots of internal conflicts during those times; you also totally ignored the wars between Persia and Portuguese (and later Russians and British) during the same time that reduced the capability of Persians to fight Ottomans. In this video there’s lots of emphasis on difficulties of Ottomans, though not highlighting that their advances in Iran were partly thanks to the internal and other external conflicts that Persians had to deal with

From what I understand, the Ottomans and Persians fought various wars threw out the centuries until the 1900s roughly. While the Ottomans won more, it's not by much and it ends up being a near tie. They just finally agree on a border and that is about it. Russia, on the other hand, pretty much dominated both of them.

The Ottomans didn't need to conquer Persia, simple as that. If they had tried, they wouldn't even made it far- Tehran at most. Cause of the terrain lol, and its too far from Constantinople, it would of been hard to manage such a vast province far too far from the empire, plus constant rebellions and discontent amongst the shia population and ruling class

0:44 I ran, you ran, we all ran to: Iran(pronounce: “E-run”)

Videos like this make me realize how truly mind boggling Alexander the Greats' extensive conquests were.

One reason I can think of why Persia has only been conquered twice in history and never colonized during the Industrial Age is because of it's rocky and mountainy geography. Persia or Iran would be a very hard nation to conquer due to it's rocky geography alone as Persia/Iran might have one of the best defensive geographical advantages in the world compared to many countries. I think geography has been on the Persians' side throughout history.

I’m usually not picky with historical videos, especially when they cover overlooked topics, but boy was this a mess. This wasn’t even much of a “why” Iran resisted Ottoman expansion as it was a summary of what happened- and a poor one at that. We barely have a reason for why the two had hostile relations and no exploration of something like long-standing goals or geopolitical ambitions (did Iran want *all* of the Ottoman Empire? What were the Ottoman’s goals with this conflict?) and yet we get a mention that it’s far to walk from Constantinople to Iran. But why is Iraq achievable but the rest too far? If the mountains are an obstacle how did Khuzestan (the bottom left corner of Iran) stay unconquered? Were none of the wars worth exploring in-depth as a good example of long-standing obstacles both countries faced? I barely feel like I came out of this learning anything more than the basics. If someone took this video at face value, they would think walking is the critical danger to armies, rather than extended supply lines or overextension. Hell, we don’t even know *why* the Jannisairies got upset midway through the most successful invasion of Iran.

Invading them is almost impossible due to difficult terrain. Hannibal: Hold my beer 🍺

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest known mistakes is that Firuz Shah is regarded as a Kurd. This is never possible. Firuz Shah Zerrinkülah is not a Kurd, his name is Kızıl Bork Firuz. Kızıl Bork came to Mugan and Arran with a ruler descended from Ibrahim Ethem, and after he conquered this place, he resided in Ardebil. The author in Safvetü's Safa that Firuz Shah came from Sencan, and Ahmed Kesrevî, by not making sufficient academic studies, said that there was no such region as Sencan, that since "Firuz Shah el-Kürdî" is mentioned in Safvetü's Safa, Sinjar is the closest to the word Sencan, He said that Ibn Bazzaz wrote it wrong. Sinjar's being in Iraq and the passing of al-Kurdi nisba made Firuz Shah a Kurd. However, it is wrong, in al-Baghdadi's work he wrote that a region called Sencan was near Merv . In the corpus of Hata'i, it is written that the Sencan region is located in Nishapur and its surroundings . In addition, the word "Kurd" in the nisba of Firuz Shah "al-Kürdi" is used differently even then and now even thought it was moreover used for Nomads. Even Mazenis still use the word Kurd, which means "Nomad and Shepherd", as shepherd. It was called "Ekrâdi (Kurdish) Turkmani” in order to introduce the nomadic Turkmens in the Ottomans . Also, we wrote in the title that Firuz Shah came with a commander from the lineage of İbrahim Ethem. Let's not forget that İbrahim Ethem was from Khorasan... Firuz Shah definitely came from the Khorasan or Turkistan region, he is clearly Turkish. In the important Safavid source the Âlemârâ, it is written that Firuz was a Turk. (Source: İskender bey Münşi, "Tarix-aləm Aray-i Abbasi", sah.109. Alemara (Sahib), p.1; Alemara (Şükri),p.3. İskender bey Münşi, "Tarix-i aləm Aray-i Abbasi", sah.28.)

You didn't mention the great shah Abbas, May I ask why?

more logical question i have while watching that map why they did not conquer Georgia?

In the classical Persian literary tradition - the entire vocabulary of which consists of stock phrases and images - "Turk' and 'Tajik' are stand-in terms for easily recognizable social stereotypes: one simple but violent; the other wily but civilized. Rūmi turns this on its head, however, in the following couplet: Attack upon attack came the darkness of night/Be strong like a Turk, not soft like a Tajik' (Yek hamleh va yek hamleh, āmad shab va tārīkī/chosti kon va "Torki' kon, na narmī va ‘Tājīkī'). Often ‘Turk' was also used to refer to the poet's beautiful young (unattainable) beloved, as in the following lines from Sa'di: 'Maybe they'll tell the King/"Your Turk (i.e., your Beloved) has spilled Tajik blood" (Shayad ke be padshah begüyand/Tork-e tö berikht khūn-e Tājīk), or elsewhere, 'Show your Tajik face, not Abyssinian black/That the Heavens may obliterate the face of the Turks' (Ru-ye Tājīkāna-t benmā, tā dagh-e habash/ Asman chehre-ye Torkān yaghma'i keshad). Since Turkic men often ‘married up’ and started families with Tajik women, the bloodlines tended to become increasingly mixed over the generations. (Recent DNA studies in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have shown no notable genetic difference between modern Uzbeks and Tajiks.) And since children typically spent their first years within the harem, the influence of Tajik mothers in constructing the identity of their mixed-race children was surely much greater than is admitted in the patriarchal written sources of the time. Military figures in particular often made much of their tough Turkic heritage, even as they sought to demonstrate their own cultivation by speaking Persian and patronizing Persian courtly culture. The Tajik scribes, for their part, were naturally required to flatter their patrons, but they flattered themselves as well in whatever subtle ways they could. - Richard Foltz, Chapter 4, Tajiks and Turks, The Turk-Tajik symbiosis

Ottoman Empire, Safavid Empire and Delhi Sultanate at the time were known as the gunpowder empires and all three had professional armies with heavy artillery. It was pointless endeavor for one to conquer the other.

0:43 Just to clarify; The country isn’t just now called Iran. It was always Iran. Westerners called it Persia until Reza Shah formally asked all other countries to use the correct name.

The Eyalet of Cyprus (Ottoman Turkish: ایالت قبرص, Eyālet-i Ḳıbrıṣ) was an eyalet (province) of the Ottoman Empire made up of the island of Cyprus, which was annexed into the Empire in 1571. Correct your map!

Tabriz: Ahh shit here we go again 😩

Different factors can be presented as to why Ottomans failed to conquer Persia: -Persia was Shia Dominated -Persia was inhabited by mostly non-Turkic People -The terrain is difficult to cross as it is protected by mountains -The Persians were organized and determined to fight for their country, culture and distinctive form of islam.

The Language of the imperisal court in the Ottaman Turk was Persian. Still all the palaces walls are covered by the Persian Poetry .

It is funny how commentator skips the fact that Safevids were not Persians but ethnically Turks themselves. Shah Ismayil was Azerbaijani Turk from Ardebil. Starting from 977 (Ghaznevids) territories of modern Iran were ruled by Turkic dynasties for the period of 900 years. So it is basically Turks fighting their own over religion (Sunni vs Shia). Nadir Shah (also Turk from Oghuz branch same as people of modern Turkiye, Azerbaijan and Turkmenia) was the one to offer peace and suggested to solve Sunni and Shia issue to stop unnecessary wars between the two Turkic nations, but it was declined by the Ottomans.

I dont why most of the people said safavid is for Azerbaijan

Do a video on nader afshar. He is considered napoleon of the east by the west and last sword man by the east

Love the idea that the Ottomans would gather at Istanbul, in the far West, and march the length of Turkey to fight in the far East rather than mustering, resting and resupplying at an Eastern garrison town such as Erzurum [after 1514].

This shows how impressive Alexander’s conquest of Persia really was

Dont forget "Battle Of Chaldiran" "August 1514"

From "Suleiman the Magnificent" by Andre Clot: On 2nd April 1535, the sultan and his army left Baghdad for Tabriz. They took 3 months to cross Kurdistan and the region of Lake Ourmia. Although it was a good time of the year, the march proved difficult and the sultan gave out gratuities to his soldiers when they arrived. He took up residence in the Shah's palace. He no doubt believed that he would be able to meet Tahmasp in battle straightaway and finish with the Persian menace once and for all. But the shah, as always, had retreated with his army. The terrain favoured his strategy, while for Suleiman the distance between his bases made provisioning difficult, not to say impossible. His army was too heavy and not mobile enough to fight an enemy which was so hard to pin down. To set off into the mountains or deserts of Iran would have been madness - the Turkish army would never have returned. Ibrahim's plan to conquer the whole Iranian plain as far as Ray, Qom and Kashan could never succeed. After spending 2 weeks at Tabriz, Suleiman gave the order for departure. The campaign which had brought great glory to the empire with the capture of Baghdad, but also great losses, could not be prolonged. About 30,000 men had died, mainly of hunger and cold, and 22,000 horses and camels had perished. The troops had neither the morale nor the stamina to face another winter on campaign.

In fact Ottomans tried to conquer Iran many times as they considered themselves the caliphate of Islam, but each time they were repelled and lost lands, in fact one of the reasons that stopped Ottomans from taking a much larger portion of Europe was in fact the presence of another rival in the east, that they always had to keep another eye on them, and it distracted their focus on their western expansions, in fact there are many exciting Ottoman-Persian wars in various eras, The Ottoman-Persian War (1821-1823) ended with the signing of the First Treaty of Erzurum, thus Iran-Turkey borders remained unchanged since.

At min 1:01 you say "irreversable". You should have said "unsurmountable".

Persia was ruled by Turkic dynasties

I had a discussion about the borders of the ottomans and came to the conclusion that they stopped where they did because on the other side was a major power. Russia, the HRE, Poland and even Spain were all of similar stature to the Ottoman Turks, hence why they’re borders ended where they did. But it’s also interesting to note that they also stopped at natural borders like the mountains of Iran, Ethiopia and the caucuses and the deserts of Africa and Arabia. Those mountains in Iran are a disaster to move soldiers and rule and empire on the opposite side of, the only real successful people who managed it were the Ancient Persians with their de-centralised local governments which essentially meant they didn’t have to directly control the empire over the mountains, at least not directly. It’s interesting to me that the ancient Persians managed to rule an empire across those mountains, but no one else really succeeded, Alexander, the mongols and the caliphate would all kinda splinter along that very line, but the Persians managed to hold it together, as I said my theory is the satraps and the de-centralisation made it a lot easier than the empires that would follow 🤔

Greetings to İran from Turkey. We fought in the past but we are sharing one of the oldest border in history now. PEACE O/

The pronunciations in this vid dealt psychic damage to me.

The most successful of those were the Safavids of Ardabīl, a Turkic mystic order that had immigrated there from eastern Anatolia along with seven Turkmen tribes (called Kizilbash[“Redheads”] because of their use of red headgear to symbolize their allegiance); the Safavids used a combined religious and military appeal to conquer most of Iran. Source:Britannica

I have a question and was hoping someone would answer it. From the map of the ottoman empire we can see that they held the 2 holy cities but didn't conquer the rest of the arabian peninsula. Could someone explain why?

Thank you My ancestors were in Shah-Abbas army (qizilbash azerbaijani tribe) and it is always interesting for me that how those wars were. Although we lost Kurdistan during those wars, but Zagros mountains are like 3000-4000 meters wall, no one can conquer all parts of iran from west P.S: Iran is ee-run not eye-run Chaldiran is çäldırän or çaldorän not kaldiran