Growing Pan-Turkism in Iran

I'm not questioning the origins of Ottomans, but their views on rural and non-sedentary Turks. And I don't see how any of things (with all due respect) you said proves otherwise. From what I understand, Ottomans equated being a Turk as being backward.

Europeans called everything based in Iran as Persian, very incorrectly so, the Italian diplomat who visited Agh-Qoyunlu court referred to their army as "Persians", needless to say that they were all nomadic Turkic tribes, and compared to the large number of non-Turks in Ottoman armies, and just as the Qizilbash army of Safavids which faced a largely non-Turk army in Chaldiran, while you could see that war being referred to as Turkish-Persian war incorrectly, when the Safavid army consisted entirely of Turkic Qizilbash, on the other hand Ottoman army was dominated by Janissaries. Morover the phenomena of calling Safavids Persian was not always the case, there are also cases in which all of Iran are called Qizilbash, but as a European historian mentions, this is also incorrect, just as all of Safavid lands would be incorrectly called as Persians by some Europeans. So such outsider, incorrect definitions can't and won't really tell us much. Or that Ottomans were proud to be called as Turks and actually saw themselves that way. I can certainly say that Safavids never referred to themselves as Persians as Europeans did.
 
Last edited:
In which times? And why it should matter how many Turks lived there in the 15th of 16th century and what happened with them? It's the current demographical structure what matters.
We were mentioning the early days of Republic remember. But if we return to what I said earlier, when we study the history, we see a direct connection between Ottoman policies and the results today. Regardless of why they did it, they did some horrible things to Turks.
 
Feb 2010
1,563
I'm not questioning the origins of Ottomans, but their views on rural and non-sedentary Turks. And I don't see how any of things (with all due respect) you said proves otherwise. From what I understand, Ottomans equated being a Turk as being backward.
I think that the distinction between urban/rural Turks/Turkmens is pretty important here. I don't think that the Ottoman rulers were so ashamed of their Turkish origin if they traced their genealogy to Oghuz Khan, just as I don't think that Ibn Khaldun was ashamed of his Arab origin, just because he called (bedouin) Arabs savages and pillagers. In spite of the Ottoman policies against Turkmens and the elite's prejudices against rural Anatolians, they were always a Turkish dynasty, unlike, for example, the Mughals or late Qajars.

Anyway, if the Ottomans were such villains from the point of view of Turkish nationalism, what we should say about, e.g., Timur who targeted mostly other Turkic states and delivered a nearly fatal blow to two of them? This logic is pretty useless when dealing with medieval history.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic, but it doesn't have much to do with pan-Turkism in modern Iran. :D
 
Feb 2010
1,563
We were mentioning the early days of Republic remember. But if we return to what I said earlier, when we study the history, we see a direct connection between Ottoman policies and the results today. Regardless of why they did it, they did some horrible things to Turks.
I don't think that they were particularly more harsh towards rebellious Turks than to any other ethnicity.
 
Jul 2009
12,418
Anatolia
Ottomans opressed Turkomans.

They werent loyal to your rule but to their charismatic Turkoman baba's.
They werent under your religious control. They wouldnt listen your fatwa, because they were Kızılbaş.

They dont pay taxe, they are not part of your legal system.

Ottomans wanted them to accept Sunni sendetary way of Islam. You go to mosque, pray namaz, listen preach, pay your religious taxes. You should obey sharia civil codes..etc.
 
Arras, since you had mentioned this on other occasions aswell, I want to say that you could not be more wrong (I rather respond in this thread)

Communists in general with their disregard or outright animosity toward nationalism screwed more than few places. Many examples are in former USSR: Crimea which was given to Ukraine, Southern Ossetia to Georgia, Nagorny Karabach to Azerbaijan
I don't know where you have read this, but Nagorno-Karabakh was not given to Azerbaijan by anyone. In 1918 Transcaucasian republics gained independence, which was ended by Bolshevik invasion. Now lets look at the borders of 1918-1920, shall we?

This was actually the borders of Azerbaijan Republic of 1918-1920, not including the disputed areas.



As you see, not only was Karabakh a part of Azerbaijan, but also Zengezur, which was given to Armenia by Bolsheviks. Aswell Goycha.

If you look, Zengezur is the land which is between Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan proper. Or what do you think, that Bolsheviks gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan and not only that, but also Nakhchivan on the other side with no connection to Azerbaijan? Rather, Bolsheviks gave Zengezur to Armenia and cut the connection between Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan proper.

And lets not even get into the demographics of the region back then.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2010
16,748
Slovakia
Qaraqoyunlu, Nagorny Karabakh, just like other similar small principalities, states and kingdoms in the region was semi-indipendent, at various times under Roman, Persian, Turkish or Russian control. So it newer was part of Azerbaijan, first of all because there was no Azerbaijan to begin with. Then in 18th century whole region including Nagorny Karabakh became part of Russian empire and was eventually absorbed in to its administration.

When Russian revolution broke, Transcaucasian Federal Republic was founded and then shortly after broke in to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is true that Nagorny Karabakh was claimed by Azerbaijan but in reality it was no more part of Azerbaijan than it is today. That is it was under control of local Armenian rebels and there was lengthy war going on.

In any case this lasted only mere two years until Bolsheviks occupied Azerbaijan while Azerbaijany army was busy fighting, you guess it -Armenians in Nagorny Karabakh.

At the end Nagorny Karabakh ended up in Azerbaijan thanks to Stalin policies toward Turkey.

So yes, those were Bolsheviks who gave Nagorny Karabakh to Azerbaijan, just like they gave for example Zengezur to Armenia.
 
That sounds like some kind of quote from wikipedia. You should know that there existed Azerbaijani Khanates in Transcaucasia prior to their annextion by Russia, and Karabakh was one of them. These Khanates were not Armenian, or Persian, but Turkic Azerbaijani.

Only someone with zero knowledge on history would comment like that. Yes Azerbaijan did not exist, but several Azerbaijani dynasties did. Generally, our ancestors always dominated the region ethnically. Its impossible to compare Armenians to Azerbaijani Turks who were actually the ruling and elite class, not only in Transcaucasia, but also Iran.

The area was a part of Azerbaijani republic and for the most part also controlled by it, as you can see there were other areas claimed by Azerbaijan but neverthless not included into borders.

And I'm not sure if your last sentence makes much of sense. Maybe you can give some evidences on how it was given to Azerbaijan. Because the evidence that exists shows Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan prior to Bolshevik invasion.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2010
16,748
Slovakia
You yourself claimed in some of your previous posts, that name Azerbaijan is modern one and did not existed before. Region was never united in to one country and therefore I fail to see how it possibly Nagorny Karabakh should belonged to non existent entity. To Azerbaijan it belonged only for two years and then on paper only. Azerbaijan did not control NK any more than it controls it now.

In fact what happened after dissolution of USSR was that whole situation there returned to what it was in 1920: Azerbaijani and Armenians fighting for control over it.

Bye the way, no, your ancestors did not always dominated region ethnically. Azerbaijan itself was inhabited by Iranian speaking people and they were not completely assimilated by Turkomans until late middle ages.
 

Similar threads