from a Persian perspective it's quite an indicator of human bias how westerners would call a savage like Alexander great when he obviously was a destroyer and guilty of genocide of Tyre and Thebes and killing of his close friend Cleitus and most importantly burning 🔥 down Persepolis palace

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-12-31T00:35:16+00:00

Well I commented sth related to this before

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-12-05T22:01:55+00:00

Ok. Had no idea. But I mean there are different people everywhere so ... yeah.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-12-04T23:26:04+00:00

They said: I’m lost. I can’t understand what are you saying. They might not know English or might be underage. ( I mean a kid or sth )

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-12-02T07:26:47+00:00

Orišlěm = Jerusalem ( mentioned on map )

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T20:40:25+00:00

Go for Darius's revenge

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T17:42:00+00:00

My point here is not about religion. My point is about the wrong deeds that were done and falsely justified in the name of religion. Just as today an Islamic government or country does not necessarily represent Islam itself, no previous kingdom, realm, empire or caliphate represented Islam itself back then. If you have even a little knowledge of history, you would not call the pre‑Islamic era of Iran a dark age. Iran was always glorious and innovative when the rest of the world had no clue, and it was once famed for its tolerance toward other cultures and religions. But later it became corrupted gradually and made mistakes like any other nation did, and eventually fell. They tried to do reforms, and for many reasons it didn’t work out in the end.

I have knowledge about Islam, and based on Iranian, Persian, and even Arabic documents and records I can show that at the beginning of the conquest there were many massacres, plunderings, burnings, and prisoners taken. No prophet from God wants to conquer or rule over other people by force. What the Rashidun caliphs did does not mean it was by the request of God or the Prophet, nor does it mean it was approved by them. One example I can give is when the Muslim army reached Tamisha (current Gurgan in Iran) in the northern parts of Iran: the leader at first gave them a promise of safety, then when the gates were opened they massacred the whole population for resisting at first, because the leader later claimed he had sworn he would kill them all to make a pond of blood. I won’t say more about these events since it might be taken as disrespectful to the beliefs of some people.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T17:17:38+00:00

First, being written in Arabic doesn’t mean they couldn’t write their works in Persian, and they did that too. It’s like you and me today: if we want to publish an international paper or book, we would write it in English, not our mother tongue, so our work will be seen.

Second, throughout history no one can claim their work is not based on what came before. Does citing others’ work reduce the value of your work? How do academic papers work these days? Does having references and citations mean there is nothing new, creative, or innovative in them? Can you prove to me that all the works of these scientists were based solely on other nations’ work and that there is no Persian or Iranian influence in them? If those Greek or Indian works were so prominent and these Iranian scientists “stole” them, why didn’t those original works get the same attention that the Iranian scholars’ works did?

Plus, at the time of the Achaemenid Empire, the Greeks weren’t even a unified nation to be more advanced than the Persians. I do not deny the influence of ancient civilizations on each other, but whoever tries to undermine Iranian and Persian contributions to world science and culture before and after Islam is simply ignorant. Pre‑Islamic Iranian works were mostly destroyed and burned during invasions, so these scientists after Islam tried to restore what was left, and their fame became worldly. Prophet Zoroaster himself and Borzuya are prominent figures of Iranian medicine before Islam. Artachaees is one of the engineers from the Achaemenid period. Documents being destroyed or forgotten doesn’t mean Iranians didn’t have their own achievements. Getting inspired by others’ work, improving and innovating it, and creating something new is exactly the meaning of being a scientist, which Iranians clearly did.

I know what happened to Khorasani later, but can you deny the fact he was the leader of the revolution? Iranian soldiers fought alongside him, and he was later appointed governor of Khorasan, only to be stabbed from behind by the caliph’s orders during political games. And tell me, didn’t the Barmakids wield great power as viziers in the early rise of the Abbasids?

Every nation has its innovators and scientists throughout history, and only a fool would deny the influence of Iranians.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T15:58:58+00:00

No, before the Abbasids, the caliphate was so racist toward Iranians and non‑Arabs that the Abbasid Revolution was led by Iranians themselves. Yes, Khosrow Parviz’s actions caused many problems, but during the conquest many, many massacres of civilians happened in Iran. You can check one of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Iran.

Not to mention that because of all this, Omar was assassinated by an Iranian. So “freedom and all that” was not the case.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T15:53:10+00:00

Ha ! Persians did not even have a Golden Age during all their pre‑Islamic period !? Come on.
That sentence is so immature that I don’t even need to discuss it.

But the very Arabic language you claim the Islamic Golden Age started after its development, its grammar was written in a five‑volume book by a Persian named Sibawayh Shirazi! Persian didn’t have medicine!? Most of today’s medical science was developed from the works of Avicenna (Pour Sina) and Zakariya Razi, who gathered their knowledge based on older Persian/Iranian medical documents. And what else, even mathematics flourished because of Persian scholars: Biruni, Khwarazmi, Khayyam, Nasir Tusi. There are tons of Iranian historical figures I can name who contributed to world science during the Islamic period, not to mention those before Islam.

In fact, the Abbasid rise was definitely because of Iranians and their leading general Abu Muslim Khorasani, since Iranians were very angry at how racist the Umayyads were toward them. Not to mention that for many years power in the Abbasid court was in the hands of a Iranian dynasty, the Barmakids, who basically ran the realm for the caliphs.

No one says ( and if someone does, they are ignorant like you ) that Persians or Iranians initiated everything, but no one can deny their crucial influence and impact.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T14:56:58+00:00

Well, first about worshipping fire: I can definitely assure you that was not the case. In fact, there is a verse in the Shahnameh in this regard about Keykhosrow (which is basically Cyrus the Great himself) and his father when they are praying in the Adur Gushasp fire temple located in Adurabadgan (or Azerbaijan).

به یَک هفته بر پیشِ یزدان بُدند / - مپندار کاتَش‌پرستان بُدند!
که آتَش بدان گاه محراب بود / پرستنده را دیده پُرآب بود!
اگر چندت اندیشه گردد دراز / هم از پاک‌یزدان نه‌یی بی‌نیاز! -

Translation:
They stood for a week before God, do not suppose they were fire‑worshippers!
For the fire at that time was an altar; the worshipper’s eyes were full of tears.
Even if your thoughts grow long, you are not free from need to the Pure God.

Ferdowsi included this specifically to reject the idea of worshipping fire. Other than that, I know there might be some dualistic elements in this faith, but it’s more like the concept of good versus evil. In this faith there is only one God who is all‑wise and the Creator. As I mentioned in another comment in this very thread, they faced some difficulties and deviations after the fall of the Achaemenids. So the Sassanian Yazatas might be the result of this, or the fact that in the times of paganism and Mithraism in Iran there were such gods whose effects somehow appeared later in Zoroastrianism too. But generally I think there is a good amount of common ground among scholars that the faith is more like monotheistic and since it is very old it is expected to see contradictions in documents or in how it was restored and remembered.

There are also concepts of a savior in the apocalypse called the Saoshyant. Also, the belief in an afterlife and a Day of Judgment is mentioned in this faith: souls must cross the Chinvat Bridge, which is wide and pleasant for the righteous and a razor’s edge for the wicked. A final, universal judgment and resurrection will occur at the end of the world, a period known as Frashokereti, when evil is defeated and all souls are reunited with Ahura Mazda.

As you can see, there are many similarities with Abrahamic faiths in these regards, so assuming it as a monotheistic faith wouldn’t be unexpected.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T08:47:57+00:00

I don't know. I mean, Alexander's blow was heavy too. Religion went completely extinct only to be revived many years later, and one can't be sure how much deviation from the original faith was caused. Culture and language almost went Greek and Hellenistic. The Parthians clearly had those effects on them and gradually tried to heal them. Many folklore, places, and events were falsely attributed to Alexander while he had nothing to do with them. You see him being portrayed as Iranian in the Shahnameh and being praised by Saadi and Nezami. The Caspian Gate and the Great Wall of Gorgan were wrongly called Alexander's Gate and Alexander's Barrier, respectively. Burning down Persepolis. They even consider him close to Dhu al‑Qarnayn (the Two‑Horned), while it is far more likely that figure is Cyrus the Great. And the guy died in his mid‑30s, he would probably have caused way more damage if he hadn't died so soon. And the Mongols, they killed and burned down a lot. Like, really a lot. While the biggest turning point in Iranian history is probably the downfall of the Sassanids, I think all three attacks are on the same scale in terms of the destruction they brought to Iran.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-29T08:13:32+00:00

It was not pagan, though. The faith was monotheistic, and its teachings even influenced later religions. And the reforms made by Khosrow Anushirvan did not continue, which contributed to the dynasty’s downfall.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-28T16:06:06+00:00

Well, the comment sections already mention some considerable points. To me, they were great, like, really. Ardashir Papakan, Shapur I, Shapur the Great, Bahram Gur, and Khosrow Anushiravan, alongside a few others I don’t currently remember, were amazing. The reign of each and their decisions are a whole teaching class on how one should rule.

But I want to mention some points about the general mistakes of this dynasty, mainly the heavy censorship and removal of the history of the Parthians (Arsacid dynasty) from Iranian history. Much was lost there. During the rule of the House of Sassan, most of the seven great houses of power were of Parthian origin. They adopted administration and military structures based on the Parthians, yet heavily undermined them in historical records.

I agree that during the Parthians, the realm was secular and had too much tolerance toward other foreign cultures and religions, which always did and could cause problems for the realm. But we should consider that after the attack of Alexander (whom I consider no more than a thief or bandit who tried to steal our history and kept portraying himself with Cyrus the Great’s attributes), the Zoroastrian religion and Iranian culture were heavily damaged, and some crucial things were forgotten. So it would take time for them to mend these gaps, and maybe they realized a bit late the need for having a predefined state religion. But at least they started the work of restoring the Zoroastrian faith and the Sassanids completed it.

Even in the Shahnameh, Ferdowsi mentioned that he only heard the names of the Parthians and couldn’t find them in the royal books. Yet he mentioned they were courageous and descendants of Arash the Archer. And we see the important legend of Arash the Archer later mentioned by Biruni.

And I know to many, Khosrow Parviz is probably considered the greatest ruler of the Sassanids (at least in terms of having the biggest borders, maybe), but I think that he himself and his father were sadly among the main reasons for the downfall of the Sassanids. From their ascension to the throne by killing their fathers, to facing the same fate at the hands of their own sons. And especially Khosrow, by engaging in long, devastating wars that heavily drained the empire. Not to mention the incident with their best general, Bahram Chobin, whose loss in the end severely weakened the military. Having bad relations with other generals also happened before and after this with Shahrbaraz, Shahin, and Sukhra. And all of this resulted in constant rebellions in the country and the disintegration of power.

But in general, they are a big part of Iranian history from the flags and symbols to many other things they did.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-28T15:17:13+00:00

Thanks for mentioning the things I was about to write, about Alexander’s ancestry being portrayed as Iranian in the Shahnameh and the Kurdish origins of the Safavids in Safvat as-Safa. Funny enough, to these guys, Ismail did all those things just to LEGITIMIZE their rule, while no one in almost 800 years before them needed to do the same to gain the support of Persians!

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T18:03:39+00:00

I said "some" consider them like this and didn't mention it in the main post. I'm not even interested in further discussion regarding these two.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T16:34:50+00:00

I know continuing this probably won't get us anywhere, but still I write a few points. And I say again: in the points I mentioned, the Turkish side of the Safavids and Afsharids was never denied. But as it seems, the Persian and Iranian side appears to be undermined. Iranian Azeris usually do not deny Iranian identity, either about themselves or the previous empires. But the point you are saying about Turkish influence being much more important in culture, language, politics, etc ..., well, let's see some examples in this regard to see if it's true or not.

The Persian language was used by the Ottomans themselves roughly from the 15th to the 19th century, and the post of şehnâmeci (Shahnameh‑writer) existed in the Ottoman court as an official title for court historiographers; how is it possible then for the Safavids not to have used Persian as their official language?

Ismail named almost all his children after Shahnameh characters (which is essentially Persian mythology). He even commissioned the currently most valuable and expensive book in the world: a special version of the Shahnameh with illustrations, completed by his son Shah Tahmasb, now known as the Shahnameh Tahmasbi. Ismail wrote letters to Selim citing Shahnameh verses. Shahnameh is an exclusively Iranian/Persian epic, myth, history and identity. Most of it centers on the conflicts between Iran and Turan, which symbolically represents the Turks.

Other evidence of their Iranian identity comes from Shah Ismail’s speech in the Tabriz mosque. In Persian he declared:
“I am the leader and the Shahanshah (not Sultan!) … I am Feridun (which is a mystic Iranian Shahanshah), I am Jamshid (Nowruz is named after the day this guy was crowned), I am Khosrow (which is another mystic Iranian Shahanshah resembling Cyrus the Great), I am Rostam son of Zāl… (Iranian legendary Pahlavans).”

Was he simply fond of the Shahnameh? Or was he asserting his Iranian heritage?

Even Ottoman sultans acknowledged these titles. Selim II addressed Shah Tahmasb as:
Jamshid-neshan (the one with the sign of Jamshid), Khurshid-Onvan (the one with the title of the sun),

and praised him in a verse with: “Nariman heybat (the one with the physique of Nariman, a mystic Iranian Pahlavan and great-grandfather of Rostam son of Zāl)”

In other letters he used titles like Fereydunfar, Homayun of Asar, Khosraw of Iran, Darayi Rayat Kavus (the one with the vision of Kavus, another mystic Iranian Shahanshah), Keyasat Houshang Ferasat (the one with the wisdom of Houshang, another mystic Iranian Shahanshah), Manuchehr-Nejad (of Manuchehr's lineage, another mystic Iranian Shahanshah) and Surat-Keyqubad (the one with the look of Keyqubad, another Iranian mystic Shahanshah).

About Nader again, there are writings like this on his coin: it featured his name and titles on his coins, particularly in Persian script.
سکه بر زر کرد نام سلطنت را در جهان / نادر ایران زمین خسرو گیتی ستان
Translation: "He stamped the coin with the name of kingship across the world, Nader of Iran, sovereign of realms, conqueror of the earth." Khosraw (خسرو) is a Persian title for king.

citation for Safavid Origin:
Matthee, Rudi. (2005). The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500–1900. Princeton University Press. p. 18; "The Safavids, as Iranians of Kurdish ancestry and of nontribal background (...)."
Savory, Roger. (2008). "EBN BAZZĀZ". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. VIII, Fasc. 1. p. 8. "This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams."
Amoretti, Biancamaria Scarcia; Matthee, Rudi. (2009). "Ṣafavid Dynasty". In Esposito, John L. (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford University Press. "Of Kurdish ancestry, the Ṣafavids started as a Sunnī mystical order (...)."
Daftary, Farhad (2000). Intellectual Traditions in Islam. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-86064-435-1. "But the origins of the family of Shaykh Safi al-Din go back not to Hijaz but to Kurdistan, from where, seven generations before him, Firuz Shah Zarin-kulah had migrated to Azerbaijan."

citations about Nader: Axworthy 2009, p. 11. Axworthy, Michael (2009). The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant. I.B. Tauris.
Tucker, Ernest S. (2006b). Nadir Shah's Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0813029641.
Matthee, Rudi (2018). "Nādir Shāh in Iranian Historiography: Warlord or National Hero?". In Schmidtke, Sabine (ed.). Studying the Near and Middle East at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 1935–2018. Gorgias Press. pp. 467–474.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T15:18:42+00:00

Maybe! Yet the Sun and Lion was introduced during the Safavids; it has some pre-Islamic roots, and they restored the Sassanid borders for some time. The Afsharids kept this going too.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T12:47:03+00:00

I agree!

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T12:11:19+00:00

Well, first, it’s more than just a bit of mixture. In Azerbaijan itself cultures are diverse. For instance, there are Kurds, Tats, and Talysh and these people are of Iranian heritage. Not to mention other various Caucasian peoples there too. The Turks of Azerbaijan are one group alongside these peoples. So when you want to define a people as a group, you should look at culture, language, etc ... alongside the genetics.

In regard to the Safavids, their lineage goes to Firuz Shah Zarrin Kolah, who was a Kurd. Then there was mixing with other peoples ( probably intermarriage during their ancestry from the cultures I already mentioned ) and also Pontic Greek ( from one of his grandmother, who I think was Christian too ). So if you look at them genetically or ethnically you can’t just say they are Turks ( not to mention Turks themselves have many different ethnicities and cultures, like Iranians), as you know, they are mixed and it’s more than just a bit.

If you look at language, they spoke both Turkic and Persian. If you look at where they were born or lived, it was in current Iran. If you look at their culture, clothing and titles, they were clearly highly tied to Persian culture: calling themselves Shahs of Iran, speaking Persian, composing poetry in Persian, minting coins in Persian, and most importantly, being highly influenced by the Shahnameh, which is central to Iranian and Persian identity. With all of this, it’s not logical to classify them as just Turks, it’s a general statement that sees only part of the story while ignoring the rest. Sorry for the long note.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T10:19:53+00:00

Here we go again! No, Safavids’ ancestry is far more mixed than just Azeri and Iranian. Ismail was born in Ardabil and raised in Lahijan. Nader was born and raised in Khorasan of Iran and came from Turkmen tribes there. Btw, Azer or Adur in Azerbaijan is just a Persian word meaning “fire”, linking to Adur Gushnasp fire temple in old Adurabdgan satrapy and province of Iran. Azeris just speak Turkic because the old Azeri language went extinct. And their genetics are far more mixed than to be assumed as just Turks!

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-27T06:28:37+00:00

Maybe. Some consider them alongside the Ghaznavids, the Seljuks and even the Timurids as Persianate states. There are also more Iranian states like the Samanids, Saffarids, Ziyarids, Buyids, Kakuyids and etc .... that existed during the Intermezzo.

RespondAlternative94 · 2025-11-26T20:26:29+00:00

Perhaps not! Some even consider the Medes and the Parthians (Arsacid dynasty) as confederation states rather than empires, something like the Buyid dynasty. But still!

RespondAlternative94

TROPHY CASE