BORDERS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Shrinkage
22-Apr-2008
There have always been lots of talk about Iran's present, and past, sizes. Which size is the true size of this country, or empire, called Iran, or Persia as it used to be called internationally? Iranians seem to feel sorry for having lost large territories that used to belong to the Persian Empire. Many Iranians blame the Qajar for having lost the territories.
Others hate the Arabs for having invaded the Sassanian Empire some 1300 years ago, for having started it all. There are many Iranians who blame almost everybody for Iran's present size, from its past rulers to its neighbours, and to Western powers in general. There is a lot of myth to all this contention and lost pride!
Many Iranians who blame the Qajar for having lost territories to Russia or Britain of that time do not think about a few really important things. Actually it was Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar and his ruthless expanssionist wars that united that same Iran these folks today take pride for, while saying that they hate him because of his brutal treatment of subjects.
At that time (just before the Qajar) there was no big Iran any more, but pretenders, various factions who were fighting for control of what was once ruled by Nadir Shah Afshar, and before, by the Safavid. There were no boundaries for a country called Iran, Godly or manly named, ordained, or certified, easily visible from the moon, or from anywhere else.
It was the same brutal and ruthless Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, the man these hypocritical nationalistic Iranians seem to loath, who created the last big, great, or imperial Iran. Either they should hang Agha Mohammad Khan's picture on their walls as their hero, easily visible whenever they enter their homes, or they should stop naively talking about a just and great Persian Empire that the corrupt Qajar rulers lost to Russia, Britain, and others.
Where was that Iran, that great, huge, Persian Empire, that some incompetent rulers lost to others? Historically there have been numerous times when one empire after another has fallen, and risen, within the territories of the Iranian plateau. Some of these empires have grown very large, while others have hardly been called a country or an empire, and some have even failed to appear in history books, or any books for that matter.
There have indeed been many times, more recently and historically relevant, during the Safavid and the Qajar, when the empire seemed to get on its feet again and become feared and respected by others (these, fear and respect, especially fear, are what nationalistic Iranians nostalgically refer to, knowingly or not), but these revivals were achieved by some ruthless rulers who for the sake of power sacrificed anything any modern civilisation holds dear. These ruthless rulers, whether more recent or not, did not ask anybody whether they wanted to join the empire or not. They just went over them, and so a large empire was born, born out of blood, injustice, and tyranny, before and after Islam.
The Qajar lost territories to the Russians and the British around the same times when the Ottomans were also heavily engaged in losing territories to Russia, Britain, France, and also newly revived local Muslim or non-Muslim rulers. And at the end the Ottoman Empire, though more powerful than the Persian Empire of the time, was in risk of becoming far smaller than the Turkish Republic of today.
Iran was luckier (during the 19th century when Western Empires were furiously expanding), especially because of its geographical location, where world powers of the time usually reached the Persian cat when they were already exhausted in their battles to the west, so they usually did not bother that much to give the cat the real squeeze they were giving to their more immediate neighbours and rivals.
So, the result has been that what was left of the Persian Empire was bigger, at least in size, than what was left of the Ottoman Empire. No matter how competent any Muslim ruler of the time would have been, they would be no match to the neighbouring world powers to the West. It was another age for them, and it was a much older age for the empires of the orient. The Middle East had not gone through the industrial revolution and no matter who ruled they were destined to be chopped, humiliated and walked over, and if lucky, at best ignored.
Let's not forget that Iran's total surrender to Western powers did not come during the Qajar. Reza Khan, with all his efforts (some successfully) of modernisation, did not stand the slightest chance confronting Britain or Russia and he was swiftly removed from power and replaced by his son. That was the first time in Iran's history when a local ruler was directly (his father was chosen by the British in a more subtle way) chosen by foreign powers. The same thing happened again, when the same man was brought back after a US-orchestrated coup in 1953.
The shrinkage in Iran's size in its modern times has had little to do with Iranians. It was a result of dramatic changes in the world, where Muslims did not (still have not for a large part) embrace modernity, and were left at the mercy of whoever came by.
Another serious issue is to think how many of those who belonged to the Persian Empire in the past want to come back to what is left of it now? And if any of them ( maybe just individuals within those areas) would want to be part of Iran it would only be for having a share of the oil, and not for nationalistic purposes or anything alike. And in case they have more oil of their own, or if they are doing better from a material or even social point of view, they would prefer their own tiny and irrelevant country rather than a big, poor, undemocratic and messy one.
| Recently by Ben Madadi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Moving forward | 33 | Nov 06, 2008 |
| Testing democracy | 15 | Nov 02, 2008 |
| Playing dumb? | 72 | Sep 29, 2008 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Re: Transparent
by Ben Madadi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 02:24 AM PDTIn case the question was for me, I can say that by "modernity" I mean all aspects of development that Western powers had reached, that was definitely reflected in their military prowess.
About ethnicities, or other related issues, I did not bring up anything.
The Evil Among Us
by Gomnaam (not verified) on Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:27 AM PDTIt is wonderful that many Iranian are making an effort to respond to Madadi. However, I like to bring to your attention that the purpose Madadi is not an honest discussion about a topic. He has a sick, manipulative mind. His real goal is to produce division among Iranians, particularly with the great people of Azarabadegan. Iran has gone through many ups and down, but has always risen from its ashes. Ask this from those 10 year olds or those 80 year-olds who rose and stopped the million-man army of Saddam Hossein. Iran is on its way to greatness again, whether Madadi likes it or not, taa cheshmeh hassoud koor.
Please clarify
by Transparent (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 07:22 PM PDT"The shrinkage in Iran's size in its modern times has had little to do with Iranians. It was a result of dramatic changes in the world, where Muslims did not (still have not for a large part) embrace modernity, and were left at the mercy of whoever came by."
"Modernity" in terms of people’s social behavior, or the lack of vision to expand or abandon "Islamic science"? I'm not advocating in favor of either system but by observing the events of the past two decades, it seems there was something there far beyond spiritual guidance.
And after reading some of the comments, I wonder:
Was it an Arab invasion of Iran, or an Arab Shia escape from the Sunni's iron fist that brought Shiaism into what's now Iran?
Is the current rule an expansionist movement that is intent on reclaiming lost ground? What about the significance of the Azari influence in both business and participation in the overall religious movement?
The more questions I ask the more I wonder if the west has a real grip on what they are barking for.
According to comments from a supposedly retired General now living in Montana, Islam has shown aggression toward the west since the 7th century, and solution to the mullahs will be a war where you kill enough until the adversary is mentally defeated and tired of dying.
Talk about backward and
by disgusted (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 05:33 PM PDTTalk about backward and uncivilized! Worst of all, we are the cream of the crop, light of the eyes of the nation, who others unfortunately may look up to.
Do we hear ourselves talk? What's this bad mouthing Turks, Azaries and Arabs? Who the heck do we think we all are? We are all Turks, Azaries, Arabs, Gilaks, Lors, ……and everything else combined! Let’s come off our high horses, folks.
Isn't our nation made up of all the people we so successfully insult on a regular basis any chance we get, Turks, Azaries, Arabs, Gilaks, Lors...?
Enough of this hurtful, immature, nasty, divisive, disruptive, pointless, belittling of ourselves! Shouldn't we be embarrassed and ashamed of who we are; a bunch of bigots and resists? Who sully our forefathers’ name by claiming their civility thousands of years ago for writing the first Human Rights Declaration, respecting diversity, while we are the absolute opposite?
We must not have really learned anything from their openness and inclusiveness when on daily basis we write such disrespecting words and throw it at each of our various ethnicities. Well, same forefathers must me turning in their graves for having raised children like us!
How many of us can say we don't have a sister or brother who is married to some other group that makes the Iranian nation? How many of us are married to some other group that makes the Iranian nation which we continually disrespect?
I am so sad and disappointed in myself, in you, and in us all. If all we are is this group of degenerates, that their best is tearing each other to pieces, without any compunction, with absolute disregard for each other's humanity, and talks about how we were the ones who authored the first Human Rights Declarations in one breath and belittling, and insulting our brothers and sisters in the next, can we really claim we are the rightful heirs of those same forefathers? We are so mean an ugly they won’t even recognize us.
How can we claim, Zoroaster’s teaching, “good thoughts, good words, good deeds”? When we don’t respect each other anymore, how can we talk about the first Human Rights Declarations? How can we say we honor them when we don’t respect the spirit of their words?
No nation has ever achieved greatness by being so splintered and self-destructive. Who needs the Brits to divide and conquer us? We are perfectly capable of doing the dividing work ourselves and make their jobs easier to conquer. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Re: Iranian-American
by Ben Madadi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 03:04 PM PDTThank you for your insightful comment! The article is not meant to defend the Qajar dynasty as Iranian rulers.
No, Mr. Madadi, the Qajars are eminently BLAMEWORTHY!
by Iranian-American (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 01:21 PM PDTSorry Ben Madadi, but if there's any Iranian ruling dynasty that takes the prize for incompetence, lethargy, idiocy, buffoonery, mismanagement, and, most importantly, RESPONSIBILITY for the losses of Gorjestan, Armanestan, Arran, Eastern Khorasan up to the Amu Darya (including Herat & Qandahar), and Eastern Sistan & Baluchestan, it's the Qajar Dynasty...
These people were hopelessly uneducated about running a modern, thriving nation with a powerful economic infrastructure and growth, as well as defending their national/territorial integrity from hostile foreigners while consolidating their own rule and fair, righteous jurisprudence. To say that the Qajars are blameless because of the rise of European hegemony is preposterous.
The Ottomans, unlike the Qajars, undertook much more vigorous reforms in the 19th century like the Tanzimat movement, which created a modern bureaucracy, modern legal codes, mandatory modern dress for Ottoman citizens, a national education system, building of telegraph and railroad lines (Oriental Express, anyone?), and a reorganized provincial tax-farm system that brought in higher revenues and filled the Ottoman treasury. Where they were less successful was in military modernization. The Qajars did NOTHING. Nada. Not an iota of reform. A SINGLE school of higher learning in Tehran, and a SINGLE railroad line from Tehran to Shah Abolazim Mosque in Rey. That's it. How utterly pathetic.
The shrinking of Ottoman territory had much more to do with proximity to Europe and overextension anyway, and not with abject complete surrender to modern advancement as in Iran. There was no reason why Russia should've been able to advance past Darband at the Caspian Gates with their pitifully small forces and weak military relative to the rest of Europe. The Qajars could've done better. There was no reason why the British should've stolen so much territory of eastern Iran, including ancient cities as indelibly Iranian as Shiraz or Isfahan, other than Qajar weakness. The Qajars could've done better.
A good example is the Safavids. Their early shahs managed to keep the territorial integrity of the nation under far, FAR more tremendous pressure on both sides of the empire than anything the Qajars ever suffered through, including the Ottomans at the height of their power under Sulayman the Magnificent in the west and the vicious Uzbeks in the east, not to mention traitorous internal Qizilbash commanders. Yet they pulled through, because they were STRONG rulers with a will to keeping Iran within her natural borders. Shah Abbas build 1,000 carvanserais to stimulate the economy, carried out grandiose city planning, reformed the military by forming contingents from the Caucasus to counter the prone-to-revolt Qizilbash, and reformed the bureaucracy and tax system. The Qajars did NOTHING.
May the Qajars be remembered as the most loathsome, pathetic dynasty to have ever ruled Iran...
It would've been different-but not a important matter
by Abarmard on Wed Apr 23, 2008 01:02 PM PDTIf Shah was in power the possibility of the northern States to join Iran would've increased. With this economical and social confusion within Iran, that dream to many has been vanished. Yet to think it realistically, if the region combines to gain on the economical opportunities then it would be even better than having one Iran ruling them. We could have a diverse region with vibrant citizens that can travel freely all over the Middle East. Once the foreign powers leave or get pushed out of the region, which is when the people have gained the know-how and respect of themselves to do so. That should be our goal. Borders are becoming less meaningful in a modernized nation/economy.
Who Cares???
by Mobley69 (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 09:06 AM PDTJust wanted to point out how completely irrelevant it is on who did what 1200 years ago. Silly people keep acting silly and trying to kill each other for silly reasons, like land. If you cannot learn to forgive and forget you will continue being silly and killing for silly reasons. It is my opinion but all of the countries there need to start questioning their supposed superiors for intelligence and quit listening to silly rulers. Because all you are going to do is slowly kill yourselves off unless you get off the silly games. Start thinking for yourselves and holy cow you may learn something about how stupid the whole prospect is for fighting for dirt, religion or because some other idiot wants you to. Note this is just my opinion. :)
Ben true article but
by Anonymouse on Wed Apr 23, 2008 08:25 AM PDTFAT Ali Shah didn't have to have 1000 wives and thousands of other temp ones, did he? What would the world think of a man whose ambition is to have more women in his heram?
It was an easy take over and didn't have to do with them being exhausted. Exhaustion doesn't stop powers from using more slave labor to complete their conquest.
We were somewhat lucky not to be chopped up into colonies or a colony like India. Although some people argue that had we become a colony like India we would not have been so "backward" by now :-)
Iran today and before
by Mirza (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 07:21 AM PDTIf Western powers, now, or 100 years ago or around that time, desired to invade Iran, all of it or parts of it, Iran would not stand any real chance. Iranians would resist indeed, for quite a while, and it would be bloody, but just like Reza Khan lost so quickly, so would anybody else. However things would be different with nuclear bombs, and akhound leadership knows it very well ;)
Ben is not defending the Ghajar as I understand. Ghajar rulers were just another page of Iran's history falling behind the West in every aspect of society and technology. And the process has been going on to this date, before the Ghajar, and after it.
Expansion and More Expansion...
by Abol Danesh (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 07:13 AM PDT...Lead ...or Follow... or get out of the way--Lee Iacocka :)
azari empires!
by Anonymous999999999 (not verified) on Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:07 PM PDTWhen arabs invaded persia, it was the persians that were rulling (sasaniyan)over our land, iran. at that time, azarbaijan was the main resistance force against the arabs, with men such as babak khoramdin, who gave his life for iran. so, for you persians who blame azaris for losing our land, shame on you!! what were you guys doning at that time, eating "tokhmeh" or reciting poetry to your lovers??? haaa?...instead of reciting poetry and talking shit all the time, why don't you for once take charge of our land, so we azari's can take a break. if it wasn't because of us azari people, you persians wouldn't have a language and a culture to be proud of. i love persians don't get me wrong...they are very cute people, especially persian girls...by the way, i'm a muslim, and i'm glad that iran is a muslim country, but hate the fact that we were invaded. it realy sucks that we were invaded by a bunch of shoe-less arabs, shame on you persians! we azari people just had to take charge after that point because we figured that you persians are too sensitive and intelectual to run an empire.
Irritated Moshtari
by Rainbow (not verified) on Tue Apr 22, 2008 09:33 PM PDTUnless a forum is designed for a select demographic with a certain political ideology and outlook, it would be beneficial if participants restrain from self or portal administer imposed censorship.
The audience will justify intervention if a participant resorts to name calling or profanities, but to not allow any intellectual consequences for an essay or statement will take away the educational benefit of this forum.
don't defend the qajars....
by ali1348 (not verified) on Tue Apr 22, 2008 08:19 PM PDTyou may have some valid points, but to state that iran was losing territory after territory just because the world was changing is ridiculous.
It takes a strong leader to keep the integrity of a nations borders....the Qajars were nothing but a buncha degenerate, "ayash" cowards with no sense of national pride. In fact, the brits wanted to "reinstal" a qajar prince after they pushed poor reza khan out of iran...but since this idiot couldn't speak a word of farsi, they were forced to abandon this.
fact is, we need a leader with "cajunas"....and that was partly the problem with the shah....he was too merciful on these mullahs, even when they were committing treason...khomeini should have been dealt with way back in 63....we had the 5th largest army in the world, and they failed to stop the mullahs- why? partly because they thought they would be civilized like everyone else....no one imagined that the same generals who let the devil land his plane, would order their execution in a few short weeks!
javid iran
Re: Hey Ben
by Sibil (not verified) on Tue Apr 22, 2008 07:33 PM PDTWhat did you have for lunch before you wrote this masterpiece? You really put Herodotus in shame. Where the heck are your facts and sources?
this is funny
by Souri on Tue Apr 22, 2008 06:41 PM PDTI think there is something wrong with the browser right now.
My picture has been changed suddenly!!!
Re:
by Ben Madadi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 05:44 PM PDTIt's not possible to have any kind of serious discussion while having spam-like comments in between, let alone worse ones, which are yet to appear, probably.
dear Ben
by Souri on Tue Apr 22, 2008 05:41 PM PDTI deleted your comment as you asked for...but I didn't understand the reason you wanted it to be deleted ?
Re:
by Ben Madadi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 05:30 PM PDTMaybe an editor can delete my comments. Thanks!
Re:
by Ben Madadi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 05:28 PM PDTI wanted to write replies but I think it's not a good idea. Sorry!
Not again...
by Anonymouss (not verified) on Tue Apr 22, 2008 05:10 PM PDTOne minute you want an independent iranian azarbayejan, next you worry about iranians calling themselves persian, and now you are praising the trash ghajar and claiming that iran did not exist before them. Seems like you want to rip apart the ripped apart iranian land which once included all of central asia west of Oxus (jayhoon or Amu-darya according to shahnameh) as well as the asia minor. We have lost more than what we should have to invading turks and arabs, thanks to incompetent turk and arab rulers. So let's leave whatever remains alone and enjoy life on either side of iranian borders. Fortunately, you have so many choices in neighboring countries of joining your arab, turk, or pashtun brothers as you please. Helping thieves to steal yet more parts of iran does not end the never ending appetite of iranian enemies.
Like it or not, iran is the land governed by one of the only three true iranian dynasties, Achaemenian, Parthian, or Sassanian. That is what iran was for 1000 years and that is what it will be, sooner or later. All should either get used to it or get out and migrate back to where they came from!
Contraction & Expansion
by Abol Danesh (not verified) on Tue Apr 22, 2008 05:03 PM PDT...The tomb of Cyrus the great and its surrounding is all there is called Persia when it is shrunk to the ultimate extreme...And when it expands...only God knows how far it can go far and further...
Yes the entire empire can shrink all the way to a tomb ...until times comes and it begin expands again...
Now let's discuss what caused the Russian burn moscow to the ground as a response to the napoleaon expansionism...
Give give give....
Take take take...
That is life! That is history!
Mr Madadi Qajar might have started well,but...
by Tahirih on Tue Apr 22, 2008 03:44 PM PDTThey ended in ignorance and corruption.They are responsible for our slugish movement toward civilization.I am not disputing it's origin ,but the ending was shamefull.
Tahirih
Translation, please !
by Souri on Tue Apr 22, 2008 03:31 PM PDTDear Ben, Usually I like your articles when I read them. This time, either something doesn't add up ..or really I can't get it.
Where did you get this idea ? where are your sources?
I think, this idea need to be developed a little bit more. Our history is now known to all, and suddenly you bring up some new ideas.
Maybe you are right, but I need clearer argument/reasons !
In this article, many times you used "some of" or "those" ....may be it would be better to give "those and some" their real name to be clear.
Thanks.
Oh, interesting...
by Parthian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 03:25 PM PDTWe have the expert of objectivity, the master himself, pan-turkist giving us a lecture about brutal empires, and expansion and shrinkage of borders. Let's put it this way, Persian and Scythia had a lot more in common, than central asian turks/mongloids did with Austrians. I wonder if you would say the same things about that wonderful, civilized, and human-rights respecting empire called the ottoman.
By all accounts, Qajars were incompetent bunch, no matter how you slice it. One more note, Iranians of 500 BC were far more, I mean far far more tolerant of those they invaded, than the barbaric turks who rampaged through asia a 1200 years later. That ought to tell you something about civility, and "CIVILIZATION"...