Iran Armeni increase brotherly relationships

[Rostam]

Until 1828, Armenia was part of Iran Zamin untill those russian thieves stole our land...in torcumanchay treaty..this is while we lost Azerbadjan and parts of Georgia to russians in 1813 in the treaty of gulistan... the qajars were truely the most incompotent shahs among the various Iranian dynasties...

 

[kollang]

Iran is Armenia's best ally.their electricity,their energy,their needed products,all of them are from Iran.

@that idiot pakitani:if you have seen one armenian who dislike Iran,i have seen 10000 armenian who LOVE Iran.stop being retarded.here in PDF there are two Armenians,both of them love Iran.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Are you aware that Qajars invaded Azerbaijani Khanates in 1796? Before that, Azerbaijani Khanates were independent since the death of Nadir Shah (1747). During Qajar invasions, Azerbaijani Khanates requested assistance from Russian Empire. In 1805, the Treaty of Kurekchay was signed between Azerbaijani Khanates and Russian Empire, making the Khanates vassal of Russian Empire. This was recognized by Qajars in the treaty of Gulustan in 1813. As for Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1928, Qajars launched a military campaign to occupy northern Azerbaijan, but they were defeated, and also had to cede the Khanates of Irevan and Nakhchivan.

There were no Armenia btw, but Khanate of Irevan which was of Azerbaijani origin, actually, the Irevan Khanate itself was of Qajar tribe origin, although they belonged to a different clan (Ziyadlu) than Qajars which ruled Iran (Qovanlu). And present-day Armenia was mostly populated by Azerbaijani Turks.

Without even knowing the history, it is laughable to claim "Qajars were incompotent" in this particular case. Or claiming that they actually lost Northern Azerbaijan. You cannot lose something you don't own in first place. The Qajar authority over northern Azerbaijani Khanates lasted only briefly.

 

[Serpentine]

Without even knowing the history, it is laughable to claim "Qajars were incompotent" in this particular case. Or claiming that they actually lost Northern Azerbaijan. You cannot lose something you don't own in first place. The Qajar authority over northern Azerbaijani Khanates lasted for a very short time.

If you come to Iran and ask Iranians (no matter if they are Persian, Azeri,Kurds or other ethnic groups), they all agree that Qajars were bunch of losers who ruled and destroyed Iran.They only cared about Jewels and their Herems and theirs 72 virgins.Most of them were puppets of Britain.They are considered as one of the weakest and worst dynasties ever ruler Iran.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Maybe, but the events that took place in Caucasus hardly shows their incompetence. Our Iranian friends perhaps should study the history better and not ignore the independent Khanates which existed in Caucasus, these Khanates were not really keen to accept Iran's authority. It was Khanates themselves that invited Russians to the region after all.

Also, Qajars actually gained alot of territority for Iran. Zands before them were unsuccesfull for the most part, since we talk about Caucasus, it was one of regions where Zands were defeated militarily, by Azerbaijani Khanates. So in fact, Qajars were far more succesfull than Zands from the military point of view, and although they could not attest their authority over Caucasus at the end (but faced by Russian Empire, unlike Zands), they gained alot of other lands, including Khorasan, correct me if wrong.

 

[Serpentine]

Almost all the wars they started were wrong and badly managed.
I'm not necessarily talking about territories they lost, but their ways of management, their leadership, independence and many other things.
Anyway, that's history, those territories are independent countries now and we can't do anything about it.Thousands of territorial changes has happened in the world during history.We should look to future and where we are now,not to the past.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Yet they were far more succesfull than Zands before them from whatever point your looking at. I would definetly prefer Zands over Qajars, because then Azerbaijani Khanates would continue to exist independently, and the Quba Khanate had plans like unifying all Khanates into one single state. We have more reasons to dislike them.

It occurs to me that you guys actually talk about this period of Iran's history without even knowing the background and details. The period between the death of Nadir Shah and rise of Qajars should be more carefully studied. Qajars regained alot that were lost following Nadir Shah's death. Their failure against Russians in Caucasus like said does not really show their incompetence, their later period of rule is something else.

Anyway, this is perhaps off-topic.

 

[Rostam]

Are you aware that Qajars invaded Azerbaijani Khanates in 1796? Before that, Azerbaijani Khanates were independent since the death of Nadir Shah (1747). During Qajar invasions, Azerbaijani Khanates requested assistance from Russian Empire. In 1805, the Treaty of Kurekchay was signed between Azerbaijani Khanates and Russian Empire, making the Khanates vassal of Russian Empire. This was recognized by Qajars in the treaty of Gulustan in 1813. As for Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1928, Qajars launched a military campaign to occupy northern Azerbaijan, but they were defeated, and also had to cede the Khanates of Irevan and Nakhchivan.

There were no Armenia btw, but Khanate of Irevan which was of Azerbaijani origin, actually, the Irevan Khanate itself was of Qajar tribe origin, although they belonged to a different clan (Ziyadlu) than Qajars which ruled Iran (Qovanlu). And present-day Armenia was mostly populated by Azerbaijani Turks.

Without even knowing the history, it is laughable to claim "Qajars were incompotent" in this particular case. Or claiming that they actually lost Northern Azerbaijan. You cannot lose something you don't own in first place. The Qajar authority over northern Azerbaijani Khanates lasted only briefly.

Are you aware of the fact that Iran´s relations with Armenia has not only been restricted to the disastrous rule of qajar? If not, its time to open some history books...

Persian Armenia or Persarmenia (Armenian: Պարսկահայաստան Parskahayastan) corresponds to the Persian territory in which Armenians have lived until the Arab conquest of Persia. The size of Persian Armenia varied over time. It sometimes simply referred to as Eastern Armenia. According to George A. Bournoutian, professor of Armenian history, "prior to the third century A.D., Iran had more influence on Armenia's culture than any of its other neighbours. Intermarriage among the Iranian and Armenian nobility was common."


Armenians and the Achaemenid Empire

After the fall of the Median empire In 550 B.C. Cyrus the Great, King of the Persians, took control of the Median empire and conquered Asia Minor and Mesopotamia. Cyrus' son continued his father's campaign in Egypt. Eventually, Armenia became a dependency of Persia.

The Armenian contingents, cavalry and infantry, had taken part in Cyrus the Great's conquest of Lydia in 546 and of Babylonia in 539. A rebellion of ten subject nations — one of them Armenia — broke out against Persia during the reign of Darius the Great (522–486).

Behistun inscriptions

In the Behistun inscriptions, Darius I talks of his multiple victories. The inscription includes three versions of the same text, written in three different cuneiform script languages: Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian. The name Armenia had been used for the first time, when Darius wanted to describe his conquests in the Armenian Highlands. The shahanshah speaks of bloody battles against the Armenians, and cites the names of three important battles.

The Armenians thus stayed under Persian rule from 519 to 330 B.C. Those years are considered to be relatively peaceful; trade flourished. Herodotus claimed that the Armenians had to pay 50 'talents' and thousands of horses per year to the Persians. When he speaks of Xerxes the Great' invasions to Greek land, he mentions that the Armenian forces rallied with Xerxes, and that they resembled and spoke like the Persians.


Armenians and the Sassanian Empire

The Armenians chose Christianity as state religion in 301. Armenia was divided between Sassanian Persia and the Roman Empire. The former established control in Eastern Armenia after the fall of the Arsacid Armenian kingdom in 428.

Vardan Mamikonian

As conflict between the Romans and Sassanids escalated about three centuries after the birth of Jesus, Yazdegerd II began to view Christianity in the Northern lands as a political threat to the cohesiveness of the Persian empire. The dispute appears to be based on Persian military considerations of the time given that according to Acts 2:9 in the Acts of the Apostles there were Persians, Parthians and Medes (all Iranian tribes) among the very first new Christian converts at Pentecost and Christianity has had a long history in Iran as a minority religion, dating back to the very early years of the faith. Nevertheless, the conversion to Christianity by Armenians in the North was of particular concern to Yazdegerd II. After a successful invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire, Yazdegerd began summoning Armenian nobles to Ctesiphon and reconverted them to Zoroastrianism (a faith many Armenians shared with Persians prior to Christianity). This upset the Armenian population[citation needed], and under the leadership of Vardan Mamikonian an army of 66,000 Armenians rebelled against the Sassanian empire. Yazdegerd quickly subdued the rebellion at the Battle of Avarayr.

Aftermath

The military success of the Persians ensured that Armenia would remain part of the Sassanian empire for centuries to come. However, Armenian objections did not end until the Nvarsak Treaty, which guaranteed Armenia more freedom and freedom of religion (Christianity)[clarification needed] under Sassanid rule. Ultimately the disputing parties were able to come to terms making Armenians the first people to adopt Christianity as their national faith.

Persian Armenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the fall of Urartu around 585 BC, the Kingdom of Armenia was ruled by the Armenian Orontid Dynasty, which governed the state in 585 - 190 BC. Under Orontids, Armenia at times was an independent kingdom, and at other times a satrapy of the Persian Empire. This map shows the Achaemid Empire (Persia (648–330 BC)) at its greatest extent.

Armenia was often a focus of contention between Rome and Parthia. This map shows the Parthian Empire (250 BC-226 AD) controlling parts of Armenia. The Parthians forced Armenia into submission from 37 to 47, when the Romans retook control of the kingdom.

The Persian Sassanian Empire occupied Armenia in 252 and held it until the Romans returned in 287. In 387 the kingdom was split between the Byzantine or East Roman Empire and the Persians. Western Armenia quickly became a province of the Roman Empire under the name of Armenia Minor; Eastern Armenia remained a kingdom within Persia until 428, when the local nobility overthrew the king, and the Sassanids installed a governor in his place.


Safavid & Qajar rule 1508–1828

 

[ASQ-1918]

Did you even read my post? You quote my post but post something entirely different.

Armenia did not exist during Safavid or Qajar period, morover, present-day Armenia was mostly populated by Azerbaijani Turks until Russians altered the demographics by relocating a large number of Armenians into western Azerbaijani lands from Iran and Ottoman Empire.

As for the territority of present-day Armenia, it was the lands of Azerbaijani Irevan Khanate.

 

[DarkPrince]

i dont think armenians like iranians much

 

[Serpentine]

Did you even read my post? You quote my post but post something entirely different.

Armenia did not exist during Safavid or Qajar period, morover, present-day Armenia was mostly populated by Azerbaijani Turks until Russians altered the demographics by relocating a large number of Armenians into western Azerbaijani lands from Iran and Ottoman Empire.

As for the territority of present-day Armenia, it was the lands of Azerbaijani Irevan Khanate.

Armenia did exist in Safavid times, it just wasn't called Armenia and instead, Yerevan Khanate, one of provinces of Safavid Persia.It's like saying Azerbaijan didn't exist prior to 1991 which is true according to your logic.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Not in modern sense, or on par with Sassanids and other Persian states, no. They are part of the Iran's history, but not Persian or even Iranian. Would you say the same about Ilkhanates for example?

And the Yerevan Khanate was Azerbaijani, ruled by Azerbaijani Khans, as simple as that.

Safavid Persia? It is you playing with words, Safavid Iran yes, Safavid Persia? No. Iran after all is only a geographical term. Persian is also a geographical term, but much smaller, and in fact a national one, unlike "Iran".

I only replied to a post which was falsifying the history, so it is you guys yourself who derail the thread.

 

[Rostam]

Did you even read my post? You quote my post but post something entirely different.

Armenia did not exist during Safavid or Qajar period, morover, present-day Armenia was mostly populated by Azerbaijani Turks until Russians altered the demographics by relocating a large number of Armenians into western Azerbaijani lands from Iran and Ottoman Empire.

As for the territority of present-day Armenia, it was the lands of Azerbaijani Irevan Khanate.

Yeah I read your post...you pointed out a short period of time between Nader Shahs death and the liberation of Armenia by Qajar..but I think what is more of relevance and significance to highlight, while considering the topic of this thread, is the overall time span of Iranian/Armenian relations..Hence that is the logic behind the content of the reply you received…

Safavids and Qajar dynasties are Iranian dynasties. Why? The simple answer is that they fought against all enemies of Iran, Turkmens and Ottomans during centuries of war. They uphold Iranian culture and traditionsadn they were all as patriotic as they were followers of Shiisim.
Atheists in the republic of azerbadjan doesn’t understand this (due to Russian occupation and assimilation), but Shia Azeris in Iran do….and that is the essence of Shiisim.. ethnical affiliations does not create any limitations of loyalty to the true source of unity and all of those following it…

 

[mehmeTcc]

Lol, in the meantime Ottomans were also fighting with Mamluks (a Turkic dynasty) and with Hungarians. (Turkic dönmehs) It's realpolitics dear, nothing to do with Iran.

 

[Rostam]

Not in modern sense, or on par with Sassanids and other Persian states, no. They are part of the Iran's history, but not Persian or even Iranian. Would you say the same about Ilkhanates for example?

And the Yerevan Khanate was Azerbaijani, ruled by Azerbaijani Khans, as simple as that.

Safavid Persia? It is you playing with words, Safavid Iran yes, Safavid Persia? No. Iran after all is only a geographical term. Persian is also a geographical term, but much smaller, and in fact a national one, unlike "Iran".

I only replied to a post which was just wrong, so it is you guys yourself who derail the thread.

Buddy, like it or not..Iran is the cradle of civilizations and it has endured thousands of years long before little current azerbadjan republic saw its first days of existence in the world map...It is inhabited by many ethnical groups who have all shown their loyalty to the greatness and progress of Iran zamin.. what binds Iran in the modern history is Shisim and Persian language and traditions…