Al-Jazeera a Zionist Plot!

This comment only shows the depth of your intellect.

But just so you know, In today's world, cinema is one important aspect of culure and Iranian culture today is in such state that many western critics now rank Iran as one of the world's most important national cinemas artistically.

Why We Should Care About Iranian Films

The Iranian Cinema

Iranian Films Warmly Received in American Theaters

Iranian director makes history

 

but they're wrong

 

Say what you will about how great an empire Persia was, but 300 Spartans certainly had their way with them, long enough for them to get their ass kicked by the Athenian Navy a few days later. That pretty much ended their expansion into Europe, don't you think?

But thanks for the math and science. We certainly appreciate it.

 

A question for you and other Iranians here:

What do you want, exactly?

 

Did an Iranian start this thread? Or did an Iranian start the history and/or culture discussion?

We don't want anything. It's right-wing revisionists like you , neo-cons, that want the whole world and would like to change past and present to suit their interests.

If you don't like the replies then you should just stop provoking different people with such useless threads. IM put it best:

 

What argument? That India existed? Use a map.

Well, did they control the Mayan empire? How about the Chinese dynasties?
I think your ingrown hair has finally hit your brain.

So China is not a major civilization? Dude, get your head out of your ass.

Are you on ********ing crack? Who do you think it was that marched right through Persia like a knife through butter in the 13th century? (I'll give you a hint - the same people who ruled China at the time.) How about the embassies that Augustus received from the Chinese rulers. You think they weren't aware of each other? The Roman and Chinese armies actually met once, around the Caspian region. Just because your knowledge of history is limited, doesn't mean ours is.

To who? The size of China is about the same as what was known to Persia. Just because you happened to be born in a culture that looks to the Middle East, doesn't mean everyone does.

Now, quit eyeing that camel who's sister you've already pilfered, and pay attention.

Since you seem to be having trouble with this, I'll spell Persian history out for you. Until the Achaemenids, Persians were suppressed for 1,000 years by various empires. The next to last of these, the Assyrians, whose empire the Persians stepped into (it was hardly de novo) was finally defeated by the Medes, who were overthrown by the Persians. The Persians then finally had their only real glorious chance, which they took, for 200 years. The Achaemenid Empire was, in fact, the superpower of its time. However, as would continue for all of history, it fell down badly when trying to defeat European peoples. (Marathon ended one war, Artemisium the other.) After the fall of the Achaemenids, Persia would never be the dominant power anywhere.
To recap; after being obliterated by Alexander in the space of time it took Alex to bugger a pretty boy, Persia was ruled by Greeks for a while (the Seleucids). They were finally displaced by the Parthians, who's great achievement was to serve as Roman whipping boys. After repeatedly sacking Parthian lands (neither the Parthians nor the Sassanids ever defeated the Roman Empire in Roman territory), the Romans finally destroyed the Parthian Empire. Trajan even had a nice boatride down the Persian Gulf. This was replaced by the Sassanid Empire, which reached its zenith after Khusro Ashurawan moved its center to Mesopotamia, away from the Iranian Plateau. (Who wouldn't want to get away from there?) The Sassanids, who also never made much headway against Rome were decisively defeated by Heraclius in the 7th century and suffered the indignity of having their capital ransacked and their new King being under the protection of the Byzantines. (Poor Khavad Siroes.) After that, it got worse; the Arabs simply walked through Persia, obliterating Persian forces at Qadisiya. Since then, Persia has suffered repeatedly; from invasions by Hepthalites (Sassanid times), then repeated Mongolian invasions, being ravaged by Timur's invasions, all the while being ruled from Baghdad. Yes, the Ottomans finally managed to defeat the Byzantine Empire, but they were a Turkish people. Not Persians. From approximately 600 until 1500 Persia was ruled by conquerors.
Finally Persia did gain some measure of power, but the Safavid and succeeding dynasties were always in the shade of Turkish power, and the European power, especially the Czars. Hell, Iran was ruled by the Afghans for a while, in the 18th century! And by the early 19th century Persia became a plaything of the West, ceding more and more territory.
Why do I have to teach Persians their own history? Don't you have books Mani? Can't you read? Hey - quit touching that goat! You're going to have to eat that later!

Oh, and btw, what exactly has Persia done over the past 1500 years that's remotely comparable to, say, Europe? What, are we going to get a list of Omar Khayyam's songs now? Terrific.

 

The Persians never "controlled" any part of Europe. They showed up once, and said hello. Its the same as Caesar's two invasions of Britain. Sure, he received submissions, but the moment he left everyone shrugged and got on with their business.
To be fair, they did rule the Levant for several centuries; the main Persian ports were Tyre and Sidon.

Yeah, Persian cinema's not bad.

 

Actually, yes.

LOL. Yes, lets describe me as a neo-con because I refuse to buy your manufacted and flawed knowledge of history. I'm a liberal Democrat who was opposed to the war and hope to see a Democratic Iran. But I'm a neocon because I disagree with you.
Have you considered, just for a second, that you might be wrong? People who hate neocons have been telling you you're full of it. That should give you pause to think.

There were two ways to handle this thread. One was to take it as a joke, which it was. I'm not one to defend Alex too often, but his point about Giant Spiders was FUNNY. It was intended as a joke. Y'all jumped on it as if he thinks 90% of Iran thinks that way. He doesn't, and we don't. You just have a chip on your shoulder the size of a burning American flag. Get over it. Most of us don't care about Iran. But its funny watching you hop about as if we've mortally offended you. Get a grip and learn to take a joke.

 

Chinese civilizations were not known to Egypt, Persia, Greece or any other of the major civilizations untill a few hundred years after the period of time we were discussing.

 

But they were known to themselves, and encompassed an area about the size of Persia's "known world". So why does your world get to count?
Besides, of course they were known. How do you think silk got to the West? Magical non-ethnic fairies? The reason for a lack of serious interaction was the inability of either culture to muster enough resources to conquer the other over vast distances and geographic constraints. You think crossing the Hindu Kush is simple? Why do you think the first culture to bridge the gap was one with an army of mounted horsemen who could swing through the vast steppes of Central Asia?

P.S. I just got a neg-rep from Mani for "bashing" Persians. Despite the fact that I haven't said much bad about Iran. Wake up Mani. I don't dislike Persians. I just think you're several evolutionary steps below a scum sucking tick on a camel's ass.

 

Since the Achaemenid period has been covered here, let me provide a synopsis of Iranian history for some of the periods that followed.

During the Sasanid period, Iran was a major and respected rival to the Roman Empire (later the Byzantines). Under their predecessors, the Parthians, less so -- although even then Iran was able to challenge Roman power enough to at least to rule over its own sphere.

During the Islamic period, Iran's political independence was lost, but it reached its cultural heights, playing probably the most decisive role in much of what is considered Islamic civilization during its golden age. Many of the Islamic scholars were of Iranian origin, but more importantly, Islam itself was changed dramatically from its narrow bedoin origins under Iranian influences. In fact, while Iranians would eventually opt for a different branch of Islam altogether, even the Sunni Islam that prevailed during the Abbasid caliphate -- and later in much of the Turkish, Indian, Central Asian, and Arab world -- was what is regarded as "Isalm-Ajami" or "Iranian Islam". That Islam stands in stark contrast to the "Wahabi" barbarism that became confined to Arabia.

Parenthetically, during the Islamic Golden Age which saw the height of Iranian influences, the West was slumping through its so-called Dark Ages. And the Rennaisance owes some measure of debt to what was passed to Europeans from this Islamic civilization. Politically, after a brief period of independence/autonomy referred to as the "Iranian intermezzo", much of the Islamic world eventually succumbed to Turko-Mongol invaders from central Asia. The Turks adopted Persian culture and were "Iranicized", ruling as Moslems. The Mongols, though eventually falling in the same fate, did so only after destroying much of the fabric of Islamic civilization.

During the Safavid period (1501-1747), the broad contours of the modern Iranian nation-state came to formation. Territorially, Iran again established its control over the Iranian sphere: the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, Yerevan (Armenia), and Georgia. The shia Safavid fought numerous wars against the sunni Ottomans and each were intense rivals of the others. The Ottomans are, however, well known in the West because their power lay closer to Europe while the Safavids were seperated from much of the continent (except the Caucasus) by the Ottomans. Culturally, the Safavids were the heirs of Iran's rich heritage, and their capital Isfahan was one of the finest cities in the world. Even today, thanks to the Safavids, Isfahan is a remarkable city.

Iran was never ruled by "Afghanistan". That country itself, until later events, was always part of Iran. Afghan brigands, who were subjects of the Safavid emperors, did manage to wrestle power and capture the Safavid capital for a brief period. They were chased away by Nadir Shah, dubbed the Persian Napolean for his conquests including of Delhi in India.

But no doubt, Iranian power and influence were on the wane despite some occasional flashes here and there. By the time of the Qajars (1796-1926) Iran had fallen very weak, specially after two decisive wars against Russia in the 19th century. For a period, Iranian independence was nominally preserved, not by Iranian power, but by the rivalry between Russia and Great Britain. Neither side wished to see the other rule over Iran.

 

Oh is that so? Roman whipping boys?
Is this when Valerian the Roman emperor was taken prisoner in a battle on Roman soil and begged for his life before being executed by the orders of Shapur I of Persia.

​

WRONG AGAIN!
Have you heard of Samanids (903 AD)?

Oh really? Is that why they call it the new Persian Empire? Is this when Nader Shah conquered all of Central Asia and India and before him the Safavids defeated the Portuguese navy in the Persian gulf?

History is not your subject my freind.

 

Did I? No.

Your imagination is running wild again.

IM has also talked about Iran becoming a super power. So, in fact, I was just asking! You choose to interpret the question as hostile when I actually would like to know what you really want, specifically.

 

Perhaps you weren't reading. PARTHIANS.

On Roman soil? Uh, Mani? Edessa was in Mesopotamia.

Uh, Mani? They were under the control of the Caliphate. They were a subordinate state. Not to mention their limited control over only a small northern portion of the Plateau.
Really, quit getting your history from wikipedia.

Um, I didn't dispute that Mani. Its going to be easy to win arguments you make up.

You're saying Nader Shah conquered allof Central Asia and all of India? Christ. Nader Shah won battles in India. He never conquered it. As for "all of Central Asia" - it was controlled by various groups. Certainly not all by the Safavids.

With the help of the British. Sad, that. You need European help to defeat a tiny country thousands of miles away.

Mani, you don't know any of it, so how can you draw that conclusion.

 

I expect better from you; Mani's just ignorant. Afghans (not the country, the people) did in fact rule Iran for a period of 12 years from 1722 until 1736.

 

Oh, and Mani? Read your own links. That link shows Valerian was taken prisoner when he arrived for a parley and Shapur broke the truce.

 

I mentioned "Afghan" brigands wrestling power and capturing the Safavid capital. But even that term involves a little historical revisionism: until a former general of Nadir Shah (Ahmad Durani) basically seceded from the Persian Empire following Nadir Shah's death, there was no real "Afghan" identity as such. That identity, which itself is not fully forged with strong divisions among the Afghans (principally between the Perso-Iranian Tajiks versus the Pushtans), is a more recent phenomenon.

 

So waht? Running out of excuses? PARTHIANS are Persian/Iranian!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsacid_Dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapur_I_of_Persia

You need to read it:

Says who? Persians defeated their navy in the Persian gulf!

He conquered the state of India and installed the new king for Inida. Kinda like Bush and Alawi in Iraq.

Edessa is a small town in modern-day Armenia which was controled by Romans and therefore Roman soil.

I hope you don't give up your day job. History is JUST not your thing!

 

True! But at that time it was under the control of Rome. So Shahpour captured the Roman emperor on Roman territory.

 

I have a feeling we're about to see a historical power bomb tossed by the "NeoCon/Liberal Democrat", and it's not going to be pretty.


PS - When are the Asians going to happen upon this thread and start raising hell?

 

Mani, did you read my post? Are you blind as well as ignorant? Parthians were a separate dynasty. So when I say something about the Parthians, what the fvck do the Sassanids have to do with it?
Excuses? You can't READ!

With British help.

The state of India? The STATE of India? Until the British, there was NEVER a state of India you goat badgerer!

******** this crap. You're nothing more than wikipedia's quotes and you want to argue with me over the finer points of Roman Imperial Administration, you ignorant maggot? You haven't a clue about anything Wikipedia hasn't spoonfed you. But you know what? Wikipedia doesn't really tell you much except for your serach. And then, like the royal cluefvck that you are, you don't even read your own bloody links! You are an embarassment to Persians by displaying your pathetic jingoism and coupling it with an utterly shameful lack of knowledge. And on top of that accusing me of knowing less history than Wikipedia (which is the only thing you're familiar with.)
So, to reduce your pathetic little argument to ruins again:

You don't know this, of course, because your intellectual scope is limited to searching online encyclopedias, but the battle over Armenia was a regular source of Roman and Parthian/Sassanian hostilities. It started in the 60s and 70s BC when the Romans first defeated Mithridates of Pontus and his ally, Tigranes of Armenia. Lucius Licinius Lucullus defeated Tigranes permanently, sacked his capital of Tigranocerta and reduced Armenia's burgeoning empire to ruins. After that Armenia did not threaten to become a power until the 10th century. (Alp Arslan defeated Romanos Diogenes because Romanos's best forces were away investing Ani.)
However, neither Rome itself nor Lucius Licinius Lucullus thought annexing Armenia was a particularly good idea. Not only due to Rome's regular reluctance to annex anything in the Republican period, but also due to the recognition that such a difficult and far off land would be difficult to defend. So, after restoring local rivalries and putting a puppet on the throne, they left. Pompeius cleaned up Lucullus's work, but despite annexing Syria (growing tired of Seleucid internal squabbles) Pompeius did nothing regarding Armenia. It sat there, and its loyalty remained mostly with Parthia, of who Tigranes was originally a subject.
The next real conflict occurred when Marcus Licinius Crassus (no relation to Lucullus) was given the Roman east as his suzerainty. Feeling left out because Caesar and Pompeius had more impressive military campaigns, Crassus embarked on a disastrous campaign. Not familiar with the region, its people and Parthian tactics, Crassus went down to a heavy defeat at Carrhae, and was subsequently killed. For this, the victorious Parthian general was killed by his King.
Subsequently, the Romans mastered Parthian tactics, and fought multiple campaigns against the Parthians, successfully, starting with Marcus Antonius. Several of these campaigns resulted in awful defeats for Parthians, notably under the Emperor Trajan, who obliterated the Parthian army, and took the capital. He went on that famous sail along the gulf. Subsequently, Septimus Severus inflicted an equally serious defeat on Parthia, which, in fact, ended the Parthian Empire. After 221 Adrashir became the first ruler of the Sassanid dynasty upon murdering the last ineffective Parthian ruler. Septimus Severus actually annexed the heart of the Parthian empire, but subsequent Roman Emperors (including Septimus Severus's children, Geta and Caracalla) recognized that the province was too tenuous, and move the Roman border east, as Hadrian had done after Trajan's conquest.
However, between 221 and 40 AD, most Roman Parthian wars were not so cataclysmic. The majority of them revolved around control of Armenia. However, this was not actual control of Armenia. Romans recognized that Armenia was too difficult to defend, but were unwilling to allow a Parthian or Sassanian presence there. So, the result of most encounters was a decision on which puppet would rule Armenia. Since Armenia was far closer to Parthia than to Rome, the usual routine would involve a pro-Parthian usurpation, followed by a Roman attack, installation of a Roman puppet, and a repeat of the same process. Armenia was, for centuries, a natural buffer zone between Rome and Persia. It was not, therefore, in Roman territory. Unlike, say, the client kingdoms of Sophoene and Gordoene, which were originally buffer states under the Augustan period but were converted to full parts of provinces by the Trajanic annexation binge of the 2nd century. Armenia, even when under Roman client kings, was an independent entity which was not annexed into the Empire. In fact, not until the Byzantine Empire would it be absorbed, and then only partially.
But you know what the funny thing is? You're completely wrong, anyway! Just because its part of Armenia now does NOT mean it was back then. Armenia 1800 years ago was NOT Armenia of today. Edessa was, in fact, the basis for the Kingdom of Osrhoene. Osrhoene, as I've mentioned above, was briefly annexed by Trajan. It was again annexed by Septimus Severus in the latter's campaign against Parthia, when he moved all of Rome's borders east. However, by 244, Rome's entire border was withdrawn to the east, as the Syrian revival of the Empire under Severus and his successors had ended by 235 due to the death of Alexander Severus. By 244 the borders were definitely withdrawn, as Rome was having problems with Goths on the Danube frontier (Decius was even killed by Goths in 251). So, in fact, Edessa was NOT Roman territory.
You're wrong again, about things you know nothing about. Moron.

Stick to supporting your natural team, like Brazil. Gloryhunting is the only thing you're good at.