How did Iran resist arabization in culture/language when most other places conquered by Muslim Arabs - including places...

Egyptian in total have negligible Arab admixture.

>Iran had native dynasties sprout up soon enough to patronize persian-language arts and scholars, keeping the language relevant.

Native? Their dynasties were all foreign but they patronised Persian-language arts and scholars. Plus Seljuks which passed through adopted Persian language and fought Arabs.

He's talking about the 150 years or so before the Seljuks where Iranian Muslim dynasties ruled over Iran.

The same way Gallia and Hispania failed to resist Latinization while Greece kept their language and culture. North Africa and Mesopotamia didn't have much of a unified culture for a long time, if ever, almost always acting as a battleground between colonies of Greeks and Levantines surrounded by native nomad tribes and interspersed with trade hubs mixing them all together.

Arabization here wasn't simply the Arabs replacing a culture with their own, but the natives of these regions adopting an Imperial Arab culture derived from the ruling political class in order to unite the bureaucracy and economy that had emerged with the rise of the Caliphate.

Iran, like Greece, however, had a recent history of cultural and political unity that meant they didn't need to adopt any new Imperial culture when they found themselves recruited into the bureaucracy of the Romans and Arabs as that Imperial culture was itself derivative of their own and so made little headway into their centers of culture even with the support of political elites.

On the topic of OP's question, I have something to ask.
I am Iranian, my parents are from Iran, and so are their parents. Past that, record-keeping was a bit flimsy, so.
I've heard of the point that the regions where the Mongols/Arabs (or any other conquerer, in general) ruled over witnessed, to some degree, the mixture of the genes of the conquerers and the native population.
I understand that this is exactly like a fractal tree, how your family tree branches out.
Was there a sustained effort to erase/replace the specific set of genes unique to the Persian people (enough to have echoes today), or can it be neglected? I know miscegenation is also dependent upon a population of people (if 1000 mix with 100, the results are obvious, but with 10000, then it will not have a large enough impact).
I know we are all technically mixed, to some degree, but I am referring to genetic distances. I know Arabs are Semites (or some can trace their roots back to the Semitic people), but Persians are distant cousins of Northern Europeans (Indo-European). This divergence (geographically speaking) has had an obvious result on their appearance (Norther Europeans are blonde-haired, blue eyed pale skinned individuals, whereas I am olive-skinned, lightly tanned, black hair, brown eyed, "Mediterranean"-ish).
I was thinking of investing my money in a genetic test, but I know those are only as accurate as their sample sizes (might just give me a "Middle Eastern" result, which is vague).

The Buyids, Samanids, Zayarids, Saffarids, etc..were not foreign. Following the two hundreds covering the fall of the Sassanid dynasty and the Caliphate's military occupation, a string of native Iranian dynasties of Persian, Gilaki, and other Iranian native peoples ruled Persia/Iran for 200 or so years before Turks came in.

There was at most 150,000 or so Arab soldiers "investing" their genes into Iranian peoples. Sassanid Empire's population is estimated of modern findings to roughly be around 40-50 million people.

They wouldn't have made a dent in the Iranian genetics even with successive mixings. Its hyperbole and most often /int/ or /pol/ tier shitposting when people claim modern Iranians are Arab rape babies or heavily mixed. Iranians, especially Persians, alongside the Chinese and Indians, have the best history of constantly assimilating OTHERS into their culture and race, then vice versa.

Over 1500 years of political, social, and economic unit with a united nationalistic view of themselves as well as interdependence on various other Iranian tribes and peoples with one another. Persians were also like mentioned heavily recruited and necessary once the Umayyads were replaced by the Abbassids who openly patronized Iranian muslims, and heavily utilized them as architects, administrators, bureaucrats, tax collectors, clerks, and the intelligentsia backbone. A certain famous Abbassid Caliph even said they "could not last one day without the Persians".

But really, its because Iranians were just a hardy peoples who refused to be assimilated or wiped out despite the earlier efforts of the first Caliphs.

Nah, the worst thing to happen to Iranians are the massacres by the likes of Ghengis Khan and Timulane. Wiping out huge numbers of urban centers which contained large percentages of the Iranians had a bigger imapct on the Iranian gene pool then Arabs or Turks mixing in small numbers with them.

Man I left a lot of typos in this post.

I did not know that, thanks for the info.

Yeah, comparatively, apparently the Mongol invasions killed upwards in the hundreds of millions, when scaled to modern population estimates.

Has this ever occurred, where a people are simply ethnically erased?

There was an Iranian writer at the time of Genghis' invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire who claimed only 10% of ethnic Iranians remained after its fall and the Mongol rampages. But this is likely hyperbole, its unlikely native Iranian populations ever dropped that dramatically but yeah, the Mongols and Turkics in general quite liberally revealed in loss of wide scale destruction of cities and population centers.

Until World War 2, I don't think anything touches on that scope or scale.

How did the indians do it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan

they ran their elefuns into the arab cavalry and killed their general off.
gg ez

The Arab chronicler Sulaiman describes the army of the Pratiharas as it stood in 851 CE, "The ruler of Gurjars maintains numerous forces and no other Indian prince has so fine a cavalry. He is unfriendly to the Arabs, still he acknowledges that the king of the Arabs is the greatest of rulers. Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Islamic faith than he. He has got riches, and his camels and horses are numerous."

But no mention of elephants yo.

The Assyrians and Romans came close desu

>indian kings
>no mention of elephants
what?
every post gupta state began to use cavalry in northern india, but they still used elephants.

Assyrians came closer to what? Romans did what?

The Arabs looked up to Persian culture.

>resisted arabization
>couldn't resist turkification

That's why Iranians share little genetically with modern day Turks or Turkified Azeris right?

Best Steppe Nigger dynasty was literally Persianized as fuck.

>muh Seljuks
>muh Ottomans

That's why the Seljuk Empire and Khwarazmian Empire both ruled Persia right?

Actually, Iranians share a lot of their genetics with Azeris and Turks, but not for the reasons you think.

That's because Azeris and Turks are hardly Turkic at all, "Azeris" are just Turkish-speaking Persians and Armenians, and "Turks" are just Turkish-speaking Greeks and Kurds.

Pic related.

Seljuk Empire barely lasted 150 years. And the Khwarazmian empire heavily was reliant on Persian soldiers and barely lasted any longer as well. What the fuck does that have to do with genetics?

Turks have left little impression on the Iranian gene pool.

You have it half-wrong. Azeris are an Iranian people, but those of Azerbaijan i.e. not part of Iranian Azerbaijan, were Turkified. In fact, in general Iranians are genetically closer to Southern Europeans; particularly Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks.

Seljuks and Khwarazmian dynasties both sucked Iranian cock. Persian was the court and administrative language of those empires, neither lasted more then a few decades past a century, and both were hugely supported by native Iranian soldiers and officials. Hell the best three Seljuk rulers were famous for having particularly capable Persian viziers.

>What the fuck does that have to do with genetics?

>Turks have left little impression on the Iranian gene pool.

And what the fuck does genetics have to do with culture or its adoption? Did the Gauls suddenly become Latin because they assimilated into the Roman Empire? The Seljuks left a long lasting cultural impression on the Iranians and that's a fact.

What impression did they leave? There's hardly any genetic correlation between the Seljuk Turks with Iranians at all. They were assimilated by Iranian peoples, not the other way around. There's a reason why those steppe niggas look like fucking Arabs and swarthy brown Semitics then their original Mongoloid origins.

It has everything to do with it. And the Roman Gaul comparison makes zero sense, Romans colonized the shit out of Gaul and held a major colonial and military presence there for almost 600 years.

Seljuks don't even have 1/5th that time or numbers with Iranians.

Turks never inhabited or moved in notable numbers when it comes to mixing with people at all. Why do you think modern day Turks in Turkey are more closely related to other Anatolians then Turkomens in Central Asia or Iran?

And both the Seljuks and Khwaramians were heavily Persianized regardless of this tangent.