How badly did Iran get Khan'd? Is it exaggerated?

At least they tolerated other Religions.

he genocided christians

He was just trying to remove autism out of the gene pool.

It's not really exaggerated. It was more than just the initial wave of destruction (though that was extremely destructive, and many cities were completely ruined), but also a continuous exploitation and neglect of the populace and economy that lasted throughout the 13th century. There was improvement between 1295 and 1335 when the Ilkhans converted to Islam, adopted Islamic/Iranian urban civilization, reformed administration and patronized the arts and literature, but after 1335 this system disintegrated as regional Mongol rulers took over and in many areas returned to the exploitative practices of the 13th century. The Turkmen and Timurids caused further damage in the late 14th-15th centuries and Iran was chaotic until the 16th century, but that's not really relevant here. Overall, the population, agricultural productivity and economy of Iran was completely devastated. Pic related, from the Cambridge History of Iran, compares pre- and post-Mongol population estimates of some Iranian regions.

Transoxiana was equally devastated, and Iraq never recovered.

Some more form the Cambridge History;

>We can distinguish the following periods in the socio-economic history of Iran during the Mongol dominion.
>The first period—from the twenties to the nineties of the thirteenth century—is marked by the colossal economic decline of Iran, caused both by the devastation wrought during the Mongol conquest, and still more by the administrative practices, in particular the taxation policy, of the first conquerors (the viceroys of the Great Khan, and
then from 1256 the Il-Khans). Typical phenomena of the time are a reduction in population and cultivated land, the decline of agriculture, the migration of fresh multitudes of Mongol and Turkish nomads, and the expansion of migrational cattle-breeding, a decline in urban life, the growth of tendencies of natural economy, an increase in state taxes and feudal rent, the attachment of peasants to the soil, and the growth of a peasant insurrectionary movement.

>The second period—from the nineties of the thirteenth century to the middle thirties of the fourteenth century (to the death of Il-Khan Abu Sa'id in November 1335) is characterized by something of an economic upsurge, especially in agriculture, as a result of the reforms of Ghazan. During this and the following periods conditional private ownership of land and large-scale unconditional landownership expanded at the expense of state and small-scale peasant landowning. The economy of the country did not however attain its pre-1220 level.

>you will never be a Mongol
>you will never ride around on a horse and wreck shit
>you will never make throat songs about the glory of Genghis

>The third period extends from the mid-thirties to the eighties of the fourteenth century (to the beginning of Timur's conquest). This period is marked by feudal dismemberment, the struggle for power of feudal groups, and the political disintegration of the Il-Khanid state as a result. This disintegration began in 1336 and was completed in 1353 on the occasion of the killing of the last Il-Khan, Togha-Temiir, and the destruction of his headquarters—ordu—in Gurgan by rebel Sarbadars. The restoration of pre-Ghazan methods of peasant exploitation provoked violent rebellions among the peasantry (the Sarbadars of Khurasan in 1337-81, analogous movements in Mazandaran and Gilan from the fifties to the seventies of the fourteenth century, and others), which were supported by minor Iranian landowners as well as urban artisans.

Another excerpt;
>Ibn al-Athir spoke of the Mongol invasion as of an enormous universal catastrophe. Even the pro-Mongol historian Juvaini, speaking of the massacres perpetrated by the generals of Chingiz-Khan,
concludes with this assertion: " . . . where there had been a hundred thousand people there remained . . . not a hundred souls alive. " More than a century after the invasion, in 740-1339/40, the historian and
geographer Hamd Allah QazvinI refers to the "ruin (in the present day) as a result of the irruption of the Mongols and the general massacre of the people which took place in their days" and adds: "Further there can be no doubt that even if for a thousand years to come no evil befalls the country, yet will it not be possible completely to repair the damage, and bring back the land to the state in which it was formerly." Such is the testimony of the contemporaries of the Mongol invasion.

This. The mongol empire is one of the greatest things to everf exist. As ussual people only look at the death count and not the amount of people who's lives were improved by it

Even more based than I thought then.

Ancient sources are known to exaggerate

It got so khan'd that the Safavids had to import people from the Caucasus to not consider it Azerbaijan 2.0

What got Khan'd worse Iran or Iraq?

It's funny what the Shah's son did.

He flees to India with an army. He should build up support and retake his lands right? Nope, he captures a bunch of cities. Then he retreats back into his country, and the Mongols chase him into Georgia. He should recruit some allies there to fight the Mongols right? Nope, he plunders Georgia and allows the Mongols to have the leftovers. Then he gets killed by Kurdish highwaymen.

He singlehandedly allowed the Mongols an easy path into the ME and Europe.

Wouldn't importing people from the Cacuses make Iran seem more like Azerbaijan 2.0?
Also did not as many Azeris die to the Khans in Iran?

Did Iran ever recover from the Mongols?

Why did he do that??