Was this the true muslim golden age?

Not him, but I'll try.

>Muslim/Islamic Golden Age" is a myth made up to both look tolerant of Islam and subtly say it's stagnant and backwards.
'Muslim Golden Age' is a meme term but it refers to a very real intellectual climate which existed in the early Islamic world between the 8th and roughly 13th centuries.

>Nevertheless a Golden Age is technically an early period so those aren't it.
This part's fine. Muslims in the early modern period from Ibn Khaldun on basically though the Islamic world was in chronic decline, and did look back on the Abassids as a Golden Age.

>In fact, I'd say those peoples only became "backward" when "modernization" got forced onto them in the 19th century.
The Islamic world was hopelessly backward compared to Western Europe by the early modern period in many ways, but especially in areas like science and philosophy (which is what the 'golden age' refers too).

how can you be "backwards" in philosophy? What exactly were they not up to speed on?

Didn't the Portuguese get blown out in a war or two with the Persians?

Not him but I would like to know why they decided to call those three "gunpowder empires". Is it a term that assumes that you're talking exclusively about muslim history?

Abbas "reconquered" Ormuz but I think that's it.

Well you can say it's all subjective, but after Ibn Khaldun there were hardly any Islamic philosophers of particular note. The classical tradition was neglected as scholars became interested exclusively in theology and law.

Because some historian guy thought that the only reason that these three huge empires were able to form and stay together for so long was because of their use of gunpowder technology. Then some other historians thought maybe he was wrong. I read about it on Wikipedia.

It's just a term used in Islamic history, it doesn't really have much to do with gunpowder anymore. The Safavids hardly used gunpowder at all initially.

>muslim
>golden
>age

My bad, it was actually two historians.

>By the order of Abbas I, in 1602, the Persian army under the command of Imam-Quli Khan, managed to expel the Portuguese from Bahrain.
>In 1612, the Portuguese Empire took the city of Gamrūn and transliterated the name to Comorão. Almost two years later (in 1615), Comorão was taken by ‘Abbās the Great after a naval battle with the Portuguese and renamed Bandar-e ‘Abbās, or "Port of ‘Abbās". In 1622, with the help of four English ships, Abbas retook Hormuz from the Portuguese in the Capture of Ormuz (1622).
>In 1622 when the Persians retook Hormuz, the Portuguese Empire was the one of the largest and one of the most powerful empires in the world. The defeat of the Portuguese had many consequences including defeat in the Mombasa war and the capture of Fort Jesus by the Imam of Muscat, supported by the Persian king.
>With the Arab/Baluchi seizure of Portugal's key foothold at Fort Jesus on Mombasa Island (now in Kenya) in 1698, the Portuguese Empire declined and lost most of its land in east Africa to the British. The British recognised the Persian empire as only sovereign of the entire Persian Gulf and it was mentioned in the article 5 of the Preliminary Treaty of Friendship and Alliance in 1809. This recognition would be modified in subsequent negotiations including the Definitive Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, 1812, and the Treaty of Tehran, 1814, and remained the framework of Anglo–Persian relations over the next half century.
Absolutely amazing.

No but they contolled a few forts for only a century

Something similar happened to the Dutch iirc:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colachel
After the battle they were forced to relinquish their part of India and stick to SEA which wasn't that profitable since the Dutch EIC would eventually collapse within itself only half a century later.

To be fair, it was definitely an age and arguably muslim.

I'm sure that gold was also involved on some level.

Abbas the Great is my favorite Persian monarch after the Muslim invasion. The 16th and 17th centuries had a fuckton of amazing leaders in Europe and Asia for some reason at the same time.

It's not only the gunpowder empires, they're also the high watermark of Turko-Persian supremacy. All 3 Empires were founded by Turkics who were immersed in Persianate culture. You could also count a 4 Turko-Persian power if you added the Uzbeks once they conquered the old Timurid domains and were a constant thorn to the Safavids.

Indeed, I didn't know Abbas action's had so much consequences.

Don't feel like starting a thread so I'll ask here.

When did the Arab world start to wane in comparison to Europe? Was there ever a time when the Arab world was seriously ahead of the West?

Safavids are not Turkic.

From the 8th century to the 13th century, the Arab world and Muslim regions in general were technologically, economically, and culturally ahead of Europe besides Byzantium.

Western and Central Europe began to blossom in the 12th and 13th centuries, which was around the same time, Islam was fragmented and then later suffered from the Mongol onslaught barring Egypt and North Africa.

>muslim
see >arabs
They were basically irrelevant from the 9th century to the 20th.

>Abbas - the Great

>Implying they still aren't
The largest Arab economies are heavily dependent on oil. Saudi Arabia is increasing it's taxes on non Saudis every year to compensate with profit loss.

Arab world is a modern concept. Arabs were not the ruling class after about the 1st millennium.

The Arabs and with them Islam rose dramatically and invented much rich culture inspired by general Middle Eastern cultures. Muslims were a powerful minority in the so-called Golden Age. Western Europeans were under threat from this and were developing their own lands while Arabs went and took over many others, so they are considered "behind" and to have been in a so-called Dark Age. (South)Eastern Europe was not far behind but it was losing the influence it once had on East and West.

By the 1300s, the Arabs became just another Islamic group, but one that had gained such a foothold in certain areas that they slowly became majority Islamic regions with little concern with Western developments.

That's my impression, anyway.

Meanwhile since the late Shah's resign, Iran has been actively trying to disverify its economy and the Islamic Republic continues to follow in his footsteps on this. The Gulf Arabs are going to quickly see how long their wealth lasts when the next century those oil reserves start to dry up and wilt.

They're still relatively relevant though. Also Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon are also arab countries. Those are all pretty relevant (which doesn't mean powerful or rich). In the case of the Saudis, they got special (((friends))).

Safavids were a mishmash. Their ancestors were Georgian Nobility, Turkmen Khans, Byzantine Emperors, Kurdish Nobility, and Safi, their eponymous ancestor

>Safavids were a mishmash.
Only partly.
>Their ancestors were Georgian nobility
Partially.
>Turkmen Khans
Not really.
>Byzantine Emperors
Partially
>Kurdish nobility
No. A Kurdish-Persian Sufist Grand Master unless you want to count that as nobility. Their actual genelogical tree is largely demonstrably Greek, Armenian, and Circassian from the West and Caucasus areas and then from the core of it primarily Iranian Azeri, Persian, and Kurdish extraction.

Which goes around to the original point: they aren't Turks or Turkic at all.

(((Friends))) won't subsidize their economy though. Saudis are the stupidest fucking Arabs I swear. They are currently building giant skyscrapers in Jeddah and Riyadh - one of which will be the tallest in the world soon - despite there being adequate room to expand their cities horizontally.
Check out Hologram for the King if you haven't.

They were descended from Uzun Hasan as well, and Isma'il Safavi was brought up in Azeri culture. Azeri was his mother tongue.

Another case of Eternal Anglo. Portugese also suffered a lot during Iberian Union and with Dutch-Portugese War

Portuguese kept naval superiority and got bullied by Akbar.

Source: coursehero.com/file/p25f7ru/The-Safavids-have-also-left-their-mark-down-to-the-present-era-by-spreading/

Except some of these gulf states rely more on tourism economically than oil. Not like they're all secure but what you imply is an oversimplification.

I can do that too. Mainstream consensus in academia = Safavids are Iranian primarily.
Azeris are Iranians who speak with a Turkish tongue. See my post and image, majority of scholarship has reserved Richard Frye's erroneous claim they were "Turkish" in stock. Actual confirmed genelogy and genetic testing as shown the Safavids were primarily of Caucasus and Iranian background.

From it's beginning to the collapse of Abbasids

The Ottoman Empire was the only one that remained Turkic after a few generations iirc.

And Turks are Greek who speak Turkish. Stop being so butthurt.

Sure, modern Azeris are mostly Iranian/Caucasian genetically, but Uzun Hasan wasn't a sedentary peasant Azeri, he was a Turkoman tribal leader

Also it's very obvious that the Safavids would be mostly of Caucasian and Iranian background... after the first two shahs, most of the Shahs' wives were Circassians.

>he hasn't heard of the Sick Man of Europe

Relying on Americans to come to your pleasure palaces only works if the world economy is good and you have oil money to keep pumping them out. Don't expect them to come to a desert once that oil money runs out.

>majoos
>muslim

>i thought you had to be at least a bit smart to post on Veeky Forums
that's what dumb people think because you are not self aware enough

the most amazing part is tiny Portugal causing so much shit across the world and fighting empires 10 times it's size

ya saddam...

>Eternal Anglo betraying us again

How is it amazing? It had its 15 minutes of glory like literally every other nation in history and now its receded back to irrelevancy and cuckdom.

They also kidnapped Japanese waifus. Acting much like their moorish nigger ancestors.

>it's not amazing because it blasts my booty

>mughal empire was defeated by a company
It was already long dead. And
>ignoring the dozens of kingdoms the company allied with

>tfw the dutch didnt displace the portugals in south america
>tfw no dutch brazil

>implying britbongs wouldn't conquer it like they did with every other dutch colony

(F) bastard please

>not a rebuttal
lol

Safavids never were Turkic.
>modern Azeris
Azeris are always Iranian ethnically, culturally, genetically, and historically. Only "Azerbaijanis" are Turkic and that's mainly through langauge.
>Uzun Hasan
Even if what you are saying is true, the Turkic admixture in the Safavids is a minority compared to its Iranian counterparts and we have a better case study, knowledge and evidence of attested Iranian background of the Safavids.

They were already culturally pretty Iranian on top of that; Kurdish-Persian Sufi grand master, Pontic Greek, Circassian and Kurdish maternal and paternal lineages, etc...And that Turkic lineage in Ismail was already minimal to begin with.

there's enough historical and genetical rebuttal.
besides, there are Azerbaijanis who literally descended from Shia Turks from Eastern Anatolia that were forced to migrate to Iran.
Besides, (F) bastards are closely related to Bedouins and Armenians. Not to Azerbaijanis.
Just because their ancestors mixed with an Iranic population that's not even related to you does not mean they're (F). By that logic entire C. Asia is (F)

Today because they're ruining Europe and we're not doing anything except for licking their asses publicly and apologizing like queers

>a company
>company owned half of a country and had it's own private army.

>no argument just more bullshit
Just put on a trip so we can filter you, dude.

It was the Muslim Roman era that followed the Muslim Classical Greek period of the late Umayyads/early Abbasids

Muhammad, Abu-Bakr and Umar were the golden age, because that was before filthy arbitrators like Ali or Muawiyah came in.

>Umar
>*slaughters Umar, eviscerating him and most of his personal guard*
>*teleports back to Persia*
>*gets worshiped by Shia for the next 1400 years*
Psshft, nothing personal Umar.

>implying this isn't what he would have looked like

Doubt Piruz sama would've looked like an Arabian Semite with that sort of Levantine admixture considering he was likely from the same place as modern day Gilan.

>gets worshiped by muslims for the next 1400 years*
after arab invasion, it stopped being persia, compare pre islam persian empire with "persian "islam empire

its very 2 different things

>And Turks are Greek who speak Turkish. Stop being so butthurt.

Persians have a huge inferiority complex imho, concerning the ethnicities of their rulers. turkish khagan larpers are in a whole another delusion but there is a reason why every persian diaspora here repeats how x-y-z is actually iranian meme and no one ever bothers to mention how turks are just assimilated greeks.

Because of their history, they try to emphasize on the fact that most of the rulers and the people witihn were "genetically" iranians, even if they spoke another language or had another culture.

If Greeks recieved the same trauma iranians did they would also chant how turks are greeks themselves.

just my opinion in observing threads, you can find patterns in posters based on nationality, romanians for example emphasize on the fact that they were never a pashlug or something like that, they built their ottoman vassalage identity on that (while I don't want to discredit any remove kebab attempt of Romanians in reality sultans were happy to keep them as vassals but increase taxes. How deterrent were romanian victories is a touchy subject, but one shoudl remember that Phanariots really bled the country dry and they gained their independence hundreds of years after mihail vlad and stefan.

He would have likely looked like pic related then. Like Levantine Arabs.

you're right, but I'm the Persian in this thread posting comments about how the Safavids were Azeri turks. The Persian inferiority complex is funny, but even funnier is the Dominican namefag who jumps in every Iran-related thread to rile up the Persians.

Gilanis look like Georgians and other South Caucasus people. That's because they're genetically related to Georgians and other South Caucasus people.

>but even funnier is the Dominican namefag who jumps in every Iran-related thread to rile up the Persians.
I can't tell if he's a troll or not. I've never seen him make a historically correct comment about literally anything.

Like this?

Chechens are from North Caucasus.

>I can't tell if he's a troll or not. I've never seen him make a historically correct comment about literally anything.
He is a troll. He is very good at making Iranians mad online.

Here are some South Caucasus Georgians. Note the way they dress, this type of clothing is very common in Caucasus region, and the traditional Gilan/Mazandaran clothing looks very similar.

Who is even a Turk in your eyes?

To make it easy:
Turks are Turks

Here are some South Caucasus Armenians. There are Persians who look like this all over Iran because of historical interaction between the two regions, and large scale population transfers conducted by Abbas the Great,

Wrong.
Stop posting. You have no idea what you are talking about and need to nekc yourself.

>Who is even a Turk in your eyes?
Not the Safavids or Iranian Azeris.

>tiny

as a romanian, this is correct; it's something to blame on our education system where the emphasis is placed on the anti-ottoman resistance and not on the other period when we were vassals. Of course sultans were happy to keep us tributary and allow some autonomy, the alternative would be costlier for them - constant rebellions in a border shithole by very poor bastards that could easily burn everything and flee to the mountains to resist. Why bother with that? Better leave it to the local nobles to be "free" but pay big sums of money for their pseudo-freedom

No. The true Muslim golden age is soon approaching, though.

...

They wouldn't look that different from Stalin with a good mustache desu

They look like spaniards/italians in winter