Why did the Ottomans failed to conquer Iran?

Suleiman was more concerned with more relevant thing in the west with the siege of vienna and the Franco-ottoman alliance and probably didnt care to much for mountainous shithole like western iran, which is why after he conquered iraq and armenia they stopped with the zagros mountain, also in this war tahmasp were so afraid of the ottoman army that he was running away everytime an ottoman army came and were so desperate thet he used scorched earth tactic so there really was no decisive batyle other than siege of van which the ottoman won so really i have no idea where the humiliation in the op came from

Then why was the battle of Chaldiran in 1514 one of the deadliest battles in Ottoman history?

Tahmasp was literally running around like a bitch and escaping everytime the ottoman came and there werent even any decisive battle other than the siege of van which the Persian got btfo. Also suleimans whole goal was to secure iraq and armenia and make the zagros mountain his border and he did exact ly that, why would he concern himself with some irrelevant shithole when hes got bigger fish in the west?

You are literally retarded! Sulieman tried to invade Iran and completely failed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran

>why would he concern himself with some irrelevant shithole when hes got bigger fish in the west?
because they are worst k*ffar than European k*ffar

Dude, that was his dad.

A battle which the ottoman won again? The Ottomans annexed Eastern Anatolia and parts of Mesopotamia while ismail got devastated so much he literally bwcome a drunken retard. Also we were talking about Suleiman invasion of iran, not selim you dumb shit suleiman werent even the ottoman sultan during chaldiran

That was another guy and the ottoman won that battle...

He became a drunk retarded because his concubines were captured. Also, the Ottomans had more soldiers and had the most advanced cannons. The Safavids did not even have a single cannon. It was one of the most heaviest casualties in ottoman empire.
Sulieman also failed to conquer Tabriz. That was his goal, and he failed.

I dont think you understand how war works lad

With heavy losses. They were the world's superpower at that time, and they barely managed to defeat a bunch of plebs.

...

That is wrong! 150 thousand soldiers went into battle and only max 7 thousand people died. Mate it is well known this battle was bloody.

they feared the iranic bulls

>terrain
Really imposing mountain ranges (Zagros & the Caucusus) which guards against invasion from the west and north, and a huge-ass desert in the south, guarding against a full-scale invasion from the Persian Gulf. It would have been extremely costly and extremely stupid for the Ottomans to cross any of those boundaries.
>technology
Many people seem to forget this, but rarely was Persia more than a century behind their western neighbors. They by no means had "pre-medieval weapons" as you suggest here . The Safavids were a Gunpowder Empire just like the Ottomans and Mughals. They had gunpowder weapons, especially in the later Otto-Persian wars. The fights weren't easy for the Ottomans. What it came down to was...
>manpower and strategy
This is where the Persians lacked the ability to compete with the Ottomans, particularly in the first three Otto-Persian wars. The Persians were often outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 by some of the most brilliant generals at the time.

Between Seljuq conquest and Reza Shah there were no Persian rulers who were actually Persians. The closest you get is the Zands, who were Laks. The majority were Turks though, by culture if not by blood.

Too preoccupied with the Western border, so they struck up a balance of power w the Safavids, so to speak

>majority were Turks though, by culture
>but culture

All of them were Persiaboos.

Mountains. Crossing the Zagros and Azerbaijan is a logistical pain in the ass

The Safavids under Nader Shah had probably the strongest army in the entire world at the time. No shame in losing to them.

Because they were invading mountainous desert 1500 miles away from their administrative and military core. Even today, it would be damn difficult, let alone at the time. What's more, the Persians didn't even offer battle, but let the environment do their work for them

The Pahlavi’s were poo in loo Pajeets larping as Persians.
Their real family name is Khan. Reza Shah changed it to Pahlavi out of shame so he can larp more

Aryans are better fighters than t*tkoids.

Idiot, the Pahlavis were of Caucasian and northern Persian stock

>Khan
>Caucasian and northern Persian stock
Top jej
All you need to do is look at a picture of them to see how delusional you are lmao

Safavids weren't massively below the Ottomans in any capacity other than lacking the sheer amount of rifleman and guns/cannons the Ottomans had.

Khan was just a trait given to politically important figures. They had no last name. Nobody knows where their family comes from.

African homo posting Turk detected. Pahlavis are about as poo in the loo as modern Turks are Mongoloids.

Reza Khan was Gilaki, Persian, and Mazanderani. His background is fairly well known as being completely Iranian in stock at any rate. Anyone using "Khan" in Persian/Iranian names is dumb, there are Pakistanis and Indians with Persian, Turkish, and Arabic names, as well for example but that doesn't make them the same ethnicity of those actual peoples.

Reza Khan was not his last name. It was a trait given to him when he rose in the Cossack brigade. Khan was a title given to important figures. Like Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. His family name was Qajar, and he was Azeri. Reza Shah was Gilaki, but he did not have a last name because he was a peasant. He chooses the pahlavi last name.

They feared the fersian warrior

>Khan was just a trait given to politically important figures
In Desi countries
>They had no last name
Yes they did. It was Khan then they changed it to Pahlavi so they can we wuz some more
>African homo posting Turk detected
No, but wow insecure much?
>Pahlavis are about as poo in the loo as modern Turks are Mongoloids.
Modern Turks are Gayreeks larping as Turks

Are you mentally retarded? Khan has been adopted as a family name in Pakistan and India. It was extremely disrespectful to have the name khan . I am just going to name some Iranian and Afghan shahs before the were shah. Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, Mozzafaradin Khan, Baba Khan. Every Iranian and Afghan Shah was called Khans before they become shah. Regardless of their household. Its because it was title given to great men. You curry muchers are made fun off for turning it into a name.

why were the ottomans so aggressive against muslim persia? they already had their hands full with christian europe so why did they thought it was a good idea to piss off a potential ally? they even got the persians to ally themselves with their eternal enemies the russians just to fight the ottomans.

The Ottomans were also aggressive against the Mamluk Muslims. They wanted to conquer all of the Muslim world first.

Shitposting and wewuzzing aside, I’m glad we got a Safavids thread. I like the Safavids and they never get any attention here.

I kind of find it sad that the Safavid Empire only fell apart because the Safavid Shahs would not designate a clear successor. They would, out of paranoia, blind their own sons. If they had the more political stability they would have remained in power, at the very least, until the Ottoman empire fell apart. And Shia Islam would have been bigger. The Shia-Sunnie rivalry would, naturally, be bigger.

Those were titles.
For Reza Khan it was actually his name you retard.
Hence why he was a poo in loo who change his family name to Pahlavi which came from the pre Islamic Persian language so he can larp even harder

It was still a title to him. His father was a khan, and that is why he also got the title as well.

>in desi countries
You're fucking retarded. It has no relevancy to the sovereigns of India, excluding the t.urkic Mughals. It's a t*rkshit TITLE (see: not a name you fucking retard) their neighbors adopted/translated into their language. It's hardly used as a title in Indian history, and has only been adopted recently by the Pakis so they can LARP as Persians and pretend that they totally arent the spawn of weak traitor converts.

Reza Khan's ethnic stock is well known regardless. Some titles are adopted, there are Turkish sultans who called themselves Shahs but that doesn't make them ethnic Persians either.

His mother was literally Georgian Muslim. The father was from Mazandaran. And they didn't have last names, because it was Reza Khan who introduced last names to Iran (that's one thing he was good at because by the beginning of XXth century it's near impossible to tell historical characters apart).

He introduced last names, not family names.
The last names are based on where you’re from (like Shirazi), not your family name.
Everything you said is factually wrong. Congrats you butthurt we wuz zing diaspora retard
You mean like the Turks that ruled Iran from the Safavids to the Qajars?

The only people who had family names in iran were the members of powerful families. The average peasant did not have a family name.

>Aryan
Safavids were TÜRK. wh*Te boy.

we have no genetic relationship with Gayreeks. Retarded wh*Te subhuman. Haven't I told your subhuman kind not to relate us to your E*ropean wh*Te kind before? retarded lürp lerp poster.
Pahlavis were Persian. wh*Te retarded subhuman.
Nader Shah was Turkmen. Not Iranic. Retard.

Not sure whether actual Persians wewuzzing or wh*Tes/amerimutts being retarded again

Could you guys state your ethnicities?

Because like it or not Iran had always been a world power (by the era's standard) until recently.

Safavids were never Turks.

preach the truth, my BLACK brother