Yes, rulers of Iran - Safavids, Afsharids, Qajars, constantly fought with Dagestanis. But modern Dagestanis do *not* associate those dynasties with Iran. They associate them with Azerbaijan
"Qajars"/"horse shit" are common Lezgin slurs against Azeri rather than Persian people
"Qajars"/"horse shit" are common Lezgin slurs against Azeri rather than Persian people
"Horse shit" is a disparaging term against the equestrian culture that ruled Iran and would just come burn and pillage the Caucasus. And in North Caucasian minds it is the Azeri who are the continuation of that culture. Azeri are "Qajars"
Nowadays we are used to perceive Iran as a Persian state. But for the period of 1000 to almost 1900 there is very little truth in it. It was usually nomads-ruled, most typically Turkic-nomads-ruled. Nader Shah could literally call a Qurultai to work out an important decision
Consider that two archrivals: the "Turkish" sultan Selim and the "Persian" Shah Ismail were both prolific poets. But Selim write in Persian and Ismail - in Azeri. Makes sense. Selim ruled over a bureaucratic empire where the men of pen (and thus Persian culture) had high status
Meanwhile Ismail ruled over a much more democratic federation of tribes who just happened to conquer a massive sedentary society. The balance of power and status here was more in favour of men of sword. Distancing himself from his kin like Selim would be suicidal for Ismail
Both the Ottomans and Safavids originated as a Turkic conquest state founded by a nomadic assabiyah as described by Ibn Haldun. But the Ottomans went through a proper monarchic usurpation (ruler usurps all the glory of victory for himself) while the Safavids probably never did
It would be wrong to perceive either empire as a nation state in a modern sense. The Iran wasn't a Persian state and the Ottoman Empire wasn't a Turkish one. The end
Loading suggestions...