Der Safawidenstaat wird oft als Ausgangspunkt der modernen iranischen Nation dargestellt, wobei Schah Ismail I. als eine Art Gründerfigur dargestellt wird. Einige Erzählungen stellen die Safawiden als Wiederbelebung einer persischen politischen Identität nach Jahrhunderten arabischer oder türkischer Herrschaft dar, während andere die Übernahme des Zwölf-Schiismus als einen entscheidenden Bruch betonen, der den Iran vom Rest der islamischen Welt abhebt. Beide Lesarten projizieren jedoch moderne Vorstellungen von Nationalität und ethnischer Identität auf die Frühe Neuzeit zurück und sind daher grundsätzlich anachronistisch.
Noch wichtiger ist, dass diese Interpretationen weitgehend den Zeitraum beschönigen, der tatsächlich entscheidend für die Entstehung des modernen Iran war: das 19. und frühe 20. Jahrhundert, als der britische und russische imperiale Einfluss die politische und territoriale Realität Irans prägte. Das Überleben und die Grenzen des Kadscharen-Iran (sowie Afghanistans) wurden weniger durch das Erbe der Safawiden als vielmehr durch ihre Funktion als Pufferstaaten innerhalb der anglo-russischen Rivalität bewahrt. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es weniger eine historische Erklärung als vielmehr eine retrospektive nationalistische Projektion, den Aufstieg Schah Ismails als „Geburt“ der modernen iranischen Nation zu betrachten.
Quelle: Ali Anooshahr, The Body Politic and the Rise of the Safavids
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1qt63lh
Von Objective-Chip3445
6 Kommentare
Is there any way find this kind of maps digital verison?
when will the persians realize that ‘iranian nationalism’ was born under the pahlavis in the 20th century?
this post is intentionally misleading. You have cited the introductory paragraph of a longer historical entry within a journal literally titled “the idea of iran”.
Yes, it is anachronistic to say that safavids invented the iranian ‘nation state’ or ‘national identity’ as it is used in modern contexts. nationalism as know didn’t exist yet.
But, undoubtedly, they did revive a state and cultural identity that was a precursor to nationalism centuries later. their usage of iranian motifs in their ruling presentation, their attempts to relate themselves back to iranian shahs pre islam, their self presentation as heroes from shahnameh, their labelling of their official title as shah of iran and their state as iran (which hadn’t been done since the sassanids), their attempts to integrate iranian turkic and persian populations, and of course their origin in modern day iran.
thus, they can accurately be termed an iranian azari dynasty (regardless of genetic lineage) who increasingly became persianized, and thus had a hand in the formation of the Iranian national identity
I mean, the present Iranian state can be traced back to Safavids. The Iranian state existed continuously in its present form since 1501, so yes, Safavids did revive Iran as a state and not just a geographical idea.
Obviously, while the Iranian identity existed back then, it was different from the modern Iranian nation-state. It was more similar to how the American identity has several sub-identities: white, black, Latino, etc. Even though Iranian Turks and Persians had a bitter rivalry in the Safavid era, they were still both Iranian, just like how black and white Americans are still American despite the racial tensions.
The Safavid state is a shared legacy of Azerbaijan and Iran. Trying to unilaterally claim Safavid history for the sake of nationalistic jingoism is stupid and unproductive.
this is exactly my point safavids were turkic indeed but they were iranian turks
I think very few Iranians and almost no one in our neighborhood understands that Iran was an imperial identity, similar to Rome in Europe. where practically every country there pretended to be remaking Rome at some point in their history