Talk:Battle of Chaldiran

Be fair!

Iranian king didn’t capture by ottoman Turks. He was escaped by his worriers.

It doesnt say that he was captured. It says he was wounded and nearly captured. An Siarach

Yep, he kept his throne for ten more years after the defeat at Chaldiran. So be calm, Deliogul 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The battle of Chaldran is the key to the mystery of colonization, if we understand this battle; we shall know the reasons behind other lies in history. Anush Raavid invites you to think and analyse and not just accept whatever you hear or read unconditionally. It would be simple of us to think that whatever historic event or wars have occurred without preconditions in the evolution of social history. One must accurately analyse each event and consider what is important such as the change of generations and the birth rate, the hidden and the apparent interference of others, the setting of the political and economic stages and the potential of people's understanding of events at the time. We need planning, opportunity and patience together with 21st century knowledge to remove the dirty paws of colonization that has gripped the world for the past 500 years. The story of Chaldran is the beginning of the fabrication of history and geography by the colonizers, with the invent of this story they considered the western part of Iran separated from the rest of the country and for the first time in history they created a frontier in the Greater Iran, and for affirming the existence of such frontier they included it in the textbooks. In the 15th century three social historic civilizations collided with one another, the tribal institution, feudalism and bourgeoisie. Each of these three had and continues to have its own particular religion, culture, population growth and economy over which the natural geography of their environment has an influence. The tribes thought about their past, the feudalism about getting bigger and bourgeoisie about having more money.

The background to the battle of Chaldran

After the crusades, the Europeans became familiar with the East. This war was between the European feudalism and the eastern tribal system and although Europe lost that war, over a century, however, they experienced the knowledge and the trades of the east. This experience served to create the newly appeared bourgeoisie continuing the evolution of social history. With the fall of the most important feudal religious obstacle in Constantinople, this newly appeared bourgeoisie that was a product of the end of the crusades signified the end of the Middle Ages. Prior to this date the Europeans were unconditionally enslaved by feudalism and their knowledge before the crusades was much less than that of the people in the East, in the times of colonisations they always hid this fact. At that time East was ruled by tribal system which was very different from feudalism and that was beyond the comprehension of the European historians and therefore the two used to become confused. The tribal system in Europe had become extinct by the Romans centuries before and in Iran after the Achaemenidae the tribalism took a new shape to what it was after the last Neolithic tribal system. The crusades familiarized the Middle East with feudalism and within two or three centuries divided it into two main parts: the tribal part with its own particular religion and economy and the feudal part again with its own religion and economy that survives to the present day, and I shall come back to this point later on. In the 14th century the Popes, bishops and the Churches were against each other apparently for religion but in reality for money. Since the beginning of 14th century, ships from Venice and Geneva controlled the Mediterranean trades. In the 15th century the economy of Western Europe grew rapidly. In the new world economy and acquisition of taxes of the bourgeoisie, Italy was leading in Europe and the Popes happy to be right at the centre of it. In these circumstances, the Popes and Italy could not tolerate a rival Byzantine that was still in the Middle Ages and had no intention of entering the new century. After the fall of the Eastern Rome, contractors hurried from Europe to Constantinople to convert Churches to Mosques so that the Vatican would become rival less sooner. The newly appeared bourgeoisie of northern Italian towns were able to function as independent governments by the means of their financial strength. They managed their budget in a new way and set a tax target of a million Ducats per capita per year. No agricultural or feudally structured government could reach that target. At the same time the newly appeared bourgeoisie of Holland was the intermediary in the sale of British and others' manufactured products. Therefore the northern Italian towns and Holland were becoming richer by the day, the new monetary and financial economy had come to Europe and the darkness of the Middle Ages were gone. Within a 200 year period, Europe woke up, of course in the form of a bourgeoisie that weighed everything and measured everything as being stable or unstable. Rapid developments necessitated new planning which are important to discuss but are out of the scope of the present article and I shall leave them to a separate writing in the future. In this period we see many travelogues by people from Europe and especially northern Italy to Iran which demonstrates a broad activity of the newly appeared bourgeoisie to find new markets and trade and or espionage. Few of these travelogues were scientific, logical and practical and most were intended for propaganda and marketing which survive to the present day.

Since the beginning of the 16th century many lands and countries in the world became occupied by colonizers, however, none of the countries constituting the Greater Iran which included Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, part of Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan became occupied. In the Greater Iran due to a splendid historic background life continued with much enthusiasm and love for the nation and the people. Knowledge, comprehension and health were at high levels and there was much abundance. With a plan that needs analysis, the Ottomans were created within 50 years and they conquered much of Europe within 50 years without leaving much real impression in these hundred years. In order to glamorize and abuse history, bourgeoisie created stories from small and unimportant tribes such as the Turkmens with black and white sheep which gave much excitement to historical stories, they created many great battles for the Ottomans on paper in order to absolve themselves, in the eyes of the religious world, from the destruction of the churches of Eastern Rome.

In the absence of writings and cities of Russia, they created the Khans with the golden tents, placed much importance to the fighting of small and simple tribes for reasons that I shall come back to in the future. They want to create the impression in the mind of the reader that without historic background and social history wars occur and kings send their armies around. In these stories, their principal objective is oppressing the most historic and liveliest of nations amongst which Iran is at the top. They always write that the Iranians lost wars against foreign invaders and only defeated each other in their internal fighting and in this way the enemies, in the historic stories change a dynasty with another and shape history against the Iranians. In these stories they assume the Iranians to be as stupid as them and use simple analysis, for example they say that Iranians used to consider the use of firing weapons to be against manliness.

The telling of the fabricated battle of Chaldran

They say that Sultan Salem the 1st was very important and powerful, in fact there is no mention of this so called Sultan in any early 16th century book from Anatolia or Iran, Anush Raavid has not been able to find a single reference to his name in historic works and will continue his search and if anyone finds a mention please let him know. In reality this false Sultan could be a simple Sheikh in the hand of the European bourgeoisie in order to implement its plan. The stupid enemies of the history of Iran really were very simple and thought everyone to be so and that no one would be found to divulge the lies. They talk of a one hundred thousand man army that was beyond the 6 or 7 million population of the Ottoman territory; half of this population was Christian belonging to two different churches and the other half Muslims belonging to two different sects and each of these belonging to quite different social and geographic groups which in itself was a huge obstacle in gathering forces and a big war. Gathering such a force requires a booming economy based on productivity and tax collection and has to leave much evidence. Such an economy requires a solid social historic background which was not present in the 14th century Ottoman. In the 21st century and with such available technology if anyone believes such lies without research and analysis must be very gullible and easily lead by the enemy. They write about a thousand kilometre distance between the Ottoman capital and the war zone and the passing of such a huge force, a distance that was unimaginable to be passable up until a hundred years ago, a most arduous and difficult stretch to traverse. This huge force would have required a logistics which with the simplest of estimates would come to a half a million men which in turn needed an organization that would leave much evidence behind such as roads, bridges, accommodations, none of which is evident in history or the region.

At the time of the battle of Chaldran and other wars we see that the armies that fought real wars in Europe and left evidence behind in history, never exceeded 20 to 30,000 men because a higher number was not possible. They wrote the stage of the war in a place that could be a good geographical point for historic separation, in the whole region of Chaldran not a single gun or canon has been found, no single historic evidence has been uncovered.

They used fallacy and misleading language in their story telling of historical events in order to play tricks on simple minds, they have written "in the heart of the Iranian soldiers there was no agitation, they resisted until the moment of death against the well equipped Ottomans". They have written many such things; "the main reason for the victory of the Turks was their fiery weapons which the Iranian army did not possess". Elsewhere they have written that the aims of the Sultan Salem the 1st of invading Iran was to: "halt the spread of Shiite sect believing in the 12 Imams which had been declared the official religion of Iran and the stopping of Ottoman Shiites joining the newly formed Safavid dynasty of Iran, annexation of the north western Kurdish regions and the place of residence of the Turkmens in eastern part of today's Turkey and north eastern Iraq that was of the Ak- Koyunlu, Kara-Koyunlu and the remaining of the Seljuqs to their territory and the spread of Iranism that had raised its head once again by the crowning of Shah Ismail of Safavids". There are a lot of such false quotes in the story of Chaldran. Can you analyse and explain these lies? It is the best test for you in finding the real truth behind these stories.

Study the history of canons and guns and do not accept unconditionally whatever nonsense as history. Do not believe the fiery weapons in the battle of Chaldran to be like the weapons of the Napoleon era in the films "The Battle of Waterloo" and "War and Peace". At the beginning of 16th century the canons and the guns of the ottomans were wicked and matchlock and had a maximum range of 300 meters, they had to ignite the wick, charge the canon and then fire. On firing, a black smoke would fill the surrounding, and many balls would explode in the air or would not reach their intended target. Every 4 or 5 minutes they could prepare a canon to fire. A mounted soldier galloping at least 30 km per hour would run a distance of 500 meters in a minute hence bypassing the canons that were difficult to mobilize and attacking their operators. This fiery weapon was used in the 16th century for attacking fortresses and not for open battles in fields. Matchlocks could fire every 2 minutes so mounted soldiers could attack the enemy in less than a minute and even if the first line of soldiers were killed by the guns the second line could easily reach and attack the gunners. For the aesthetics of the story they talked of the huge numbers of the Ottomans and the bravery of the Iranians, the fiery weapons and the superiority of the Ottomans and the disagreement of the Iranians with such weapons. With such words we are reminded of the negative advertising of Capitalism that said "don't buy Dena tires"!

Human Rights for World

When Safavid came to power and established The Safavid Empire, one must remember that they were not Iranians and at that time no Human Rights existed for Politics and Politicians. Whatever they and other leaders decided especially in religious matters for their own respective peoples it caused damages to the their own societies and the future. Today we are expriencing changes from traditional och tribal culture caused by these incompotent leaders to modern, democratic and civil values no matter how strong, beautiful or weak they were. Human Rights is the only solution for changes in Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America and once the politics and societies are based on Human Rights, we'll exprience the Freedom.

Good Luck Every Body :=D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iranian Issue (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).