Parthians did not fall to Arabs. Either you misunderstood your friend or s/he is indeed "not qualified".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire

It was the 3rd Iranian empire (I do not consider Elam to be Iranian) that fell to the Arabs, the Sassanian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire

To an extent, as an Iranian, it is partially true that post Sassanian, no other Iranian dynasty had command over the entirety of historic Iranian lands and boundaries. The last Iranian dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty of the 20th century came closest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_...

> There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.

I'm quite confident that mindset is a thing of the past. (Look at China.) Currently of course we are burdened with a regime that is polluting Iranian culture. But this too shall pass, God willing.

[p.s. regarding other mis-statements]:

> Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids

That's a pretty substantial piece of real estate, agreed?

> western rulers.

Possibly you are referring to the Pahlavi Shahs (?), in which case it important to point out that if the Shah of Iran was in fact a puppet of the West they would not have been so pleased to see him go. You may want to take a trip to Iran and ask the natives what are their feelings towards the Pahlavi dynasty these days ...

Thanks for the insight. Does the current regime like to draw on these historical periods to foment partriotism / nationalism?

I am planning to visit Iran someday (Shiraz, Damavand and Ifshahan)

No. The clerical class in Iran was introduced by the Safavid dynasty. This same dynasty -- Shiite Turks -- also forced the conversion of Iran into a Shia country. It was much more tolerant before that. So their point of reference starts with the Safavids.

When they first came to power, one of the more unhinged specimens of the Mullahs, the hanging judge Khalkhali, wanted to demolish Persepolis. Iran's heritage and history threatens them.

It is also quite upsetting to the regime that every year Iranians gather at the tomb of Hafiz (Shiraz) and Persepolis (very near Shiraz).

But if you pay attention, you will note that the "Supreme Leader" likes to sit on a chair with clothing that very much resembles the iconic relief of Dariush the Great. :-)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Darius_I...

Their supporters in the west likewise push the extremist terrorist cult of MEK as the alternative. I sometimes wonder if this is implicitly a threat to Iranians of who will come to power should they throw out the Mullahs (who clearly had and still have foreign support). What is oddly consistent across the histrionic divide is a shared interest in propaganda against the Pahlavi dynasty. No less than NYTimes is on this game.

Go figure ..

How would you categorize the succession of dynasties in Persia? The world history courses I took all heavily ignored the existence of lands between the Jade Gate and the Turkish Straits, so I have only the vaguest of ideas of what the history of Persia looks like.

Rough outline from ancient through end of Middle Ages

* Achaemenid - Cyrus the Great, Xerxes, etc

* Alexander - Conquered Persian Empire

* Seleucid - Alexander's General

* Parthian - Nomadic invaders who ruled Persia from horseback

* Sassanian - Native Persians who expelled the Parthians and saw themselves as the heirs of the Achaemenids

* Arab Caliphate - Part of the Muslim conquest

* Mongol Ilkhanate - Conquered by Hulagu, Grandson of Genghis Khan

* Safavid - Founded by Ismail. It was under this dynasty that Iran/Persia became Shiite as opposed to Sunni

Wikipedia is a good place to start but I would not consider it authoritative. Lot of dogs in the fight over the history of Iran, specially the past couple of centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_iran

For the academic treatment, I highly recommend Encyclopædia Iranica:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/pages/about

A request for you: please call it as we have called it for millennia: Iran.

> A request for you: please call it as we have called it for millennia: Iran.

I've met quite a few (ethnic) Iranians who have told me off for referring to it as Iran instead of Persia, but that may well be more tied up with recent history than ancient history.

You are correct. The impolite answer is that they count on their new compatriots' lack of knowledge to dodge the I-rain-ian [sic] label.

Historically, only enemies of Iran refer to it as Persia. The British, for example, remain quite keen to call us that.

I second this and would like to add that Persians are one of dozen of ethnicities that make up Iran including Turks/Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchs, Turkmens, Lors/Lurs, etc. [1] Referring to it as Persia/Persians is akin to ignoring vast majority of the people living there imho.

"Iran" has been the term people used inside to refer to the land/people for a very long time, but Shah officially requested the change from foreign governments in 1935.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran

Stoking ethnic tensions with an eye towards partition, God forbid, is precisely their aim.

You could return the favor and call them English.

We have higher standards. :)

If one wanted to encourage tourism, call it Persia. Many places have a different foreign name than internal name. It isn't (usually) disrespectful.

Persia is a very pleasing sounding name. I am a Persian and quite like it. However, as noted elsewhere, tribal preferences and aesthetics are trumped by a greater love for the totality of the Iranian People, who are not all Persians.

I can recommend the writings of K. E. Eduljee who has been digging into this topic for an extended period of time.

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/

Scroll down to the Site Contents, the third column is dedicated to (mostly) Persian history.

Regarding the post Sassanid dynasty, the Safavids came close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty

I think that is different Persian empire, but they are right the Byzantines (Romans) and Persians where involved fighting each other which weakened them.

And the Bizarre doctrinal spats that Byzantium went in for didn't help - we wont mention the IV crusade.

The Arab invasion of Persia is overblown. What seems to have happened is some Buffer states between Byzantine and Persia revolted and took some land in Iran.

Most of Islam's early history is forged. For example take the location of their holy city of Mecca. Muhammed never stepped into Mecca and he was from Petra. Dan Gibson has done an excellent documentary on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOnGvzVceVo)

As for the name Muhammed goes, it means "chosen one". It was name used to refer to Jesus initially. Half the christians claimed he was the son of god while the other half believed he was just a normal human who was chosen by god. They started calling him Muhammed instead implying he was not the son of god.

> As for the name Muhammed goes, it means "chosen one".

Actually the name of the Prophet has the Arabic roots h.m.d. denoting 'praise', and we have the names Ahmad, Muhammad, and Hamid derived from that root.

This isn't esoteric occult knowledge, btw. You could do a cursory search before you post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_%28name%29

> Dan Gibson claims that early mosques face Petra rather than Mecca. But he compares the mosque orientations with MODERN directions of Petra and Mecca. He does not realise that historical qibla directions cannot be the same as modern qibla directions. In fact, the easiest mosque orientations were not calculated at all, but relied on astronomical horizon phenomena, not least because the Kaaba itself is astronomically aligned.

A paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330221815

>Muhammed never stepped into Mecca

Muhammed was from Mecca so I’m not sure about that.

The parent is referring to a thesis that Muhammad was not from Mecca, and the entire insertion of Mecca is a politically-motivated alteration to early Islam. This theory hasn't gained a lot of credence among modern historians, however.

(See https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98auh0/does_... for example).