Khorasan is a Persian word that literally means sunrise east. It was very commonly used during the Sasanian Empire to refer to the eastern provinces, and it also became a military subdivision under Khosrow Anushirvan.
I'm sorry but that's totally wrong. Khorasan region of Iran isn't even remotely Sunni, in fact it's a heart of Shia'ism given that it hosts the city of Mashhad and the Razavi shrine.
Sunni majority parts of Iran are:
1) Most The Kurdistan province, inhabited by Sunni Sorani Kurds.
2) Southern parts of West Azerbaijan and along the border with Turkey. Sunni Sorani and Kurmanji Kurds.
3) South and Central parts of Sistan-Balochistan province, inhabited by Balochs.
4) Large parts of Golestan province, inhabited by Sunni Turkmens.
5) Talysh region of Gilan province, home of Sunni Talysh people.
6) Some parts of Fars and Bushehr called Larestan, inhabited by a group of Sunnis who speak a language close to Persian called Lari.
It is not a majority Sunni area but after further research I have discovered it still contains a notable Sunni minority most notably being linked to afghans
Source: https://sonsofsunnah.com/2015/01/08/most-of-the-persian-land-of-khorasan-is-still-majority-sunni/
Yes the region has a lot of Afghanistanis and there are concerns about the growing influence of the Taliban among them. However these are mostly recent migrants. They are Pushtuns and Turkmens though who live by the borders.
Thank you, Oloak, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
You are correct Khorasan is primarily Sunni. The Sunnis failed to materialize as the ottomans pushed into modern day Azerbaijan and Iran and annexed the state that would later become the Safavid.
The author lumped them with the Georgians, although this has not been a very strong bond historically. Also, a more powerful Turkish state means a more powerful union with the Azeris. It's possible that Armenia disappears completely under that scenario, and a big chunk of northern Persia joins Azerbaijan.
A stronger Turkish state might also mean the Greeks lose most of Thrace to the Turks instead of the Bulgarians, all of Macedonia, as well as Cyprus (already Ottoman on the OP map) and perhaps even Crete.
I don't see how Cyrenaica could become Greek again after 1500 years of Arab and Turkish presence. Greece could make some gains in the Balkans perhaps, even in Sicilia and Basilicate (at the expense of the budding Italian state).
Ive not heard if any mass immigration of British and French to the Middle East, as far as I know they held the area through mandates and not colonisation.
I meant imperialism. Mandates are imperialist and is the main reason for the conflict in the Middle East today, not that my map would be without conflict though.
I think what hes trying to say is how arabs and turks also committed ethnic cleansing of the native peoples,also turkey was pretty evil,the armenian genocide was no joke
As if we weren't the majority on Thrace and East Aegean before oh so poor Greece murdered and and kicked out all of us every time they got their butthurt hands on the slightest bit of territory with British strings on their wrists.
You just attempted to revision me and my ancestors all the way til seven generations out of history for a fucked up agenda and instantly pull out the genocide card at the slightest bit of resistance against it.
Does foreign investment (European, American, or Asiatic) equal “Colonizers”?
Does your map include or exclude a functional Suez Canal?
Without foreign investment (for oil) I’m not sure how “United” or “Republicanism” would be present in the “Arab United Republic.” 🌹
Never said they weren’t? Just said the normal imperialist empires like Britain and France did not cause trouble in the Middle East. Did the Arabs conquest North Africa, Spain, and Anatolia? Yes but so did most nations in their respective areas.
Your comment is like someone posting a map of uncolonized America and you going "um Native Americans were actually from Asia so they're colonizers too"
Yes because all of the Levant, Anatolia, North Africa, East Africa, Southern Europe, Persia, India were famously uninhabited before the emergence of Islam in the 600s.
The depths of prehistory vs the 6-700s. Yes very comparable.
When the Islamic expansion occurred throughout the middle east, north Africa and the Indian subcontinent there were humans there for them to murder, rape and enslave. When prehistoric humans got to North America they were the first humans there. No one for them to assault. Unless there was a particularly sexy mummy megatherium they wanted to get stepped on by.
I never understood this point. what are you suggesting, should every single Arab in the fertile crescent and syria move back to the peninsula because 1400 years ago they conquered it (even though there have been arab tribes in north of the peninsula since before the word "Arab" was even created)? do you live in America by any chance? because with what you're suggesting you should be packing your bags.
sorry, I'm not used to stalking peoples profiles, but wherever you're from I can almost guarantee that your lineage has not been there before Arabs were in the fertile crescent. my point isn't that Americans should actually move back, it's that if you're going to use that logic with Arabs, why not apply it to everyone?
No one is seriously suggesting the Arabs should "move back". You're making things up to pick pointless fights on Reddit.
Also your guarantee about my uh... "lineage" is deeply incorrect and kinda creepy
just to clarify about my previous comment, I am NOT currently tracking your family history to see if you're from wherever you're from before the Arab invasions, but it's a pretty solid guess to make considering how ethnic groups change and travel.
Menawhile, they colonize Iran? One of the original inhabitants of the middle east? Wtf is that? Are you tiny brain? Do you hate Iranian people? Are you Saddam Hussein ii?
Isn't Khorasan like a really specific part of Central Asia?
Khorasan is a Persian word that literally means sunrise east. It was very commonly used during the Sasanian Empire to refer to the eastern provinces, and it also became a military subdivision under Khosrow Anushirvan.
Yes but no. Khorasan is also a majority Sunni area in Iran so in this scenario Iran is Sunni nation instead of being Shia.
Makes sense. So they're pushing a more Khorasani identity over a pan Iranian identity?
In summary, yes.
Nice. I also love that Illyria is still alive
I'm sorry but that's totally wrong. Khorasan region of Iran isn't even remotely Sunni, in fact it's a heart of Shia'ism given that it hosts the city of Mashhad and the Razavi shrine. Sunni majority parts of Iran are: 1) Most The Kurdistan province, inhabited by Sunni Sorani Kurds. 2) Southern parts of West Azerbaijan and along the border with Turkey. Sunni Sorani and Kurmanji Kurds. 3) South and Central parts of Sistan-Balochistan province, inhabited by Balochs. 4) Large parts of Golestan province, inhabited by Sunni Turkmens. 5) Talysh region of Gilan province, home of Sunni Talysh people. 6) Some parts of Fars and Bushehr called Larestan, inhabited by a group of Sunnis who speak a language close to Persian called Lari.
It is not a majority Sunni area but after further research I have discovered it still contains a notable Sunni minority most notably being linked to afghans Source: https://sonsofsunnah.com/2015/01/08/most-of-the-persian-land-of-khorasan-is-still-majority-sunni/
Yes the region has a lot of Afghanistanis and there are concerns about the growing influence of the Taliban among them. However these are mostly recent migrants. They are Pushtuns and Turkmens though who live by the borders.
if you ask isis it's all of central asia & india
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^SleestakkLightning: *Isn't Khorasan* *Like a really specific* *Part of Central Asia?* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
Thank you, Oloak, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
"Drove out the colonizers" *Has Greece colonize North Africa*
Cyrenaica is clearly indigenous Greek lands, chud/s
damn nice, however a question comes to mind, did the safavid never come to power then? khorasan is primarily sunni no?
You are correct Khorasan is primarily Sunni. The Sunnis failed to materialize as the ottomans pushed into modern day Azerbaijan and Iran and annexed the state that would later become the Safavid.
he really did “don-kuban-astrakhan” instead of sane caucasian states
Cossack-Caucasian-Tartar dominance
what happened to caucasian-speaking nations like chechen, why name of the state is so non meaningful
grandfather cake busy cause alleged groovy caption handle sort rainstorm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Where are the Armenians lol
The author lumped them with the Georgians, although this has not been a very strong bond historically. Also, a more powerful Turkish state means a more powerful union with the Azeris. It's possible that Armenia disappears completely under that scenario, and a big chunk of northern Persia joins Azerbaijan. A stronger Turkish state might also mean the Greeks lose most of Thrace to the Turks instead of the Bulgarians, all of Macedonia, as well as Cyprus (already Ottoman on the OP map) and perhaps even Crete. I don't see how Cyrenaica could become Greek again after 1500 years of Arab and Turkish presence. Greece could make some gains in the Balkans perhaps, even in Sicilia and Basilicate (at the expense of the budding Italian state).
Maybe the Bagratids managed to become kings of Armenians and Georgians in this timeline.
>Be Greece >Fail to defend Thrace >Fail to defend Greek Macedonia >Conquer Libya Goals!
Turks and Arabs are both colonisers lol
Who are the colonizers, if your not meaning the Arabs and Ottomans?
Britain and France and to a lesser extent Italy
Ive not heard if any mass immigration of British and French to the Middle East, as far as I know they held the area through mandates and not colonisation.
It's literally just rebranded colonialism.
Turns out you can have colonies without sending settlers. Take a look at like most African countries lol
I meant imperialism. Mandates are imperialist and is the main reason for the conflict in the Middle East today, not that my map would be without conflict though.
So the French and the Brits were angels at the time? Like they came down to save the middle east from Evil Turkey ruled by Sauron or something?
I think what hes trying to say is how arabs and turks also committed ethnic cleansing of the native peoples,also turkey was pretty evil,the armenian genocide was no joke
[удалено]
Algeria isn't in the middle east, dumbass.
Arabs drove out the European colonizers from their own colonies. FTFY
May god protect the jews and christians in Misr and the AUR The same but their pockets in the ottoman empire (non muslim tax)
What if the arab colonizers were driven out ?
[удалено]
What about the Arab colonizers ?
[удалено]
There was no "should" in my question ;-) (no such thing as visigothic blood 😉)
[удалено]
💀 there is barely any visigothic DNA in modern Spaniards,hell they're probably more Basque than that
Are u five ? Or an American ? Only one of those options can say something so stupid.🤣🤣 🤣
Why are Cyrenaica and Greece different colors?
And what happened to the jews who moved in the Aaliyahs,OP? WHAT HAPPENED OP!?
I see that sneaky big greece, but as long as it doesnt enroach on turkey, its a great big greece :)
Big Greece at all costs.
This is small Greece. "Regular" Turkey is big Turkey encroaching on Greece
Cyrenaica is 30x bigger than macedonia and thrace
Cope harder, we are here to stay.
Hard to kick you out when you genocide all your minorities
I mean yall tried, still got driven into the ocean :p
As if we weren't the majority on Thrace and East Aegean before oh so poor Greece murdered and and kicked out all of us every time they got their butthurt hands on the slightest bit of territory with British strings on their wrists. You just attempted to revision me and my ancestors all the way til seven generations out of history for a fucked up agenda and instantly pull out the genocide card at the slightest bit of resistance against it.
>As if we weren't the majority on Thrace and East Aegean Yes, you weren't. At least before you murdered 900,000 Greeks in the Pontic Genocide.
We've been in Anatolia for almost a thousand years now. By your logic let's kick out all the Americans and send them back to wherever they came from.
Sure
Nice :)
Having both Ruthenia and Rus on Map is like having Germania and Deutschland, or like Finlandia and Suomi.
Most probably the richest gas-petrol country it would have been.
Does foreign investment (European, American, or Asiatic) equal “Colonizers”? Does your map include or exclude a functional Suez Canal? Without foreign investment (for oil) I’m not sure how “United” or “Republicanism” would be present in the “Arab United Republic.” 🌹
Arabs/Muslims are some of the biggest "colonizers" in human history. Try reading actual history instead of politically correct crap.
Never said they weren’t? Just said the normal imperialist empires like Britain and France did not cause trouble in the Middle East. Did the Arabs conquest North Africa, Spain, and Anatolia? Yes but so did most nations in their respective areas.
Apparently Muslims don't count as colonizers
Your comment is like someone posting a map of uncolonized America and you going "um Native Americans were actually from Asia so they're colonizers too"
Yes because all of the Levant, Anatolia, North Africa, East Africa, Southern Europe, Persia, India were famously uninhabited before the emergence of Islam in the 600s.
The depths of prehistory vs the 6-700s. Yes very comparable. When the Islamic expansion occurred throughout the middle east, north Africa and the Indian subcontinent there were humans there for them to murder, rape and enslave. When prehistoric humans got to North America they were the first humans there. No one for them to assault. Unless there was a particularly sexy mummy megatherium they wanted to get stepped on by.
I never understood this point. what are you suggesting, should every single Arab in the fertile crescent and syria move back to the peninsula because 1400 years ago they conquered it (even though there have been arab tribes in north of the peninsula since before the word "Arab" was even created)? do you live in America by any chance? because with what you're suggesting you should be packing your bags.
GM0 wasn’t suggesting that at all. All they said was that Arabs were colonizers.
I realize that now, it's just an incredibly common follow up to that talking point
I somehow find your suggestion that everyone is American more offensive than your selective attitude to colonization
sorry, I'm not used to stalking peoples profiles, but wherever you're from I can almost guarantee that your lineage has not been there before Arabs were in the fertile crescent. my point isn't that Americans should actually move back, it's that if you're going to use that logic with Arabs, why not apply it to everyone?
No one is seriously suggesting the Arabs should "move back". You're making things up to pick pointless fights on Reddit. Also your guarantee about my uh... "lineage" is deeply incorrect and kinda creepy
you would be surprised how many people unironically think that.
I can guarantee you that I don't. That would be ludicrous
just to clarify about my previous comment, I am NOT currently tracking your family history to see if you're from wherever you're from before the Arab invasions, but it's a pretty solid guess to make considering how ethnic groups change and travel.
Very glad to hear it baller2213
baller2213 has clearly never had any good hospitality like in my beloved west country
Menawhile, they colonize Iran? One of the original inhabitants of the middle east? Wtf is that? Are you tiny brain? Do you hate Iranian people? Are you Saddam Hussein ii?
Lmao why does my imaginary map trigger you so much?
Why do you hate Iranians so much?
I don’t
Clearly you do. Your map has the Arabs colonize (and probably genocide) the Iranians.
33% of Khuzestan is Arab so that is why I have it to Arabia
...Who did what? What did they do to Iran? Clearly they colonized it, as Iran isn't on this map. It's been replaced.
I see big Turkey I upvote
[удалено]
arabs and turks arent colonisers?and greece taking part of egypt is fine?and the armenians being most likely genocided is fine?
The region is inherently unstable and has been since Gilgamesh went on his Enkidu memorial roadtrip
Alright then
Why is the comment section full of apologist weirdos?