Persian Face Shah Pahlavi
The Iraqi face.
Posted on 03/14/2007 1:04:50 PM PDT by freedom44
Ping. To other history buffs if you can as well.
Thanks! bookmarking
There was a reason no one wanted Arabia--it was worthless and not worth the trouble. It's been theorized Alexander wanted to conquer it before he died, but I can't imagine why.
It made sense for the Arabs to expand outward, to get ahold of some valuable land and great cities. It wouldn't make sense for anyone to go into Arabia proper, at least until the discovery of its natural resources.
For all practical purposes they lived in a truck stop a little off the main routes of Persian conquest.
After the Dark Ages got rolling, and enough people had died of plagues and famine, this group became relatively powerful ~ on the other hand, it wasn't until they began hiring unemployed Byzantine legions that they got a real hang of conquering stuff.
They then threw the Persians out of everywhere West of the Euprhates much to the applause and relief of everybody else.
Now, about the Persians ~ the dominant language is part of the Indo-European family. On the other hand, those early Indo-Europeans were so few in number they left behind little, if any, genetic heritage. For all practical purposes almost all the peoples in today's Iran and Iraq are part of the same ethnic group. Part speaks modern Arabic. Part speaks modern Farsi. Otherwise, all same thing.
I can't think of a good reason why they would have wanted to.
That is not true. As a Persian who has visited Iran and seen tens of thousands of both Iranians and Iraqis there no similarity. Iranians have fair skin with more square faces and higher cheek bones the Iraqis are generally much darker with more oval faces and lower cheek bones. I can spot a Persian from an Iraqi about 95% of the time.
Heck Oliver Stone practically had him prepared to conquer Britain and Japan at the end of his movie.
I haven't seen Stone's film. The idea that Alexander wanted to take on Arabia has been discussed in far more credible portraits, among them Robin Lane Fox's excellent biography. If he did want to conquer it, it was probably so he could complete his "merging of the races" plan he had begun with the Persians and Greeks. One world, one people--but through conquest and not hippy talk.
If you look at the posted map and the breadth and depth of the Persian Empire, the aforementioned resources which, when controlled, were a power base, then you begin to understand the economic basis for most historical human activities. Or so says one of my History Profs whose lifetime goal was to write the Economic History of the United States in 10 year increments.
To borrow a line from George Mallory, "Because it is there."
Persia would have had no interest in Arabia NO ONE did. The desert had no wealth or anything but misery to offer so it was left alone to produce tribes of wild barbarians. Mohammed harnessed their ferocity and cupidity to unify them and make them capable of raiding throughout the world. Their GREED and poverty propelled Islam's spread. Religion had little to do with it as Mo was making it up as he went along leading his bands of criminals and paying them off by stealing from their neighbors: Jews, Christians and animists.
When attacked by would be conquerers the Arabs of old merely withdrew further into the deserts from which they could not be attacked and to which they were acclimated. After the invader grew tired of chasing them he would withdraw until the next tribal raid and the same futile procedure would start anew.
Like others have said, there was NOTHING of worth in Arabia at the time for any of the great empires to give a damn : Assyria/Babylonia and Persia. It was garbage then, it's garbage now.
And as to those pictures you posted. I personally know Persians and Assyrians (Chaldeans and Babylonians too, all family members but no one likes the Babylonians :) ) that are so fair skinned you would easily mistake them for certain European races. If it wasn't for the moslem invasion (God roast muhammed in HELL) and the interbreeding/rapine that followed you wouldn't be able to tell an Italian apart from a Persian.
I believe the Tuareg and Berbers were in Arabia - is this correct?
They were in North Africa I believe. But being nomadic they could have wandered into Arabia I suppose. Tuaregs do not appear to be semitic either.
The Shah of Iran has cousins (first cousins) who are black as coal. Just happens that way. Check the Vahdat family who ruled Iran for a long time before the Pavlevi family.
They were much more typical of Iranians than Reza Shah's family ~ but NONE of these guys are blue-eyed blonds with cleft chins (except I notice that one of the great-great grand-daughters seems to be fairly blond, but I bet they picked that up here!).
Besides, I spoke of ETHNICITY, not just language, nor of light or dark features.
The Iranians and the Iraqis are and have been of the same ethnicity ever since they moved in over the Sumerians and swamped them in a sea of semi-brown.
Bull**** as I said I believe I have seen far many more Persians and Iraqis. There is no resemblance. I can spot the difference 95% this is not about prejudice just reality.
We have over 40,000 Persians in the DC suburbs, and about 25,000 Afghans. There are innumerable Pakistanis (all kinds of people there), etc.
We have an exceedingly large and diverse collection of people from the Indian Ocean litoral.
You were aware weren't you that most families in that part of the world are fully conscious of their "roots", and when you marry first cousins over the centuries, those "roots" are pretty much on the button with wherever the family began.
But, whatever the case, the Vahdats do not look like the Pahlevis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.