Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. In My Learning the same topic also comes with:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
For more than a century the Ottomans and the Safavids fought on and off across the mountains and plains between what is now Iraq and Iran. The wars had begun back in 1514, and by the 1630s both sides were simply worn out.
The last big round of fighting ended when the Ottoman sultan Murad IV recaptured Baghdad in 1638. A year later, both empires signed the peace that would settle where one ended and the other began.
The Treaty of Zuhab, 1639: The Treaty of Zuhab — also called Qasr-e Shirin — drew the Ottoman–Safavid border that runs roughly along today's Iraq–Iran line. Baghdad stayed Ottoman, and eastern Armenia and Azerbaijan stayed Safavid.
This was not a treaty about who had won. It was mostly a line on a map that both empires could finally live with, because neither could afford to keep fighting.
Baghdad stays Ottoman
The great city of Mesopotamia, and the wealth of the Tigris–Euphrates lands, remained inside the Ottoman Empire.
A shared mountain frontier
The Zagros mountains became a natural border, splitting the region into a western Ottoman zone and an eastern Safavid zone.
Shia shrine cities divided
Najaf and Karbala, holy to Shia Muslims, ended up on the Ottoman side — a source of friction for centuries.
Zuhab 1639 = the line that stuck: Baghdad Ottoman, Persia keeps the east.
Why 1639 matters: Historians often call this one of the most durable borders in the world. The line drawn in 1639 is remarkably close to the modern Iraq–Iran boundary — proof of how decisive this settlement was.
Wars this long do not just cost lives — they drain a state's energy. Both the Ottomans and the Safavids came out of the fighting exhausted, and both had spent years looking in the wrong direction.
Resources pulled away from other frontiers: Every soldier and coin sent east against Persia was one the Ottomans could not use in Europe. And every army the Safavids marched west against the Ottomans left their eastern border with the Uzbeks and Mughals exposed.
So the wars had a hidden cost. The Ottomans were repeatedly distracted from their Balkan and central-European campaigns, while the Safavids could never fully secure Khorasan and the east.
A deeper religious split
The rivalry was never only about land. It was also about faith, and the fighting hardened a divide that still shapes the region today.
Ottoman Empire
- Champion of Sunni Islam
- The sultan claimed the title of caliph, protector of Sunni orthodoxy
- Saw Safavid Shiism as heresy on its doorstep
Safavid Persia
- Built around Twelver Shia Islam
- The shah tied his legitimacy to defending the Shia faith
- Used Shiism to unite Persia and mark it off from its Sunni neighbour
Confessional consolidation: The long conflict pushed the Safavids to make Twelver Shia Islam the firm state religion of Persia. What had begun as one dynasty's choice hardened, through decades of war, into a national and religious identity — one that still defines Iran today.
In short, the wars did not create the Sunni–Shia split, but they deepened it and turned it into a border between two states, not just two ideas.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
The frontier provinces were where the wars hurt most. Armies marched back and forth across the same lands for generations, and ordinary people paid the price.
- Trade disrupted — the silk route that ran through the contested borderlands was repeatedly cut, hurting merchants in both empires.
- Provinces devastated — border regions like Iraq, Azerbaijan and the Caucasus were fought over so often that farms, towns and irrigation were wrecked.
- Heavy military spending — decades of campaigns, fortresses and gunpowder armies drained both treasuries year after year.
Shah Abbas I and forced resettlement: To deny resources to the advancing Ottomans, Shah Abbas I (r. 1588–1629) used a brutal scorched-earth policy. He forcibly moved whole populations — famously relocating Armenians from the border town of Julfa deep into Persia, and emptying border zones so invaders would find nothing.
These forced movements reshaped the map of who lived where. Border cities were destroyed or depopulated, while new communities were planted far from home.
The long-term significance
A remarkably durable frontier
The 1639 line held for centuries and still roughly marks the Iraq–Iran border — one of the longest-lasting boundaries in history.
Two weakened gunpowder empires
The wars drained both 'gunpowder empires'. The Safavids collapsed in the 1720s, and the Ottomans faced growing pressure in Europe — the exhaustion set the stage for later decline.
A hardened sectarian map
Sunni west and Shia east were now backed by state power and a fixed border, cementing a religious geography that outlived both empires.
The big picture: The Ottoman–Safavid Wars ended in a durable settlement, but the real winner was neither side. Both empires emerged exhausted, and that weakness helps explain why both slid toward decline in the century that followed.