So my challenge/question is how plausible it is (POD 1400)for the Timurid state as in the Timurid rulers in Samarqand (NOT Mughals), to be a power with enough strength to be comparable regionally to Russia or Ottomans. As well, is it more likely for the Safavids or any other Iranian state to be this power instead of the Timurids? I will see about answering myself once I get some feedback. Points if this Timurid/Iranian state participates in a world war against Russia or USSR.
AHC: Superpower Timurids/Iranian state.
- Thread starter John7755 يوحنا
- Start date
Well, as a general Tamerlane was probably greater than Chengizz Khan. But as a founder of the long-lasting Empire(s) Chengis Khan is much better.
We know that when Chengiz Khan was going to his last campaign his (principal) wife went out and demanded that he must make his open public decision about his successor. So before his death Chengizz Khan decided the most important issues on what would happen after his death. It seems that he felt his death coming and made all preparations for smooth transfer of his power to his sons and grandsons.
Tamerlane on the other hand made everything possible that after his death his Empire would be a bloody mess: he carefully deprived his sons of real military power evidently fearing their influence, he gave his Non-Timurid warlords more power and controlled them only personally.
So my POD is -
Tamerlane did not die on his way to China but got seriously ill; he understands that he is going to die; he has enough time and power to give real military power to his successor(s) and make all preparations to avoid the war between his sons and grandsons.
Do you mean the dynasty lasts for six hundred years?
too rich for my blood.
But such state might live long enough till world war with a few dynasties changed over this period. It might be one of the first 'gun-powder' Empires and might rival Ottomans and Russia, why not.
Personally I like the so-called Timurid Renaissance. In some aspects it was very close to European Renaissance, being Muslim and independent though.
The Safavids were this up until they fell apart in the 18th century, with a lot of back-and-forth with the Ottomans over Mesopotamia. The Russians hadn't really gotten to the point where they would be involved until very near the end of the Safavid state, by which point things were not going so well, but it would probably be plausible for the Safavids or their successors to be relatively strong rivals of Russia in the Caucasus and Central Asia for at least a little while. There are a few things that stand out at a cursory inspection:
- Safavid control of Mesopotamia: OTL, the Safavids conquered Mesopotamia a few times, but weren't able to hold it against the Ottomans. If they can somehow do that, then the population and tax base of the region--even if much reduced from its Abbasid and Sassanid glory days--would obviously give them more resources and allow them to compete more on a level with the Ottomans and Russians. This might mean giving them more successes against the Ottomans early on, giving them a slightly better army (apparently they didn't really have artillery? That might be a relatively small but beneficial change), or having some of their attempts at allying with outside powers like the Austrians or Spanish actually work out. Regardless, it would help.
- Safavid control of Central Asia: Again, this is something they sort-of did IOTL, but they weren't able to push it to the limits of many earlier Persian empires due to strong opposition in the region. If that's weaker and they're able to consolidate control over the southern parts of Central Asia, then again that's just that much more resources that they'll have, together with slightly less threat from one quarter (at least until Russia really gets going).
- Shorter interregnum between the Safavids and Qajars. IOTL, it took most of the 18th century for Persia to move from one relatively stable dynasty to another. Obviously long periods of divided control like that open opportunities for outside powers to pick the bones of the state, and waste resources in civil war rather than external defense or conquest. If the Qajars, or at any rate a dynasty like them in terms of stability can come to power, then Persia will probably be stronger in the late 18th and early 19th century. It might benefit from the Napoleonic Wars (assuming those aren't butterflied away).
As I said, those are the things that stand out on a cursory inspection; no doubt someone who was more familiar with the period and the country could come up with more, better examples.
5 hours is a bit hasty to start worrying about replies. Particularly during east coast US business hours.
Definitely wait more than an hour next time before bumping.
Timur was doing great until he suddenly died in 1405 from fever, so butterfly this away and I reckon that, assuming he doesn't catch something else, he has at least 5-10 years left in him. This could easily see him gain some ground against the Mings (he was by far a superior leader to anything the Ming Dynasty had to offer at this time), I think minimum he could attain would be ending any chance of Ming influence further west.
The biggest issue though is succession. The 15 years of civil war that followed Timur's death are the reason his Empire never recovered. Avoid that and it's well in the playing field.
As for the Russia/USSR question, 1405 (Timur's death) is significantly before Russia's expansion eastward and way out of reach of the USSR, so any POD that allows Iran to be this powerful will butterfly the USSR away entirely, and could well see a weaker or different Russia.
P.S. Thanks for showing interest in Iran
Deleted member 67076
You could always have Timur wipe out the Ottomans via the Genoese deciding they won't ferry Bayezids sons to Europe and have Timur decide to go into Egypt, adding both Anatolia and Egypt to his growing empire.
With both major rivals wiped out, its likely the next Iranian ruler would be able to cement control of those areas relatively easily. (Assuming there is a smooth transition of power)
With both major rivals wiped out, its likely the next Iranian ruler would be able to cement control of those areas relatively easily. (Assuming there is a smooth transition of power)
I don't know, the Safavids did not have the overall power over Afghanistan, Khiva, and Kwarezm that the Timurids did. Perhaps a Safavid empire with OTL Timurid borders would work.
I am aware of Timur's reign being long before the Russian Tsardoms pinnacle. However if Russia still goes east after beating the Golden Horde, what would be the effects of a Timurid/Safavid power who has solidified its territory, meeting the Russian expansion eastward? Also I feel that this Iranian state would have a deep rivalry with Ottomans and Russia. With that said, would the Ottomans expansion be the same as OTL or would the presence of such a colossal power to its easy, keep it from expanding further into the Middle East (Larger European exansion?)?
On the other, obvious potential power bases in Egypt and Anatolia make a smooth transition of power rather less likely, don't they?
Well, they definitely conflicted on and off with the Ottomans through their existence, and were the other major power of the Middle East. They weren't quite up to Sassanid standards, admittedly, but they did a pretty good job of fighting the Ottomans, so they certainly count as "a power with enough strength to be comparable regionally to Russia or the Ottomans" (bearing in mind that the Russians weren't in the region until after the Safavids collapsed).
The trouble is that Russia didn't really expand into traditional Iranian territory until the 18th century, and in any case were not devoting any juggernaut-level amount of forces to expanding eastwards. Russian efforts didn't really spread into the desert and steppe regions that were of interest to the Iranians, so what you would most likely see would be a few border skirmishes followed by a treaty, much like when Russia started to expand into China. That might change later, but certainly in the short term Russia would probably find a buffed-up Persia more useful as an ally against the Ottomans than as an enemy.
That might change if the Persian state collapses as per OTL, or as Russia and the rest of Europe overtakes it technologically, but in the short-run I would expect an alliance and reasonably friendly relations, not a great rivalry.
Well, it depends on whether the Ottomans can conquer Mesopotamia or not. If they can, then their Middle Eastern expansion is relatively unhindered; they might face a bit more trouble in exerting influence over the Gulf Arab states and Oman, but those were hardly critical or huge resource sinks to my knowledge. If they can't, then they would lose all influence over those states, which would likely remain in the Persian sphere, but they probably wouldn't have a lot of trouble conquering Egypt, Syria, and the Hejaz. Their expansion into Europe is probably relatively unaffected, because either way they have a lengthy border with Persia that they have to defend, as they did IOTL, but perhaps more so. It might end up expanding a bit less into Europe and having its gains reversed a bit faster, especially if Persia does manage to ally one of its European enemies like Russia.
Had Russia expanded into Khazakstan by the 1700s? If so than a war can start quite fast between an Iranian state the size of the Timurid Empire. In which case what would the reaction be from Ottomans and Russia? Would Russia continue expanding east or would it stop and fight war after war with Safavids/Timurids? Also could this change Ottoman-Russian rivalries?
Last edited:
Not really, not until the later part of the century when there was a bit of a power vacuum there. Before that, it had mostly skirted around the northern edge of the region, sticking to the taiga. If there was a major power Iran occupying the area, it probably wouldn't push south, just the same way that it didn't push south into Manchuria when it encountered the Qing dynasty.
There's been a lot of talk over the years of Russia being an "Asian" or "Asiatic" power, but in reality it's just a European power with an unusually large and tightly held colonial area. The focus of the Kremlin (or St. Petersburg, given how far back we're reaching) has always been more on European affairs and European expansion than on Asian affairs and expansion. Even when they were expanding to the east, it was more of a sideshow being driven by local people than a centrally-planned affair. Russia is more likely to find a conflict with Persia over the northern edges of the Iranian sphere to be a distraction than an opportunity.
In both cases the region of conflict would be quite distant from the main centers of power of the respective empires. Any "war" would more likely consist of scattered local skirmishes, which the respective emperors learn about months later and move to stop before things can get out of hand. For Russia, a real war with Persia would be difficult to sustain logistically until the 19th century and a distraction from the more important European theater, while for Persia a war with Russia would be a distraction from the Middle East-European theater and the Ottomans. They would probably conclude a treaty after some inconclusive back-and-forth that would settle the issue once and for all, like Russia did with Qing China.
Of course it would. Actually, it had already. Like I said, they were expanding through the taiga, between Siberia's rivers, not through the deserts and steppes north of the Aral Sea, so that they had reached the Pacific by 1700 but barely touched modern-day Kazakhstan. There's plenty of avenues beyond the reach of any Persian army for them to keep going, even if they do somehow get into conflict.
Probably not, until the 19th century. Before then, the logistics of challenging Persian influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus would be too difficult, especially for Central Asia, while they would also be generally less threatening than the Ottomans and the Crimean Khanate to Russia's major interests in Europe. Russia isn't going to stop pushing against the Turks until they reach the Black Sea, and they aren't going to sacrifice Poland for Kazakhstan under any circumstances.
How about something not discussed. How might Qing/Ming/Shun relations be with such a powerful Iranian/Timurid state on its borders? Would the Qing still have the same expansion westward as OTL?
I can't see why not. The Qing were drawn West by powerful internal drivers common to all Chinese dynasties (they were just the first dynasty that had the ability to act on those internal drives so decisively). So if superpower Iran comes into being because of a PoD after 1730 or so, China and Iran will certainly clash.
If we go with a Timurid PoD, or another pre-1730 PoD to establish superpower Iran, then Iran may have a solid hold on Central Asia before a Chinese dynasty with Qing-level military projection abilities comes into being. That would mean that the OTL drivers that urged China West would not be there, so the two powers may not clash. Or they may find other reasons to clash.
In my view biggest thing that can enable any Iranian dynasty to be a great power in this period is control of the Panjab/Indus region. This is what enabled Timur's descendents to become rulers of a world-power. Only the Mughal Emperors ended up getting sucked deeper into India due to the weakness of Indian powers at the time, so they lost interest in Iran. Perhaps the PoD you are looking for might be a stronger Delhi Sultanate, that contains the Mughal advance from going deeper into India than the Panjab, and so the Mughals turn West and re-conquer Persia.
Another PoD could be some invention that made India and Iran "closer" in terms of communication times, allowing the Mughals to have both the Indian Empire they possessed in OTL AND Iran.
fasquardon
Hmm interesting. Perhaps if Shah Rukh can fend off the Qara Qoyunlyu, stop any possibility of the Safaviyya taking power and then retain control of the Punjab, then maybe this Timurid state would have the power to be a world power. As well, I feel it would be beneficial for the Timurids to keep good relations with the either the Ottomans or the Mamluks in order to keep its western border relatively safe. However, I can't think of a reason to get the Safavids to go east, they were more interested in Iraq then they were in India.
Also if a Timurid state were to remain powerful, would it have been possible for Timur's successors to retain their patriotic Mongol sentiments and attempt a reinstatement of the Yuan in China?
What empire has ever sustained control over so vast a landmass? A Timurid conquest of Anatolia and Egypt is fascinating for the butterflies, but one state it will not be for long.
Timurids could place puppet regimes their especially since that was Timur's goal, except the Ottomans survived. If the Ottomans are crushed, a friendly regime could be placed in Anatolia, rather than the stand offish Ottomans. However I feel you are right, if the Timurids attempted to control such a territory they would be extremely hard pressed to keep it.
Btw, the Achaemenids sustained the same territory for an extended period of time. Granted it was quite a different time period.
Last edited: