Bigger Iran
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
tom said:
When were Afghanistan and Iran last united, under Nadir Shah? were they even united then?
That doesn't sound quite right to me, from what little I know of the region's 18th and 19th century history any connection must have been more nominal than real, and accounts of 1842 usually refer to the Afghans having a king, although I suppose that could be an artificial imposition of European concepts.
You'd probably get soem sort of union if Nadir Shah had somehow created a state that could survive his death, not sure how he'd achieve that though, it might help if he identified himself more strongly with Orthodox Shi'ism.
You'd probably get soem sort of union if Nadir Shah had somehow created a state that could survive his death, not sure how he'd achieve that though, it might help if he identified himself more strongly with Orthodox Shi'ism.
OTL Iran was bigger recently. Iran lost Georgia when Hercules II king of Kartvel (he was Christian) appealed for Russian rule to get rid of Muslim rule. Iran sent an army in to get Georgia back. Russia then took Dagestan and Azerbaijan from Iran.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Central Asia is very complicated. A lot of the settled lands were with undefined borders and were often vassals to one or other competing greater powers. In between were a lot of nomadic nations who also pledged allegiance, either to a smaller settled power or to one of the greater ones. It makes determining who actually 'ruled' whom very difficult, and not at all stable
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
I have a better idea for a greater Iran scenario.
Iraq's invasion of Iran fails miserably due to Saddam's miscalculation. The Iraqis are unable to solidify a defensive lines and are defeated, occupied, and annexed by Iran. Iran then turns eastward and fights the Soviets in Afghanistan by supporting indigenous groups, after the Soviets pull out in '89 Iran annexes Afghanistan. Iran in 1990 now has a population of 100 million, and by 2004 would have a population of over 130 million and would completely dominate the middle east politically and militarily.
Iraq's invasion of Iran fails miserably due to Saddam's miscalculation. The Iraqis are unable to solidify a defensive lines and are defeated, occupied, and annexed by Iran. Iran then turns eastward and fights the Soviets in Afghanistan by supporting indigenous groups, after the Soviets pull out in '89 Iran annexes Afghanistan. Iran in 1990 now has a population of 100 million, and by 2004 would have a population of over 130 million and would completely dominate the middle east politically and militarily.
Even bigger Iran:
1993. Azerbaijan joins the Islamic Republic, the IRA attacks Armenian forces in Nagorno-Berg-Karabach and reestablishes Azerbaijan borders.
1996. The Sunni governing family in Bharain is overthrown by the majority shiite population. IR influence is suspected. Shortly thereafter, Bharain joins the IR.
1998. The "Asian Contation" causes global oil prices to plummeth to $11 per barrel. the IR blames overprodunction by Kuwait and invades. President Clinton sends troops to protect Saudi Arabia. Congress howl about "wag the dog" scenario because of Clinton's impeachment proceedings. US limited to protecting Saudi Arabia.
1993. Azerbaijan joins the Islamic Republic, the IRA attacks Armenian forces in Nagorno-Berg-Karabach and reestablishes Azerbaijan borders.
1996. The Sunni governing family in Bharain is overthrown by the majority shiite population. IR influence is suspected. Shortly thereafter, Bharain joins the IR.
1998. The "Asian Contation" causes global oil prices to plummeth to $11 per barrel. the IR blames overprodunction by Kuwait and invades. President Clinton sends troops to protect Saudi Arabia. Congress howl about "wag the dog" scenario because of Clinton's impeachment proceedings. US limited to protecting Saudi Arabia.
I think the Iranian leadership in the 80s were more interested in creating an Islamic republic of Iraq than in outright annexation.
I've actually been toying with an Iranian TL for a while now, but I'm not sure how plausible the POD is;
It's that in 1730 the Turks win the battle of Nahavand, securing western Persia for their Safavid client Tahmasp II. When the Russian evacuate the capsian sea coast in 1732 Tahmasp reoccupies this area, which serves as a springboard for advances into central Persia. The Safavids gradually reform their military and political structures under Ottoman tutelage and in the 1740s/50s defeat the Afghans and restore their empire to ts pre-1722 borders.
they then assert their independence from teh Ottomans (not hard as the Turks were in VERY poor shape by the later eighteenth century), and then don't bother anyone until 1800-1803, when they loose a war witht eh Russians over Georgia. They then stagnate for a while before loosing to the Russians again in 1825, when much of Azerbyjan is annexed to Russia (basically the same gains as in OTL).
However, with the persian dynasty better established, with stronger administrative systems and more legitimacy these defeats trigger a series of reforms comparable to the Ottoman Tanzimat and in the Crimean war the Persians ally with the British and regiaon the lands lost in 1825.
Thereafter a significant programme of modernisation gets underway, with the construction of telegraph and rail lines, irrigation projects and educational reforms, whilst the Persians expand into central asia. Unfortunately all this costs money and with the worldwide financial collapse of the miod 1870s Persia goes bankrupt. The Europeans take advantage of this to impose a set of financial controls on the govenment, limiting military spending and leading directly to the loss of the central Asian empire, whcih the Russians take over.
This proves unnacceptable to the former Persian ruling class (and to army officers retired on half pay) and in 1886 they stage a natioanlist coup, analogous to the Egyptian revolution of 1881 but backed by enough military force that European intervention isn't an option. A constitution is enacted in 1887 which transfers most power to a parliament with an elected lower house.
By the 1890s oil revenue from Baku and foreign investment is triggering massive economic growth, enough to support the creation of armed forces comparable (not quite equal) in power with those of the ottoman Empire
And that's as far as I've thought, any thoughts on plausibility/where it goes from here
I've actually been toying with an Iranian TL for a while now, but I'm not sure how plausible the POD is;
It's that in 1730 the Turks win the battle of Nahavand, securing western Persia for their Safavid client Tahmasp II. When the Russian evacuate the capsian sea coast in 1732 Tahmasp reoccupies this area, which serves as a springboard for advances into central Persia. The Safavids gradually reform their military and political structures under Ottoman tutelage and in the 1740s/50s defeat the Afghans and restore their empire to ts pre-1722 borders.
they then assert their independence from teh Ottomans (not hard as the Turks were in VERY poor shape by the later eighteenth century), and then don't bother anyone until 1800-1803, when they loose a war witht eh Russians over Georgia. They then stagnate for a while before loosing to the Russians again in 1825, when much of Azerbyjan is annexed to Russia (basically the same gains as in OTL).
However, with the persian dynasty better established, with stronger administrative systems and more legitimacy these defeats trigger a series of reforms comparable to the Ottoman Tanzimat and in the Crimean war the Persians ally with the British and regiaon the lands lost in 1825.
Thereafter a significant programme of modernisation gets underway, with the construction of telegraph and rail lines, irrigation projects and educational reforms, whilst the Persians expand into central asia. Unfortunately all this costs money and with the worldwide financial collapse of the miod 1870s Persia goes bankrupt. The Europeans take advantage of this to impose a set of financial controls on the govenment, limiting military spending and leading directly to the loss of the central Asian empire, whcih the Russians take over.
This proves unnacceptable to the former Persian ruling class (and to army officers retired on half pay) and in 1886 they stage a natioanlist coup, analogous to the Egyptian revolution of 1881 but backed by enough military force that European intervention isn't an option. A constitution is enacted in 1887 which transfers most power to a parliament with an elected lower house.
By the 1890s oil revenue from Baku and foreign investment is triggering massive economic growth, enough to support the creation of armed forces comparable (not quite equal) in power with those of the ottoman Empire
And that's as far as I've thought, any thoughts on plausibility/where it goes from here
Hmmm...perhaps a POD could be that the Mongols DON'T destroy Persia's irrigation systems.
They were in disrepair, I think, but the Mongol destruction of them REALLY hurt Persia. More irrigation means more food means a larger populace and w/ more food, people can move into other trades, which could help w/ industrialization.
They were in disrepair, I think, but the Mongol destruction of them REALLY hurt Persia. More irrigation means more food means a larger populace and w/ more food, people can move into other trades, which could help w/ industrialization.
What happened in 1857 was not that Afghanistan was separated from Iran, but that it was _kept_ separate: Persian troops occupied Herat in 1856 and Dost Mohammad Khan signed a treaty with Britain allowing a British presence in Kandahar as a counterbalance against the Persians. Afghanistan has been independent since the death of Nadir Shah in 1747.
So one other PoD, apart from those mentioned, might be what if Britain didn't co-operate with Dost Mohammad in 1857. Perhaps if the distraction of the Indian Mutiny were worse, the Persians might have been able to occupy the whole country?
So one other PoD, apart from those mentioned, might be what if Britain didn't co-operate with Dost Mohammad in 1857. Perhaps if the distraction of the Indian Mutiny were worse, the Persians might have been able to occupy the whole country?