Probably to have be less successful in the west. Turn the timurids into the Mughals-Alpha and have them fail in fighting the Ottomans or Leftover Mongols in Persia / Mesopotamia and instead have them continue southeast after Dehli, conquering the Indian subcontinent and setting themselves up as rulers of India.
perhaps something like Central Persia, Central Asia and Delhi
And this helps the stability of the empire how?
This avoids the problems over who his successor will be how?
Assuming those conquests are even feasible, which I wouldn't swear to.
The Timurid going west geographically hamstrung the Empire and gave them delusions of grandeur. When they sacked Baghdad Timur and company thought they could do everything the mongols did. Then they wasted time campaigning in Georgia getting very little done and when they turned on the Turks they got even less done except help all of the various non-ottoman Beyliks and the Byzantines for a short time. Persia was nothing but trouble and Timurid policy of "oppress all of the Shia" was obviously pretty unpopular in Iran.
The reason Timur sacked Dehli and created the famous pile-of skulls was because the Timurid Empire had before forayed into India and had difficulty holding it, but also had obligations in the west and it was easier to simply cripple Dehli.
This leaves succession. Fixing this is probably the hardest part, but if he conquers the sub-continent or at least a significant part of Rajputistan / Baluchistan he can tell the cliques in Samarkand that they are now they are no longer going to be reforming the Illkhanate, but are going to be creating a new and better one with India in it, something the Mongols never managed.
Timur saw himself as restoring the old Illkhanate, perhaps diverting that goal early on is the best method for securing long term stability.
Timur has to stop his ceaseless campaigning much earlier and restrict his conquests to an area he can feasibly rule. Maybe he can get a different set of advisors who can convince him to consolidate his gains.
Timur has to stop his ceaseless campaigning much earlier and restrict his conquests to an area he can feasibly rule. Maybe he can get a different set of advisors who can convince him to consolidate his gains.
Going East isn't going magically make Timur into an empire builder or have a realistic view of what he can do, however.
And so?
And doing that is not going to change the fact he lacks an obvious, capable successor - and those who do look like possible successors don't exactly get along as buddies that would happily accept his preferred candidate - one bit.
All this does is mean the Timurids "control" an even larger area, spreading what loyal elements there are even thinner.
Going east is going to change is perceptions and objectives. Timur saw himself as the rightful heir ,by virtue of strength of arms, to the Illkhanate. Remove that and you solve a lot of problems. It does not mean that you will end up with an easy situation by any means, but it will be better than OTL.
So when you say "conquer the Indian subcontinent", you don't really mean "conquer the Indian subcontinent", you mean "I'm going to deliberately phrase this so you think I mean something I didn't."Also the timurids would control a smaller, but richer, area. When I meant conquer the Indian subcontinent I did not mean to Bengal or Ceylon, just reliably holding onto an area around the Indus and Northern Ganges will be alot. Timur can of course sack alot of India, but he doesn't have to hold.
You need a different man from OTL Timur in the first place, not one that focuses on the East, to make him spend more time building up a realm than sacking and pillaging.
as a POD during his campaign in Herat he almost gets killed, Timur now is worried about his life and is concuses about empire buliding
I don't see how any of the problems with a lack of capable heirs, a lack of administrative concern, or cities not wanting to be ruled by the Timurids are changed because Timur isn't seeing himself as the rightful heir to the Ilkhanate and is seeing himself as doing something the Mongols never succeeded at.
You need a different man from OTL Timur in the first place, not one that focuses on the East, to make him spend more time building up a realm than sacking and pillaging.
So when you say "conquer the Indian subcontinent", you don't really mean "conquer the Indian subcontinent", you mean "I'm going to deliberately phrase this so you think I mean something I didn't."
Me? Cranky? Whatever gave you that idea?
India is a large area. Even "a significant part" is still going to mean a very far flung new polity with very, very shallow roots. That's unstable by definition, even if Timur is fortunate enough to have a capable heir who isn't killed.
Trajan conquered Dacia and Mesopotamia. The Romans didn't hold them.
Timur could easily conquer to Bengal and Ceylon, but not hold.
English is my second language, conquer refers to militarily taking something over as opposed to annex / hold which means legally integrate and hold on, correct?
Timur was amazingly pragmatic. Horrible as it sounds killing all other heirs isn't unheard of and could be beneficial for the Empire.
Repeat what the Mongols did in China and what the Mughals did in India combined with humbling Timur and sending him east *perhaps the Katarids humble him early on, so he decides to go South where early on he learns the value of auxiliaries in Afghanistan / Punjab?* and you at least have a road to go down.