Greater Imperial Iran survives

[Setofan1]

I'd like to thank Archduke and others for their support and say that I came out of Irma just fine. But as they say, when it rains it pours; since Irma it's been one kick in the balls after another around here with the latest being that I've contracted food poisoning from a bad jar of chile paste I bought at Walmart. 3 days of this shit is enough to drive one insane and it's not over yet, though I am starting to get better.

Anyway, I haven't abandoned this, and maybe sometime in the coming week when I'm better and can handle sitting down without feeling nauseous, I figured I'd post another map and accompanying challenge which interconnects with Imperial Iran in an alternate world. So far, I've checked in periodically on the site but only through my phone.

Anyway once again, thanks to everyone.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Hello again everyone

Just for Christmas, I decided to read one of the important sources I found. This one is in relation to how Napoleon could have won in Egpyt. There are two defining factors.

The first is how François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers anchored his fleet at Aboukir Bay and I quote:

"The French fleet lying off Akoukir was singularly ill-prepared to meet an enemy. The French position had the all the potential to be a strong one - the fleet was in line, with its back to the coast, which should have rendered it impossible to turn, while to the north the forts of Aboukir itself and the island of Bequireres secured one end of the line. However, the fleet was anchored too far offshore, and the normal naval practice of closing the ships up and stringing cables between them (to prevent their line being penetrated) had not been followed."

The following three images put this analysis into perspective:

Notice the movement of Nelson's ships and how he got his ships behind the French line, mainly at the front.

Notice the "castle of Aboukir"

Now imagine the first two images in this blank image of the same area and you get the idea of why Nelson won.

The second factor is Napoleon's incompetency himself. If François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers had anchored properly then Nelson would have reacted differently and may not have tried to destroy the fleet because they were in a greater position. However, if Napoleon had sent orders to François-Paul on the 30th July to set sail for Toulon, in reality, Nelson arrived on the 1st August and the French fleet would have escaped Nelson again. With the French Fleet gone the British would have never dominated the Eastern Mediterranean and allow Sir Sidney Smith to support Acre which denied Napoleon victory.

Consequently and interestingly, as a result, John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent would have been furious at Nelson and not recommended him for independent command. Nelson, in reality, would only take part in the Siege of Malta, Battle of Copenhagen and the Raid on Boulogne before the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. So Nelson at this point in time was 80% through his career. This is a major set back in his career and Trafalgar would properly not happen. Plus the French still have their fleet and would have reinforced Napoleon in Egpyt.

Strange how close reality could have turned out differently.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Just a short post.

Whilst the post regarding Napoleon chasing the Sultan and meeting Mohammed is good I want it to be as realistic as possible. In using the same source in how Nelson failed to destroy the French fleet, because Napoleon allowed to French fleet to sail, Napoleon wins at the siege of Acre and goes to conquer Syria and Egypt through a series of battles and finally at the battle of Aboukir Bay when the Turkish attempt to oust the French from Egypt. Meanwhile, Mohammed is hearing rumours of a "great man" conquering the Arab lands and the stories of his battles especially the battle of the Pyramids where Napoleon's said: "Forward! Remember that from those monuments yonder 40 centuries look down upon you."

Because of Napoleon’s conquest he aims to make alliances and because of the close proximity to Persia which is also on en-route to India, it is one strategic aims in fighting the British. He thus meets the Emperor at Tehran and Mohammed hearing of the rumours desires to meet Napoleon. (travels to Tehran from the Caucasus). The Persian emperor introduces his heir and the boy shows captivation in Napoleon. As part of the alliance Napoleon promises that Persia will not be invaded by Russia and she will have a steady stream of supplies, weapons and pioneering technology to contribute to his country westernizing development but in return would like to take his heir to France to introduce him into western life and induce him into the École Militaire. With a bit of domineering the Persian emperor agrees.

Mohammed travels to Alexandria (will elaborate on this part of the journey in a later post) where he sets sail from Alexandria and the original outline of Mohammed Journey to France and a westernized life begins is the same.

 

[DarkKayder]

The problem with Iran lies in two places.

The first is that by 19th Century Iranian power and influence is contracting and that power is shifting towards Russia and the British Empire. This is why the great game came about, both countries wanted to turn Iran into a colony but they did not want to because they wanted all benefits and none of the disadvantages of that colony. So they both fiddled it through influence for Iran to sell it self out by westernizing, which they wanted and knew via technology from first world countries in the first place. (Double edged sword) However, once the Iranians sold their country to meddling powers they could never get it back when they actually westernized and were held to ransom by the great powers. (Now you know why they hate so us much.)

The second problem is Mohammad Shah Qajar, in that I don't know what is childhood was like, which is where men are truly created. In the mind. Depending on his upbringing, you can fiddle it to bring about a different outcome.

Naturally, however, there is an irreversible third problem to solve and that is the geopolitics of Iran as a Country. If you look at a map she has countries around her from all sides apart from the Persian Gulf but the Arabian Penninsula encroaches her entry to the open sea. Two minimal strategic war goals to break part of this problem would be to own the Caucasus Mountains as a natural border between it and Russia in which armies cannot pass and to get access to the Black Sea. The second would be to colonize and keep the present state of Djibouti as an outpost to the world.

An expansion of these minimal requirements and to buffer Iran and its enemies, she should seek out other barriers. The annexation of the Turkmenistan area and the whole of Iraq (which would include Kuwait) provide desserts to her west (southern-western and western Iraq) and North-eastern flank which would greatly hinder any invasion. As a result, what is now Kuwait city (and Bahrain) would greatly strengthen the Iranians hand in the Arabian Gulf.

Your inclusion of Balochistan province is good because it is rough and harsh terrain and again acts a buffer between Iran and British India. Plus the ports relieve the strain on the Persian Gulf as the ports are at the entrance.

The only problem is Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the "Graveyard of empires" in that the British invaded three times (1839, 78 and 1919), the soviets in 1979, Americans in 2001 and here we have Mohammad Shah Qajar failing to take Merat province. Whereas Afghanistan should be part of Greater Iran I think it will be the pinnacle and last stage of the puzzle because of the type of and harsh warfare that needs be conducted to win. (if that's possible)

This is what Iranians currently think is Greater Iran. Much of what I said but I made adjustments of Strategic warfare and economic reasons.


View attachment 338592

The really big question is when are they going to get conquer these lands. If Iran by 1914 was a great power and Ottomans side with the allies, you would think she would obviously side the Triple Alliance and if she successfully conquers these lands and Triple Alliance wins or loses. (Make a separate peace with ottomans and takes part in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk) Shed gain Iraq, (including Kuwait) the Caucasus Mountains and Turkmenistan whilst she already has the Balochistan province.

Now that I have outlined what the Iranian goals should be up until 1920, this must be set in motion by Abbas Mirza (who died) or Mohammad Shah Qajar who succeed him to the throne. First, however, I am going outline what Iran will face in the inter war years, WWII and the cold war.

I think the key to smooth control over Afghanistan is in the continuation of Iranian rule over the region. If gradual adoption of Shia Islam can continue, and detribalization and settlement happens in the same manner as in the plateau, there is probably not going to be much reason to expect more trouble from afghans than from any other Iranic groups. A uniformized educational system can be stablished latter on, we should probably see some degree of persianization as well.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

I think the key to smooth control over Afghanistan is in the continuation of Iranian rule over the region. If gradual adoption of Shia Islam can continue, and detribalization and settlement happens in the same manner as in the plateau, there is probably not going to be much reason to expect more trouble from afghans than from any other Iranic groups. A uniformized educational system can be stablished latter on, we should probably see some degree of persianization as well.

I agree with your analysis, the problem is its all about the timing of when you invade and its success. Iran cannot invade in the early 1800s because of Russia and it will detract country resources and manpower from the Caucasus front and then there is the validity of whether invasion can be accomplished. If the invasion is a success will the occupation just turn into a war of attrition? I personally would not invade before or after WWI because it will just tie to many resources down because and the threat from foreign powers at that time is high and those resources are vital for survival in that climate.

Therefore in terms of timing, I would invade whilst WWII is going on, as the Soviet Union and the allies will be distracted. Then if a war of attrition ensues post World War II at least the country would be at ease in the fact that the likelihood of invasion from foreign powers is less likely than pre World War II. Especially considering that by this point Iran should be harbouring enough power to dominate the Middle East and if the Allies were to invade Iran in 1943 it would be a bad idea. I conclusion she has 60 years to the collapse of the Soviet Union to do what you said. What is even more interesting is that by 1991 she should be a power to be reckoned with, and the Soviet Collapse would definitely be an opportunity to dissect the good parts of Russia.

I will expand on this further but just in brief:

Ground military hardware: tanks, ammunition, vehicles - (invasion through Caucasus and Kazakhstan)
Airforce hardware: aircraft, space technology - (paratroopers, invasion through Caucasus and Kazakhstan)
Naval hardware: attempt to steal aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines, Kirov-class battlecruiser - (use paratroopers, naval squadron, air force squadron to attack Northen Fleet)
Weapons of Mass destruction: Biological, Chemical, Nuclear and Radiological - (paratroopers, espionage)
Territory: dominate the Caspian sea to gain access to oil and gas fields (invasion through Caucasus and Kazakhstan)
Nuclear power: Post Soviet collapse Kazakhstan operated a BN-350 sodium-cooled fast reactor near Aktau, which is on the west side of the Caspian Sea and within reach of Iran.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Reading... Lots of reading.

 

[Kalga]

The Persian Gulf and the Black Sea:

After WWI Britain scrapped a load of battleships because of the Washington Naval treaty. She could have bought any of the following with war reparations:

HMS Dreadnought
Bellerophon class: HMS Bellerophon, HMS Superb, and HMS Temeraire
St. Vincent class: HMS St. Vincent and HMS Collingwood
HMS Neptune
Colossus class: HMS Colossus and HMS Hercules
Orion class: Orion, Monarch, Conqueror, and Thunderer
King George V class: HMS King George V and HMS Ajax
Iron Duke class: HMS Marlborough, Benbow, and Emperor of India
HMS Agincourt
HMS Erin
HMS Canada (Resold to the Chilean Navy)

13 of the battleships were scrapped between 1920 and 1922, the other battleships were scrapped in the mid-1920s to the early 1930s.

The Iranians would also get the advantage of buying a lot of battleships and then converting a quarter of them to aircraft carriers. This saves money building an entirely new aircraft carrier from scratch. Plus the Iranians might not have the technology, facilities along with the money to build battleships and aircraft carriers from scratch. In the case of a battleship you just need to do is it take it down to the hull, refigure it, put a flat surface on top and a tower. (It's a lot harder than I say it is) I would say that would take 5 years max given the technology, facilities, and money to refigure a battleship in the hands of Iran after WWI.

As for destroyers, Submarines and cruisers to assist them, if the Iranians have not got the technology by 1920s, the Iranians would probably only buy one of type because other countries would not take a liking to the UK arming a foreign power with an entire navy. With these examples, she could then design and building her own types.

Probably way too late for me to point this out (I know how old that post is) but a lot of those ships were planned to be scrapped before the Washington Naval conference, mainly because despite the lack of exciting action that capture the imagination of the public, the battleships were pretty hard ridden during the war and as a consequence they were worn out (as well as being pretty much obsolete in the post war era of +15in guns being the new standard, but that could also be said for a lot of the ships of the other powers).

Another issue was that the post WWI atmosphere (League of Nations, war to end all wars just ended) just wasn't the type to encourage buying armaments (which is why there's so little of that happening OTL, and no battleships were bought and sold to anyone). Meanwhile in the immediate post war era there will be a recession (because suddenly reorienting the entire economy while accomding all those demobilized soldiers is kinda difficult, this is an issue suffered by pretty much everyone for a while) so whatever money that could be gained from reparations is gonna be hard to justify for more military spending in a supposed era of peace while the economy is having some nasty issues.

That being said Iran would probably have been allocated a potion of the German fleet seized, and when the Germans did their scuttling the Iranians might request a few British battleships (that the UK will be thinking of getting rid of anyways) as substitution.

Also it's actually quite normal for the UK to arm entire countries' navies (like the Japanese back in the day, to the point where helm orders were still in English up to the early 1930s) back in the day so I don't think other countries were gonna raise a stink if the Iranians go full British for their Navy (maybe Dartmouth will be another clone).

As for the cheapness of converting battleships to carriers, that's not as cheap as you think, in OTL the reconstruction of battleships were almost as expensive as building new ones, the only reason they didn't was because the WNT literally forbid new constructions but allowing modernizations & reconstructions. Overall it's probably better idea to order (from a foreign yard if lacking in domestic capabilities) a new carrier from scratch with the hull based on a treaty heavy cruiser (you get similar length on a much smaller tonnage and you don't have to deal with the inherent compromises of using a battleship hull), costs would not be much more than tearing down a battleship and rebuilding it as a carrier.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Probably way too late for me to point this out (I know how old that post is) but a lot of those ships were planned to be scrapped before the Washington Naval conference, mainly because despite the lack of exciting action that capture the imagination of the public, the battleships were pretty hard ridden during the war and as a consequence they were worn out (as well as being pretty much obsolete in the post war era of +15in guns being the new standard, but that could also be said for a lot of the ships of the other powers).

Another issue was that the post WWI atmosphere (League of Nations, war to end all wars just ended) just wasn't the type to encourage buying armaments (which is why there's so little of that happening OTL, and no battleships were bought and sold to anyone). Meanwhile in the immediate post war era there will be a recession (because suddenly reorienting the entire economy while accomding all those demobilized soldiers is kinda difficult, this is an issue suffered by pretty much everyone for a while) so whatever money that could be gained from reparations is gonna be hard to justify for more military spending in a supposed era of peace while the economy is having some nasty issues.

That being said Iran would probably have been allocated a potion of the German fleet seized, and when the Germans did their scuttling the Iranians might request a few British battleships (that the UK will be thinking of getting rid of anyways) as substitution.

Also it's actually quite normal for the UK to arm entire countries' navies (like the Japanese back in the day, to the point where helm orders were still in English up to the early 1930s) back in the day so I don't think other countries were gonna raise a stink if the Iranians go full British for their Navy (maybe Dartmouth will be another clone).

As for the cheapness of converting battleships to carriers, that's not as cheap as you think, in OTL the reconstruction of battleships were almost as expensive as building new ones, the only reason they didn't was because the WNT literally forbid new constructions but allowing modernizations & reconstructions. Overall it's probably better idea to order (from a foreign yard if lacking in domestic capabilities) a new carrier from scratch with the hull based on a treaty heavy cruiser (you get similar length on a much smaller tonnage and you don't have to deal with the inherent compromises of using a battleship hull), costs would not be much more than tearing down a battleship and rebuilding it as a carrier.

I like the idea of the Iranians having a quarter of the German Fleet, thanks for that idea. However, the Germans scuttled it before anyone could get their hands on it.

The only class in that list that was not built was Iron Duke Class, all the others were built between 1908-11 and were launched and in service before WWI and long before when the Washington Naval Treaty was enacted in 1921-2. Even if they were going to be scrapped you would think the Iranian government would leap at the prospect of cheap war machines for sale, despite the fact they were out-dated and a waste of money, the ships can be still be moulded down and the metal reused and made into another battleship. It is ship design and technology that is most important. Obviously, this would not happen if Iran had the resources, skills and facilities to make such a navy. This ties in with re-constructing battleships if Iran has the resources, skills and facilities to make such a navy then reconstruction will not be needed otherwise buying old battleships will progress her navy.

It is interesting that you mention about countries contracting military budgets post WWI because of peace and the economy. Of all the reading, I am also reading about Plan Z, and it explains why certain Liberal countries contracted their military budgets in line with the League of Nations but on the other hand, other countries purposely ignored the league of Nations requests of limiting Naval budgets. These countries had militarized cultures like Japan and Germany. Now in the 18th century, Iran was absolute but also very tribal, encouraging liberalization can mean everything but having a parliament, the free vote and a constitutional monarchy. Iran only got a parliament through a revolution in 1905-11, so if everything is liberalized apart from politics and the Emperor rules with a big stick, you have a militarized culture similar to Japan and Germany. This where my answer comes in. Militarized countries just rearm despite the fact they lose and Germany is the best example of that, militarized cultures do not care for their citizens they just constantly prepare for war.

 

[Kalga]

I like the idea of the Iranians having a quarter of the German Fleet, thanks for that idea. However, the Germans scuttled it before anyone could get their hands on it.

Hence I said the Brits might just give the Iranians some of the old battleships that they were thinking of scrapping anyways as substitution for the promised german ships. Also come to think of it weren't there still some Austrian battleships around? OTL the counties that ended up getting them just ended up scrapping them quickly without using them for anything.

What I'm suggesting that she'll probably get a few battleships (probably old British ones), but certainly not "a lot" (my guesstimate if around 4 at most, most likely a pair).

The only class in that list that was not built was Iron Duke Class, all the others were built between 1908-11 and were launched and in service before WWI and long before when the Washington Naval Treaty was enacted in 1921-2. Even if they were going to be scrapped you would think the Iranian government would leap at the prospect of cheap war machines for sale, despite the fact they were out-dated and a waste of money, the ships can be still be moulded down and the metal reused and made into another battleship. It is ship design and technology that is most important. Obviously, this would not happen if Iran had the resources, skills and facilities to make such a navy. This ties in with re-constructing battleships if Iran has the resources, skills and facilities to make such a navy then reconstruction will not be needed otherwise buying old battleships will progress her navy.

Generally speaking ship breaking is a lot different than even ship refurbishment (which it seems you're trying to get the latter from the former). The most complex and expensive parts of a battleships were the guns (and turrets), the armor plating, and the boilers & engines. You can't really just "moulded down and reuse into another batlteship", at least not without the proper industries already in place, which begs the question why not just build one's own?

It is interesting that you mention about countries contracting military budgets post WWI because of peace and the economy. Of all the reading, I am also reading about Plan Z, and it explains why certain Liberal countries contracted their military budgets in line with the League of Nations but on the other hand, other countries purposely ignored the league of Nations requests of limiting Naval budgets. These countries had militarized cultures like Japan and Germany. Now in the 18th century, Iran was absolute but also very tribal, encouraging liberalization can mean everything but having a parliament, the free vote and a constitutional monarchy. Iran only got a parliament through a revolution in 1905-11, so if everything is liberalized apart from politics and the Emperor rules with a big stick, you have a militarized culture similar to Japan and Germany. This where my answer comes in. Militarized countries just rearm despite the fact they lose and Germany is the best example of that, militarized cultures do not care for their citizens they just constantly prepare for war.

In the immediate post war era though, let's see which OTL country were building or actively planning major naval expansion (and their overall situation):

-USA: relatively speaking she didn't suffer that much, and in fact she benefited a lot from the war with all that loaning to other allied powers. As such continuing her ambitious naval expansion was quite rational
-Japan: let's be honest here, she didn't exactly contribute that much to WWI (in the grand scheme of things), oh, and her naval spending post war was something like a thrid of the entire government budget. She'd be screwed if she continued her ambitious building projects

Meanwhile the rest of allied countries:
-UK: utterly exhausted, which was a major factor in them accepting the WNT.
-France: it's telling that scrapped all of the battleships still unfinished by war's end (except for that one that got converted to a carrier)
-Italy: also quietly scrapped their unbuild battleships despite wanting to finish at least one of them
-Greece: since the ottoman empire's gone, her biggest naval threat was also gone, so actually regionally she's quite content

It's also interesting to note that the ABC (that 3 south american ones) countries, who in the decade prior had a mini dreadnought race of their own, and didn't really participate in WWI, were also not too keen on acquiring more battleship (in Brazil's case, the UK was actually willing to sell her HMS Agincourt, Brazil declined the offer).

So the conditions you need is to make Iran into a rich, prosperous country that still happen to lack a large number of key industries, a militarized government & society, significant and visible contribution to the allied effort in WWI yet not incurring massive financial and human costs. It's so oddly specific that really it didn't fit the bill of any country post WWI (either thy have the industries to build their own ships or they're too financially screwed to buy even old ships at bargain prices).