A Destiny Realized: A Timeline of Afsharid Iran and Beyond

I believe he was executed for killing Nader Shah, or was butterflied away.

Without the fragmentation of Iran after Nader's death, there would've been no chance for Agha Mohammad Khan to be taken by the Zands, or castrated. So he'd just be the chief of the Qajars under Nader's authority, most likely becoming a high member of his court.
 
Maybe java will be an independent state by 2018 ITTL (no Indonesia) and will be a trillion dollar power! Who knows with Java’s crazy population?
I mean Indonesia in OTL is already a trillion dollar power (even in nominal terms), but a lot of where Java gets to later on depends on what happens. As of this point in the timeline, Java's economic institutions are relatively primitive, and the British may well dominate her trade with much of the rest of the world. If Java can promote the links that Diponegoro seeks with the rest of the Muslim World they may have a chance at progress, but they are a long way from potentially friendly powers.
Just found this thread, and I have a question. What happened to Agha Mohammad Khan?
I believe he was executed for killing Nader Shah, or was butterflied away.
Without the fragmentation of Iran after Nader's death, there would've been no chance for Agha Mohammad Khan to be taken by the Zands, or castrated. So he'd just be the chief of the Qajars under Nader's authority, most likely becoming a high member of his court.
Agha Mohammad Khan, and the Qajars as a whole, had quite an interesting story in OTL which was linked to Nader. After all, the favourite of the Safavid Pretended Tahmasp was a Qajar before he was usurped by Nader. Agha Mohammad Khan's father was forced out of his lands near Astrabad probably around the time of Agha Mohammad Khan's birth, and was only able to return with the death of Nader. Considering that the whole of the Iranian World and then some is firmly within the grasp of Nader and his dynasty in TTL, it is likely that this branch of the Qajars never quite re-established themselves as the powerful force that they were. With this in mind, it is worthwhile considering that he may well have volunteered into the Iranian army for a chance of glory and perhaps the redemption of his own family. In this case, the Qajars would still be a tribe of some influence, but considering the lessened power of tribes within Iran by the 19th century of TTL this may not be too much of a consolation prize.
 
Europe and its Colonies, Part One - 1804-1817
640px-Sullivans-island-1050x777.jpg


The Revolution in British North America

“The Radicals and their poisonous philosophies have been consigned to the grave for generations, due in no small part due to our own wise policies”. So boasted the British Prime Minister the Marquis of Bradford in 1806 to Parliament. Britain’s help, along with that of Spain’s, had restored the French Bourbons to the throne not only ending the revolutionary threat to other European nations, but additionally indebting their former Bourbon rivals to Britain. Clearly Bradford had much to be pleased about, but his achievements in securing Britain’s Empire in North America and her influence in Europe would soon crumble. Even as he spoke in Parliament, the situation in North America had deteriorated to the point where British soldiers clashed with colonial militia over what had originally begun as tax protests to pay for Britain’s war effort. The turn had come for Britain’s struggle with her own revolutionaries.


The North American colonists, increasingly self-sufficient and confident, had been enraged by a peace settlement which left France’s North American colonies as an ever present threat, while blocking off possible expansion to the west with a chain of forts along the Appalachian Mountains. The fact that Britain had raised taxation on her colonies to pay for her war which the colonies did not benefit from added insult to injury, and a number of prominent figures in British North America now openly wondered if the colonies would benefit from a looser association, if not full independence, from Great Britain. A philosophy of self-reliance had become increasingly common in the second half of the 18th century as the Thirteen Colonies became increasingly self-reliant in terms of capital, goods and perhaps most importantly, defence. This had all contributed to a colonial militia taking up arms at Bunker Hill in 1806 which saw a force of British Redcoats repulsed by the smaller colonial force.


The victory of the militia at Bunker Hill electrified the Thirteen Colonies, who were simultaneously enraged at the fact that the British army had attacked subjects of the king, as well as elated at the victory of the colonists. The popularity of the Continental Congress which had originally desired only greater representation within the British Empire, was boosted and more of its members increasingly called for the independence of the colonies from Britain. Attempts at mediation by loyalists to the British crown failed and by 1807 all of the Thirteen Colonies were in open rebellion against Great Britain. The British dispatched reinforcements to North America, though they would take months to arrive and loyalists found themselves surrounded by their increasingly aggressive opponents. 1807 saw a number of known loyalists forced out of their homes, some of whom went to neighbouring states and others making their way back to Britain itself.


The British counter-attack was slow in coming. British troops began assembling in Acadia in preparation for an attack on the colonies. Initial suggestions for an attack on Massachusetts, seen as the most radical of the colonies was rejected by the newly-promoted general in charge of operations, Arthur Wellesley, who instead suggested that an occupation of colonies that were more lukewarm to the idea of rebellion such as Georgia, would be a wiser course of action [1]. Eventually Wellesley got his way, and several months after the signing of the Articles of Confederation in 1808, the first British forces landed near Charleston. This would not merely be a military campaign, but also one to persuade colonists of the benefits of remaining under the crown. British forces saw initial success in securing much of Georgia and South Carolina, though a counter-attack on the part of the newly-formed Continental Army saw some initial gains reversed. Nevertheless, the Continental Army was not able to sweep the British into the sea.


Internal problems also boded ill for the rebellion. The Articles of Confederation, exciting as they were to those who desired independence from Britain, were ultimately weak compromises between colonies with differing interests. The priorities of the New English colonies could not have been more different to those of the South beyond the idea of internal self-governance, and this made itself felt in a system which above all emphasised the rights of each colony. What this could not achieve was the adequate provision of funds for the Continental Army, which by 1810 was in dire straits due to the lack of money to pay its soldiers and buy equipment with. When the Continental Congress met again, there was a call for a strong central government which could guarantee the resources needed to ensure the adequate defence of the colonies in rebellion. This was a step too far for many, but the attempt on the part of some more radical revolutionaries to enshrine the abolition of slavery was a step too far for the southern colonies, who depended on the institution of slavery to function economically. An attempt to form a central government collapsed, and each of the colonies went their separate ways, most of whom had declared their independence as their own states by 1811.


Taking advantage of the turmoil amongst the states in rebellion, Wellesley sent a proclamation throughout British North America, announcing that property rights, including those of slave-owners, would be respected by the British government. For many elites in the South, this was all they needed and from this point on the cause of loyalism in the South became stronger. Three years of success for British arms which saw their armies approaching Philadelphia sobered those colonies for whom the preservation of slavery was not a priority. By 1814 a new Continental Congress was assembled, this time with a greater appreciation of their delicate military position. A constitution which established a strong central government while providing a measure of self-governance for each state was ratified and the Union of American States came into being officially. The conflict had evolved into its final stage, one of a national struggle.


From this point on, the Continental Army found itself increasingly well-provisioned, and now found support from exiled French Revolutionaries, who welded the American forces into perhaps the most modern army in the world. Taking advantage of the unique terrain of North America, American forces now fought battles in a rather different way to the British. Skirmishers armed with both rifles and muskets clashed with those of the British, but rather than covering the advance of well-ordered lines of highly-trained infantry, they covered quick moving columns of conscripts who burst through British lines, inflicting as well as taking huge casualties and often frightening the British commanders who were still largely unfamiliar with this type of warfare [2]. These tactics helped equalise the military situation and were an enormous factor in the eventual peace that recognised the independence of America in 1817. The British had managed to keep a grip on her profitable Southern colonies, but nevertheless the loss of her New English colonies, as well as Pennsylvania and New York represented a blow to her prestige and power. It also marked the creation of the first culturally European state based far beyond Europe itself, a development that was noted in the rest of the Americas.

[1] - Because ultimately the Duke of Wellington (which he will probably not become in TTL) is far too competent to avoid a big role in an alternate universe.

[2] - Picture the tactics as akin to those used by the French revolutionaries earlier in the war. The move toward modern warfare has happened later than OTL, but it is certainly on its way.

* * * * * *

Wojciech_Kossak_po_bitwie_pod_Ziele%C5%84cami.jpg


Eastern Europe Between the Revolutions

Although ambitious, Tsar Alexei had ultimately failed in his attempts to project Russian power further west. His attempts to turn Poland into a client state of Russia floundered on the surprise adoption of a Polish constitution, the first of its kind in the world which aimed to transform the ineffective political system of Poland while shielding its institutions from foreign, or more precisely Russian, influence. When Austria had joined Poland in becoming a constitutional state a few years later, relations between the two warmed and an understanding was reached in which Austria would protect the independence of Poland. This left Poland with a guarantor powerful enough to stand up against Russia, something desperately needed after the collapse of French influence in Central Europe, as well as providing Austria with a buffer against her Russian rival. This would prove instrumental in freeing up Austrian energies to turn west against the various revolutionary forces that threatened the old order in Western and Central Europe.


Although both Austrian Constitutionalism and the French Revolution were born from Enlightenment ideals, the adherents of the former ultimately found themselves defending the old order when revolutionaries in Paris threatened to overthrow it entirely. While constitutions and concessions to liberty were all well and good, the ideas of popular sovereignty and republicanism were far too much for even the liberal Holy Roman Emperor to stomach. The Emperor Leopold never quite abandoned his more liberal leanings, though he opposed both the French Revolutionaries as well as those in Piedmont. In doing so, he ensured the restoration of the Bourbons as well as the Savoyards. Although not comfortable with the reactionary nature of both regimes, the prospect of revolution had frightened him when presented in the form of Hungarian Revolutionaries. Although the conspiracy against Hapsburg rule in Hungary was foiled largely without violence, the fear that Austria’s multitude of nationalities may rise up against their rulers now haunted Leopold. If not in terms of his internal policies, then his foreign policies for the rest of his rule would be decidedly conservative, seeking to maintain the balance of power within Europe lest Austria’s internal balance be disturbed.


Austria’s shift toward a more defensive foreign policy seemed to exactly what Alexi needed to embark on a programme of territorial aggrandisement. While Austrian forces were busy in Italy putting down Napoleon Bonaparte’s Republic, Russian forces occupied a slice of Eastern Poland containing one and a half million people under the pretext of “restoring order”. The old image of Poland as a semi-anarchic state was untrue by this point, though with Europe still exhausted from her struggle against the Revolutionaries in France, there was little stomach for confronting Russia over this issue. Alexi got his way, and Austria was humiliated over her inability to protect Poland. Alexi’s naked aggression nevertheless ruined his reputation amongst European rulers, and Russia’s semi-pariah status only ended with the death of Alexei in 1816 when he was replaced by Konstantin. Although as ambitious as Alexi, Konstantin was more intelligent, and judged that Russia’s future prospects were best served by working with other European powers when the opportunity arose. This opportunistic foreign policy received its baptism of fire when Russia intervened in Georgia, attempting to avenge the brutal sack of Tbilisi. Although the Iranian forces were able to fight the Russians to an eventual standstill, the Russians nevertheless gained a foothold south of the Caucasian Mountains.


Her reputation having improved due to her valiant defence of a Christian people abroad, Russia now found herself a full member of the European state system once again at a critical juncture. Revolution in France had again threatened to overthrow the European order, and Tsar Konstantin now found himself signing the “Holy Alliance” alongside the new and more conservative Holy Roman Emperor Karl in response to threatening events in Poland. All Europe now seemed to be on the precipice which would lead to a general war…

* * * * * *

Author's Notes - European developments are a little skimmed over, as are those in North America, but I'm trying to keep things in scale with coverage of the rest of the world. We'll have a look at East Asia as well as Africa (both of which are seeing some pretty big changes by this point) before returning to Europe to have a look at the second French revolution as well as the aftermath.

Russia is going to have an interesting 19th century. On one hand, far stronger Muslim powers to the south are likely to restrict her opportunities for expansion in that direction, indeed there is no idea of a Byzantine restoration at this point, which among other things explained the lack of interest in the Greek revolt. Despite this, she still possesses a swiftly growing population, who are accustomed to somewhat more liberty than in OTL thanks to the continuation of the otherwise ineffectual Peter III's reign. And although not the reactionary stalwart that it was under Metternich, Austria seems almost forced to take up the sword against the revolution as she did in OTL, but this is a different Austria than the one we know in OTL's 19th century. Eventually, she may react to ongoing events in a far different manner than OTL.
 
Been waiting for this all week. Do have a question though.

Why were the states unable to make a compromise like in OTL with the 3/5ths and the Connecticut Compromises? I'm not sure if the Southern states would be so willing to go running back to their colonial masters just after they had rebelled, and vice-versa with the British accepting them back. Also, abolitionist sentiments (IIRC) weren't as pronounced ITTL as in OTL, so I imagine having the southern states stay inside the union would be of a higher priority than the abolition of slavery for northerners.

(I am an American, so maybe I'm just a little biased towards the ARW succeeding fully. :openedeyewink:)
 
From this point on, the Continental Army found itself increasingly well-provisioned, and now found support from exiled French Revolutionaries, who welded the American forces into perhaps the most modern army in the world. Taking advantage of the unique terrain of North America, American forces now fought battles in a rather different way to the British. Skirmishers armed with both rifles and muskets clashed with those of the British, but rather than covering the advance of well-ordered lines of highly-trained infantry, they covered quick moving columns of conscripts who burst through British lines, inflicting as well as taking huge casualties and often frightening the British commanders who were still largely unfamiliar with this type of warfare [2]. These tactics helped equalise the military situation and were an enormous factor in the eventual peace that recognised the independence of America in 1817. The British had managed to keep a grip on her profitable Southern colonies, but nevertheless the loss of her New English colonies, as well as Pennsylvania and New York represented a blow to her prestige and power. It also marked the creation of the first culturally European state based far beyond Europe itself, a development that was noted in the rest of the Americas.

At some point I did expect the American Colonies to revolt for independence, though it is satisfying to know that the Southern Colonies won't be there to corrupt the revolutionary ideals.

Austria’s shift toward a more defensive foreign policy seemed to exactly what Alexi needed to embark on a programme of territorial aggrandisement. While Austrian forces were busy in Italy putting down Napoleon Bonaparte’s Republic, Russian forces occupied a slice of Eastern Poland containing one and a half million people under the pretext of “restoring order”. The old image of Poland as a semi-anarchic state was untrue by this point, though with Europe still exhausted from her struggle against the Revolutionaries in France, there was little stomach for confronting Russia over this issue. Alexi got his way, and Austria was humiliated over her inability to protect Poland.

*Deep Sigh* It seems inevetible that Poland will be swallowed up or carved out by it's neighbors. Plus I seriously doubt Russian rule will be any less pleasant than OTL.:pensive:
 
Also, abolitionist sentiments (IIRC) weren't as pronounced ITTL as in OTL

I imagine that, with the strongly-abolitionist French Revolution taking place before the American Revolution, republicanism probably has a stronger association with abolitionism than it did during the OTL American Revolution. .
 
I imagine that, with the strongly-abolitionist French Revolution taking place before the American Revolution, republicanism probably has a stronger association with abolitionism than it did during the OTL American Revolution. .
But I don't see why the northerners would break up the colonies just because of slavery (and I know it was a big issue, but even during OTL American Revolution, there were very strong abolitionist voices in the north, including some of the founding fathers, and they still managed to keep everything together). I also just don't see why or how the British would accept the rebellious southern colonies right back and the northerners letting them go relatively easily.
 
And, the northerners would be at a huge strategic and military disadvantage because of the southern colonies still being British, so I do think that the northerners would be willing to go far (like in OTL) to keep them American and establish a united American Republic. Also the cotton produced by the south provided a lot of economic benefits to the north, and they knew that.
 

Deleted member 67076

So one thing I've noticed, the American Revolution has taken over a decade to get independence, while its also not as big as it is historically. Though it also has a modern army thats presumably standing by rather than devolving into militias. And its happened about 3 decades later, when the US population was much larger.

Both good and bad. Probably gets you an America leaning more towards Prussia in terms of its industrial economy and military doctrine (and so can defend itself really well in the face of hostile neighbors), but on the other hand a longer independence war means more time in economic recovery is needed. As well, the military being around and presumably far larger/well equipped/well trained might mean it may be more inclined to have a say in politics. Alongside sapping government funds that would otherwise go towards infrastructure.
 
But I don't see why the northerners would break up the colonies just because of slavery (and I know it was a big issue, but even during OTL American Revolution, there were very strong abolitionist voices in the north, including some of the founding fathers, and they still managed to keep everything together).

Because there seems to be a stronger radical element ITTL and naturally that radicalism has slipped into slavery. You can imagine that more rigid anti-slavery elements in the Continental Congress would sour Southerners on the Revolution.

I also just don't see why or how the British would accept the rebellious southern colonies right back and the northerners letting them go relatively easily.

Because the British have presumably seen this line of division and have exploited it. I’m guessing their next step is going to be to exploit New English business interests (successfully, I dunno).

Also, the North probably cares more about expanding into territory that ITTL is French than keeping the South satisfied.

And, the northerners would be at a huge strategic and military disadvantage because of the southern colonies still being British, so I do think that the northerners would be willing to go far (like in OTL) to keep them American and establish a united American Republic. Also the cotton produced by the south provided a lot of economic benefits to the north, and they knew that.

Do they have much of a choice? The US in this era is likely facing a number of difficulties like hyperinflation (as with OTL). Presumably they have bigger concerns than taking the South, with military campaigns against it failing.

Also, I imagine Britain is focusing more on securing the South than OTL, what with defending Quebec not an issue.
 
"
I mean Indonesia in OTL is already a trillion dollar power (even in nominal terms), but a lot of where Java gets to later on depends on what happens. As of this point in the timeline, Java's economic institutions are relatively primitive, and the British may well dominate her trade with much of the rest of the world. If Java can promote the links that Diponegoro seeks with the rest of the Muslim World they may have a chance at progress, but they are a long way from potentially friendly powers.



Agha Mohammad Khan, and the Qajars as a whole, had quite an interesting story in OTL which was linked to Nader. After all, the favourite of the Safavid Pretended Tahmasp was a Qajar before he was usurped by Nader. Agha Mohammad Khan's father was forced out of his lands near Astrabad probably around the time of Agha Mohammad Khan's birth, and was only able to return with the death of Nader. Considering that the whole of the Iranian World and then some is firmly within the grasp of Nader and his dynasty in TTL, it is likely that this branch of the Qajars never quite re-established themselves as the powerful force that they were. With this in mind, it is worthwhile considering that he may well have volunteered into the Iranian army for a chance of glory and perhaps the redemption of his own family. In this case, the Qajars would still be a tribe of some influence, but considering the lessened power of tribes within Iran by the 19th century of TTL this may not be too much of a consolation prize.

I think there should have been some more light on Agha Mohammad Khan. Considering there is no Zand takeover, Agha would not be taken and castrated. Agha Mohammad Khan in this timeline from what I know about the Khan, would probably go on to be a very skilled statesman, being one of the Afsharids, and Nader's most trusted and skillful military generals, and statesman in the Empire, as when he was a servant of Karim Khan, "accorded him consideration and even sought his advice, acknowledging his skill in political matters."

If this timeline finishes, I would suggest either a timeline on if Agha Mohammad Khan was never assassinated, and lived through the Napoleonic era, all the way up to the 1820s, and finished his plans, like the invasion of Georgia and the invasion of Herat. or if Catherine the Great survives another one or two years, and the Persian Expedition of 1796 is never called off, resulting in a full-on war between the Shah and Tsarina. I could potentially help you with it, as I have A LOT of Agha Mohammad Khan sources for a school project I am doing on the Khan. And when I say a lot, I mean a ton of Russian, Persian, English, Georgian, and Turkish sources, like 20 pages of them.
 
Because there seems to be a stronger radical element ITTL and naturally that radicalism has slipped into slavery. You can imagine that more rigid anti-slavery elements in the Continental Congress would sour Southerners on the Revolution.

Because the British have presumably seen this line of division and have exploited it. I’m guessing their next step is going to be to exploit New English business interests (successfully, I dunno).

Also, the North probably cares more about expanding into territory that ITTL is French than keeping the South satisfied.

Do they have much of a choice? The US in this era is likely facing a number of difficulties like hyperinflation (as with OTL). Presumably they have bigger concerns than taking the South, with military campaigns against it failing.

Also, I imagine Britain is focusing more on securing the South than OTL, what with defending Quebec not an issue.

But I imagine that compromising in some way with the North would be preferable to going back to the government they rebelled in against the first place? Obviously slavery was important but not so important that they would give up their independence or unwilling to compromise so as to keep it.

I am willing to believe that the northerners would be willing to compromise on slavery, (radicalized to what extent they may be ITTL) to ensure the territorial security of their new nation, because if they didn't the British would have a much easier time reconquering their New England colonies. The desire for French territory would definitely by on the top of their list, but a potential British invasion from Virginia and Maryland that would put an end to their independence would seemingly be of a higher priority.

The Americans would also be able to focus more on the South because of the absence of a British Canada (however small of a difference).
 
And because we know that ITTL Paine exists, I assumed that most other revolutionary propaganda exists that promotes the unity of the 13 colonies (like the join or die cartoon) that would push the 13 colonies closer together. To summarize, ITTL the forces pulling the colonies apart are still (apparently) less than the forces that are pushing the colonists to compromise on the issues of federal power and slavery. I also know that without land west of the Appalachians to settle is taking away and important glue for the colonies' unity, but that does not (at least in my humble opinion) prevent them from compromising on the key issues of slavery and federal power.
 
And because we know that ITTL Paine exists, I assumed that most other revolutionary propaganda exists that promotes the unity of the 13 colonies (like the join or die cartoon) that would push the 13 colonies closer together. To summarize, ITTL the forces pulling the colonies apart are still (apparently) less than the forces that are pushing the colonists to compromise on the issues of federal power and slavery. I also know that without land west of the Appalachians to settle is taking away and important glue for the colonies' unity, but that does not (at least in my humble opinion) prevent them from compromising on the key issues of slavery and federal power.

So do you think the freed colonies will unite under one nation, or go there own ways and be hegemony'ed by New France in the future.
 
So do you think the freed colonies will unite under one nation, or go there own ways and be hegemony'ed by New France in the future.
Well now they will most likely either get reconquered, or go their own ways. France wouldn't want the trouble. I just thought that it would be more like OTL American revolution, just without the northwest territories and more populated 13 colonies.
 
Top