A Lasting Safavid Dynasty

In 1722 Afghan rebels overthrew Sultan Husayn and installed Mahmud Hotaki as shah who was murdered in 1725 and succeeded by his cousin, Ashraf. By 1729, Hosayn's son, Tahmasebi II, had control of most of the country, as well as support from Russia, the Ottoman Empire and tentatively, the Mughal Empire.

Unfortunately in 1732 he was deposed by Nadir Khan (the future Nadir Shah) in favor of his 7yo son, who succeeded as Abbas III (under the regency of Nadir Khan) and ruled until 1736 when Nadir seized power for himself. Both Tahmasebi and all his sons (Abbas included) were murdered on the orders of Nadir Shah's son Reza Qoli Mirza in 1739/1740 prompted by advice given Mohammed Hasan Khan Qajar that if the rumors that Nadir was dead, the people would rise in revolt and restore Tahmasebi to the throne.

But what if Nadir had never deposed Tahmasebi? What if the Safavids continued to rule Persia? Would it still have become the military monster it did under Nadir - destroying the Mughal Empire in the process? Or would the two nations have been in a more amicable relationship with each other?
 
The Safavid Dynasty was on a steep decline anyway. Europeans (mainly British and Dutch) were already tearing the country apart to benefit themselves, the Ottomans were pushing more and more into Persian Iraq, and The Turkic Khans of Central Asia were pushing more and more at the north-east borders.

It was bound to collapse sooner or later to a new dynasty, or otherwise a foreign power.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
^ This...

Generally, by the late 17th century, the Safavids were already in terminal decline and it was a question of when they will fall rather than if they would. Therefore, a lasting Safavid Dynasty would requite a PoD a good deal before...
 
Well, depends how you mean the WI, if you meant that Nadir Khan never rises, then Persia is very likely to be lost to the Safavids. Tahmasp II owed his prominence pretty much entirely to Nadir, so no Nadir means no Tahmasp either. Whether Persia is divided between the Russians and the Ottomans, consolidated under a new Persian dynasty, the Afghans, or something else entirely happens, is harder to say.

Now, if Nadir Khan still rose to power, but decided to keep the Safavids (realistically this means Abbas III) as puppets, rather than taking the throne himself, things could get more interesting. After Nadir made himself Shah, Safavid pretenders and pro-Safavid revolutions were a constant threat. If Nadir had continued to rule Persia as the "humble servant" of the legitimate dynasty, it would have made Persia alot more stable, particularly in the later part of his reign.

Either way, Persia is in for interesting times. So it could go all sorts of ways. I'm minded to do a scenario about the period one day, but I am still learning about all the personalities involved.

fasquardon
 
Top