AHC: Go West, Young Persia

How far west could we take the Persian Empires? By this I mean a nation centered in OTL Persia or at least Mesopotamia dominated by Persian culture.

Option 1: Achaemenids successfully conquer Greece (there’s already a TL on that). Would they go farther into Europe?

Option 2: the Parthians beat back Rome. Seems unlikely to get as far as other options...

Option 3: The Sassanids successfully conquer Anatolia, Egypt, etc. How far could they hypothetically push into Europe proper if they did so?

Option 4: Could the Great Seljuq Empire completely destroy the Byzantine Empire? They weren’t very Persian, though...

Option 5: Could the Safavids damage the Ottomans severely? Could they have reached the Mediterranean at least?
 
How far west could we take the Persian Empires? By this I mean a nation centered in OTL Persia or at least Mesopotamia dominated by Persian culture.

Option 1: Achaemenids successfully conquer Greece (there’s already a TL on that). Would they go farther into Europe?

Option 2: the Parthians beat back Rome. Seems unlikely to get as far as other options...

Option 3: The Sassanids successfully conquer Anatolia, Egypt, etc. How far could they hypothetically push into Europe proper if they did so?

Option 4: Could the Great Seljuq Empire completely destroy the Byzantine Empire? They weren’t very Persian, though...

Option 5: Could the Safavids damage the Ottomans severely? Could they have reached the Mediterranean at least?

1: Achaemenids will take as much as civilised states exist the Balkans and maybe the city states in Southern Italy.

2: Don't know About Parthia. Maybe Syria, Palestine and Anatolia?

3: As long as the Byzantines control the seas there is no movement West of Anatolia. Egypt is possible. Almost like Partia but with Egypt

4: Seljuks were Persianised during their rule of Iran. Seljuks can take as much as the Sassanids but is in a position to collapse as soon as Malik Shah or any other strong sultan dies. OTL Malik Shahs death the Seljuks imploded

5: After Selim I, the Safavids need to keep peaceful with the Ottomans. Suleiman was not interested in the East but Safavids kept influencing Anatolia and it attracted the Ottomans. Maybe just keeping the Shia missionary activity a little low. It will still attract Ottomans if succes in the West fails. OTL Safavids continued harsh treatment of Sunni's until Ismail II succeeded Tahmasb I. But his rule was short because of it. Conclusion, they keep Iraq, Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus.

I guess the Safavids and Sassanids are the closest of their most Western border.
 
1: Achaemenids will take as much as civilised states exist the Balkans and maybe the city states in Southern Italy.

Unrecognizable European history, then?

3: As long as the Byzantines control the seas there is no movement West of Anatolia. Egypt is possible. Almost like Partia but with Egypt

What about crossing the Hellespont?

4: Seljuks were Persianised during their rule of Iran. Seljuks can take as much as the Sassanids but is in a position to collapse as soon as Malik Shah or any other strong sultan dies. OTL Malik Shahs death the Seljuks imploded

So you could see a brief Seljuk Egypt, then? How would this affect the Crusades?

5: After Selim I, the Safavids need to keep peaceful with the Ottomans. Suleiman was not interested in the East but Safavids kept influencing Anatolia and it attracted the Ottomans. Maybe just keeping the Shia missionary activity a little low. It will still attract Ottomans if succes in the West fails. OTL Safavids continued harsh treatment of Sunni's until Ismail II succeeded Tahmasb I. But his rule was short because of it. Conclusion, they keep Iraq, Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus.

The Safavids came out of a religious movement, though, so how could you lower their religious zeal?
 
Unrecognizable European history, then?

Yes, as long as the Persian rule Greece for minimum of 2 generations

What about crossing the Hellespont?

Just as possible as crossing the Bosphorus. If there is a fleet there is no chance. The Sassanids knew this and that's why the Avar were the main force in the Siege of Constantinople.

So you could see a brief Seljuk Egypt, then? How would this affect the Crusades?

Brief... well sure. The Crusades still happen OTL. But without conflict between Seljuks and Fatimids in Palestine the crusaders have a hard time taking Jerusalem. The Fatimids took Jerusalem in 1098, 1 year before the Crusaders. Seljuk states working together is far more threatening than OTL with Fatimid Egypt. There is a chance if the crusaders still lose Edessa and maybe even Kerak then the Second Crusade might take off earlier. And that if the Crusaders still take Edessa.

The Safavids came out of a religious movement, though, so how could you lower their religious zeal?

Tahmasb not interfering in Anatolia is one thing. Honestly, the religious reason was just another justification. The Ottoman-Safavid conflict usually started when both nations where influencing Anatolia. With converting Persia, the Safavids were not afraid to use the sword to convert. This was the case during Ismail I, with Ismail being a religious leader. Tahmasb continued harsh treatment of Sunni's. But unlike his father he was more a shah than a leader of the Safaviyah Order.
 
On Crusades/Seljuks: It actually sounds likely that the Crusaders get the boot within a generation if their initial invasion can even still succeed. Where would the future “Crusading zeal” go if the Holy Land was a complete, immediate failure?

Also, I might’ve been underselling Seljuk Egypt. How plausible is it for it to evolve like the Sultanate of Rûm, becoming an independent Turkish state and thriving? Could Egypt become more Turkish in nature? The socioeconomic success of the Turkish nomads in the Anatolian highlands wouldn’t be viable here...
 

Deleted member 97083

Unrecognizable European history, then?
Not necessarily, the Greek culture would continue inside the Persian Empire. The Greeks adopted absolute monarchies after Alexander the Great IOTL, so a Persian conquest of Greece just makes that happen a bit earlier. Persia conquering Greece also doesn't directly prevent the rise of Rome, and the Romans already had some advantages over their direct neighbors at this point so, though it's not a given that they'll rise, it's likely.

Of course, this all changes if the Achaemenid Empire acquires its rightful clay in Central Italy. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not necessarily, the Greek culture would continue inside the Persian Empire. The Greeks adopted absolute monarchies after Alexander the Great IOTL, so a Persian conquest of Greece just makes that happen a bit earlier. Persia conquering Greece also doesn't directly prevent the rise of Rome, and the Romans already had some advantages over their direct neighbors at this point so, though it's not a given that they'll rise, it's likely.

It could have gigantic cultural butterflies, though. Things like the Maccabean revolt and the Greek influence on Buddhism and India in general are probably butterflied.

Of course, this all changes if the Achaemenid Empire acquires its rightful clay in Central Italy. :p

The whole world will celebrate Nowruz!
 
On Crusades/Seljuks: It actually sounds likely that the Crusaders get the boot within a generation if their initial invasion can even still succeed. Where would the future “Crusading zeal” go if the Holy Land was a complete, immediate failure?

Also, I might’ve been underselling Seljuk Egypt. How plausible is it for it to evolve like the Sultanate of Rûm, becoming an independent Turkish state and thriving? Could Egypt become more Turkish in nature? The socioeconomic success of the Turkish nomads in the Anatolian highlands wouldn’t be viable here...

Anatolia had a lower population than Egypt and had more Turks migrating there and thus more chance to Turkify the area. They were also the biggest group of Muslims there. Seljuk Egypt would possibly be as Turkish as Iran was: largely assimilated except with military.
 

Deleted member 97083

It could have gigantic cultural butterflies, though. Things like the Maccabean revolt and the Greek influence on Buddhism and India in general are probably butterflied.
True. I somehow hadn't thought about the religious aspect. Simply because the POD is so early, it may be a "pagan" world.

Anatolia had a lower population than Egypt and had more Turks migrating there and thus more chance to Turkify the area. They were also the biggest group of Muslims there. Seljuk Egypt would possibly be as Turkish as Iran was: largely assimilated except with military.
Is that the case? Under the Ayyubids at least, admittedly a little later than this period, the population of Egypt was under 5 million. The population of late Byzantine Anatolia was at least 5 million.

According to ancient Roman demography, the population of Egypt was 4.5 million and Anatolia was 8 million.
 
Top