AHC: Iran's Mediterranean Coast

Any way for the Qajars to industrialize and take the Middle East from the Sick Man?

Ottomans were at military parity with the West until 1750. Decline first became visible on July 21, 1774, when the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. Russia received 4.5 million rubles and two key seaports allowing direct access to the Black Sea. This was the turning point.

Decline was sort of arrested/managed by reform in the 1800s (although loss of Greece and Algeria by 1830 were not ideal) but from about 1870 it became clear that the empire was in serious trouble. That's the sick man period.

Persia was basically destroyed after Nader Shah was assassinated in 1747. Persia's collapse was more destructive and immediate. The population declined markedly and constant war and chaos ruined the country utterly.

Persia needs a better 18th century to have any chance of a future.
 
How about a scenario where the state is not ruled by Iranians, but by Kurds? If the Kurds at some point established their own state in the area known as Kurdistan, with a bit of Mediterranean coast, and then later expanded to control a part of Iran. Would that count as a solution?

I have no idea what kind of POD you would need for this to happen, or if it is even possible.
 
How about a scenario where the state is not ruled by Iranians, but by Kurds? If the Kurds at some point established their own state in the area known as Kurdistan, with a bit of Mediterranean coast, and then later expanded to control a part of Iran. Would that count as a solution?

I have no idea what kind of POD you would need for this to happen, or if it is even possible.

There is no Kurdish 50+1% majority on the Medditeranean Coast. So that is off as well.
 
Well, Standard Persian and the Kurdish languages are both Iranic, but they differ considerably and diverged long ago. It never seems to have been a documented time when the Kurds as such shared any sort of overarching identity with "Persians", even if several customs and traditions are more or less shared. I recent times, you can concoct some variation of the "Aryan" myth to base this stuff on, but it never worked very well historically and would probably require some nasty regime to enforce.

Actually "Kurd" originally referred to any Iranic speaking nomadic group of the Zagros. Urban dwellers of the area were almost always Persian speakers. Nowadays it mainly refers to non-Shia Iranic speakers of the area. Lurs were once considered as a Kurdish group. Also, there are Sorani Kurdish speakers in Iranian Ilam and Kirmanshah who are Shia, but consider themselves Iranian. Its not that cut and dry. If you could get the Kurds to be majority Shia then the Pan Iranic identity would stick more.
 
Actually "Kurd" originally referred to any Iranic speaking nomadic group of the Zagros. Urban dwellers of the area were almost always Persian speakers. Nowadays it mainly refers to non-Shia Iranic speakers of the area. Lurs were once considered as a Kurdish group. Also, there are Sorani Kurdish speakers in Iranian Ilam and Kirmanshah who are Shia, but consider themselves Iranian. Its not that cut and dry. If you could get the Kurds to be majority Shia then the Pan Iranic identity would stick more.
I think that it would be even more complicated than this. You are right that identities were and are complex, and especially in pointing out that urban-rural distinction are historically critical, but even the Sunni-Shia thing would not necessarily bridge the difference (it is not impossible that it could, partly).
 
I think that it would be even more complicated than this. You are right that identities were and are complex, and especially in pointing out that urban-rural distinction are historically critical, but even the Sunni-Shia thing would not necessarily bridge the difference (it is not impossible that it could, partly).

I think it would go a long way to tying Kurdish speakers more to the Iranian state. As it stands today, Kurdish customs and identity already are closely tied to an Iranic one. Kurds share most of their historical myths and customs with other Iranic speakers. Once you add Shiaism to that then they become even closer to the Iranian state. All you have to do is look at the example of Shia Kurds, Lors, Gilaks and Mazandaranis to confirm this. None of these groups are Persian speakers, but they are Shia and Iranic speaking, and dont harbor separatist sentiment.
 
Top