AHC: Persia conquers and holds Mesopotamia in a 19th century war

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What would it take for Persia to be able to conquer and hold Mesopotamia in a 19th century war, probably in coalition with others (Russia in the 1870s or 1820s, or with Muhammad Ali in between, for example)?

If Persia was never sufficiently armed, organized or motivated to attack the Ottomans while others were attacking it, how many decades before these "opportunities" emerged would things need to change internally in Persia?

As far as results are concerned, conquest of any or all of the Basra, Baghdad or Mosul vilayets meets the terms of the challenge.
 
What would it take for Persia to be able to conquer and hold Mesopotamia in a 19th century war, probably in coalition with others (Russia in the 1870s or 1820s, or with Muhammad Ali in between, for example)?

If Persia was never sufficiently armed, organized or motivated to attack the Ottomans while others were attacking it, how many decades before these "opportunities" emerged would things need to change internally in Persia?

As far as results are concerned, conquest of any or all of the Basra, Baghdad or Mosul vilayets meets the terms of the challenge.

The best and most likeliest is if the Ottoman Dynasty go extinct and in that chaos they invade Mesopotamia while no war with Russia.

By the second half of the 19th century, the Ottoman army is vastly superior to the Persian one, the best they could possibly have is Basra if the Great Powers agree so.
 
What would it take for Persia to be able to conquer and hold Mesopotamia in a 19th century war, probably in coalition with others (Russia in the 1870s or 1820s, or with Muhammad Ali in between, for example)?

If Persia was never sufficiently armed, organized or motivated to attack the Ottomans while others were attacking it, how many decades before these "opportunities" emerged would things need to change internally in Persia?

As far as results are concerned, conquest of any or all of the Basra, Baghdad or Mosul vilayets meets the terms of the challenge.
You'd need a PoD in the 1700s, the Qajars were dead weight, maybe the Zands could have been less dismal.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The best and most likeliest is if the Ottoman Dynasty go extinct and in that chaos they invade Mesopotamia while no war with Russia.

This is the 1808 scenario everybody executes scenario I presume. In that case, who would you bet your money on winning a fight for Mesopotamia, Sulayman Pasha the Little of the local Mamluk dynasty, or Fath-Ali Shah Qajar?

Or could a wildcard scenario emerge, like the British getting in?

Saud bin Abdul-Aziz bin Muhammad bin Saud of the first Saudi state?

Or the al-Sabah's of Kuwait?

Or Muhammad Ali from Egypt? Or Hijazi Hashemites establishing themselves on their own?


By the second half of the 19th century, the Ottoman army is vastly superior to the Persian one, the best they could possibly have is Basra if the Great Powers agree so.

Hmm, so Basra might be possible if there is a general partition of the empire but none of the powers has put in the elbow grease to develop ambitions for the area themselves.

maybe the Zands could have been less dismal.

Could either of the two Zand Shahs have a bid for Mesopotamia, maybe contemporaneous with an internal disorder in the empire or one of the contemporaneous Russo-Ottoman wars?
 
This is the 1808 scenario everybody executes scenario I presume. In that case, who would you bet your money on winning a fight for Mesopotamia, Sulayman Pasha the Little of the local Mamluk dynasty, or Fath-Ali Shah Qajar?

Or could a wildcard scenario emerge, like the British getting in?

Saud bin Abdul-Aziz bin Muhammad bin Saud of the first Saudi state?

Or the al-Sabah's of Kuwait?

Or Muhammad Ali from Egypt? Or Hijazi Hashemites establishing themselves on their own?




Hmm, so Basra might be possible if there is a general partition of the empire but none of the powers has put in the elbow grease to develop ambitions for the area themselves.



Could either of the two Zand Shahs have a bid for Mesopotamia, maybe contemporaneous with an internal disorder in the empire or one of the contemporaneous Russo-Ottoman wars?

Of all: Mehmed Ali Pasha of Egypt is by far the most superior. I'm sure he would have crushed the Persians consindering Persia was at war or would be exhausted of war. Even without, the Army of Mehmed Pasha is superior. Suleiman Pasha has a better chance of victory against Persia. If Persia has no war with Russia, their chance increases.

The bedouin dynasties are not even close to rule that area. Out of question.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Of all: Mehmed Ali Pasha of Egypt is by far the most superior. I'm sure he would have crushed the Persians consindering Persia was at war or would be exhausted of war. Even without, the Army of Mehmed Pasha is superior. Suleiman Pasha has a better chance of victory against Persia. If Persia has no war with Russia, their chance increases.

The bedouin dynasties are not even close to rule that area. Out of question.

So you figure in the 1808 through 1820 era, Iraq is not a bridge too far for Muhammad Ali?

I am not fully up to date on when in particular the Russo-Persian wars were.
 
So you figure in the 1808 through 1820 era, Iraq is not a bridge too far for Muhammad Ali?

I am not fully up to date on when in particular the Russo-Persian wars were.

Not really. He had hi son sent several missions to Diriyah in the middle of the Nejd desert.

I am a 100% sure that Mehmed Ali has a better chance to take over Mesopotamia than the Persians in the 1810s. Geography, military, politically, it all favors him.

If you really want Persia to take over Iraq, you just need one event not to happen:
- avoid the Russo-Persian war of 1804. Persia had by then a rather modernised army by the French, not exhausted by the Russians.

Have the Russians continue fighting the French or whatever.

Optionally is the strong ambitious Pasha Mehmed Ali is dead before he exterminates the Mamluks.
 
Top