With a POD after 1405 (death of Timur), could Persia conquer the Ottoman Empire, or the Ottoman Empire conquer Persia? By conquer, I mean permanently occupy and incorporate the other state, at least for a few centuries. What are the best scenarios for achieving this?
AHC: Persian-Ottoman conquest
- Thread starter Qhapaq Inka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ottoman empire persia
I was pondering a scenario like this for a potential TL. At this point it will be on hold due to more interest in another POD. However, IIRC, there were talks about a possible alliance between the Mughals and the Ottomans while Sultan Murad IV was in power around the year 1626. A letter was even sent from Jahangir to Murad IV. Unfortunately, Jahangir ended up dying before his plans came to fruition. Ambassadors were sent to Murad when he was at war with Persia but I do not recall anything further being done.
Having Jahangir live a bit longer or having Shah Jahan trying to strengthen relations further than OTL may help in a possible Ottoman conquest. Secondly, Murad IV needs to live a bit longer than he did in OTL. If memory serves me correctly, he died at the age of 27 from cirrhosis.
I am sure there are others more well versed in the histories of the Persians and the Ottomans but I figure that this could be a plausible scenario.
Having Jahangir live a bit longer or having Shah Jahan trying to strengthen relations further than OTL may help in a possible Ottoman conquest. Secondly, Murad IV needs to live a bit longer than he did in OTL. If memory serves me correctly, he died at the age of 27 from cirrhosis.
I am sure there are others more well versed in the histories of the Persians and the Ottomans but I figure that this could be a plausible scenario.
Why do you feel Persia couldn't conquer or hold Anatolia (or the Balkans after that)? Simply distance, or are the Turks too well dug in there?
I was wondering about Mughal involvement too. It'd be hard for the Safavids to fight a two-front war (or even three-front if Russia gets involved), so an Ottoman-Mughal alliance could result in a Persian defeat and possibly partition. But how easily could the Mughals, even during their 17th-century zenith, hold onto territory outside the Indian subcontinent, especially if it means running supply and communication lines through often-hostile Afghanistan and Baluchistan?
I am not sure if there was correspondence with them but, IIRC, there were talks about getting the Uzbeks involved as well. I haven't been able to find much information on them during this time period, unfortunately.
The Mughals reached the largest extent in their territorial holdings during the early 18th century and I believe that included a large chunk of Afghanistan. Also, at least in 1648, their army was quite sizable.
Could they hold their territorial gains in this scenario? It's plausible. However, it appeared that Shah Jahan was more interested in the arts and architecture. As far as how easy it would be for them that's questionable. I would have to defer to another more familiar with the Mughals.
The Mughals reached the largest extent in their territorial holdings during the early 18th century and I believe that included a large chunk of Afghanistan. Also, at least in 1648, their army was quite sizable.
Could they hold their territorial gains in this scenario? It's plausible. However, it appeared that Shah Jahan was more interested in the arts and architecture. As far as how easy it would be for them that's questionable. I would have to defer to another more familiar with the Mughals.
The Mughals pre-Aurangzeb weren't that big on conquest, and when they wanted to conquer, they usually looked south to the Deccan, as shown by Akbar's small conquests. And many of their conquests were really focused on obtaining new wealth for new arts projects, as shown by the long standoff with Golconda. I honestly see no reason why they'd decide to conquer a large part of Persia.
In regards to Afghanistan and Baluchistan, the Mughals barely controlled it. They set up outposts in cities like Kabul, but didn't really bother with conquest of the "Pathans" beyond tribute from the various tribes. It held some significance to the Mughals as the land where they launched their operations into the Indian subcontinent, but not much. Kandahar was the main point of contention between the Safavids and Mughals as it was lost during the Suri interregnum, with a number of wars being fought between the two over it, but the Mughals don't seem to have wanted much more territory on their western border unless you count the lamenting over Samarkand of the early Mughals. If they coordinate a war over Kandahar with the Ottomans, I guess it could result in a Mughal-Ottoman victory, but comparing how small the Mughal force would be, it's far from given.
In regards to Afghanistan and Baluchistan, the Mughals barely controlled it. They set up outposts in cities like Kabul, but didn't really bother with conquest of the "Pathans" beyond tribute from the various tribes. It held some significance to the Mughals as the land where they launched their operations into the Indian subcontinent, but not much. Kandahar was the main point of contention between the Safavids and Mughals as it was lost during the Suri interregnum, with a number of wars being fought between the two over it, but the Mughals don't seem to have wanted much more territory on their western border unless you count the lamenting over Samarkand of the early Mughals. If they coordinate a war over Kandahar with the Ottomans, I guess it could result in a Mughal-Ottoman victory, but comparing how small the Mughal force would be, it's far from given.
It sounds like, to me, that if Murad IV lives (less drinky-drinky=no cirrhosis), then it might be better for him to start an operation with the Mughals under Aurangzeb rather than Shah Jahan. Outside of Kandahar and possibly Samarkand, is there anything else the Mughals would want out of the deal?
Derek Pullem
Donor
The Ottomans were on the point of achieving this just before Nader Shah appeared on the scene.
Prevent Nader Shah from discovering Fath Ali Khan's treachery and the remnants of the Iranian state fall into even deeper Civil War with Nader Shah probably executed in the first moves for power. With Iran imploding then Russia, the Ottomans, the Afghans and perhaps even the Mughals are able to mostly just walk in and dismantle any kind of trappings of nationhood.
It won't last for long as there will almost certainly be rebellions against foreign rule but in the 1720's Iran really was on its last legs.
Prevent Nader Shah from discovering Fath Ali Khan's treachery and the remnants of the Iranian state fall into even deeper Civil War with Nader Shah probably executed in the first moves for power. With Iran imploding then Russia, the Ottomans, the Afghans and perhaps even the Mughals are able to mostly just walk in and dismantle any kind of trappings of nationhood.
It won't last for long as there will almost certainly be rebellions against foreign rule but in the 1720's Iran really was on its last legs.
Frankly, Shah Is'mail already held immense lands later ruled by the Ottoman throne. Places such as eastern Turkey, Armenia, Iraq, etc where all held by the Safavid throne prior to their wars with the Ottoman Empire.
Last edited:
I apologize if I seem a bit slow but clarification on what you mean? Are you inquiring about consequences of having Murad IV living longer and having an alliance progress further? The consequences of having the Ottomans push for the taking over of Persia?
Sorry, I mean the consequences about Shia and Sunni faith in case of either conquest. A Sunnite power conquered Persia would have consequences on all Shia sects ? For example a user pointed out the possibility of a Sunnite Ottoman-Mughal alliance, that could lead to a conquest of Persia.
Last edited:
I would imagine that if both the Ottomans and the Mughals partitioned Persia then there will be religious persecution. It happened in OTL under both the Ottomans and Mughals. Examples of this were the killings of the Alevis in Turkey, the Alawis in Syria, and the Shi'a in Lebanon when they were under Ottoman rule. @John7755 يوحنا may be able to provide more information. ((OOC: I don't have access at the moment to my laptop or other resources due to being currently at work on a mobile phone.))
Last edited:
To Shias under the Mughals? If memory serves me right, the rulers of Awadh were Persian Shias. The fundamentalist Mughals such as Aurangzeb tended to oppress Hindus and Sikhs, not fellow Muslims.
Actually, there was some oppression of the Shi'a under Aurangzeb. You can take it with a grain of salt but they briefly discuss the persecution of the Shi'a under the Mughals in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Shi'ism