AHC: Superpower Timurids/Iranian state.

Have Timurid make one of his children a clearer successor and crush the Ottomans entirely. Permit the successor to stabilize trade routes into and across Central Asia, using Faris and Persian culture as the glue. Keep control of Mesopotamia and allow satellite/puppet rulers a chance to control the far-flung territories. Avoid whatever made Miran Shah mentally challenged then have him inherit the empire. Avoid some of the stability problems seen in rapid succession of Timurid rulers and a stable dynasty could emerge. Have a Chaldiran equivalent favoring the Timurid in the early 1500s against whoever replaces the Ottomans and the Timurid might control everything from eastern Turkey to southern Ukraine to Egypt to Zanzibar or Madagascar to Ceylon and/or Burma and perhaps the whole of Central Asia. Their empire would not last at that size but could unite most or all of Southern Asia for a time and challenge Spain, Portugal, Britain, and France on the global stage. Perhaps they make Byzantium a puppet state that limps 8nto the 16th or even 17th century?
 
Also if a Timurid state were to remain powerful, would it have been possible for Timur's successors to retain their patriotic Mongol sentiments and attempt a reinstatement of the Yuan in China?
Well, at this period the rivalry between the Mongols had a long history, including enmity between Chagatai Mongols and Mongolia proper. I would not be surprised if the Timurid State and China united against Mongolia proper against their instability and banditry and to make more stable trade routs between them.

And the Timurids do not quite qualify as champions of all-Mongolian course. They are Non-Chengizzid (Non-Boregine).
 
Well, at this period the rivalry between the Mongols had a long history, including enmity between Chagatai Mongols and Mongolia proper. I would not be surprised if the Timurid State and China united against Mongolia proper against their instability and banditry and to make more stable trade routs between them.

And the Timurids do not quite qualify as champions of all-Mongolian course. They are Non-Chengizzid (Non-Boregine).


I was under the impression that the only reason Timur launched a campaign towards the Ming was to reinstate the Yuan dynasty, as well as the Ming always asking for tribute.
 
I was under the impression that the only reason Timur launched a campaign towards the Ming was to reinstate the Yuan dynasty, as well as the Ming always asking for tribute.
Yuan? Who gives a flying f...ck about Yuan in Chagatai Ulus?
You see the Chagatai Mongols were squeesed between Yuan and Il-Khanate. Yuan Empire and Persian Il-khanate were ruled by Toluid House and that's why they tended to unite against Chagatai House. There's a lot of bad blood between them.

Or do you mean Timur installing Yuan as his puppet in China?
He once did similar thing when he put Tohtamysh on the throne of the Golden Horde. Instead of gratitude Tokhtamysh waged a war against Timur.
I seriously doubt that Timur would have made another such mistake about Yuan.
 
Yuan? Who gives a flying f...ck about Yuan in Chagatai Ulus?
You see the Chagatai Mongols were squeesed between Yuan and Il-Khanate. Yuan Empire and Persian Il-khanate were ruled by Toluid House and that's why they tended to unite against Chagatai House. There's a lot of bad blood between them.

Or do you mean Timur installing Yuan as his puppet in China?
He once did similar thing when he put Tohtamysh on the throne of the Golden Horde. Instead of gratitude Tokhtamysh waged a war against Timur.
I seriously doubt that Timur would have made another such mistake about Yuan.


Then why did he attempt to invade the Ming?
 
Then why did he attempt to invade the Ming?

To my knowledge Timur was a religious fanatic and more of a raider, while Shah Rukh was a proper statesman. This would have been reason enough to invade the Ming Empire.

For example, he did it in India, where he completely wrecked the empire of his fellow Sunni rulers because they were too lenient towards their non-Muslim subjects (and because he wanted their wealth).
 
Then why did he attempt to invade the Ming?
Well, look at the world map. Do you see Moscow? Do you know that it was almost looted by Timur? Now measure the distance between the center of Tamerlane Empire and Moscow. Is it big? Ye, it is. It is much bigger than the distance to China? Ye, it is. Do you have any questions left?

You see China was closer than Russia but it was not looted yet.
Tamerlane was the strongest ruler on the planet. Chinese emperor was the richest ruler in the world. Is it fair? No. It was wrong (from a Chagatai Mongol' point of view). It must not be tolerated.
 
But at the same time, Alexander's empire collapsed.

Because of succession issues. The Achaemenids fell to the Macedonians because of corruption in the bureaucracy leading to a poorly lead military and various other issues as well as traitors within the government.

It's perfectly possible for an empire to last to the modern day with multiple ethnic, linguistic and religious groups - India is an example of a modern country with many different peoples that is pretty stable considering its size.
 
I was under the impression that the only reason Timur launched a campaign towards the Ming was to reinstate the Yuan dynasty, as well as the Ming always asking for tribute.

No, Timur wanted to reform the empire of Genghis Khan. The Yuan were just a tool to reach that goal. He intended to conquer as much of Ming as he could.
 
Because of succession issues. The Achaemenids fell to the Macedonians because of corruption in the bureaucracy leading to a poorly lead military and various other issues as well as traitors within the government.

It's perfectly possible for an empire to last to the modern day with multiple ethnic, linguistic and religious groups - India is an example of a modern country with many different peoples that is pretty stable considering its size.

Yes, but that's with modern institutions, railroads, etc. Throughout most of India's history before the Raj the subcontinent was divided, often very much so, with hegemonic (usually rather less than the whole of India) empires arising occasionally only to fall apart in a century or two.
 
Because of succession issues. The Achaemenids fell to the Macedonians because of corruption in the bureaucracy leading to a poorly lead military and various other issues as well as traitors within the government.

It's perfectly possible for an empire to last to the modern day with multiple ethnic, linguistic and religious groups - India is an example of a modern country with many different peoples that is pretty stable considering its size.

Modern India is a construct of colonialism. Any integration of the subcontinent organically was not sustainable historically. Also, Persia has the unfortunate location of being surrounded by peoples who are skilled at conquest.
 
Modern India is a construct of colonialism. Any integration of the subcontinent organically was not sustainable historically. Also, Persia has the unfortunate location of being surrounded by peoples who are skilled at conquest.


I wouldn't say that Persia is less likely to make conquests than Russia or Turks at the time I specified.
 
Yes, but that's with modern institutions, railroads, etc. Throughout most of India's history before the Raj the subcontinent was divided, often very much so, with hegemonic (usually rather less than the whole of India) empires arising occasionally only to fall apart in a century or two.

Modern India is a construct of colonialism. Any integration of the subcontinent organically was not sustainable historically. Also, Persia has the unfortunate location of being surrounded by peoples who are skilled at conquest.

Modern India is certainly the product of colonialism. But the oddity of Modern India is that it combines North India and all South India. I don't think I can remember any Indian Empire of antiquity that managed that.

However, Northern India was quite often united under a single Empire. The only difference between the string of Empires in Northern India and the Chinese Empire is that unlike the Chinese, we consider a change of dynasty in charge as marking the "fall" of that civilization.

Personally, I think that this has more to do with colonial prejudices (and the need to form an argument for why the English speaking peoples should rule India) than it does historical realities.

fasquardon
 
However, Northern India was quite often united under a single Empire. The only difference between the string of Empires in Northern India and the Chinese Empire is that unlike the Chinese, we consider a change of dynasty in charge as marking the "fall" of that civilization.
fasquardon

Generally speaking, I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. China's periods of division, aside from the long Song - Jin - Liao tended to be shorter: north India was divided into multiple states at least as often as it was unified, I don't think we get anything like "continuity of succession" until the Sultanate of Delhi. And when we talk about "Northern India", we're basically talking about the Indus-Ganges river complex, a geographically rather more compact area than China. As well as the Dravidian south, Central India/the Deccan was usually mostly outside of these empires.

Now, if you want to say "there's a certain natural unity to the Ganges drainage area", I'd agree with you. Anyhoo, we're drifting from the subject of Iran/Central Asia. I'd say the famous "unconquerability" of Afghanistan is really a product of modern history: before the emergence of the modern Pathan-dominated state, Afghanistan had usually been under the rule of one empire or another. Olde Persians, Maruyans, Kushans, Hephthalites, Ghurids, Mongols, and Timurids. If the Persians/Timurids have Afghanistan, then they're in a good position to master the Punjab, which gives them a lot of added population and resources (perhaps not relatively as much as they have today: IIRC, in the last couple centuries the population of the Pakistan area has grown faster than the Indian subcontinent as a whole). Extending further into India is iffy: Iranian or Turkish military commanders aren't members of the British East India company, and the longer and slower the line of communications from Samarkand or Esfahan or whatever[1], the greater the odds they will break away to carve out their own states. [2]

Bruce

[1] Man, Persia has had a lot of capitals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitals_of_Persia

[2] I'm assuming no Mughals of course.
 
Modern India is certainly the product of colonialism. But the oddity of Modern India is that it combines North India and all South India. I don't think I can remember any Indian Empire of antiquity that managed that.

However, Northern India was quite often united under a single Empire. The only difference between the string of Empires in Northern India and the Chinese Empire is that unlike the Chinese, we consider a change of dynasty in charge as marking the "fall" of that civilization.

Personally, I think that this has more to do with colonial prejudices (and the need to form an argument for why the English speaking peoples should rule India) than it does historical realities.

fasquardon

Which explains that an enduring Greater Persia running nearly all of western Asia isn't in the cards.
 
And when we talk about "Northern India", we're basically talking about the Indus-Ganges river complex, a geographically rather more compact area than China. As well as the Dravidian south, Central India/the Deccan was usually mostly outside of these empires.

The Indo-Gangetic plain is where 70-90% of the population was concentrated (depending on the time period, the relative population fluctuated). To say that controlling that alone is "not enough" when we count Chinese Empires as the Chinese Empire if they control the quarter of modern China that contains the most fertile land is, I think, a double standard.

fasquardon
 
Top