AHC/WI: Ottoman conquest of Persia

[Otto Kretschmer]

Make it so that:
1. Ottomans conquer Persia (at least the territory of modern day Iran + Greater Iran possibly)
2. They do it before a significant part of the population manages to convert to Shiism
3. They keep it long term and cost of garrisoning it is not higher than taxes collected from it and military recruits gained from it (i.e. it is a net benefit to the Ottoman state)

 

[Nivek]

2. They do it before a significant part of the population manages to convert to Shiism

Easy, they beat Safavid early and quickly so they never push State Shiism, they gain a new powerbase with more Muslim there...I think Europe might shit their pants now(Vienna and the Italian peninsula are real posibilities of conquest)

 

[Vitalian]

I think that if the Ottomans do end up conquering Persia they'll have newer enemies in central asia that may actually give them MORE trouble then the Saffavid dynasty would have. They'll have to slow down on conquests for the time being, assuming this is on the 16th century

 

[Nivek]

I think that if the Ottomans do end up conquering Persia they'll have newer enemies in central asia that may actually give them MORE trouble then the Saffavid dynasty would have. They'll have to slow down on conquests for the time being, assuming this is on the 16th century

Who? The Hindu are too busy with themselves, the other steppes tribes and turks are far weaker than Ottomans, they will be fine

 

[Vitalian]

Who? The Hindu are too busy with themselves, the other steppes tribes and turks are far weaker than Ottomans, they will be fine

It doesn't matter that the steppe tribes are far weaker, they'll raid if they have the chance too. Ottoman resources would be overstretched enough controlling Persia

 

[Aghstadian]

Most likely outcome will be Ottoman setting up plieable client in Persia or very autonomous Province ala Algier. Persia beyond Zagros is simply too big and too far from Ottoman core in Rumelia. That said Tabriz and Persian Caucacus likely will be permanently Ottoman (might have interesting consequence long term) with Khorasan in the hand of Uzbek.

Long term control of Persia require no Habsburg Hungary. One way to achieve it is Hungary goes Protestant.

 

[Vinization]

I can see them keeping western Persia, but all of it? Too distant from Constantinople, too mountainous a terrain and too populated by people who would likely never submit.

This is as far east as I can plausibly see the empire go.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Perhaps they resettle the area with loyal Crimean Tartars and other Steppe tribes being driven out of Russia.

As others said, controlling the Zagros is easy, retaining the rest would be hard.

 

[Osman Aga]

I think that if the Ottomans do end up conquering Persia they'll have newer enemies in central asia that may actually give them MORE trouble then the Saffavid dynasty would have. They'll have to slow down on conquests for the time being, assuming this is on the 16th century

You think so? You really think the Sunni Uzbeks would be far worse than the Shia Safavids? I don't think so. Militarily speaking, the Uzbeks are inferior to that of the Ottomans. OTL situation would be a bigger problem than Ottoman Persia and new enemies

 

[Osman Aga]

It doesn't matter that the steppe tribes are far weaker, they'll raid if they have the chance too. Ottoman resources would be overstretched enough controlling Persia

"They'll raid if they have the chance". That's an assumption. We can also assume the Uzbeks will ally the Ottomans to prevent Babur from returning to the Fergana Valley. Maybe even to fight against the infidel Oirats.

Ottoman resources would not be overstretched. OTL border was far longer and the Safavids were usually avoiding battle until the 1603-1614 war. The theoretical border in Persia with Central Asia is better defendable otl.

 

[Osman Aga]

Most likely outcome will be Ottoman setting up plieable client in Persia or very autonomous Province ala Algier. Persia beyond Zagros is simply too big and too far from Ottoman core in Rumelia. That said Tabriz and Persian Caucacus likely will be permanently Ottoman (might have interesting consequence long term) with Khorasan in the hand of Uzbek.

Long term control of Persia require no Habsburg Hungary. One way to achieve it is Hungary goes Protestant.

I can agree with this. In theory, Ottoman Persia before 1543 does not necessarily mean Ottoman Hungary is impossible but you still end up in a scenario like in 1603 where the Ottomans faced trouble in Persia to defend against the Safavids. Long term success in Persia does require the Ottomans to refrain from Hungary.

Protestant Hungary (Calvinist/Unitarian even better) is a gift from God for the Ottomans. It prevents a stronger power to inherit Hungary. The Ottomans do not need to deal with Hungary then.

 

[Osman Aga]

I can see them keeping western Persia, but all of it? Too distant from Constantinople, too mountainous a terrain and too populated by people who would likely never submit.

This is as far east as I can plausibly see the empire go.

Sunni Muslim population who have the choice between the Ottomans who are likely to leave the status quo and grant greater form of autonomy... and the Turco-Mongolian Khan who would treat Persia like Timur treated Persia and the Ottomans treated Anatolia: large tax revenue extortion.

 

[Osman Aga]

Make it so that:
1. Ottomans conquer Persia (at least the territory of modern day Iran + Greater Iran possibly)
2. They do it before a significant part of the population manages to convert to Shiism
3. They keep it long term and cost of garrisoning it is not higher than taxes collected from it and military recruits gained from it (i.e. it is a net benefit to the Ottoman state)

Malkoçoğlu Turali bey kills Ismail in field personally. According to legends they faced each other with the latter killing the former by slicing him in half with one swing. The two Malkoçoğlu brothers died in the battle, that we are certain.
Selim has no issue as the Safavids are now broken in morale. If Ismail's son Tahmasp is also killed even better. The whole Qizilbash rallying around the head of the Safaviyya Order is gone.
Their conquest of Persia collapses. The Ottomans move further from Tabriz to Qazvin, Qom, Kashan and maybe even Esfahan only to return to Mesopotamia to Baghdad.
Selim grants some dissatisfied Turkmens of Anatolia with Beyliks in Persia on the condition that they remain Sunni and do not join with Shia's. Over a period of time most of Persia with an exception of Khorasan and Baluchistan is nominally Ottoman, though ruled by hereditary beyliks.
The situation is: Azerbaijan, Khuzestan and Iranian Kurdistan is under Ottoman administration. Inner Persia is ruled by various Turkmen and Persian nobles with hereditary rulership there... areas as East as Golestan, Kerman, Bandar Abbas (does not exist in TTL but I use it for the sake of clearing the area) are nominally Ottoman. But the situation is comparable with the Ottoman Maghreb, do it may evolve into Ottoman Egypt over time.
The Ottomans either need hereditary divided Beyliks in Persia to guarantee control or one strong beylik with a governoe, like in Egypt with more freedom to face Eastern Threats. The risk of the governor breaking away like Mehmed Ali is also likely. It is a wealthy place, large, far away from Constantinople and Geographically harder to control than Egypt.
This situation is prior to the conversion to Shiism by the Safavids. Zaidi and Ismaili minorities still exist though. The Ottomans will have minimum men for garrisoning duties as my expectation is that the local autonomous beyliks will use their own manpower for Eastern skirmishers. Twelver Shiism is curbed massively. Azerbaijan will be economically more tied to Anatolia. Less decline of Turkmens in Eastern Anatolia as there is no lomger a reason to suspect their loyalty.

Realistically speaking, the Ottomans cannot directly control Persia until the age of the railroads. Until then, the situation is either A). Ottoman Maghreb though closer tied to the capital unlike the Maghreb or B). Ottoman Egypt with some old institutions kept intact to rule the area with local nobles (Mamluks in Egypt etc + more freedom for the governor).

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

You think so? You really think the Sunni Uzbeks would be far worse than the Shia Safavids? I don't think so. Militarily speaking, the Uzbeks are inferior to that of the Ottomans. OTL situation would be a bigger problem than Ottoman Persia and new enemies

But the ottomans are massively overstretched and less mobile than the uzbeks- no matter if the ottomans are objectively stronger, at least until Iran proper has been fully incorporated into the ottoman system, they run the real risk of Uzbeks or Afghans taking eastern Persia at least, or even a north Indian power taking massive bites out of the east just because they're richer and more able to bribe ottoman governors, who probably feel like the core isn't giving them nearly enough support to maintain the regions security.

"They'll raid if they have the chance". That's an assumption. We can also assume the Uzbeks will ally the Ottomans to prevent Babur from returning to the Fergana Valley

No we can't why would we assume that? Baburs career might well be butterflied and even if not, if he gets settled in India then there's no chance of him trying to get Ferghana back. The uzbeks are likely to hold onto Herat and khorasan without a Safavid conquest of the area.

 

[Osman Aga]

But the ottomans are massively overstretched and less mobile than the uzbeks- no matter if the ottomans are objectively stronger, at least until Iran proper has been fully incorporated into the ottoman system, they run the real risk of Uzbeks or Afghans taking eastern Persia at least, or even a north Indian power taking massive bites out of the east just because they're richer and more able to bribe ottoman governors, who probably feel like the core isn't giving them nearly enough support to maintain the regions security.

No we can't why would we assume that? Baburs career might well be butterflied and even if not, if he gets settled in India then there's no chance of him trying to get Ferghana back. The uzbeks are likely to hold onto Herat and khorasan without a Safavid conquest of the area.

The Ottomans could be considered as overstretched in OTL tolerating a Shia state in Persia, who tried far until the 1820s to incite Shia rebellions. Getting rid of that lowers the overstretch. By the way I wrote about how Persia would look like in this scenario. You may want to read it.
The mobile forces of the Uzbeks is a little different situation than the Safavids. The Ottomans faced an army of Turkmens who were mostly from Anatolia, natives of the land. They fought relatively close to home (Tabriz to Chaldiran is closer than Samarkand to Western Khorasan...). They were obliterated and Ismail escaped death after his followers saved him. Mobility is not a guarantee for victory especially for an army who also have more cavalry than infantry but also gunpowder weapons. I may have to remind you there is desert between Mashad, where I think the Uzbeks will be and Semnan, most Easterns the Ottoman Army could get. It isn't like the Ottomans did not operate in far away territories. They reached Vienna in 1532, 18 years after Chaldiran. That's even before annexing Hungary and using Buda as a base. Again, read my theoretical scenario in my last message about Ottoman Persia.

I must remind you, I did not mention Khorasan in my addition. The most useful towns of Khorasan are beyond the desert like Mashad, Herat and Merv. I don't expect a threat from the Afghans. The land is ruled by either the Shaybanids, Babur or smaller rulers in the area. Unless the Ottomans do something to piss off the Afghans (hardly possible as the Ottoman Army cannot really subdue Afghanistan), there is no real Afghan threat. To consider nations turning suddenly hostile as they border them is plain silly.
The Uzbeks... My scenario with the Uzbeks was theoreticak. Vitalian mentioned an Eastern Threat and I could only think of Shaybanids. But that is ignoring the fact that Selim did support Mohammed Shaybani with weapons against Babur. Which means the relationship was good. Unless Selim is not content with Persia alone and wants Khorasan too, while Shaybani rulers want to become the new Timur, it is unlikely these two nations will fight each other. If they did, the Uzbeks aren't really in a position to drive the Ottomans out of Persia. Militarily too weak, the local nobles will enjoy their autonomy more than being conquered by an Uzbek warlord. I considered Chaldiran as the PoD and by then Mohammed Shaybani was dead for four years and driven out and the Uzbeks only recently reconquered Samarkand from Babur. The latter remaining in Kabul means the Uzbeks aren't secure enough to invade Persia.

Considering the PoD is 1514, Babur is in Kabul. His rulership might be affected if the Ottoman-Uzbek relationship detoriate. If not, he may still go to India. It depends on the situation.
By the way, if I wasn't clear enough I may have to say it again: I did not count Khorasan, Baluchistan and anything East of Semnan/Kerman/Yazd as becoming Ottoman, let alone all of Greater Iran. With the absence of the Safavids, the Uzbeks or Babur may rule over Herat and Khorasan. Depending on the situation.