Best case scenario for Imperial Iran

Like the title says, what could've been the best case scenario for Iran?

What Iran could've been like if things played out right for them? For an ancient country which once a mighty empire in the ancient world, Iran didn't seemed to have good luck in modern times.
 

Deleted member 116192

Well the best case scenario is Iran retaining Balochistan,Iran's Afghani provinces , western part of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan and if Iran gets really lucky even Iraq and Kurdistan
 
I would say the best case is all of the Middle East, from *Greece to the Indus, identifying as part of the Iranosphere, at times United in one empire and at times fragmented (requires a POD before Salamis).
 
You mean Islamic? How would you avoid persians being overshadowed by Arabs, and you also have Hellenic and Roman narratives plus Christianity to contend with.

No, I mean Zoroastrian.
With Heraclius´ gamble not paying off in 622, suppose that Khosrow has no second front in 630s - Constantinople and the whole Asia Minor mopped up, Aegean and Balkans as well, and the Roman refugees in Africa and Sicily not a serious worry.
And with no second front, the Arab attack is repelled and suppressed - the Sassanids occupy Medina and Mecca and establish firm control of Arabia.

With Khosrow dying in bed in 640, Muhamed a footnote in history and Arabs a poor and suppressed people on the southern margin of Sassanid Empire... the Christian populations now subject to the Empire in the new western parts (Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt) are not as marginal as Arabs - not numerically, not economically, not culturally and probably not politically either.

What will happen to the now western Sassanid Empire, assuming that Constantinople, Alexandria and the countries in between continue to be run from Ctesiphon for the rest of 7th century?
 
Of all the Islamic Persian dynasties, which of whom you think will be better as best case scenario for Iran?

I'm thinking of Safavids. Afsharids has potential but those guys overstretched. The Zand, maybe.
 
Of all the Islamic Persian dynasties, which of whom you think will be better as best case scenario for Iran?

I'm thinking of Safavids. Afsharids has potential but those guys overstretched. The Zand, maybe.
I doubt the Asfhars would work really. Nader's Khorasani loyalties didn't help all that much. I'd say the Safavids? They were the revivers of Persian culture.

I have literally zero knowledge on this period of history, but would a less successful, more Persian Abbasid revolt work?
 

Deleted member 116192

Of all the Islamic Persian dynasties, which of whom you think will be better as best case scenario for Iran?

I'm thinking of Safavids. Afsharids has potential but those guys overstretched. The Zand, maybe.
well Safavids can be the best case scenario for Iran but the main problem with the Safavids and many other dynasties of the middle East including south Asia was fatricide,parricide and prolicide while there were many other problems but this according to me sticks out as any succession will result in civil war like situation destabilizing the country . If Safavids are successful in having a ordered succession of Shahs then they can retain much of the Iranian realms
 
No, I mean Zoroastrian.
With Heraclius´ gamble not paying off in 622, suppose that Khosrow has no second front in 630s - Constantinople and the whole Asia Minor mopped up, Aegean and Balkans as well, and the Roman refugees in Africa and Sicily not a serious worry.
And with no second front, the Arab attack is repelled and suppressed - the Sassanids occupy Medina and Mecca and establish firm control of Arabia.

With Khosrow dying in bed in 640, Muhamed a footnote in history and Arabs a poor and suppressed people on the southern margin of Sassanid Empire... the Christian populations now subject to the Empire in the new western parts (Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt) are not as marginal as Arabs - not numerically, not economically, not culturally and probably not politically either.

What will happen to the now western Sassanid Empire, assuming that Constantinople, Alexandria and the countries in between continue to be run from Ctesiphon for the rest of 7th century?
How about a sassanid restoration?
Interestingly enough, after the fall of the sassanid empire some of the last sassanids fled to china, and were taken in by tang, under gaozong I believe. In fact, gaozong ordered a tang noble by the name of Pei Xingjian to lead an army and bring narsieh back to his homeland, apparently in a restoration attempt. They were succesful against the turks, but pei apparently lost interest and abandoned the campaign.

Furthermore, this expedition apparently took place only slightly before the second fitna, a time of civil war and revolt in the umayyad caliphate. Had the expedition been launched later on than historically and pei not lost interest, it may have had a good shot at succeeding, which..would be interesting.
 
No, I mean Zoroastrian.
With Heraclius´ gamble not paying off in 622, suppose that Khosrow has no second front in 630s - Constantinople and the whole Asia Minor mopped up, Aegean and Balkans as well, and the Roman refugees in Africa and Sicily not a serious worry.
And with no second front, the Arab attack is repelled and suppressed - the Sassanids occupy Medina and Mecca and establish firm control of Arabia.

With Khosrow dying in bed in 640, Muhamed a footnote in history and Arabs a poor and suppressed people on the southern margin of Sassanid Empire... the Christian populations now subject to the Empire in the new western parts (Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt) are not as marginal as Arabs - not numerically, not economically, not culturally and probably not politically either.

What will happen to the now western Sassanid Empire, assuming that Constantinople, Alexandria and the countries in between continue to be run from Ctesiphon for the rest of 7th century?
The sassanids were, at their time, in a more difficult Position to absorb and integrate others. Now, in contrast to rebellious houses, they'd also have religious revolts at their hands. Otoh, no ERE means they have a more secure Western border.
 
The sassanids were, at their time, in a more difficult Position to absorb and integrate others. Now, in contrast to rebellious houses, they'd also have religious revolts at their hands. Otoh, no ERE means they have a more secure Western border.

And possibility to play off one against the other.
Khusraw was a polygamist.
His designated heir was one Mardanshah - and Mardanshah´s mother was Shirin.
Who notoriously was a Christian - a Monophysite Armenian at that.
OTL, in 628, after Khusraw was discredited by his defeat by Heraclius and refusal to make peace at that, another of his sons, Kavadh, led a coup, killing Khusraw, Shirin, Mardanshah and the rest of is brethren.

In a TL where Khusraw is victorious and dies in bed... will the Christians in Sassanid Empire, instead of launching religious revolts against the whole Sassanid dynasty, have an opportunity to rally to specific Sassanid descendants?
 
Of all the Islamic Persian dynasties, which of whom you think will be better as best case scenario for Iran?

I'm thinking of Safavids. Afsharids has potential but those guys overstretched. The Zand, maybe.
How about a POD around Chaldiran? Ismail was conquering huge swathes of territory in Alexandrian amounts of time prior to his crushing defeat at the hands of the Ottomans. Gunpowder superiority the Ottomans may have bad, but the Persian chances of winning the battle weren't exactly naught, and without his defeat he will not lose the messianic aura that he possessed before the battle in OTL, nor would he fall into the alcoholism that he did after the battle in OTL. Whether a Safavid State that wins at Chaldiran could be considered Persian as opposed to Turkic is questionable though.
 
How about a POD around Chaldiran? Ismail was conquering huge swathes of territory in Alexandrian amounts of time prior to his crushing defeat at the hands of the Ottomans. Gunpowder superiority the Ottomans may have bad, but the Persian chances of winning the battle weren't exactly naught, and without his defeat he will not lose the messianic aura that he possessed before the battle in OTL, nor would he fall into the alcoholism that he did after the battle in OTL. Whether a Safavid State that wins at Chaldiran could be considered Persian as opposed to Turkic is questionable though.
How does he follow up a victory at Chaldiran?
 
Top