Continued Persian rule in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkestan: Shiatization and Persianization continue?

]Since the decline of the Safavids, lands previously under Persian rule came under the goverment of Sunni states, namely the Ottomans and the Central Asian Khanates. Central goverment was also weakened in ares with a strong presence of Sunni tribal peoples, like in Balochistan and Khorosan, culminating in the devastating Afghan revolt that ended the Safavid era.

My question is, if post-Safavid Persia had remained strong with say, a Euphrates-Syr Darya-Kandahar border, and returned to a staunch pro-shia stance, would the process of convertion to continue in the Sunni areas as seen in previous centuries? Additionally, would Persanizing tendencies continue among the non-nomadic Pashto populations?

Thinking of borders like in this map from @Nassirisimo 's timeline:
ayRnlzS.jpg
[/SPOILER
 
Last edited:
The Safavids only controlled the Mesopotamian cities and had very poor control over the foreign Arabs and Kurds of the hinterland. I certainly don't see any reason northern Iraq would become Shia, never mind Persian.
 
]Since the decline of the Safavids, lands previously under Persian rule came under the goverment of Sunni states, namely the Ottomans and the Central Asian Khanates. Central goverment was also weakened in ares with a strong presence of Sunni tribal peoples, like in Balochistan and Khorosan, culminating in the devastating Afghan revolt that ended the Safavid era.

My question is, if post-Safavid Persia had remained strong with say, a Euphrates-Syr Darya-Kandahar border, and returned to a staunch pro-shia stance, would the process of convertion to continue in the Sunni areas as seen in previous centuries? Additionally, would Persanizing tendencies continue among the non-nomadic Pashto populations?

Thinking of borders like in this map from @Nassirisimo 's timeline:
Depends who these post-Safavids are, a successful Zand dynasty would be very different from a continuing Afsharid dynasty, which would probably be significantly different from OTL's Qajars.
 
]Since the decline of the Safavids, lands previously under Persian rule came under the goverment of Sunni states, namely the Ottomans and the Central Asian Khanates. Central goverment was also weakened in ares with a strong presence of Sunni tribal peoples, like in Balochistan and Khorosan, culminating in the devastating Afghan revolt that ended the Safavid era.

My question is, if post-Safavid Persia had remained strong with say, a Euphrates-Syr Darya-Kandahar border, and returned to a staunch pro-shia stance, would the process of convertion to continue in the Sunni areas as seen in previous centuries? Additionally, would Persanizing tendencies continue among the non-nomadic Pashto populations?

Thinking of borders like in this map from @Nassirisimo 's timeline:

It's important to remember that the settled populations of what are now Afghanistan, Turkemnistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were, and still are, Persian speakers and consider themselves to be part of the Persian tradition. However, they are primarily Sunnis, with a significant Shia minority. They probably would have ended up as Shia with continued rule from an Iran based dynasty.
 
Part of me feels that an avowedly Shi'a dynasty which embarks on an aggressive campaign of Shi'aisation may well provoke a backlash from Sunni tribal peoples. Perhaps if they had an inspirational leader in the same mold as Ismail. I wouldn't say that it was outside the realm of possibility, though it is worth bearing in mind that even the Pashtun inhabitants of the Safavid Empire remained staunchly Sunni.

Persianisation though, I don't see happening beyond the elites. It is quite strange in that the elite of countries as far as Bengal (under the Nawab, the administration of Bengal was carried out in Persian, not in Bengali or even Hindi/Urdu) were certainly Persianised, yet large minorities in Iran such as the Azeris, Lur and so on remained culturally and linguistically distinct. Outside the cities, I really don't see Persianisation happening, especially in areas such as Mesopotamia and Anatolia which don't speak Iranian languages (Kurds excepted).
 
Depends who these post-Safavids are, a successful Zand dynasty would be very different from a continuing Afsharid dynasty, which would probably be significantly different from OTL's Qajars.
in what way would a successful Zand dynasty be unique? They seem interesting from the little i know of Qarim Khan Zand (and one of his titles, "advocate of the people").
 
Last edited:
Part of me feels that an avowedly Shi'a dynasty which embarks on an aggressive campaign of Shi'aisation may well provoke a backlash from Sunni tribal peoples. Perhaps if they had an inspirational leader in the same mold as Ismail. I wouldn't say that it was outside the realm of possibility, though it is worth bearing in mind that even the Pashtun inhabitants of the Safavid Empire remained staunchly Sunni.

Persianisation though, I don't see happening beyond the elites. It is quite strange in that the elite of countries as far as Bengal (under the Nawab, the administration of Bengal was carried out in Persian, not in Bengali or even Hindi/Urdu) were certainly Persianised, yet large minorities in Iran such as the Azeris, Lur and so on remained culturally and linguistically distinct. Outside the cities, I really don't see Persianisation happening, especially in areas such as Mesopotamia and Anatolia which don't speak Iranian languages (Kurds excepted).

True, forced Shi'aisation will lead to a backlash as seen among the Pashtuns and currently among the Kurds. However, where successful, it does bind those people to the nation of Iran. For example, Azeris and Lurs, are not native Persian speakers, but are well integrated into Iranian society. Although Azeris and Lurs were probably the ones who were counted among the Qizilbash who perpetuated the Shi'aisation of Iran.The same can also be said about the Shia Kurds in Kermanshah, Ilam and Khorasan, as they have not participated in any Kurdish separatist activity in any noticeable numbers.
 
Top