Down the Parallel Road: An Afsharid Persia Timeline
- Thread starter Nassirisimo
- Start date
@Nassirismo 1) The Sikhs was regarded as more of a distinctly militant sect of Hindus. It was only after the Sikh Confederacy that they grew to be a separate religious Identity. Jats did convert in large numbers but other communities ( including Muslims ) converted as well so it's easier to call them just Sikhs. A larger proportion of Jats, especially from Modern day Haryana and western UP did not convert and remain dominant.
2) My community is a branch of Rajputs based around Karnal (same place as the battle).
2) My community is a branch of Rajputs based around Karnal (same place as the battle).
What an amazing timeline.
@Nassirisimo, how do the Afsharids deal with Badakhshan? As you might know, Badakhshan was reviled in Central Asia for handing over the heads of Burhan ad-Din and Khoja Jihan, who had revolted against the Qing conquest of the Tarim Basin, to Beijing in 1759. Ahmad Shah Abdali even cooperated with Bukhara to raid Badakhshan in 1765 to punish it for surrendering Muslims to infidels. It seems like an invasion of Badakhshan would be an easy way to gain further support from the Central Asian elite while testing Qing China's willingness to be involved in another Central Asian war.
Additionally, how is Persia affecting the general mood in Qing Turkestan? In 1765 the city of Ush (now Uqturpan County) rebelled against the Qing with the expectation that they would be supported by the Muslim world, and specifically the ruler of Khoqand. Now that there is a great Islamic power in Central Asia rather than the small khanates and emirates of OTL, and a Sunni one to boot, I can only imagine that such rebellions would be more frequent. Does Reza Qoli intervene, trying to take advantage of these revolts to portray himself as a holy warrior ousting the infidel? Could we then see a Qing-Afsharid War?
@Nassirisimo, how do the Afsharids deal with Badakhshan? As you might know, Badakhshan was reviled in Central Asia for handing over the heads of Burhan ad-Din and Khoja Jihan, who had revolted against the Qing conquest of the Tarim Basin, to Beijing in 1759. Ahmad Shah Abdali even cooperated with Bukhara to raid Badakhshan in 1765 to punish it for surrendering Muslims to infidels. It seems like an invasion of Badakhshan would be an easy way to gain further support from the Central Asian elite while testing Qing China's willingness to be involved in another Central Asian war.
Additionally, how is Persia affecting the general mood in Qing Turkestan? In 1765 the city of Ush (now Uqturpan County) rebelled against the Qing with the expectation that they would be supported by the Muslim world, and specifically the ruler of Khoqand. Now that there is a great Islamic power in Central Asia rather than the small khanates and emirates of OTL, and a Sunni one to boot, I can only imagine that such rebellions would be more frequent. Does Reza Qoli intervene, trying to take advantage of these revolts to portray himself as a holy warrior ousting the infidel? Could we then see a Qing-Afsharid War?
Siberia is still unquestionably Russian. The fact that slave raiding from Central Asia has been curb may take a lot of motivation for expansion into the region out of the picture, but Russia will likely feel the pressure to expand somewhere. It is likely that they will be focused on moving into Poland for at least some time though. The Ottoman Empire is also likely to be a prime area for expansion, though without a Caucasian border between Russia and the Ottomans, the dynamics are likely to be different.
Now that is quite interesting indeed. I find it quite fascinating at times how late some religious identities actually formed. Certainly my knowledge of Sikhism isn't deep at all, and it is a religion I'd like to know more about.
Thanks!
I've actually got a lot prepared for future Sino-Persian relations. Eventually the borders and influence of the two will collide in Central Asia. While China has a great economic and demographic advantage over Persia, it is likely that many Muslims in Central Asia would prefer to rally around the Persians. Whether or not this will lead to war is another matter entirely, but there will be a great amount of tension, especially if Reza Shah decides to throw his weight around.
Persia's priorities in Central Asia will likely be reducing the threat of slave raiding to settled peoples, who are likely to become more of a concern for the Persian government than the nomads. To a lesser extent, we may see increasing settlement among the Amu Darya river, depending on how seriously the Persians want to secure control of the region.
Reza Shah's Reign - Part One
Pierre Marchand; In The Shadow of the Enlightenment - The Role of Political Thought in government in the 18th Century
The nature of Reza Shah’s reign was rather different than that of his father’s. Like his father, Reza embarked on a number of wars, however few of these were wars of conquest as Nader’s wars had been. Iranian historians long referred to the wars under Reza Shah as the “Ghazi Wars”, seen as wars of defence of the Islamic nation rather than wars of conquest for the Persian one. Nader had shown himself to be a ruler disinterested in serious administrative policy for the most part, whereas Reza actively took an interest in government policy aimed not only at increasing taxes in the short term, but providing some basic level of support for the populace as well. Although both rulers are considered to be the “Greater Afsharids”, aside from their success at keeping the peace within Persia and their attempts at religious reform there were some divergent threads that very much distinguished their reigns from each other.
However, not all of these differences can be explained by the different personalities and goals of the respective rulers. It has to be kept in mind that the world that the Persian state inhabited under the rule of the two men were very different ones. Persia and the Islamic world had already had their first experiences with the growing power of Europe before the reign of Nader, as the Ottomans had been defeated by the Austrians and the Russians had occupied parts of Iran following the fall of the Safavid Empire. However, generally speaking, during Nader’s reign, European states presented little existential threat to the various Islamic polities around the world. These previous defeats had been seen as minor setbacks that were soon corrected, and there was as of yet nothing that seemed superior about the organization of European societies to Muslim observers. Muslim polities remained largely free of European political influence outside of the East Indies.
This pattern changed as Reza’s rule progressed. The Mughal Empire and her successor states in India came under pressure from expansionist European powers, as did the Ottoman Empire in the West. These two had been the other great “Gunpowder Empires” in the 16th century alongside Persia, and their political weakness was seen by many of the political class of Persia as a warning sign about her own vulnerability in a changing world. Ali al-Yazdi, a prominent 18th century cleric and historian had argued that when faced with the rising power of non-Muslim powers, that powerful Muslim rulers should put aside their differences with others to unite against the threat. This line of thought was particularly influential in the Iranian court under Reza Shah, and there is some indication that al-Yazdi personally influenced Reza toward undertaking interventions in India, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Certainly, until his death the cleric served as one of Reza Shah’s leading advisors.
Whereas Nader saw himself very much as a spiritual successor to Tamerlane, Reza instead looked elsewhere for models of kingship. His youthful enthusiasm for war seems to have ebbed away in the course of his twenties, and he listened carefully to those who said that the role of the Shah was not simply to win victories for the sake of his own glory, but to act as a patriarchal carer of his people. Some of the ideas that were articulated during Reza’s reign seem to have been inspired somewhat by Confucian thought, which may explain why certain intellectuals who thought this way fell out of favour after the Sino-Persian war. Nevertheless, the idea that the Shah should act as a steward seems to have stuck, if only for the reason that it justified the Shah’s huge personal landholdings, which included much of Iran’s forested area.
Indeed, to some extent many of the intellectual trends in society during Reza’s reign seemed to have promoted ideas that served to enhance the power of the Shah and settled elites. Particularly after the increase of contact with Europe following the Seven Years War, the Persians became interested in the idea of the “Rationalisation” of government. Bureaucrats were ordered to use Persian for all official business, regional dialects such as Mazandarani and Lur were discouraged, and tribal grazing lands were given over to those chiefs who agreed to settle. This wasn’t an effort to create a “Persian” nation however, but was more perceived in terms of weakening potential opposition to the government. One of the side effects of the anti-Nomadic policies of Reza’s reign was that many tribesmen who previously spent their lives with their herds moved to Persia’s cities. This contributed to the existing trends of urban growth, as well as the homogenization of Persian society, as the languages of the former tribespeople usually lasted little more than a generation in cities like Isfahan and Rey.
******
Charles Page; State Formation and Development in a Global Context
Charles Page; State Formation and Development in a Global Context
Persia also falls into the pattern seen in France and South East Asia. The beginning of the 18th century saw invasion and the destruction of the existing order in an episode every bit as devastating of the Burmese sack of Ayutthaya. The Hotaki Afghan tribal warriors found Isfahan one of the most prosperous cities in the world and left it a shadow of its former self. However, as in Siam and Burma, the Persian state was revived by a powerful military ruler who was able to vanquish the enemies that bedevilled his country and to properly subordinate the less sophisticated hill people and nomads. However, Persia was large enough to have an impact on the rest of the world, and her revival had implications for great powers with interests in the Middle East, India and Central Asia.
There were undoubtedly some unquestionable losers from Persia’s revival. The European Trading Companies in India had their hopes of Empire in the Ganges Plain dashed by Persia’s ambitions in the area. The Persian Shahs saw Northern India as a key source of tribute, and did not want to risk losing this to either Europeans or native Indians. In order to ensure this, for much of the 18th century Persia had an army based at Mardan on the border with the Mughal Empire to ensure that they could respond quickly to any threats to the status quo in North India. Maratha ambitions to replace the Muslim dominated Mughal Empire with a new Hindu Empire were similarly discouraged by the Persians. Without the influence of Persia in India, it seems likely that another subcontinental Empire might have arisen in the 18th century as opposed to the multi-state system that endured into the 19th century.
Although the Persian’s gained much from tribute in India, her main source of income was derived from Persia itself. Whereas previous Persian rulers had relied on crown lands and ad hoc taxes, the reign of Reza Shah saw the rationalisation of the revenue system. Persian crown lands tended to be limited to areas with a key strategic resource, such as the forests of Mazandaran and the Alborz mountains. Forestry in this area was carefully managed to avoid deforestation, but also to provide the Persian Shah with a steady source of revenue, which was crucial for maintaining Persia’s standing army. Exports and imports were also a key source of income for the Persian government. As trade picked up through the 18th century, the crown ensured that the ports of Batumi, Basra and Bandar Abbas were under careful control, as much of Persia’s trade was conducted in these cities.
The result of this rationalisation was a general growth in the amount of commerce within Persia and the overall level of prosperity. The bureaucracy grew, with there being roughly one government official for every 400 Persians by the beginning of the 19th century. This marked a significant growth since the start of the Afsharid period, and ensured that the realm was more integrated than at previous points in Persian history. This, alongside the establishment of a steady stream of revenue ensured that the Persian state could afford to pay for a modern standing army without recourse to extraordinary source of income, at least outside of war time.
Actually Sikhism was developed as a sort third path for Hindus and Muslims because not only does incorporate elements of both religions, but accepts other religions as being equally viable in leading to paradise. Here is a good sight for learning about it's history, practices and important figures: http://www.sikhs.org/topics.htm
Last edited:
"Hey, guys, let's be friends and take the best of both our cultures!"
"FUCKING HERETIC!!! DIE AND GO TO HELL!"
On the bright side, Sikhs get to carry ceremonial knives everywhere now.
Excuse me but how does relaying information to the author of this timeline make me a heretic,
I have only studied this religion on my own time and I am not practitioner of the faith in any way.
Well the way you wrote, it seemed that intended your words for me personally.
Dude, he was obviously being sarcastic about how the establishment of both faiths reacted to the Sikh movement.
I may have a passing familiarity with his work.You've read Victor Lieberman, haven't you?
I found it to be an interesting read on state development. As I was reading it though I was struck by just how wildly the fortunes states of the Islamic world diverged from those of Europe and South East Asia in the 18th century.
I had a Sikh science teacher back in High School who told me much the same thing actually. As I said though, I don't really know much about the details of the religion so it would be good to have a read of the website. Thanks!
In Yemen people carry them around everywhere too. Then again, they were allowed to carry guns everywhere until 2006 or something along those lines. For all the good that did stopping violence there...
The Ten Year's War
Henri Braun; Europe's Bloody 18th Century
The Ten Years War
The Origins of the great “Ten Years War” were most definitely European. Austria still seethed at Prussia’s seizure of Silesia during the War of Austrian Succession. The rivalry of Britain and France across the globe was heating up. However, it was rather curious that the traditional enemies of Austria and France were allies during the war. This was largely due to the British promise of cooperation with Prussia, which created the impression among many of the Continental powers that Britain was an untrustworthy and duplicitous player in Continental politics. This shift in the diplomatic balance was known as the “Diplomatic Revolution”. Britain hoped that an alliance with Prussia would help secure Hannover. The French hoped that her new allies would help her secure a total victory on the continent that had eluded her in previous wars with Britain.
Although Britain and France had already been at war for two years already, the war exploded in 1756, with a Prussian offensive quickly overrunning Saxony, and absorbing her armies in preparation for an offensive into Austrian Bohemia. The speed of the Prussian offensive took many by surprise, and the admirers of the Prussian King Frederick saw these early successes as proof of the king’s genius. However, Austria had made considerable improvements in her army since the War of Austrian Succession, and under the Count Daun, manage to blunt the Prussian offensive and push Frederick out of Bohemia. Notable was the unreliability of the Saxon forces that had been pressed into the army of Frederick, as battalions actually defected to the Austrians in the heat of battle! The Prussian Gambit had failed to pay off, and now she was faced not only by the received Austrians, but by Russia as well.
The deteriorating position of Prussia was bad enough news for Britain, her own position deteriorated. At the battle of Hastenbeck, the French had defeated the combined British-Hanoverian army and signed a truce with Hannover, forcing the British army of observation to pull back to Stade. In North America, the French and their Native American allies inflicted a series of defeats on the British. Perhaps most humiliatingly of all, the British East India Company was obliterated in Bengal as the Persians supported Bengali moves against the British base in Calcutta. These reversals were too much for the embattled British government, which now found itself dominated by William Pitt, the new leader of the House of Commons. Pitt decided on a new strategy, which would increase the military focus on the colonies, a strategy which made use of Britain’s superior naval strength.
As 1757 wore on, the situation in Europe started to improve somewhat. The Prussians defeated forces from France and Austria at Rossbach and Leuthen, though Prussia’s prestige was hit by an Austrian raid in which Berlin was partially occupied for a short time. The situation appeared to have stabilised though, and the British-Prussian alliance now felt confident enough to continue the war in earnest. In the following year, Frederick felt confident enough to launch an attack on Austrian Moravia, while the British focused on colonial operations. However, the Prussians were once again pushed out of Austria by Daun, while Russian forces occupied East Prussia. Frederick was now increasingly worried about the ring of steel that was closing in on him, and although he checked the Russians and the Swedes, Prussia’s strategic situation was increasingly untenable. The only consolation for their alliance was that France’s own situation was deteriorating, and the French king appointed a new chief minister to try and turn France’s fortunes in the war around.
Britain’s navy won great victories against the French and her allies in Europe, the Americas and the Indian Ocean, almost destroying the Persian fleet totally. Combined with the great Hanoverian-British victory at Minden, this encouraged to keep the Prussians in the war despite the great defeats inflicted by the Russians and the Austrians. Britain followed up her naval victories with conquests overseas, with a number of French forts and allies in North America being overrun. In India, the French settlement of Pondicherry was taken, though British attempts to re-establish a presence in Bengal were thwarted. The situation was now one in which defeat in Europe and victory in the rest of the world seemed to be racing against each other for the Prusso-British alliance. Britain hoped that once she had won the war overseas, she could knock France out of the war and come to the rescue of her Prussian ally, though she encouraged Frederick to consider concessions in a negotiated peace too.
By 1762, the situation for Prussia was desperate. Her army, once the most highly-regarded in Europe, had been whittled down to around 60,000 men. Although the Russians and Austrians were depleted, they still appeared to have the numbers needed to finish off Frederick. However, the Prussians were about to experience a stroke of good luck. The Russian Tsarina Elizabeth died, putting the Prussophile Tsar Peter on the throne of Russia. Peter negotiated a peace treaty with Frederick, and even discussed an alliance. Such an alliance may have totally reversed the balance of power in Europe. Close to panicking, the Austrian and French governments sent envoys to the Shah of Persia to pressure Russia into remaining neutral and negotiate a formal alliance. Flush with victory in India and with an interest in keeping Russia cowed, the Persians moved a hundred thousand men to their border with Russia, threatening to invade if the Russians took up arms against the French or Austrians. Peter in turn assured all three powers that he would remain neutral.
Without the hoped-for help from the Russians, Prussia proved incapable of pushing Austria from Silesia, even with increased numbers of recruits from East Prussia. The situation of Britain also changed as the two Iberian powers, Spain and Portugal joined the war. France saw this as an opportunity to increase pressure on the British both in Europe and outside of it. She sent a small army to aid the Spanish in her offensives against Portugal, helping her to secure Lisbon. In Germany the French also saw renewed success against the numerically inferior British-Hanoverian forces after promised Prussian reinforcements had failed to materialise. Pitt’s government fell and he was replaced by Grenville, who tried to rescue the situation in Europe by stripping the colonies of troops. While this action saved Hannover, it also left Britain’s gains in North America vulnerable to French and Indian attacks, though despite attempts, the French proved unable to regain Quebec.
By now, almost all of the European powers involved in the conflict were exhausted in one way or another. Austria was financially ruined, Prussia drained of manpower, France undergoing unrest and the British in political disarray. The new Russian Empress Catherine suggested a treaty to bring the war to an end, brokered by herself. The exhausted powers agreed, and the treaties of St Petersburg and Paris were drafted. The French aimed to keep Britain as weak as possible, and negotiated control her colonies in North America back, though found that the British were unwilling to give up control of the wealthy Caribbean islands that she had seized. Saint-Domingue was left as the sole French possession in the Caribbean, but France had managed to cut Hannover down to size, reducing Britain’s ability to interfere in Continental affairs. Spain negotiated the cession of a number of Portuguese colonies in America and the East Indies, resulting in a great boost of popularity for the new Spanish King Charles III.
However, it was in Eastern Europe that everything seemed to have changed. Austria secured her Silesian prize, formally securing it as well as the independence of Saxony. Prussia was left greatly weakened both economically and in terms of prestige. Silesia was the most industrialised region in Eastern Europe at the time, and with its possession Austria had been left more confident in its status than before. Prussia meanwhile had been knocked out of the ranks of the great powers after only a few decades. A delighted Maria Theresa remarked that Prussia was “no longer able to enjoy her own agency in the affairs of Europe, and must contend with the secondary status that befits her”. Despite Austria’s triumph, the defeat of Prussia now left a vacuum she had once occupied that the weakened Polish state was unable to fill.
The World at the close of the Ten Years War
******
Talal Mirza; Shrouded Mirrors - Islam's Relationship to the West in History
The Persian Embassy to France
Persia’s relations with the West had always been rather ambiguous. Nader Shah had succeeded in forcing Peter the Great of Russia to recognize Persia’s territorial integrity, and had thrown the Russians back across the Caucasus, but this was the extent of significant relations between Persia and the West in the first half of the 18th century. However, with the increasing influence of European trade companies in India, the powers of Europe increasingly loomed larger on the horizon. Reza Shah acquiesced to the growing Western influence in India so long as did not impact Persia’s dominant position on the Indo-Gangetic plain. The equilibrium between the West and Persia in India broke down when tensions between the British and the Nawab of Bengal exploded at the dawn of the Ten Year’s War between France and Britain.
The Nawab had been opposed to what he saw as the British disregard for his authority, and seized the city of Calcutta when the British had refused to stop the building of fortifications. The British recaptured the city and made preparations for a campaign deeper into Bengal. The Nawab went over the head of the Mughal Emperor and made a direct request to the Shah of Persia for aid from the British. Reza Shah sent thousands of men to strengthen Bengal against the paltry force that the British East India Company had sent against the Nawab, and annihilated the force. This marked the destruction of the British presence in Bengal, and brought the Persians to the attention of the French and her European allies.
Frenchmen who had fought alongside the Bengalis and Persians against the British attested to the “Great ability and discipline” of the Persian forces. Encouraged by the possibility of a strong ally against the British in India, the King of France sent an embassy to Isfahan, and encouraged the Persians to send an ambassador to Paris. Reza Shah settled on two men to go to Paris, a military leader by the name of Hassan al-Hamdani and a scholar named Qassim Khalil. The two men kept notes of their observation which remain a fascinating look into Islamic impressions of Europe in this period. Khalil was scandalised at the court dress of French women, but nevertheless remarked that “no country in this whole world seems as well-ordered as France, which seems as if to be set out to a single plan. There are many handsome towns and villages, and the countryside is as green and lush as Mazandaran, but to a greater area of the land”. Khalil busied himself translating a number of agricultural and scientific treatises into Persian while al-Hamdani soaked up the court culture of France. Certainly, the opulence of Versailles was impressive, and he compared it favourably to other palaces that he had seen.
The French reacted to the Persians with curiosity. The Islamic religion of the men was a source of fascination, and the French were somewhat surprised to hear that Persia was going through what was explained as a “Reformation”. The Quran was translated into French, though it is unclear that it won over any converts. Nevertheless it and the other writings left in French by the Persian ambassadors represented an interesting topic of study for Enlightenment thinkers. Khalil also wrote a treatise that positively described French absolutism, and theorised on how such a system may work in a Persian context, which represents one of the first examples of European political thought being absorbed into an Asian context.
******
Author's Notes - TTL's version of the Seven Years War actually goes fairly similarly to OTLs until the "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg", which has left us with a neutered Prussia and an England that while still dominant colonially, looks a lot less dramatic on a map. The main change comes from the neutered Prussia, which is now barely a match for Saxony, never mind Austria. How Austria will react with her Northern neighbour so weakened will have interesting implications for Europe and the rest of the world.
Last edited:
I really enjoyed the update and I look forward to what you have in store for us. I just wanted to point out one thing. When you are discussing the terms of the treaties you mention Haiti, which at this point was actually named Saint Domingue by the French. Haiti was only applied after their independence.