Modern Turan

I don't know much about the subject so maybe this is ASB, but is there any way in which the Central Asian republics could evolve towards a more united state?

I saw a map of the early 20s territorial organisation which had the region divided into a Kirgizistan ASSR(~ modern Kazakhstan) and a Turkestan ASSR (~the rest). What if this was not altered and these two countries became independent after 1991?

Or what if the northern, Russian part of Kazakhstan was integrated into Russia and the southern lands added to Turkestan to form one united Central Asian republic? Would such a state be viable, or would it fall apart Yugoslavia-style? I'm thinking post 1991 independence.
 
Last edited:
Traditionally, Central Asian peoples are split by lifestyle, not by any arbitrary definitions such as being "Turkic".

People of nomadic lifestyle, such as the Kazakhs and Kirghiz have little in common with more settled peoples such as the Uzbeks and Uighurs. Superficial similarities in religion and culture aside, they don't even like one another that much.
 
Traditionally, Central Asian peoples are split by lifestyle, not by any arbitrary definitions such as being "Turkic".

People of nomadic lifestyle, such as the Kazakhs and Kirghiz have little in common with more settled peoples such as the Uzbeks and Uighurs. Superficial similarities in religion and culture aside, they don't even like one another that much.

Couldn't a centralised state and modernisation eventually reduce these differences? I mean the same sort of situation exists in many arab nations too, but people still have a common identity
.
 
I don't know much about the subject so maybe this is ASB, but is there any way in which the Central Asian republics could evolve towards a more united state?

I saw a map of the early 20s territorial organisation which had the region divided into a Kirgizistan ASSR(~ modern Kazakhstan) and a Turkestan ASSR (~the rest). What if this was not altered and these two countries became independent after 1991?

Or what if the northern, Russian part of Kazakhstan was integrated into Russia and the southern lands added to Turkestan to form one united Central Asian republic? Would such a state be viable, or would it fall apart Yugoslavia-style? I'm thinking post 1991 independence.

While this is interesting, this is also terribly ASB.

You've really got two options for how this could work, and both have horrific consequences:

1) The Turkestan/Kirgizstan ASSRs stay together (survive until the alt-break up of the USSR), which means you need to get rid of Stalin and his ideas of dividing up ethnic groups among inane lines. In any case, you've got the Kirgizstan ASSR, which is fairly stable, given the POD necessary, the Kazakhs and Karalpaks are close enough that this state, while poor, is likely to be stable. Turkestan, on the other hand, is going to be led by 'Sarts', which at this time means an Uzbek-Tajik elite, which is probably going to be speaking Russian or Persian (no promotion of Uzbek nationalism under the *Soviets means Persian stays the big language there). So your 'Turan' is half-Persian.

2) Just having a sort of 'Central Asian Union' post-91. Having lived (and currently living in) Tajikistan, let me put it this way: It would be like Yugoslavia. In the worst possible way. Look at the Tajik Civil War, or the 2010 Osh Riots for an example of what would happen. Too much promoted nationalism by the Soviets.
 
1) The Turkestan/Kirgizstan ASSRs stay together (survive until the alt-break up of the USSR), which means you need to get rid of Stalin and his ideas of dividing up ethnic groups among inane lines.

I totally agree with the inanity of the borders; I like geography a lot and the contorsioned, unnatural borders of Tajikistan or Uzbekistan make me flinch every time.

Ethnic maps seem to justify some decisions, like the Uzbek Fergana valley being surrounded by Kirgizistan; but it's hard to decide.

What would a 'sane' border arrangement look like (roughly)? Are the current national identities old or more like modern?
 
What would a 'sane' border arrangement look like (roughly)? Are the current national identities old or more like modern?

That's the problem, there are no sane borders. Before the Soviets showed up, the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz were almost solely nomadic, and the idea that there was a real difference between didn't exist (you will note the fact that the 'Kirgizstan' ASSR includes both groups). Likewise, the differences between Uzbek and Tajik have also been played up massively by the Soviet Union, and despite the fact that the Emirate of Buxoro/Bukhara was an Uzbek power, its elite (and indeed the majority of the city's population today) were Persian-speakers and/or Tajiks.
 
That's the problem, there are no sane borders. Before the Soviets showed up, the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz were almost solely nomadic, and the idea that there was a real difference between didn't exist (you will note the fact that the 'Kirgizstan' ASSR includes both groups). Likewise, the differences between Uzbek and Tajik have also been played up massively by the Soviet Union, and despite the fact that the Emirate of Buxoro/Bukhara was an Uzbek power, its elite (and indeed the majority of the city's population today) were Persian-speakers and/or Tajiks.

This. Central Asia can be split between Persian/Iranian speaking settled peoples and nomadic, Turkic speaking peoples. Any other separation is merely semantic in nature.
 
The more you think of it the more you understand how creepy Stalin's nationality policies really were. He wasn't just content with deporting entire groups to Siberia on a whim. He manufactured new groups where none existed, divided segments of ancient cultures from each other, and carefully gerrymandered boundaries of SSRs to leave ethnic tensions for his successors.
 
The more you think of it the more you understand how creepy Stalin's nationality policies really were. He wasn't just content with deporting entire groups to Siberia on a whim. He manufactured new groups where none existed, divided segments of ancient cultures from each other, and carefully gerrymandered boundaries of SSRs to leave ethnic tensions for his successors.

As weird as it is, when you put it this way it doesn't sound all that different from what Europeans have done in Africa...

This. Central Asia can be split between Persian/Iranian speaking settled peoples and nomadic, Turkic speaking peoples. Any other separation is merely semantic in nature.

So in the unlikely event that Russia does not conquer the entire region would there be like a patchwork of Emirates and Khanates organised along traditional lines?
 
Not necessarily, there have been larger organizations in Central Asia before. There'd still be multiple nations in the area, they'd just make more sense.
 
As weird as it is, when you put it this way it doesn't sound all that different from what Europeans have done in Africa...

I don't know about the region but it would make sense from my position of minimal knowledge, you've got the same basic dynamics of outsiders coming in and occupying an area and playing a nice bit of divide and rule seems like a common and sensible approach.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
So in the unlikely event that Russia does not conquer the entire region would there be like a patchwork of Emirates and Khanates organised along traditional lines?
Well before Russia conquered the region there were three kingdoms: Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand. Khiva and Bukhara continued to exist under Russian rule until the Russian revolution.
 
Yes, Stalin used "divide et impera" quite a lot on Turkestan. Which involved artificially making their languages (rather, dialects) more and more different.

In fact, I copied this in my Chaos TL: The New Roman empire - Italian-dominated - uses the same tactic in occupied Spain and France. Asturia, Andalusia, Occitania all become independent nations. And Brittany of course.
 
Top