Ottomans turn east

It's probably telling that Macedonia (ruled by a conquest-made maniac) and the nomads are the only examples of powers not in the neighborhood, however.
The Caliphate held it for a very long time and its center of power was in Arabia, then Syria, then Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, most Persian empires have been centered in eastern or northeastern Mesopotamia.

Meanwhile, the Ottomans were heavily Persian-influenced, and became a Caliphate. And were not averse to moving their capital, continuously moving it until 1453.

More to the point, how long did any of them hold it?
Decades to centuries.

I'd say it was indeed "very hard" to invade - that doesn't mean "impossible', it just means "difficult". That success was achieved does not mean failure was not possible.
I wouldn't say very hard. But perhaps costly or risky.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say very hard. But perhaps costly or risky.
I would. The Ottomans are not yet strong enough to take on Persia. And to try and take on Delhi after that, will literally get several important people killed, along with any Turkish leaders.
 
The Caliphate held it for a very long time and its center of power was in Arabia, then Syria, then Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, most Persian empires have been centered in eastern or northeastern Mesopotamia.

The Caliphate may have held it in name for a long time, but not in practice.

As for Persia: I don't know enough about Iran to know where most Persian Empires were centered, but the Khwarezmians for example were located considerably further east. The Ilkhanate was a consequence of the Mongols, who are not exactly an example of "typical".

Meanwhile, the Ottomans were heavily Persian-influenced, and became a Caliphate. And were not averse to moving their capital, continuously moving it until 1453.

There's a huge gap between moving it about NW Asia Minor and finally Constantinople and moving it hundreds of miles away well away from where they have established themselves just to fight over some mountainous terrain that would only be the beginning of what it would take to take India.

It's not realistic. It's not impossible, but it's not realistic.

Decades to centuries.

Name one that held it for centuries.

I wouldn't say very hard. But perhaps costly or risky.

I'm pretty sure most people would describe a "risky" task as 'very hard".

Especially a task both costly and risky.
 
There's a huge gap between moving it about NW Asia Minor and finally Constantinople and moving it hundreds of miles away well away from where they have established themselves just to fight over some mountainous terrain that would only be the beginning of what it would take to take India.

It's not realistic. It's not impossible, but it's not realistic.
I was thinking more a capital in Syria or Mesopotamia. Probably Damascus or Baghdad. Those would be likely even with just a conquest of Persia.

Which of course is difficult and unlikely in itself. But assuming they conquer Persia, they will almost definitely move the capital to a former Caliphate capital in the Middle East.

Name one that held it for centuries.
I'm defining centuries as over 100 years rather than over 200 years.

Achaemenids, Kushan, the Caliphate, Mongols (if you consider the Ilkhanate as a direct continuation). Decentralized rule or rule by proxy is still rule.

I'm pretty sure most people would describe a "risky" task as 'very hard".

Especially a task both costly and risky.
Well for a Persian empire, it wouldn't be very hard to conquer Afghanistan, but it would be both costly and risky. With enormous Silk Road incomes, a huge expedition could be sent at great cost, but not crippling cost. With a general other than the ruler on the job, it's risky but not nation-destroying. They could fail and try again a few years later.

Of course if they send their ruler on that expedition like they did against the Hephthalites in the late 400s, it's also "very hard" because they'd only have one chance and they have to succeed that one time.
 
I was thinking more a capital in Syria or Mesopotamia. Probably Damascus or Baghdad. Those would be likely even with just a conquest of Persia.

That's still hundreds of miles away. The length of Anatolia is, from memory, six hundred - Constantinople to Antioch as an army marches.

I'm defining centuries as over 100 years rather than over 200 years.

Achaemenids, Kushan, the Caliphate, Mongols (if you consider the Ilkhanate as a direct continuation). Decentralized rule or rule by proxy is still rule.

Decentralized to the point of nominal is not rule.

Well for a Persian empire, it wouldn't be very hard to conquer Afghanistan, but it would be both costly and risky. With enormous Silk Road incomes, a huge expedition could be sent at great cost, but not crippling cost. With a general other than the ruler on the job, it's risky but not nation-destroying. They could fail and try again a few years later.

Of course if they send their ruler on that expedition like they did against the Hephthalites in the late 400s, it's also "very hard" because they'd only have one chance and they have to succeed that one time.

And it's still very hard because taking large risks is usually considered challenging by 90% of English speakers.

And it not being necessarily crippling doesn't make it "easy" "simple" "ordinary" "routine' or any of the other things I can find in thesaurus.com.
 
The Persians and Mughals held it for centuries.

Not really the Mughals were throne out of Kabul and Herat tons of times. Persians might have had influence on that region especially in Herat but most of it was independent.
 
Not really the Mughals were throne out of Kabul and Herat tons of times. Persians might have had influence on that region especially in Herat but most of it was independent.
No, that's Kandahar. (Herat, to my knowledge was never held by the Mughals).
Which Persian polities held it for centuries?

That a dozen different polities over a couple thousand years held it for centuries isn't really the same thing.

That it was still considered a core part of Persia for those thousands of years shows that that was a flaw in Persian politics, not so much that Afghanistan was unconquerable. In any case, until Nader Shah, I think that we can safely say that as a region, it was historically part of Greater India and Greater Persia. None of that unconquerable stigma really happened.
 
Top