The Russo Persian War of 1804-1813 was simultaneous to, and deeply affected by, the Napoleonic Wars. The Qajar dynasty, young, unstable and weak, sought foreign aid to turn its army into a force capable of standing up to the Russians, but the shifting dynamics in Europe screwed them over: the military mission sent by France returned home almost as soon as it arrived, thanks to the Treaty of Tilsit, while the aid (economic and military) sent by Great Britain over the next years slowly dried up as London did its best to slowly pull France and Russia apart.

Still, by 1812 Persia had an army that could win a pitched battle under the right circumstances, as shown by the Battle of Sultanabad. They tried to take advantage of Napoleon's invasion to retake the territories they lost at the beginning of the war (modern Azerbaijan, roughly), but that ended with a devastating defeat at Aslanduz and then the siege of Lankaran, which ended the war.

But what if the Persians won at Aslanduz? According to the source Wikipedia uses, the outnumbered Russians won it by executing a surprise attack, so what if they somehow give their position away and are thus defeated? Would Saint Petersburg be willing to send additional soldiers into the Caucasus with Napoleon still on the loose? Lastly, could they accept a defeat in this war and then convince the Qajars to turn their attention to Herat and other parts of Afghanistan, to mess with the British in India? They sort of did that IOTL, but that was after Persia no longer had any hope left of reconquering its lost Caucasian territories.

If the Qajars roll a bunch of sixes and get everything they could possibly want (Armenia, Azerbaijan and western Afghanistan) by the 1830s at the latest, how could the Great Game develop in the following decades?

@alexmilman @Ṭahmāsp Mirzā
 
The Russo Persian War of 1804-1813 was simultaneous to, and deeply affected by, the Napoleonic Wars. The Qajar dynasty, young, unstable and weak, sought foreign aid to turn its army into a force capable of standing up to the Russians, but the shifting dynamics in Europe screwed them over: the military mission sent by France returned home almost as soon as it arrived, thanks to the Treaty of Tilsit, while the aid (economic and military) sent by Great Britain over the next years slowly dried up as London did its best to slowly pull France and Russia apart.

Still, by 1812 Persia had an army that could win a pitched battle under the right circumstances, as shown by the Battle of Sultanabad. They tried to take advantage of Napoleon's invasion to retake the territories they lost at the beginning of the war (modern Azerbaijan, roughly), but that ended with a devastating defeat at Aslanduz and then the siege of Lankaran, which ended the war.

But what if the Persians won at Aslanduz? According to the source Wikipedia uses, the outnumbered Russians won it by executing a surprise attack, so what if they somehow give their position away and are thus defeated?

Wiki is a never-ending source of entertainment. For Battle of Sultanabad it states for the Russian losses “More than 300 killed (including the Russian commander and 12 other officers)”. The Russian commander in that “battle” (900 Russians vs. 2,300 Persians), according to wiki, was Pyotr Kotlyarevsky who, after being killed at Sultanabad, resurrected to defeat the Persians at Aslanduz and was happily undead all the way to 1852. 😂

Of course, he never was in charge or present at Sultanabad, the Russian numbers were 560. It was a part of a single battalion led by a major who was, indeed, killed as well as two or three next commanders. As for the Persian numbers, they are varying in a wide range in the English and Russian versions of wiki but the intriguing part is that in both cases there are references to the same book of Muriel Atkin for a completely different numbers and perhaps I missed it but did not see any numbers related to Sultanabad in the relevant chapter of her book (can miss it, of course).

Now, about Aslanduz, it seems that Abbas Mirza had at least 5,000 infantry. Perhaps more, up to 14,000. The Russian numbers were 2,221 including “undead” Kotlyarevsky. “U. Monteith, who was in the Persian army at the time, reported that according to Abbas Mirza himself on the eve of the battle, his army exceeded the Russian detachment five times.”

Short of a divine intervention with the odds like that (and this specific commander) the Persians had a snowball chance in a hell to score a victory. Presence of the British officers and non-coms did not help Iranians too much.

Would Saint Petersburg be willing to send additional soldiers into the Caucasus with Napoleon still on the loose?

Taking into an account that this would be an issue of few thousands soldiers, probably, yes. If not, then continuation would be in 1813-14.

Lastly, could they accept a defeat in this war and then convince the Qajars to turn their attention to Herat and other parts of Afghanistan, to mess with the British in India?

Defeat from Persia, especially after the victory over Napoleon in 1812 would be unacceptable blow to the prestige, so no.
They sort of did that IOTL, but that was after Persia no longer had any hope left of reconquering its lost Caucasian territories.

If the Qajars roll a bunch of sixes and get everything they could possibly want (Armenia, Azerbaijan and western Afghanistan) by the 1830s at the latest, how could the Great Game develop in the following decades?

This could happen only within an absolutely different geopolitical framework which completely incapacitates Russian Empire for few decades starting from the 1810s. And if RE is so weak that it can’t beat the Persians, what Great Game are you talking about?
 
Wiki is a never-ending source of entertainment. For Battle of Sultanabad it states for the Russian losses “More than 300 killed (including the Russian commander and 12 other officers)”. The Russian commander in that “battle” (900 Russians vs. 2,300 Persians), according to wiki, was Pyotr Kotlyarevsky who, after being killed at Sultanabad, resurrected to defeat the Persians at Aslanduz and was happily undead all the way to 1852. 😂
No it doesn't. (EDIT: I see what you mean now. At least they didn't put a cross next to his name...)

Now, about Aslanduz, it seems that Abbas Mirza had at least 5,000 infantry. Perhaps more, up to 14,000. The Russian numbers were 2,221 including “undead” Kotlyarevsky. “U. Monteith, who was in the Persian army at the time, reported that according to Abbas Mirza himself on the eve of the battle, his army exceeded the Russian detachment five times.”

Short of a divine intervention with the odds like that (and this specific commander) the Persians had a snowball chance in a hell to score a victory. Presence of the British officers and non-coms did not help Iranians too much.
Why? The Persian army had its issues (which was why they had European advisors in the first place) but you make it sound like they were the ones who were grotesquely outnumbered, rather than the Russians. Which, admittedly, makes the Persian defeat look even worse, but it was a surprise attack.

Taking into an account that this would be an issue of few thousands soldiers, probably, yes. If not, then continuation would be in 1813-14.
What if Napoleon was slightly luckier in his invasion (maybe he forces a Borodino style battle at Smolensk or somewhere further west), forcing Alexander to take everyone who can be spared to fend the French off?
 
Last edited:
The biggist changes are long term, assuming they keep it for at least another century Azerbaijans oil will start to become relivent and if they can use that money to reform and possibly corner the market on gulf oil possibly by taking the shia and possibly Kurdish portions of Iraq during a alternitive world War they set the board to really rake in oil revenues as we enter the modern era.
 
No it doesn't. (EDIT: I see what you mean now. At least they didn't put a cross next to his name...)


Why? The Persian army had its issues (which was why they had European advisors in the first place) but you make it sound like they were the ones who were grotesquely outnumbered, rather than the Russians. Which, admittedly, makes the Persian defeat look even worse, but it was a surprise attack.
Yeah, sure. as in “he fell on the knife 10 times”. First, it was a surprise on 19th, which was not a complete surprise:
“The attack began at 8 a.m. At that time, Captain Lindsay and a group of riders went hunting towards Araks. Without reaching the river, Lindsay and his group dismounted and suddenly saw a hasty large detachment appearing from the thickets near the riverbed. Lindsay, however, like others, could not even immediately assume that "it was an enemy." Soon, realizing that they were Russians, Lindsay and his group immediately jumped on horses and rushed to the camp.”

Being on a horsebacks, they reached the Persian camp well before the Russian infantry marched to the camp and raised an alarm, which did not help Iranians too much.

“Meanwhile, a Russian detachment in a triple square, with cavalry located between them and with stretched forward faces, attacked Persian cavalry and pushed it from command height. The artillery was also hastily pulled up there, which began shelling Persian infantry. Abbas-Mirza, to stop the Russian movement, moved his infantry to Araks, bypassing the heights, but Kotlyarevsky predicted the maneuver and hit the Persian infantry from the flank. The Persians, having no idea about the number of Russians, fled. Abbas mirza retreated to the Darav-Yurd River and was located in a fortification built near the Aslanduz ford.”

Kotlyarevsky gave his soldiers rest of the day to rest and launched the second attack across the brook only on the night of 20s and surprised them again. The Persians panicked again, etc.

You can see two dates on the map of a battle.
1668469408194.jpeg

In other words, the wiki description that you read is a piece of crap not worthy of a serious consideration. The Persian numbers are also misleading: 5,000 was only infantry not the whole army. The British Ambassador in Persia, Sir Gore Ouseley (probably based upon the data from British officers present in the Persian army) reported 14,000 or, with the reference to Abbas Mirza himself, odds 5:1 in Persian favor. And these are rather modest estimates, other are much greater.

General statistics of the Russian-Iranian fighting of that period makes it completely clear that in more or less serious encounters, short of some special circumstances, the Russians would almost inevitably win with the numeric odds 1:3 of even worse.


What if Napoleon was slightly luckier in his invasion (maybe he forces a Borodino style battle at Smolensk or somewhere further west), forcing Alexander to take everyone who can be spared to fend the French off?
A massive butchery with no decisive result closer to the border would not noticeably improve Napoleon’s situation and probably would greatly handicap his ability to march forward so I don’t see how this makes situation worse for Alexander. With 150-200,000 of troops in training and numerous undeployed garrisons, including those on the Caucasus, a couple battalions already could be found.

Anyway, as I already said, in the worst case scenario it would be a matter of time.
 
The Russo Persian War of 1804-1813 was simultaneous to, and deeply affected by, the Napoleonic Wars. The Qajar dynasty, young, unstable and weak, sought foreign aid to turn its army into a force capable of standing up to the Russians, but the shifting dynamics in Europe screwed them over: the military mission sent by France returned home almost as soon as it arrived, thanks to the Treaty of Tilsit, while the aid (economic and military) sent by Great Britain over the next years slowly dried up as London did its best to slowly pull France and Russia apart.

Still, by 1812 Persia had an army that could win a pitched battle under the right circumstances, as shown by the Battle of Sultanabad. They tried to take advantage of Napoleon's invasion to retake the territories they lost at the beginning of the war (modern Azerbaijan, roughly), but that ended with a devastating defeat at Aslanduz and then the siege of Lankaran, which ended the war.

But what if the Persians won at Aslanduz? According to the source Wikipedia uses, the outnumbered Russians won it by executing a surprise attack, so what if they somehow give their position away and are thus defeated? Would Saint Petersburg be willing to send additional soldiers into the Caucasus with Napoleon still on the loose? Lastly, could they accept a defeat in this war and then convince the Qajars to turn their attention to Herat and other parts of Afghanistan, to mess with the British in India? They sort of did that IOTL, but that was after Persia no longer had any hope left of reconquering its lost Caucasian territories.

If the Qajars roll a bunch of sixes and get everything they could possibly want (Armenia, Azerbaijan and western Afghanistan) by the 1830s at the latest, how could the Great Game develop in the following decades?

@alexmilman @Ṭahmāsp Mirzā

If you look at the technology of the cream-of-the-crop of the two armies (particularly the Nezam-e-Jamdid western-trained Persian troops), they were actually quite similar, with the Russians possessing perhaps slightly better weaponry. The Russian forces were cursed with the fact that their best generals and troops were away fighting in other European wars, and, eventually, Napoleon's invasion. The Persians had the advantage of the Russians being distracted some of the time, of course, but also due to the fact that most of the tribal leaders in the area still supported the Qajars at the beginning of the war--with the exception of Georgia, but Georgia's population had been decimated by Agha Mohammed Khan in the late 1790s anyways, so they didn't matter.

However, his seeming near-technological parity with the Russians is broken down by the fact that the Russians had far, far more artillery, and were willing to lug it everywhere. This especially helped them in their many sieges of cities like Erivan. On top of this, the Qajar Persians had two major, major problems. Firstly, they were using inferior tactics. While 'Abbas Mirza (brother of Fath' Ali Qajar) did eventually get some British and French-trained troops, he still had a liability--a good portion of his troops were tribal irregulars, contributed the Khans that were supporting the Persians. Unfortunately, rather than work to this force's strengths to harass the Russians, Abbas Mirza faced the Russians in big, open battles, or with his back against the wall in sieges. Sultanabad, the only "major" Persian victory wasn't really a huge victory, either. Even in the Wiki, it says that Abbas tried to play it off as some sort of huge victory, when it reality, it only crushed, to quote @alexmilman, 560 measly Russian troops with a massive numerical advantage. Secondly, they were out of money. From the beginning of the war, Persia was almost broke. This went back all the way to the Safavid period, when the Safavid Shahs began suffering from a massive silver deficit to richer nations like Mughal India and China--silver was the main trading currency of the time. This was excacerbated by the fact that Persia had been in near-constant civil war for almost 80 years (with a brief period of Nader Afshar's rule as the interlude) whether it was the Hotaks and Safavids, Zands and Afshars, or the Qajars and Zands--and all that war was costly.

The Persians, legit, could not win this war. At least not with 'Abbas Mirza in command, anyway (I personally believe he overrated himself and is overrated). Even if the Persians won Aslanduz, the subsequent defeat of Napoleon would allow tons of Russian troops into the Caucasus and shift the war decisively in Russia's favor. Unless Napoleon managed defeat Russia entirely, which, unless you are planning an intricate explanation for that, I doubt would happen, the Qajars would still stand little chance of keeping Armenia and Azerbaijan. In a way, you have to pity the Persians--not something I like to do, by the way, as a big fan of Iranian history--because they were faced with near-impossible odds given their tactical and financial situation.
 
If you look at the technology of the cream-of-the-crop of the two armies (particularly the Nezam-e-Jamdid western-trained Persian troops), they were actually quite similar, with the Russians possessing perhaps slightly better weaponry. The Russian forces were cursed with the fact that their best generals and troops were away fighting in other European wars, and, eventually, Napoleon's invasion. The Persians had the advantage of the Russians being distracted some of the time, of course, but also due to the fact that most of the tribal leaders in the area still supported the Qajars at the beginning of the war--with the exception of Georgia, but Georgia's population had been decimated by Agha Mohammed Khan in the late 1790s anyways, so they didn't matter.

However, his seeming near-technological parity with the Russians is broken down by the fact that the Russians had far, far more artillery, and were willing to lug it everywhere. This especially helped them in their many sieges of cities like Erivan. On top of this, the Qajar Persians had two major, major problems. Firstly, they were using inferior tactics. While 'Abbas Mirza (brother of Fath' Ali Qajar) did eventually get some British and French-trained troops, he still had a liability--a good portion of his troops were tribal irregulars, contributed the Khans that were supporting the Persians. Unfortunately, rather than work to this force's strengths to harass the Russians, Abbas Mirza faced the Russians in big, open battles, or with his back against the wall in sieges. Sultanabad, the only "major" Persian victory wasn't really a huge victory, either. Even in the Wiki, it says that Abbas tried to play it off as some sort of huge victory, when it reality, it only crushed, to quote @alexmilman, 560 measly Russian troops with a massive numerical advantage. Secondly, they were out of money. From the beginning of the war, Persia was almost broke. This went back all the way to the Safavid period, when the Safavid Shahs began suffering from a massive silver deficit to richer nations like Mughal India and China--silver was the main trading currency of the time. This was excacerbated by the fact that Persia had been in near-constant civil war for almost 80 years (with a brief period of Nader Afshar's rule as the interlude) whether it was the Hotaks and Safavids, Zands and Afshars, or the Qajars and Zands--and all that war was costly.

The Persians, legit, could not win this war. At least not with 'Abbas Mirza in command, anyway (I personally believe he overrated himself and is overrated). Even if the Persians won Aslanduz, the subsequent defeat of Napoleon would allow tons of Russian troops into the Caucasus and shift the war decisively in Russia's favor. Unless Napoleon managed defeat Russia entirely, which, unless you are planning an intricate explanation for that, I doubt would happen, the Qajars would still stand little chance of keeping Armenia and Azerbaijan. In a way, you have to pity the Persians--not something I like to do, by the way, as a big fan of Iranian history--because they were faced with near-impossible odds given their tactical and financial situation.
I see, thanks for your input.
 

LeoII

Banned
Modern Armenia wouldn't exist, most likely. Even as a subject or province of a greater Iran.
Under the Iranians, it was the Irevan Khanate, a mostly Turkic colonialist province ruled by the Iranian imperialist elite. Native Armenians were 20% of the population, after centuries of massacres by Turkic invaders like Timur Leng and forced displacements by Iranian rulers like Shah Abbas. There were enough Armenians in Yerevan itself to sieze the walls and allow the Russians to take the city. Once Russia took Armenia it began a policy of returning Armenians to Armenia, even naming the region Russian Armenia. It recreated Armenia as a province under the Russian Empire, and after both the Russian and Soviet Empires fell, the province became an independent nation. So without a Russian victory, it would still be the Irevan Khanate, a colonialist imperialist state under the greater Empire.
 
This scenario interests me a lot and i never see anyone discuss it.

On the one hand this would be greater azerbaijian realised and azeri shia turks would probably be the dominant ethnicity in both arm and aze, and they would be in the same state as the southern azeris.


On the other hand azerbaijian as a state probably doesent end up existing at all, modern day iranian azeris are fairly well integrated into iranian society and azeris hold many prominent leadership positions, if you look at current iranian protests it is kurds and baloch people who are rebelling the most due to the repression they face while azeri areas are not as supportive of the protests.

Another interesting question is what the baku oil fields do for iran, i imagine the discovery would spur more industrialisation and probably would lead to baku to become a very important region within iran and probably would end up mostly farsi speakers in these cities.

And yes modern Armenia would be entirely part of iran and minority armenia, however armenians living in iran today are relatively well treated compared to turkey or azerbajian and have autonomy over cultural institutions and historical sites, even members of parliament reserved. if iran goes on a path towards more secularism than OTL i imagine armenians would have an even stronger position in iranian society, also it would probably depend a lot on the fate of the Armenian population in the ottoman empire as the van vilayet had more concentrated armenian population than armenians in yerevan region.
 

ahmedali

Banned
The biggist changes are long term, assuming they keep it for at least another century Azerbaijans oil will start to become relivent and if they can use that money to reform and possibly corner the market on gulf oil possibly by taking the shia and possibly Kurdish portions of Iraq during a alternitive world War they set the board to really rake in oil revenues as we enter the modern era.

I do not see Iran, which remains much stronger in the nineteenth century, more inclined to fight alongside the Russians than the Ottomans


It is true that they are Shiites, but what brings them together with the Ottomans is more than what separates them

(They are both Muslims and both see Russia as a threat to them, and in the case of the Persians, the British too)

So Iran, which strengthens itself in the nineteenth century

Iran will be a member of the Central Powers and an ally of the Germans, the Austrians and, of course, the Ottomans

The difference is that with a stronger Iran, the Raj will be greatly threatened
 

ahmedali

Banned
This scenario interests me a lot and i never see anyone discuss it.

On the one hand this would be greater azerbaijian realised and azeri shia turks would probably be the dominant ethnicity in both arm and aze, and they would be in the same state as the southern azeris.


On the other hand azerbaijian as a state probably doesent end up existing at all, modern day iranian azeris are fairly well integrated into iranian society and azeris hold many prominent leadership positions, if you look at current iranian protests it is kurds and baloch people who are rebelling the most due to the repression they face while azeri areas are not as supportive of the protests.

Another interesting question is what the baku oil fields do for iran, i imagine the discovery would spur more industrialisation and probably would lead to baku to become a very important region within iran and probably would end up mostly farsi speakers in these cities.

And yes modern Armenia would be entirely part of iran and minority armenia, however armenians living in iran today are relatively well treated compared to turkey or azerbajian and have autonomy over cultural institutions and historical sites, even members of parliament reserved. if iran goes on a path towards more secularism than OTL i imagine armenians would have an even stronger position in iranian society, also it would probably depend a lot on the fate of the Armenian population in the ottoman empire as the van vilayet had more concentrated armenian population than armenians in yerevan region.

Perhaps there will not even be a genocide of the Armenians if Azerbaijan and Armenia remain Persian

Because the three pashas simply will not see the Armenians as agents of the Russians
 
I do not see Iran, which remains much stronger in the nineteenth century, more inclined to fight alongside the Russians than the Ottomans


It is true that they are Shiites, but what brings them together with the Ottomans is more than what separates them

(They are both Muslims and both see Russia as a threat to them, and in the case of the Persians, the British too)

So Iran, which strengthens itself in the nineteenth century

Iran will be a member of the Central Powers and an ally of the Germans, the Austrians and, of course, the Ottomans

The difference is that with a stronger Iran, the Raj will be greatly threatened
My assumption is that they would still be in the British sphere at least as allies to deter russian invasion in persia and for the British to shore up support in Central asia as a part of the Great game during the 1800s. In this case persia would be joining the war not in support of Russia but alongside Britain and agenst the ottomans (in short a stronger persian relationship with britan seems like it would be more comparable to a middle eastern equivalent of the otl anglo Japanese alliance.)
 

ahmedali

Banned
My assumption is that they would still be in the British sphere at least as allies to deter russian invasion in persia and for the British to shore up support in Central asia as a part of the Great game during the 1800s. In this case persia would be joining the war not in support of Russia but alongside Britain and agenst the ottomans (in short a stronger persian relationship with britan seems like it would be more comparable to a middle eastern equivalent of the otl anglo Japanese alliance.)
It is true, but the expansion of the Raj must be delayed or not reach the lands that the Iranians considered historically Persian (especially Baluchistan and Afghanistan) in order to make Iran friendly to Britain.

Khanates of Khiva, Kokand and Bukhara will become the alternative Afghanistan

If we avoid the Anglo-Persian War of 1863, I agree that the Persians will act like a Middle Eastern version of Japan towards Britain, but with close ties to the Ottomans.

(The Qajars may revive Nader Shah's plans to end the Shiite-Sunni divide, and it would help that Abdul Hamid II, a pan-Islamist, would support these efforts.)

Assuming that the war of 1878 will continue to happen, this Iran will help the Ottomans, and the Ottomans may win this war thanks to Persian cooperation

I think that Iran will look to Germany at some point and they will distance themselves from Britain just like the Ottomans, because if Britain continues to ally with the Russians and the French, it will force Iran to ally with the Germans
 
It is true, but the expansion of the Raj must be delayed or not reach the lands that the Iranians considered historically Persian (especially Baluchistan and Afghanistan) in order to make Iran friendly to Britain.

Khanates of Khiva, Kokand and Bukhara will become the alternative Afghanistan

If we avoid the Anglo-Persian War of 1863, I agree that the Persians will act like a Middle Eastern version of Japan towards Britain, but with close ties to the Ottomans.

(The Qajars may revive Nader Shah's plans to end the Shiite-Sunni divide, and it would help that Abdul Hamid II, a pan-Islamist, would support these efforts.)

Assuming that the war of 1878 will continue to happen, this Iran will help the Ottomans, and the Ottomans may win this war thanks to Persian cooperation

I think that Iran will look to Germany at some point and they will distance themselves from Britain just like the Ottomans, because if Britain continues to ally with the Russians and the French, it will force Iran to ally with the Germans
While I think britan is more likly, I can't disregard that Germany would be a attractive regional allie since they have no active claims in the area that threaten persia with the trade off being that the germans are less able to immediately support them in the case of conflict in persia but they could assist directly by invading russia for example.

For the sake of exploring a german alliance and assuming the persians maintain good relationships with the ottomans like you suggest, its likly that the otl Berlin Bagdad railway would run further south to the Persian gulf in order to integrate the Khuzesten oil fields once they start coming online.

Over the course of the 1800s if the Persian military is modernized on the prussian model they should be competitive enough if they get a Profesional force together before the mid 1870s at the latest (after that point its basically just Afghanistan) there is still a decent amount of Central asia up for grabs below russian Kazakhstan and west of the Indus River in British India.

Exploring a alternitive great war with persian participation on the side of the germans/ottomans to keep persias performance realistic and grounded I think it's best to think of them with similer capability to land focused version of Japan circa (1900-1920) being able to out perform and humiliate russian forces along similar lines to the Russo Japanese war but still have more difficultys with higher end European militarilys like britan.

Persia would probably shores up ottoman forces in Mesopotamia and may allow for them to eject the British from kuwait and depending on how good the persians are at supplying thier troops over land they may be able to push the British out of the persian gulf coast.

The Ottoman Caucasus forces are likewise likly to be shored up enough to prevent russian incursion and they may even be able to go on the offensive and capture defensible positions along the mountain range in order to free up troops for fronts that will struggle more (see below for examples) since they already control half of it with arminia and Azerbaijan starting in persian control. Until the russian front collapses from german pressure in europe.

Further west even with persian support unless they catch the British with thier pants down I think the suez forces will hold and persia will need to prop up ottoman defenses in the Levant and hope to bottle up the British.

Assuming persia took advantage of thier time in the 1800s and made good progress in Central asia persia may be able to help over extend russian forces by forcing them to commit forces to Central asia becuse while it has little value compared to other fronts persia can attempt to threaten the trans siberian railway via raids to sabotage it to sever the flow of the east to west supply route to russia (not as important as in ww2 but it's something to force russia to pull forcesfrom other fronts)

Once again assuming smart pick ups by persia in the 1800s, these may put the persians close enough to consider pushing to the Indus river and digging in defensively. The persians even modernized to otl Japanese standard at the time would not be able to seriously threaten britan east of the Indus River the best they could is likly hold the east side of the river and like russia forces in the previous example, make britan drag forces away from other fronts.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20221120-171855_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20221120-171855_Chrome.jpg
    439.8 KB · Views: 125
Last edited:

ahmedali

Banned
While I think britan is more likly, I can't disregard that Germany would be a attractive regional allie since they have no active claims in the area that threaten persia with the trade off being that the germans are less able to immediately support them in the case of conflict in persia but they could assist directly by invading russia for example.

For the sake of exploring a german alliance and assuming the persians maintain good relationships with the ottomans like you suggest, its likly that the otl Berlin Bagdad railway would run further south to the Persian gulf in order to integrate the Khuzesten oil fields once they start coming online.

Over the course of the 1800s if the Persian military is modernized on the prussian model they should be competitive enough if they get a Profesional force together before the mid 1870s at the latest (after that point its basically just Afghanistan) there is still a decent amount of Central asia up for grabs below russian Kazakhstan and west of the Indus River in British India.

Exploring a alternitive great war with persian participation on the side of the germans/ottomans to keep persias performance realistic and grounded I think it's best to think of them with similer capability to land focused version of Japan circa (1900-1920) being able to out perform and humiliate russian forces along similar lines to the Russo Japanese war but still have more difficultys with higher end European militarilys like britan.

Persia would probably shores up ottoman forces in Mesopotamia and may allow for them to eject the British from kuwait and depending on how good the persians are at supplying thier troops over land they may be able to push the British out of the persian gulf coast.

The Ottoman Caucasus forces are likewise likly to be shored up enough to prevent russian incursion and they may even be able to go on the offensive and capture defensible positions along the mountain range in order to free up troops for fronts that will struggle more (see below for examples) since they already control half of it with arminia and Azerbaijan starting in persian control. Until the russian front collapses from german pressure in europe.

Further west even with persian support unless they catch the British with thier pants down I think the suez forces will hold and persia will need to prop up ottoman defenses in the Levant and hope to bottle up the British.

Assuming persia took advantage of thier time in the 1800s and made good progress in Central asia persia may be able to help over extend russian forces by forcing them to commit forces to Central asia becuse while it has little value compared to other fronts persia can attempt to threaten the trans siberian railway via raids to sabotage it to sever the flow of the east to west supply route to russia (not as important as in ww2 but it's something to force russia to pull forcesfrom other fronts)

Once again assuming smart pick ups by persia in the 1800s, these may put the persians close enough to consider pushing to the Indus river and digging in defensively. I really The persians even modernized to otl Japanese standard at the time would not be able to seriously threaten britan east of the Indus River the best they could is likly hold the east side of the river and like russia force britan to drag forces away from other fronts.
If the Berlin-Baghdad railway is extended to include Khuzestan, Isfahan and Shiraz

Shiraz will become a major center between Europe and the Middle East and between Southeast Asia and will provide very useful funds to the Persians and may lead for a while to Afghanistan, so it may push Afghanistan to ally with Germany

This would amplify the British paranoia about losing India to the extreme

As to the threat of the Raj, let us suppose that with a point of difference as set by the question in 1804 and 1813
He must avoid the revolt of the sepoys, and this means the survival of the Mughal Empire as a princely state

In the Russo-Japanese War, Iran would remain neutral (the Ottomans did), but the Persians would learn Japan's tactics.

Also, Persia and the stronger Ottomans might lead to Italy hostile to the Entente without Libya compensation due to the support of France and Russia for the Ethiopians.

(Although it should lead to changing everything after 1804 to Italy taking another colony instead of East Africa)

It may mean the transformation of the first Moroccan crisis in favor of the Germans, and thus a previous modernization of Morocco

Assuming that Persia expands and develops as it says, and supposes a great war with a German-Austrian-Ottoman-Persian alliance and without sepoys

There is a good chance of the collapse of the British Raj if the Mughal Emperor calls for rebellion in support of the Central Powers and a greater chance of success because Indians do not swear allegiance to the British Crown and Victoria does not become Empress of India.

(Even Hindus will respond because the Mughal Emperor was still respected by Hindus despite some old hiccups between them, and the Ottoman Caliph was respected by Hindus and Muslims alike.)

The Baghdad front may not happen here because the Persians, the strongest as a central force, will attack the Strait of Hormuz, support the Muscat rebellion against the British, and seize the islands of Ras al-Khaimah and Bahrain, and this means greater Ottoman forces in other fronts.

(Assuming that the war of 1878 is an Ottoman victory and the survival of Ottoman Egypt and Tunisia would mean a second Ottoman siege of Malta, and assuming its success if it was implemented well and what happened before, this would be a great disaster for the British)
 

LeoII

Banned
Perhaps there will not even be a genocide of the Armenians if Azerbaijan and Armenia remain Persian

Because the three pashas simply will not see the Armenians as agents of the Russians
Maybe not the Genocide, but the Hamidian Massacres or something like them could still occur. The western nations had taken notice of Ottoman oppression of Armenians then, and had pressured Hamid into promising better treatment. Breaking his promise lead to discontent, protests, and fights that sparked the Hamidian massacres.
 

ahmedali

Banned
Maybe not the Genocide, but the Hamidian Massacres or something like them could still occur. The western nations had taken notice of Ottoman oppression of Armenians then, and had pressured Hamid into promising better treatment. Breaking his promise lead to discontent, protests, and fights that sparked the Hamidian massacres.
On the point of difference, after 1804 Abdülhamid may not have turned reactionary as he did later

If the war of 1878 had ended in victory for the Ottomans, Abdülhamid wiII stay liberal and would not have committed any Hamidian massacres in the first place.

The victory of the Ottomans in 1878 would make Abdülhamid II a different person from the one we know

(The defeat really changed him)
 
Jumping ahead a bit to where the changed ethnic politics might be of more significance, OTL the Armenian-Tatar massacres occurred 1905-1907 during the First Russian Revolution. Houri Berberian claims that the Dashnaks became more internationalist following these massacres, perhaps momentarily realising their futility, and fought alongside muslims during the Persian constitutional revolution, with a number of Armenian fedayi becoming prominent.

Would the same animosity between Armenians and ‘Caucasian Tatars’ exist within Persia? Perhaps not because of the absence of divide and rule colonial strategy, or perhaps even moreso because the Qajars were themselves Turkic and from the Caucasus. Would the ethnic conflict wait for a moment of weakness in the Persian state as it had in Russia, or would the Qajars be consistently so weak that there would always be low level conflict? Would the Armenians seek autonomy/separation rather than support an equivalent constitutional revolution in such an environment? If Armenians and Caucasian Tatars could coexist peacefully, would the Armenians have never developed their penchant for revolutionary nationalism? Would they be more quietist during an equivalent constitutional revolution? Would the Armenians still have significant enough numbers in the region for any of this to matter?

(I assume something similar to the constitutional revolution would still happen because Persian elites would have even less incentive to reform and modernise without their weakness and backwardness made so apparent in Persia’s losses against Russia.)
 
Jumping ahead a bit to where the changed ethnic politics might be of more significance, OTL the Armenian-Tatar massacres occurred 1905-1907 during the First Russian Revolution. Houri Berberian claims that the Dashnaks became more internationalist following these massacres, perhaps momentarily realising their futility, and fought alongside muslims during the Persian constitutional revolution, with a number of Armenian fedayi becoming prominent.

Would the same animosity between Armenians and ‘Caucasian Tatars’ exist within Persia? Perhaps not because of the absence of divide and rule colonial strategy, or perhaps even moreso because the Qajars were themselves Turkic and from the Caucasus. Would the ethnic conflict wait for a moment of weakness in the Persian state as it had in Russia, or would the Qajars be consistently so weak that there would always be low level conflict? Would the Armenians seek autonomy/separation rather than support an equivalent constitutional revolution in such an environment? If Armenians and Caucasian Tatars could coexist peacefully, would the Armenians have never developed their penchant for revolutionary nationalism? Would they be more quietist during an equivalent constitutional revolution? Would the Armenians still have significant enough numbers in the region for any of this to matter?

(I assume something similar to the constitutional revolution would still happen because Persian elites would have even less incentive to reform and modernise without their weakness and backwardness made so apparent in Persia’s losses against Russia.)

The context of the 1905 massacres was a russian empire which did not fully back either ethnic group over the other, in this scenario azeris would be shia muslims in a shia muslim state and azeris historically have held lots of high positions in iranian government, unlikely that they would take any side other than that of the local azeris so for that reason unless another large power backs them, armenians would not rebel.
 
Top