Persian colonial empire

None of these would have the sailing technology to compete against the Europeans. Look at Oman, it was the most powerful naval force along the African east coast and Arabia and they not only lost their colonies their capital Muscat was conquered.

Oman ousted the Portuguese out of most of East Africa/Swahili coast. I am not sure what you're trying to tell. If Oman was weak they would not have a single chance in driving the Portuguese out of Swahili Coast. And it was not during the Iberian Union. No, it was during the late 17th century when Portugal was free.
 
Persia like Oman and other countries along the Indian Ocean lacked sailing technology and material to build ships to challenge first the Portuguese then Dutch followed by French/British.

If the Persians were to conquered Oman and build a colonial empire it would be dubjectvyo same fate as Oman did. Defeat at the hands of the Europeans and their colonies taken over.

Once again, there is no reason why the Persians suddenly have to challenge the English/British, Dutch or French to get something. Portuguese were a problem and that problem was solved with English/Dutch aid. It doesn't suddenly change because Persia gets ambitious. Rivalries will continue. As long as they don't challenge the British, French and Dutch in India and Indonesia I forsee only a little chance of conflict with them.

Oman ousted the Portuguese out of Zanzibar, Mombassa and Kilwa in the late 17th century. If they can do it, the Persians with their resources can as well.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Oman ousted the Portuguese out of most of East Africa/Swahili coast. I am not sure what you're trying to tell. If Oman was weak they would not have a single chance in driving the Portuguese out of Swahili Coast. And it was not during the Iberian Union. No, it was during the late 17th century when Portugal was free.
Oh but you are talking about the Portuguese when it was being attacked by the Dutvh and was trying unsuccessfully to reclaim her empire after decades of neglect by Spanish kings.

But what did Oman achieve, few decades of independence until British came in took everything from them. Really. So what the plan to have a colonial empire that is stollen during the 16th century or one that resists Europeans. Anyone including Indians or ottomans could establish themselves prior to 16th century but not able to resist the Europeans. (Plural)
 

Lusitania

Donor
Once again, there is no reason why the Persians suddenly have to challenge the English/British, Dutch or French to get something. Portuguese were a problem and that problem was solved with English/Dutch aid. It doesn't suddenly change because Persia gets ambitious. Rivalries will continue. As long as they don't challenge the British, French and Dutch in India and Indonesia I forsee only a little chance of conflict with them.

Oman ousted the Portuguese out of Zanzibar, Mombassa and Kilwa in the late 17th century. If they can do it, the Persians with their resources can as well.
And British did same few decades later
 
Oh but you are talking about the Portuguese when it was being attacked by the Dutvh and was trying unsuccessfully to reclaim her empire after decades of neglect by Spanish kings.

But what did Oman achieve, few decades of independence until British came in took everything from them. Really. So what the plan to have a colonial empire that is stollen during the 16th century or one that resists Europeans. Anyone including Indians or ottomans could establish themselves prior to 16th century but not able to resist the Europeans. (Plural)

What did the British take? Zanzibar? Not until late 19th century as result of the scramble. And that after Oman had separated. Having a colonial state by Persia in the region has butterflies that affects for OTL that you are ignoring.

And honestly you are saying it yourself, they can establish it. That is what this topic is about. It doesn't even mention about lasting.

I am clueless what you're trying to tell because it does not make any sense.
 

Lusitania

Donor
What did the British take? Zanzibar? Not until late 19th century as result of the scramble. And that after Oman had separated. Having a colonial state by Persia in the region has butterflies that affects for OTL that you are ignoring.

And honestly you are saying it yourself, they can establish it. That is what this topic is about. It doesn't even mention about lasting.

I am clueless what you're trying to tell because it does not make any sense.

Oman never defeated the Portuguese, the Portuguese weakened from Iberian Union and the Portuguese- Dutch war were defeated by local Swahili leaders who then turned to Oman. Oman on its own not able to defeat the Portuguese.

The problem was that the Portuguese did not have enough soldiers to hold the land but ships were far superior. The Dutch who followed the Portuguese likewise.
 
with a pod after 1500 is it realistic and possible for Iran (Persia) to get a colonial empire?

Extra points for a Persian settler colony in australia

Also extra points for a pod late enough in time so that it’s still possible for Reza shah to rise to power.

Absolutely Persia can get colonies. It's harder for them to get a settler colony though, due to the under-population of the heartland.

Maybe if you figure out a PoD that gives Iran a stronger population base? For example, if the population decline at the end of the Safavid period was avoided. But that's hard because we don't really know what caused that (probably cholera, but it's not certain).

Do they have to be overseas colonies? Because if not I could sea Persia colonizing Central Asia in the absence of Russia.

Well, they did. Persians are still a major people in the area today (Persians are called Tajiks in central asia). They were pushed back by the steppe peoples.

And a port in Basra would easily connect to and facilitate the commerce of the Persian heartland... how exactly? The Zargos are just as much of an obstacle unless you move the center of the Empire to Khuzestan/Mesopotamia, which makes holding the majority of the nation you just left highly difficult as well as making the state highly vulnerable by removing it's protective geography and isolating themselves from the tribal populations that provide the core of your military might in the form of light cavalry.

Persia had been a naval power often enough in the past. Post 1500 it had 2 issues - 1) the timber came from the mountains around the Caspian sea - obviously too far away to transport cheaply to the Persian Gulf; 2) they lacked Mesopotamia, which was the real heart of the empire (if not the heart of the Persian nation).

So at minimum, Persia needs some ports with good timber nearby. For bonus points, it needs Mesopotamia. For maximum colonial potential, you need to replace the population crash in the 18th Century with population growth.

Probably the easiest way to do this is if Persia conquers the West coast of India, which had a strong naval tradition, a supply of timber, and was producing naval officers who could trounce Europeans. With that it's logical that Persia would seek to again dominate Oman, which would motivate Persia to get involved on the Swahili coast of Africa (which they'd been involved in before).

That's all something that might have happened if Nader Shah had set up an enduring regime, meaning that Persia is strong at a time when the Portuguese, Ottomans and Mughals are weakening and the British haven't gotten strong momentum yet.

And in such a scenario, Persia might then get drawn further into Africa, much as Egypt did, as the scramble for Africa gets going.

fasquardon
 
What if they build a Great Wall of Persia across Khorasan to try to keep out Central Asian nomads, say, during thr 15th or 16th centuries? Could that give them enough of a stable northern frontier that they could concentrate on developing Fars and Makran?

The Sassanids IIRC had a wall like that, but it was much smaller and not as impressive as China's wall.

No chance of finding the requisite money and labor in Safavid Persia?

Do what Nader Shah did and sack and loot Northern India?

Do they have to be overseas colonies? Because if not I could sea Persia colonizing Central Asia in the absence of Russia.

It takes a lot of manpower and money to subdue Central Asia, and if a Persian state has that, why not use it to attack India or the Turks?

Central Asia most makes sense to Persia as a settler colony, and for that to be the case, Persia needs settlers to export.
 
What if they build a Great Wall of Persia across Khorasan to try to keep out Central Asian nomads, say, during thr 15th or 16th centuries? Could that give them enough of a stable northern frontier that they could concentrate on developing Fars and Makran?

And you're getting the labor, material, and money for this wall from... where exactly? The maitence alone would make the high cost,low yeild (and far off) of coastal and naval investment even less plausable

Such a wall already existed. There doesn't seem to be nearly as much information about it on the internet as the Great Wall does, though. That seems to be a recurring problem when it comes to a lot of Persian history.
 
Such a wall already existed. There doesn't seem to be nearly as much information about it on the internet as the Great Wall does, though. That seems to be a recurring problem when it comes to a lot of Persian history.
It is 195 km (121 mi) long and 6–10 m (20–33 ft) wide,[6] and features over 30 fortresses spaced at intervals of between 10 and 50 km (6.2 and 31.1 mi). It is surpassed only by the Great Wall of China as the longest defensive wall in existence.
Hmm
No wonder the Sassanids were the ones that made this, they were the only Iranian rulers post-Alexander that weren't descended from nomads themselves lol.
 
Top