Persio Ottoman alliance?

With any pod after 1810, would it be possible to have a very close alliance between Iran and the Ottoman empire? Are tensions too high, or can they come together, seeing Christian European empires (especially Russia and Britain) as greater threats. It wouldn't be unprecedented, seeing as Russia has taken a lot of territory from both Ottomans and Iran in the early modern period, and the British have extended their own influence as well. Could they possibly also reel in other states like Oman into this alliance?
 
Could a Perisa Ottoman alliance take back territory from Russia?

Eh... I doubt it. The Persians were wrecked in 1804-1813 and the Ottomans were still in the Military reform program, aborted in 1808 due to a Janissary Rebellion against Mahmud II. If you get an earlier PoD, the entire Russo-Persian and Russo-Turkish war can be avoided. But an alliance is still optional. Once the Russians are settled in the region, it is hard to get them out.
 
Eh... I doubt it. The Persians were wrecked in 1804-1813 and the Ottomans were still in the Military reform program, aborted in 1808 due to a Janissary Rebellion against Mahmud II. If you get an earlier PoD, the entire Russo-Persian and Russo-Turkish war can be avoided. But an alliance is still optional. Once the Russians are settled in the region, it is hard to get them out.
Maybe they can ally in an alt ww1 where Russia still fights Germany, which weakens their ability to fight in the south?
 
Maybe they can ally in an alt ww1 where Russia still fights Germany, which weakens their ability to fight in the south?
The Iranians were far too weak by the latter half of the 19th century to play the kind of role that the Ottoman Empire did. Keep in mind that the Ottoman Empire had far outstripped Iran in pretty much every measurement by 1900, simply because the Iranian state had atrophied. The most powerful armed force in Iran was dominated by Russia, yearly revenues were about 1/20th of that of the Ottomans, and with the Anglo-Russian rapprochement of 1907 Iran had started to lose its de-facto independence as both powers occupied spheres of influence within the country. Iran was simply not able to undertake the kind of military operations that the Ottoman Empire was as it was not an independent power for all intents and purposes.

To answer the question, limited pan-Islamist sentiment aside I can't see it as terribly likely. Once conflicts regarding the Kurdish frontiers had settled down, the Ottoman-Iranian border was still ill defined and a source of anxiety to both powers. While Sunni-Shi'a religious rivalry was not as violent in the late 19th century, there was nevertheless a tension between the two. And realistically, there was nothing much that the weakened Iranian state could actually offer the Ottomans, and especially in the reign of Abdulhamid II there was little appetite for incurring liabilities abroad.

One interesting possibility is that Nader Shah was reported to have wanted to build up a pan-Islamic front against the West, a key motivation behind his attempts to get the "Jafari Madhab" recognised. Perhaps a surviving Afsharid Empire that doesn't totally trash the Ottoman Empire could be a possible starting point for a Iranian-Ottoman alliance?
 
The Iranians were far too weak by the latter half of the 19th century to play the kind of role that the Ottoman Empire did. Keep in mind that the Ottoman Empire had far outstripped Iran in pretty much every measurement by 1900, simply because the Iranian state had atrophied. The most powerful armed force in Iran was dominated by Russia, yearly revenues were about 1/20th of that of the Ottomans, and with the Anglo-Russian rapprochement of 1907 Iran had started to lose its de-facto independence as both powers occupied spheres of influence within the country. Iran was simply not able to undertake the kind of military operations that the Ottoman Empire was as it was not an independent power for all intents and purposes.

To answer the question, limited pan-Islamist sentiment aside I can't see it as terribly likely. Once conflicts regarding the Kurdish frontiers had settled down, the Ottoman-Iranian border was still ill defined and a source of anxiety to both powers. While Sunni-Shi'a religious rivalry was not as violent in the late 19th century, there was nevertheless a tension between the two. And realistically, there was nothing much that the weakened Iranian state could actually offer the Ottomans, and especially in the reign of Abdulhamid II there was little appetite for incurring liabilities abroad.

One interesting possibility is that Nader Shah was reported to have wanted to build up a pan-Islamic front against the West, a key motivation behind his attempts to get the "Jafari Madhab" recognised. Perhaps a surviving Afsharid Empire that doesn't totally trash the Ottoman Empire could be a possible starting point for a Iranian-Ottoman alliance?

An alliance is desirable until 1828 when Russia had secured Southern and Western Georgia from the Ottomans and Azerbaijan from the Persians, which means that the Ottoman-Qajar alliance is no longer in state to oust the Russians away from the region. Even an alliance in 1804 is possible as a reaction to the Russians in Georgia. The success of such alliance is up to our speculations.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
As in, they both actively assist each other. Like, they greatly increase trade with each other, they share technological innovations, they cooperate on joint projects like a Tehran to Istanbul railway, etc
Not without a much earlier PoD.
The religious differences make it almost impossible.
It might be approached if the Safavids win the war against the Ottomans in 1623 and retain Baghdad but this relies on someone competent following Shah Abbas. But it would be a stalemate / cold war which might agree to maintain the status quo against the Muscovites, not an alliance.
 
Not without a much earlier PoD.
The religious differences make it almost impossible.
It might be approached if the Safavids win the war against the Ottomans in 1623 and retain Baghdad but this relies on someone competent following Shah Abbas. But it would be a stalemate / cold war which might agree to maintain the status quo against the Muscovites, not an alliance.
Religious differences didn't stop France from investing a lot in the Russian econony during their alliance. In Europe, people where willing to overlook religious differences all the time.

Why else would Protestant Britain team up with Catholic France and Orthodox Russia to shoot their fellow Protestants in Germany? Or Catholic Austria joining with Protestant Germany and Muslim Ottomans against Catholic France and Italy. If these countries can overlook sectional differences, why can't Ottomans and Iran?
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Religious differences didn't stop France from investing a lot in the Russian econony during their alliance. In Europe, people where willing to overlook religious differences all the time.

Why else would Protestant Britain team up with Catholic France and Orthodox Russia to shoot their fellow Protestants in Germany? Or Catholic Austria joining with Protestant Germany and Muslim Ottomans against Catholic France and Italy. If these countries can overlook sectional differences, why can't Ottomans and Iran?
If that is WW2 and WW1 respectively then you are way out of the period when religion really mattered.

A better example would be France and the Ottomans against HRE / Austria. But in this case the ability to work across religions works as they were not previously locked into a cycle of wars as the Persians and Ottomans were. A better example of religion preventing alliances would be England/Great Britain / UK and France. There were only a few times between 1660 and 1815 where they were on the same side and this coincided with a Catholic leaning King in the UK and provoked a coup in response.

I'm not saying Persia and the Ottomans could not work together. I'm saying that they would have to stop fighting each other first and then find common cause against an enemy - the easiest common cause would be Russia but if this is on the basis of a jihad then you run into problems with religion again. For me, if Persia and Ottomans can stop fighting sometime in the early 1600's on the basis of geopolitical parity then possibly they would be close enough to align themselves against Russia in the early 1800's.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Would the Qajar dynasty be too late?
Russia is too strong / Persia and the Ottomans too weak by then. Russia was able to fight three wars (France / Ottomans / Persia) simultaneously by then and not really be beaten in any one of them.

I'd say the latest that a rapprochement between the Persians and Ottomans is required would be around the time of troubles in Russia ie very start of 17th century.
 
Not without a much earlier PoD.
The religious differences make it almost impossible.
It might be approached if the Safavids win the war against the Ottomans in 1623 and retain Baghdad but this relies on someone competent following Shah Abbas. But it would be a stalemate / cold war which might agree to maintain the status quo against the Muscovites, not an alliance.

Religious difference was hardly an issue by the 1800s. The Ottomans and Qajars were more pragmatic in their relationship. The biggest issue is Russia and a weaker Persia. A PoD of 1750s might be necessary.
 
Top