The last nomadic empires

The last of the great nomadic empires of Eurasia is often considered to be the Dzungar khanate, which died extremely bloodily (nearly a million deaths) at the hands of the sedentary Great Qing empire in the 1750s. Around the same time various remnants of nomad independence also ground to a halt. By the mid-19th century, sedentary powers ruled all of the steppes.

With a POD of 1500, how long can nomadic empires survive?
 
If you find a way to prevent Russian expansion into Central Asia (and noone else picing up the tab) then some of them might last quite a while.

Alternately maybe getting some Berbers/Tuaregs forming some kind of empire in/around the Sahara (as that one also resisted quite long against colonial carve-up)
 
Not really. Russian intrusion into CenA was not really major until the late 18th century (famously the Khivans wrecked Russian expeditions throughout the 18th century) but in 1800 there were zero nomadic empires in Central Asia (the Kazakhs were not an empire in the same sense that the Dzungars were and the three other CenA powers were sedentary).

So I think it's much more difficult. By the 18th century the rise of gunpowder technology in Central Asia had made nomadic empires obsolete even in their home ground. For example, the Third Battle of Panipat was won by Afghan artillery, not Afghan horses.

By nomadic empire I meant the Eurasian steppe ones, not the Tuaregs or the Lakota.
 
By nomadic empire I meant the Eurasian steppe ones, not the Tuaregs or the Lakota.

I'll admit my first thought was the comanche.

But ok central asia. I'm with you that I think the rise of the 5 gunpowder empires (qing, muscovy, persia, mughais and ottomans) is what killed nomadism as a cultural choice in central asia. Even those not directly conquered were aware of the shift of the winds.

You'd need at least one of those empires off the map and some success by nomads in their area to keep it alive as a working culture, I think.
 
They are dead once guns become common.

Nomadic Empires rely on horse archers. The nomadic pastoralist society allows for most men being able to be warriors, which lets them leverage their small numbers relative to settled farmers.

Before gunpowder, effective ranged weapons took a LOT of training to use effectively, which meant that nomadic archers could sweep in, pelt farmers with arrows until they surrendered or died, and conquer land that way. Once peasant levies armed with guns become possible, then the settled cultures can fight back, and effectively use their superior numbers.
 
Pretty much once gunpowder starts becoming widespread, it's impossible for a bunch of nomads on horses to ride across the plains and sack farms without running into people who can effectively resist them. 1500 is probably too late to avoid gunpowder from becoming widespread.

Maybe a more Baltic-focused Russia ignores Central Asia and Siberia and a few more nomads are left alone for a few more decades, but even then, the fur trade makes at least some Russian expansion into Siberia inevitable.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The last of the great nomadic empires of Eurasia is often considered to be the Dzungar khanate, which died extremely bloodily (nearly a million deaths) at the hands of the sedentary Great Qing empire in the 1750s. Around the same time various remnants of nomad independence also ground to a halt. By the mid-19th century, sedentary powers ruled all of the steppes.

With a POD of 1500, how long can nomadic empires survive?

You basically have to have both Russia and China, the two states which destroyed the central asian nomads, fall into a contentious period of disunity and chaos for as long as possible.
 
It seems to have suffered the fate of all non-industrial peoples, the fact that they did not or could not make guns or gunpowder of their own seems to be the main problem. If you could find away for a country that would see it as beneficial to them to have a group of nomads as a buffer state, then maybe. That nation would need to arm and train and supply them with guns.
 
Top