Why did the Uzbeks not form a 'proper' gunpowder empire?

The Safavid gunpowder empire was the height of Persian power since the Sassanian era. The Mughals similarly united virtually the entire subcontinent under the banner of Islam, while the Ottomans reunited the eastern Mediterranean after almost a thousand years of disunity.

So why did Central Asia not witness such a flourishing of Islamic civilization? Why did the Shaybanid Uzbek khanate not achieve nearly as much as its allies in Constantinople, its sworn enemies in Isfahan or the exile Timurids in Delhi?
 
Flat steppe land that doesn't have the resources for domestic production of gunz
140417003.jpg

Rosemary+Kyrgyzstan,+south+of+Issyk+Kul+Lake+2012.jpg

landscape.jpg
 

Vuru

Banned
That's waay too south tho, i think that was under control of other states

Of course doesn't prevent them from just raiding the place, but the other states have guns and they don't
 
Could it be related to the fact that Central Asia's deep inland?If you are landlocked,your neighbors can potentially restrict your access to weapons and information.
 
One possibilty is that their routes of expansion were limited because they themselves were basically surrounded by gunpowder empires
 

Deleted member 97083

Guns make it a lot easier for sedentary empires to rule the steppes. When the benefits of mounted archery and the like disappear, the population advantage of sedentary states gives them the edge over nomadic states.
 
Guns make it a lot easier for sedentary empires to rule the steppes.
Most of Uzbekistan isn't really steppe. The terrain isn't that different AFAIK from Iran, which of course did have a gunpowder empire.

One possibilty is that their routes of expansion were limited because they themselves were basically surrounded by gunpowder empires
So were the Safavids really. Plus, the Uzbeks could always have expanded into the Kazakh steppe like the Qing did in Mongolia and Muscovy did against the Tatars.
 
Just a question, do not know, did they have the resources to produce guns and gunpowder in their territory in enough numbers?
 
Most of Uzbekistan isn't really steppe. The terrain isn't that different AFAIK from Iran, which of course did have a gunpowder empire.
So were the Safavids really. Plus, the Uzbeks could always have expanded into the Kazakh steppe like the Qing did in Mongolia and Muscovy did against the Tatars.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I got the feeling it's hard to compare the Uzbeks (even in the 17th century) with Iran, much less the Ottomans and the Mughals, both of which comprised larger, much more populous (which meant more economically developed) and relatively more sophisticated in the technological aspect.

I'm not trying to say the Uzbeks were some Medieval-level steppe barbarian horde. They sat exactly upon a vital part of the Silk Road, of course, but by the 17th Century I'm not sure if even their greatest urban centers (I'm thinking about Samarkand and Bukhara) could compare with northwestern India or Thrace and Anatolia. This, coupled with their relative geographic remoteness of Central Asia in the geopolitics of the 16th/19th Centuries, might have handicapped their potential, especially due to the lack of weapon production, until at least the Russians came knocking.

Perhaps an interesting scenario would be one in which Safavid Iran collapses into a warlord era of sorts, or at least becomes weakened, allowing an Uzbek takeover of eastern Iran or even the southern Caspian littoral. Increasing the Uzbek political and economic base in Asia could certainly help them in the path towards "Westernization" (and I promise I'm not trying to push in some Vicky 2 gimmick). An early PoD could allow for such a gradual takeover, especially if it coincides with the height of the Ottoman presence in the Middle East (thus further weaking Persia). In this scenario, the Uzbeks could perhaps mirror in Iran the Mughal conquest of northern India.
 
Last edited:
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I got the feeling it's hard to compare the Uzbeks (even in the 17th century) with Iran, much less the Ottomans and the Mughals, both of which comprised larger, much more populous (which meant more economically developed) and relatively more sophisticated in the technological aspect.

I'm not trying to say the Uzbeks were some Medieval-level steppe barbarian horde. They sat exactly upon a vital part of the Silk Road, of course, but by the 17th Century I'm not sure if even their greatest urban centers (I'm thinking about Samarkand and Bukhara) could compare with northwestern India or Thrace and Anatolia. This, coupled with their relative geographic remoteness of Central Asia in the geopolitics of the 16th/19th Centuries, might have handicapped their potential, especially due to the lack of weapon production, until at least the Russians came knocking.

Perhaps an interesting scenario would be one in which Safavid Iran collapses into a warlord era of sorts, or at least becomes weakened, allowing an Uzbek takeover of eastern Iran or even the southern Caspian littoral. Increasing the Uzbek political and economic base in Asia could certainly help them in the path towards "Westernization" (and I promise I'm not trying to push in some Vicky 2 gimmick). An early PoD could allow for such a gradual takeover, especially if it coincides with the height of the Ottoman presence in the Middle East (thus further weaking Persia). In this scenario, the Uzbeks could perhaps mirror in Iran the Mughal conquest of northern India.

I would agree to this. While the Uzbeks ruled several urban centers such as Samarkand they largely seemed to have not went along with the transition that overtook the Ottomans, Iranians, and India under the Mughals. All three largely integrated with and worked with the social aspects of the lands they ruled which had a much larger base for economic and technological support for developing a gunpowder industry which could then be transfered over to making an gunpowder army that characterized the three Gunpowder Empires. Primarily, a developed and professional segment of the military- see Janissaries and Iranian artillery corps - that was used alongside the usual troop levees and mounted archers (it is important to note that the entire armies of all three Gunpowder Empires did not all become 100% gun and cannon wielding).

I think one can compare the Safavids and the Qajars. The Safavids were able to gain many military successes and even centralize their internal power because the Shahs moved toward recruiting their own version of a Janissary army (See thee Circassian, Georgian, Kurd, ect army under Shah Abbas). The Qajars however were a Mounted Steppe Clan Come to Power through and through and as such had more defeats in the early modern era than the Safavids, they were unable to cope with the modernization of Russia's military in the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
Last edited:
Were they perhaps a bit vulnerable to the Iranians supporting their enemies? The two nations seemed to be vying for some of the same territories? (I don't know Central Asian history super well.)

Combining that with the declining importance of the Silk Road, which I'm guessing led to frequent budget shortfalls?
 
Were they perhaps a bit vulnerable to the Iranians supporting their enemies? The two nations seemed to be vying for some of the same territories? (I don't know Central Asian history super well.)

Combining that with the declining importance of the Silk Road, which I'm guessing led to frequent budget shortfalls?

They most likely had a extreme weakness for internal cohesion. Reading a little bit on their wars with the Safavids seems to indicate that was the reason why their invasions of Iran stalled so many times.
 
Top