Why Iran failed to be a regional or great power?

[Gukpard]

When we think in ancient history all up the islamic conquests, we usually take Iran, independent of it's ruling dynasty, be the Sassanids, the Parthians or the Achaemids as the main power in the middle east, and some times as the main power in the known world (behind china ofc), and while iran remained a regional power in the mdidle east, it failed to become a large continent covering empire, like the Russians, the ottomans, or even the Mughals and the Timurids. Why such a thing happened?

Edit: I classified the Ottomans as continent covering empire since it held over most of north africa

Edit2: This is way after the end of the Achaemid empire and the Sassanid empire, I'm talking about after the end of the abbasid rule forward

 

[Alex Zetsu]

? The Persians and the Acaemids were great powers. That's basically proto-iran.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

First, Persia was "just a regional" power? What are you smoking there?

Second, Russia is cheating, because they were just gunning down those without guns.

Third, have you considered geography? See where the "natural" borders are.

Fourth, why are Ottoman, Mughal, and Timurid considered "continent covering empire" when Persia-originating empires covered at least as much territory? What kind of one-sided double standard is this?

 

[Gukpard]

Third, have you considered geography? See where the "natural" borders are.

They couldn't control those borders at the end

Fourth, why are Ottoman, Mughal, and Timurid considered "continent covering empire" when Persia-originating empires covered at least as much territory? What kind of one-sided double standard is this?

The ottomans had control of most of the coast of North africa, I should had made this more explicit

? The Persians and the Acaemids were great powers. That's basically proto-iran.

First, Persia was "just a regional" power? What are you smoking there?

I let very clear on the OP that I mean AFTER those empires

 

[BellaGerant]

I suppose you mean post-Timur Persia (Safavids, Afsharids, Qajar) by that. Well, it's a mix of things. Persia's population is a bit low compared to the empires around them (Ottoman, Mughal, Russia) especially post-Timur. Invading through the Hindu Kush is difficult, the Uzbek nomads ride the northern steppe, the Ottomans are scary in this time period. Mesopotamia keeps getting contested by the Persians and the Turks, the Pashtun are hard to manage, and invading Arabia requires ships.

Of course, Nader Shah went ahead and smashed every single thing stated above but he was something else (and everything he built collapsed quite quickly) and the other entities around Persia had been weakened by various causes at that point in time. But that was in the era of European ascendance, unfortunately, and Persia's infrastructure was rather lacking (especially due to the great swathes of mountainous terrain making large construction projects rather difficult).

 

[Umbral]

I don't remember where I read it, but looking it up it seems Wikipedia concurs: During the reign of Darius the Great, over 40 percent of the human species lived within the borders of Persia. Just a point of interest, I see you did note that it was a known world power at one stage

 

[Gukpard]

I suppose you mean post-Timur Persia (Safavids, Afsharids, Qajar) by that. Well, it's a mix of things. Persia's population is a bit low compared to the empires around them (Ottoman, Mughal, Russia) especially post-Timur. Invading through the Hindu Kush is difficult, the Uzbek nomads ride the northern steppe, the Ottomans are scary in this time period. Mesopotamia keeps getting contested by the Persians and the Turks, the Pashtun are hard to manage, and invading Arabia requires ships.

Of course, Nader Shah went ahead and smashed every single thing stated above but he was something else (and everything he built collapsed quite quickly) and the other entities around Persia had been weakened by various causes at that point in time. But that was in the era of European ascendance, unfortunately, and Persia's infrastructure was rather lacking (especially due to the great swathes of mountainous terrain making large construction projects rather difficult).

With all those problems, would Persia still be able to become a great power under such circunstances?

 

[Lampiao]

People forget that the core of Pre-Islamic Persian Empires wasn't Persia itself, but Mesopotamia. That said, Islamic Persia never had a long standing grip over Iraq. Without this populous core, it's a quite complex country. Geographically speaking, I mean. Excess of mountains and deserts make logistics difficult and being the natural crossroads of Afro-Eurasia it'll always be prone to foreign invasion. Regional power? Sure. Great power? Nah.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

When we think in ancient history all up the islamic conquests, we usually take Iran, independent of it's ruling dynasty, be the Sassanids, the Parthians or the Achaemids as the main power in the middle east, and some times as the main power in the known world (behind china ofc), and while iran remained a regional power in the mdidle east, it failed to become a large continent covering empire, like the Russians, the ottomans, or even the Mughals and the Timurids. Why such a thing happened?

Edit: I classified the Ottomans as continent covering empire since it held over most of north africa

Edit2: This is way after the end of the Achaemid empire and the Sassanid empire, I'm talking about after the end of the abbasid rule forward

Title: Why Iran failed to be a regional or great power?
OP: Why did Iran never rule an entire continent worth of land?
Those aren't the same questions mate...

To answer the question in the title, Persia under Nadir Shah was certainly one of the strongest empires of the time, and arguably the strongest in Asia.

To answer why Iran never stretched from Beirut to Canton... I'd recommend looking at any globe that has longitudinal and latitudinal lines, especially one that has topographic features.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Because a powerful Persian state would rather attack and plunder India (fabulously wealthy) than keep steppe peoples in line and conquer Central Asia from the south. That's expensive, costly in manpower, and doesn't have much gain except very long-term.

 

[Gukpard]

People forget that the core of Pre-Islamic Persian Empires wasn't Persia itself, but Mesopotamia. That said, Islamic Persia never had a long standing grip over Iraq. Without this populous core, it's a quite complex country. Geographically speaking, I mean. Excess of mountains and deserts make logistics difficult and being the natural crossroads of Afro-Eurasia it'll always be prone to foreign invasion. Regional power? Sure. Great power? Nah.

Title: Why Iran failed to be a regional or great power?
OP: Why did Iran never rule an entire continent worth of land?
Those aren't the same questions mate...

To answer the question in the title, Persia under Nadir Shah was certainly one of the strongest empires of the time, and arguably the strongest in Asia.

To answer why Iran never stretched from Beirut to Canton... I'd recommend looking at any globe that has longitudinal and latitudinal lines, especially one that has topographic features.

Because a powerful Persian state would rather attack and plunder India (fabulously wealthy) than keep steppe peoples in line and conquer Central Asia from the south. That's expensive, costly in manpower, and doesn't have much gain except very long-term.

Ok, Thank you, thank you and thank you

Just one more thing, what is the best case scenario for post timurid Iran?

 

[Lampiao]

To answer the question in the title, Persia under Nadir Shah was certainly one of the strongest empires of the time, and arguably the strongest in Asia.

For how many years? And still it was only relevant regionally, Nader Shah's Persia didn't have the multicontinental influence of the contemporary great powers (Ottomans included).

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Ok, Thank you, thank you and thank you

Just one more thing, what is the best case scenario for post timurid Iran?

Nadir Shah stays out of dynastic politics, Persia still gets his military reforms and military conquests, but he doesn't have the power to set up the Empire for failure when he gets loony later in life.

For how many years?

1732-1747, he was a flash in the pan comprable to Napoleon.

And still it was only relevant regionally, Nader Shah's Persia didn't have the multicontinental influence of the contemporary great powers (Ottomans included).

At the time the Ottomans ruled over an area that could either be easily accessed via the Mediterranean or was relatively close to the core of their empire. If that counts as multi-regional, then Nadir Shah ruling north of the Caucasus, and achieving hegemony over northern India and central Asia north of the Oxus River does as well.

 

[Gukpard]

Nadir Shah stays out of dynastic politics, Persia still gets his military reforms and military conquests, but he doesn't have the power to set up the Empire for failure when he gets loony later in life.

Could his successors invade the ottoman empire and capture the whole levant?

 

[Lampiao]

The Ottomans ruled over an area that could either be easily accessed via the Mediterranean or was relatively close to the core of their empire. If that counts as multi-regional, then Nadir Shah ruling north of the Caucasus, and achieving hegemony over northern India and central Asia north of the Oxus River does as well.

During their peak the Ottomans fought the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, Italians, Spanish, Austrians, Persians, etc. A power which controls Belgrade, Alger and Meca is definitely global power. This is not about the Ottomans though. Nader Shah only conquered the outskirts of the natural borders of Persia, and he couldn't establish a juggernaut comparable to the Ottoman Empire during a lifetime.

I'll add my two cents of optimism now: Persia needs to keep Mesopotamia as a part of its "natural borders" if it wants to maintain some significance. It wasn't only coincidence that all Persian Empires prior Islam had their core in Mesopotamia.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Could his successors invade the ottoman empire and capture the whole levant?

Probably not, but they could quite possibly get western Armenia and Mesopotamia. But otherwise they're on course for a collision with Russia north of the Caucasus, and fighting/preparing to fight with Russia is likely to consume the army's resources.

Another interesting development by Nadir Shah was that he established a Persian Navy (which he didn't do much with because he was very much an army guy). Perhaps his successors could take a greater interest in it an possibly invade Aceh durring a war with the Ottomans.

 

[BellaGerant]

Best Case? A good start would be to screw the everliving hell out of the Ottomans and keep Babur from establishing himself in India. That removes two of the greatest threats to Persian dominance of the Middle East. Have Timur smash the Ottomans in his war (Venetians don't save the Ottomans by ferrying them across the Bosporus), Asia Minor collapses into warlords on his death. An resurgent East Rome does wonders to help Persia since it likely won't be able to project past the Taurus due to pressure from Europe (Hungary, Venice) but it will prevent another Anatolian power from coalescing. Babur is easy enough to remove (aside from not being born, if he kept either Fergana or Samarkand, he's probably not going to India so soon). So now new Persia has fertile Mesopotamia uncontested, rich India still divided, and two major enemies gone. From there, expansion into the Punjab and parts of the Levant don't seem outrageous, from Hormuz to the Arabian coast to seize control of Indian Ocean trade, and you've got a multi-continental Persia.

Probably not, but they could quite possibly get western Armenia and Mesopotamia. But otherwise they're on course for a collision with Russia north of the Caucasus, and fighting/preparing to fight with Russia is likely to consume the army's resources.

Another interesting development by Nadir Shah was that he established a Persian Navy (which he didn't do much with because he was very much an army guy). Perhaps his successors could take a greater interest in it an possibly invade Aceh durring a war with the Ottomans.

Aceh's too far away for Persia to invade, especially since they'll come into conflict with the Dutch (centuries of naval tradition) if they enter that part of Asia.

 

[Sol Zagato]

Yo

Sup

Nice Persia you have there. Shame if something was to happen to it.



Sure, before these guys, they were ready for the world. After? Not so much.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

Just one more thing, what is the best case scenario for post timurid Iran?

Somehow establishing a "gunpowder empire" before the Ottoman has the chance to consolidate. The Ottoman were able to establish their slivers of empire by gunning down the opposition. If whoever is in power in Persia manages to do that first, then it could reach all the way to Moracco.

 

[Gukpard]

Yo

Sup

Nice Persia you have there. Shame if something was to happen to it.



Sure, before these guys, they were ready for the world. After? Not so much.

Well, they said that strengh is not based on how many enemies you can defeat, but instead on how many times you can be defeated and rise again :v

Somehow establishing a "gunpowder empire" before the Ottoman has the chance to consolidate. The Ottoman were able to establish their slivers of empire by gunning down the opposition. If whoever is in power in Persia manages to do that first, then it could reach all the way to Moracco.

Persia all the way to morroco? But what about the French, portuguese and Spanish?