WI: Afghan-wank

During the XIXth century, there were a few occasions. Could we see an alliance or a personal union with the emirates in the North, like Bokhara and Samarkand?

Not sure how solid that would be in the long run but it could work as a bulwark against Russian and Persian encroachment while giving those emirates access to the Caspian Sea.
 
You'd have to have a POD where Afghanistan is strong, but not too strong, or else they'd end up conquering either Persia or India or both, and thus considering themselves as either Persian (Hotaki dynasty) or Indian or basically anything but Afghan. The Durrani Empire is, of course, an interesting possibility.

Maybe the Durrani Empire or similar Afghan state could be limited in its strength by foreign powers, and over time, ends up creating an Afghan identity that stretches over modern Afghanistan and enough of OTL Pakistan to create a strong, modern Afghan state.
 
Wanking "Afghanistan" as we know it today is pretty much impossible- its the leftovers where British India stopped expanding north/northwest, Russia stopped expanding south and Iran stopped expanding east. With some small changes (British India takes the whole thing, most likely), you could probably get a better situation in that area today, if that meets the requirement for a wank

Wanking polities based in what is currently Afghanistan really requires them assuming control of something outside Afghanistan- either a Pashtun-based polity that includes NW Pakistan and controls more of northern India, somehow shifting the Iranian center of gravity eastward to be based in Herat, or avoiding the Mongol and Timurid destruction of the northern Khanates and allowing something useful to grow up in the Turkic & Persian areas north of the Hindu Kush.
 
FALightFighter said:
Wanking "Afghanistan" as we know it today is pretty much impossible- its the leftovers where British India stopped expanding north/northwest, Russia stopped expanding south and Iran stopped expanding east. With some small changes (British India takes the whole thing, most likely), you could probably get a better situation in that area today, if that meets the requirement for a wank

Sorry to say but that's simply not true, there was an Afghan Kingdom and even if it was influenced by Brits and Russians at time, it retained an identity throughout the XIXth century and actually won wars, as a Kingdom, against both.
It's not a leftover country or a colonial legacy country like some African countries but, like Persia, an historical country which actively resisted foreign invasions.

I see your point but then again, that's a thing you could say about most countries: Vietnam is the leftover from when China stopped expanding south, the States is the result of Mexico not expanding North and Canada not expanding South, etc... A good example of why it doesn't apply to Afghanistan is the loss of GB against Afghanistan, the fact Persia couldn't hold onto Herat, even before GB's help.
 
The Durrani Empire can only work is you can get Ahmed Shah to stop expanding after a certain point, because he was overextending the empire even before he died.
Any strong Afghanistan will have to include the Punjab, though. However, the Durranis had... chilly relations with the Sikhs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_holocaust_of_1762
The Afghans have two choices with the Sikhs.
1. Reconcile their differences. Which is hard.
2. Massacres/deportations, which although satisfying the conditions for an Afghanwank will leave a bitter aftertaste.
 
The Durrani Empire can only work is you can get Ahmed Shah to stop expanding after a certain point, because he was overextending the empire even before he died.
Any strong Afghanistan will have to include the Punjab, though. However, the Durranis had... chilly relations with the Sikhs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_holocaust_of_1762
The Afghans have two choices with the Sikhs.
1. Reconcile their differences. Which is hard.
2. Massacres/deportations, which although satisfying the conditions for an Afghanwank will leave a bitter aftertaste.

I agree entirely. The Durrani is the most recent point in history they can achieve this.

That said I would point out an early pod, sabotaging Persia. Maybe Butterfly Nader Shah away. A weaker Persia can only benefit Afghanistan.
 
I see the Durranis have already been said. Bactria is far too early, way before we can really call the place 'Afghanistan ' culturally, it would be like citing one of the ancient Greek Anatolian Kingdoms as a 'Turkey' wank.
And anyways, I agree that the key to wanking Afghanistan would be integrating the Punjabi and it's rich natural resource area and high population into what is culturally Afghanistan.
Again, to do this it would be difficult with the Sikh/Afghan history, and the Afghan modern nation didn't exist before Sikhism could be avoided (having basically been tug of war between the Mughals, the Safavid and Central Asian Khanates).

Does an Afghanistan wank necessarily have to be a territory one? What about an Afghan Kingdom that successfully plays both Russia and Britain (who don't gain the NW area of Pakistan), instead of Punjab integrates Persian/Pakistani Baluchistan (much closer to Afghanistan linguistically, also allowing it a coastline) and develops a sense of democracy evolving from the Loya Jurga tradition, and successfully modernises ala South Korea?
Would that count as an Afghanistan wank?
 
Does an Afghanistan wank necessarily have to be a territory one? What about an Afghan Kingdom that successfully plays both Russia and Britain (who don't gain the NW area of Pakistan), instead of Punjab integrates Persian/Pakistani Baluchistan (much closer to Afghanistan linguistically, also allowing it a coastline) and develops a sense of democracy evolving from the Loya Jurga tradition, and successfully modernises ala South Korea?
Would that count as an Afghanistan wank?

Kurarun/Krall did something like that for one of the map contests, although sans a coastline:

http://kurarun.deviantart.com/art/Never-a-Pawn-in-Someone-Else-s-Game-336239993


never_a_pawn_in_someone_else_s_game_by_kurarun-d5k6sft.png
 
Kurarun/Krall did something like that for one of the map contests, although sans a coastline:

That's a much stronger Afghanistan, especially considering there are more Afghans in NW Pakistan then there are in OTL Afghanistan. A bigger population (workforce) would be a big plus in wanking Afghanistan.
Also , I'm not sure of this, but isn't NW Pakistan also much more resource filled than Afghanistan? I'm not sure.
 
That's a much stronger Afghanistan, especially considering there are more Afghans in NW Pakistan then there are in OTL Afghanistan. A bigger population (workforce) would be a big plus in wanking Afghanistan.
Also , I'm not sure of this, but isn't NW Pakistan also much more resource filled than Afghanistan? I'm not sure.


Yes. Kashmir, Waziristan (FAFA), Queta, Pakhtunkhwa and Baltistan would increase the population by something like 120% and the cities of Peshawar and surrounding areas are more fertile than Afghanistan and would likely be the capital, rather than Qabul. If we counted Indian Kashmir that would be even more people.
 
Yes. Kashmir, Waziristan (FAFA), Queta, Pakhtunkhwa and Baltistan would increase the population by something like 120% and the cities of Peshawar and surrounding areas are more fertile than Afghanistan and would likely be the capital, rather than Qabul. If we counted Indian Kashmir that would be even more people.

Whilst some might say moving the capital to OTL Pakistan would stop it from being an 'Afghan'-wank and becomes an alt Pakistan, I think as long Pashto remains the official language and certain cultural traditions like Pashtunwalli and the Loya Jurga are kept prevalent then I think it's fulfils the OP.
 
Whilst some might say moving the capital to OTL Pakistan would stop it from being an 'Afghan'-wank and becomes an alt Pakistan, I think as long Pashto remains the official language and certain cultural traditions like Pashtunwalli and the Loya Jurga are kept prevalent then I think it's fulfils the OP.


Well yes, but Pakhtunkhwa and Waziristan has always been considered one with Afghanistan, historically known as Khursan.
 
Sorry to say but that's simply not true, there was an Afghan Kingdom and even if it was influenced by Brits and Russians at time, it retained an identity throughout the XIXth century and actually won wars, as a Kingdom, against both.
It's not a leftover country or a colonial legacy country like some African countries but, like Persia, an historical country which actively resisted foreign invasions.

I see your point but then again, that's a thing you could say about most countries: Vietnam is the leftover from when China stopped expanding south, the States is the result of Mexico not expanding North and Canada not expanding South, etc... A good example of why it doesn't apply to Afghanistan is the loss of GB against Afghanistan, the fact Persia couldn't hold onto Herat, even before GB's help.

The historical "Afghan Kingdom" that you refer to is not really continuous with the current state of Afghanistan. Generally, one emir controlled Kabul and Peshawar, and a brother or cousin controlled Kandahar and Quetta- usually de facto if not de jure independent of the other.

The "Afghans" historically refers to Pashtuns, and only expands when the Brits empower the Pashtuns over non-Pashtun areas north of the Hindu Kush as compensation for the areas in what is now Pakistan that were taken by British India and as a buffer against the Russians. The Afghan Kingdom won wars against the Brits and Russians? Victories, but the wars generally ended with terms dictated by the other.

The Turkic and Tajik areas north of the Hindu Kush and around Herat, which have a significant portion of the Afghan population where only subdued by Abdur Rahman with British support, and he displaced (primarily Ghilzai) Pashtuns there to cement his rule and to punish them for revolting.
 
Reading Tamim Ansary's Games Without Rules: The Often-Interrupted History of Afghanistan the Barakzais seem to have been doing pretty well at incrementally reforming and modernising in the from the mid-1930s onwards under Mohammed Zahir Shah. I've not finished but having Daoud Khan eased out slightly earlier than in our timeline before he rather foolishly decided to try and pressure Pakistan over the whole Pashtoonistan idea by closing the border seems like a good start, link that with Zahir Shah not taking direct control of things but retaining indirect control via members of the Family and therefore staying publicly above politics. They then continue the policy of playing the US and USSR off against one another in return for large development programmes and continue to gradually reform and modernise. Might not be a mega-wank in the normal sense of the forums but it could put them light-years of where they currently are.

Edit: Apologies, I somehow thought this was in the After 1900 forum.
 
Last edited:
Top