WI/AHC: Seljuk Turks move into India?

This is both a what if, and AHC since I don't know if its all that plausible. The objective is to create a scenario in which the Seljuk Turks end up in India rather than Persia, and then to describe the effects of this move.
 
They'll probably be like the other Turkic dynasties of medieval India, culturally borrowing from the Ghurids. I see a dynasty based in Delhi, with a probable zenith of Indo-Gangetic plain, Orissa, and Deccan, leaving the Chola in the south, plus some Afghan territory as well.

Basically, nothing too dissimilar from OTL, all things considered. Persianized Turks ruling from Delhi.
 
Something like that. The real question here is, will this mean one less major turkic people going west, or are the Seljuqs simply switching with someone else?
 
As Venetic says, this doesn't really change the status quo in North India that much, unless the Seljuks do something horrendously different from all the other Turkic invaders of India. The real knock on effects will be in Western Asia.
 

Deleted member 67076

You've massively helped out the Abbasids with this. Before and even after the Seljuq invasion, they were undergoing a revival in power. Without having to yield to the Seljuq Sultan, the Caliph is going to have much more temporal power to raise armies. I could easily see the Abbasids expanding to all of Modern day Iraq, Azerbaijan, the Persian Gulf and the Levant.
 
if the Seljuks move to India instead of Asia Minor, this could help the Byzantines, unless the Caliphate is much much stronger than the Turks were IOTL.

It would at least buy the Byzantines some time.
 
Nah, I'd go with Soverihn and the Abbasids on this one. *Mazinkert will happen in this TL, I think, but probably with Arabs.
 
Nah, I'd go with Soverihn and the Abbasids on this one. *Mazinkert will happen in this TL, I think, but probably with Arabs.

I dont manziikert occured due to brilliant seiljuk commanders using new tactics and strategy coupled with a betrayal> This tl that betrayal could be butterflied away preventing such a loss
 
Nah, I'd go with Soverihn and the Abbasids on this one. *Mazinkert will happen in this TL, I think, but probably with Arabs.

Why would Arabs attack Manzikert, how would they win and why would the Arabs still move further into Anatolia as the Turks did?
 

Deleted member 67076

Nah, I'd go with Soverihn and the Abbasids on this one. *Mazinkert will happen in this TL, I think, but probably with Arabs.

That goes against Abbasid policy. The goal was to use Armenia and the Zagros for borders and then focus all available assets on the Fatimids who held the Hedjaz and Egypt. Attacking Anatolia would mean opening up another front to defend (even worse since the Byzantines and Fatimid's were allied at the time). Only after they take Egypt and the Hedjaz would they consider attacking the Byzantines.
 
Well damn, my memory ain't what it used to be. In fact there isn't a large Muslim power available to invade the Romans at and around this time if the Seljuqs turn south and are not replaced.

The Buyids won't pass muster; they were never really united to begin with and by 1071 if the Ghaznavids or someone hasn't mopped them up they'd be as irrelevant as the puppet Abbasid Khalifas in Baghdad.

Without the Seljuqs around it falls to Robert Viscardius to attempt the critical weakening of the Empire. Already he'd mopped it up in Italy before Mazinkert, but even if he's not Emperor Alexios Komnenos, who went on to make Robert's sons look like a couple of utter ponces (not that they weren't), is active in the military.
Robert may be the Viscardius but he just doesn't have anything like the power base of Alp Arslan (and Arslan's own religious leader is a helpless puppet in Baghdad, not a meddling JACKANAPES in Roma).

The ERE has survived such invasions and such ages of chronic betrayal in the imperial Court before and it can survive them again without any strong opposition. The Bulgarian Second Empire is over 100 years in the future; it too might be butterflied away.

The Crusades are likely to happen all the same, and be even stronger, but they'll have to play a lot nicer with the Romans.

Which basically leaves it to Hulagu Khan to take Anatolia from them almost 2 full centuries later (which also probably means no 4th Crusade sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the Mongols having to do ALL the work in this area, including the start of the Roman Empire's final collapse).
 

Deleted member 67076

Wait, wait, how are the Crusades likely to happen without the Seljuq invasion of Anatolia and the Levant?
 
Just a pretext.

The Crusades were launched because the Pope and his armed cronies wanted to take the Holy Land for themselves. As well, Europe was suffering from a case of bloated warrior class, and it was opportune to send them over to vandalize Islamic-held territory so they'd stop vandalizing Europe.
 
Top