WI: Nader Shah never rises to power?

[GauchoBadger]

Based on an older thread from 2017 that i made.
Nader Shah Afshar, founder of the Afsharid Dynasty, was a prominent 18th century Persian historical figure noteworthy for his spectacular military accomplishments, his ruthlessness, and the short life of his empire. His resumé includes beating the Afghan Hotaki warlords out of Persia, reestabilishing primacy over the Caucasus, undertaking an expedition to India and utterly wrecking the Mughal Empire beyond repair, and almost reconquering Mesopotamia from the Ottomans. He was eventually assassinated in an episode of court intrigue related to his political paranoia, however, and the destructive effects of his imperialistic expansion ended up overshadowing the constructive ones.
So, basically, what if Nader had not managed to rise to power within the late Safavid bureaucracy, and died early? What would this mean for Iran?
Could the Hotakis maintain a grip on their western territories?
Could the Russians end up occupying the Caucasus, vassalizing its petty emirates and kingdoms, earlier than IOTL?
Could the lack of a Persian invasion and subsequent plunder of Delhi grant the Mughal Empire some breathing space for reform? Or was it already FUBAR as a hegemonic Indian entity?
Would the lack of a late Persian invasion of Mesopotamia hbe any noticeable effect on Ottoman control over that region?
What about other regions Nader had a minor presence in, such as Central Asia and the Persian Gulf?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Well for the Mughals- they were in a pretty steep decline, sure, with a string of terrible emperors- as with most autocracies when the man in the center isn’t up for the job, things tend to fall apart. That said, if they did manage to get another good emperor, they’re still recognised as the de jure authority throughout India and before Nader Shah exposes their weakness there was always a decent probability of diplomatically sorting out the Maratha threat by giving them the Rajput treatment (as almost happened a few times). They would of course still be plagued by the problems of exploitative rule on the peasantry, overcentralisation, and a political system obsessed with hierarchy ( and gift giving to your hierarchical relations which could easily turn into bribery). Nevertheless, without Nader Shah, as soon as there is a strong emperor, a return to the seventeenth century form of Mughal power where they are sovereigns paramount with capability to effectively project power and quell rebellions throughout their lands is all but guaranteed and whether they can evolve to fix these problems is up in the air. Whether you’d actually get one is another matter- princes were often kept deliberately uneducated and trapped in harems to prevent them threatening their predecessors. Additionally, without Nader breaking through and taking the Indus, it’s likely that India maintains its wonderful defensive boundaries in the Khyber pass and doesn’t have to suffer the repeated waves of Afghan incursion (seven just seems excessive in all honesty) that ended up looting Delhi and torturing and blinding Mughal emperors- no matter what happens with the Maratha challenge, even if diplomatic blunders lead to them becoming lords of all of peninsular India, and with power to puppet whatever Mughal was on the Peacock Throne (the original would still be in Delhi without Nader Shah to hack it apart and sell it, not to mention the Koh i noor and the better part of Mughal wealth), I’m confident that without Nader Shah and those he paved the way for you wouldn’t get a whole genre of literature bemoaning the state that Delhi had fallen in that’s popular for half a century.

There was a trend in 18th century India for states to centralise, lose the feudal component, delayer their politics so to speak and increase loyalty of the peoples, size of army in relation to the population, taxes able to be collected and the bureaucracy to do so, and quality of army, in no small part due to european military advisors. Of course an India that doesn’t suffer through Nader Shah might not see those trends, as it was he that broke apart the illusion of mughal military power and allowed the competition between kings to dominate the post Mughal order to lead to the fiscal military states on the european model of otl, however there’s a case that that competition could be generated by Mughal Maratha conflict. Additionally, there’s a chance the Mughals were too successful in co opting local elites because that meant they had to keep the privileges of the elite that sucked money away from the central government and into regional courts, while the Marathas and Mysoreans managed to use in central government the vast majority of what their taxable population could offer- mughal successor states also inherited the dependence on local elites that made Bengal the nawab of the Carnatic and the Nizam of Hyderabad a lot weaker than those who innovated like the Marathas and Mysore.

From an economic point of view, not having Nader Shah or his successors is a massive boon on north India especially, as it would butterfly the outright destruction and pillage that destroyed local economies otl and Punjab and Lahore could maintain their status as major economic centres .

Then again, we shouldn’t give Nader shah too much credit- a lot of his success in India was generated by Mughal incompetence - there was no response when Nader Shah first threatened Kabul subah from the Mughals and Nasir Khan had to deal with it on his own ( he couldn’t) after which they were into the indo gangetic plain with nothing in the way of natural boundaries to stop him from reaching Delhi. Even in the battle itself, wings of the Mughal army didn’t work together at all and just watched as the Persians descended on parts of their army with no response- Nader shah was invited to occupy Delhi by Sadat Khan, jealous that a rival had been promoted. The fact is at that point, they were simply incredibly incompetent and the only thing they had going for them was rapidly diminishing prestige. Nevertheless, this was associated with the character of the emperor not the empire before Nader shah and a strong emperor could have reversed it.

 

[alexmilman]

Could the Russians end up occupying the Caucasus, vassalizing its petty emirates and kingdoms, earlier than IOTL?

In OTL government of Empress Anna had been very happy when NS took power: they needed at least some stable government in Persia to return acquisitions made by Peter I: maintenance of these territories was too costly in both people and money while the territories had been completely useless. This applies to the modern Azerbaijan and Southern coast of the Caspian Sea. Involvement in Georgia started later However, if Persia is a mess, then perhaps the Georgian kingdoms are better off and none of them is asking for the Russian help, which may eliminate or at least postpone the future annexation and a resulting need to subdue all the mountain tribes located between Georgia and Russia proper.

If Persia continued to be a mess, then Russia is stuck with the territories conquered by Peter and it is reasonable to expect that during the next round of an expansionism (reign of Catherine II) the conquests would be started from what is already there and not from the OTL border. Not sure what would be an extent of the conquests under this scenario. However, the problems with “in between” (the mountain tribes and nations) would not go anywhere. Of course, if they start earlier, they may end earlier.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

No Nader Shah does not necessarily mean that the Afghans dominate Persia. They weren't too stable anyway considering how Nader got rid of them. Someone else will come up but possibly less ambitious and dying earlier than Nader. The Safavids may regain their lands but at this point will no longer be strong enough to be a threat to any neighbour.

The Mughals are slightely better off. No expensive wars destroying the Western Borders. But they wrote enough about the Mughals. So are the Ottomans. The Ottomans will likely avoid the 1730 rebellion lead by Patrona Halil. The war not going well in Persia is what costed Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha his life and Ahmed III his throne. Which makes me wonder how Ahmed III is going to deal with the Russian intervention in Poland-Lithuania and its alliance with Austria as he lived until 1736 in OTL. Mahmud I declared war regardless and did regain Serbia.

A somewhat stable Safavids may regain the Russian acquistions as Alex mentioned but there is not telling what will happen to Persia. They're pretty much done for the upcoming decades. If the Ottomans feel like punching the weak Persians again for whatever reason God knows, they will. Thry fought Nader and kept fighting even when Nader pretty much beat every attempt of invasion. A weaker Persia makes them more... attractive.

 

[RMcD94]

It might change the nature of shia and sunni relations. Nader spent a lot of time trying to make it more palatable

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

At 1737 Maratha Peshwa Bajirao defeated Mughal Army in the battle of Delhi, and directly take control of central India and south India parts if Nader Shah does not come to power that means, the Sikhs going to become powerful early and can establish a state as early as 1755, Maratha without fear of a Muslim interruption from Persian and Afghan in Indian Politics easily can handicap make Mughal Emperor as their puppet, with control of whole India Maratha can easily stop European encroachment in India. Without India British never going to dominant Europe. , so the rise of German(prussia) in europe. Without opium war with China never going to happen so China going to return to world market by 1810 after century of stangent. Slowly world going to divide in east and west.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Based on an older thread from 2017 that i made.
Nader Shah Afshar, founder of the Afsharid Dynasty, was a prominent 18th century Persian historical figure noteworthy for his spectacular military accomplishments, his ruthlessness, and the short life of his empire. His resumé includes beating the Afghan Hotaki warlords out of Persia, reestabilishing primacy over the Caucasus, undertaking an expedition to India and utterly wrecking the Mughal Empire beyond repair, and almost reconquering Mesopotamia from the Ottomans. He was eventually assassinated in an episode of court intrigue related to his political paranoia, however, and the destructive effects of his imperialistic expansion ended up overshadowing the constructive ones.
So, basically, what if Nader had not managed to rise to power within the late Safavid bureaucracy, and died early? What would this mean for Iran?

What are we counting as his rise here? His rise in the Saffavid political bureaucracy (which put him in position to take the throne) or his prominence in general?

He began his "military" career as a bandit leader who supported the Saffavids durring the Hotaki invasion, it's not impossible to have him has the Suvorov of the Safavids rather than their Napoleon.

 

[GauchoBadger]

What are we counting as his rise here? His rise in the Saffavid political bureaucracy (which put him in position to take the throne) or his prominence in general?

He began his "military" career as a bandit leader who supported the Saffavids durring the Hotaki invasion, it's not impossible to have him has the Suvorov of the Safavids rather than their Napoleon.

Just have him remain in obscurity and irrelevance rather than rising to absolute control of the Safavid state.