WI: No Nader Shah

[GauchoBadger]

What if Nader, who founded the short-lived Afsharid dynasty in Persia and went on impressive conquests, died before he could rise to power? Such as being defeated in battle against the Hotakis.
Would the 1724 Treaty of Constantinople become the definitive indicator of Persia's borders?
Without an event like the Battle of Karnal, what happens to the Mughal Empire? Can it linger on for a bit longer? And what are the effects on the rest of India?
I also heard that Nader briefly occupied Oman and Muscat. Without him, does the country fare better?
And, last but not least, what are the effects over Central Asia?

 

[Indicus]

Without Nader Shah, it's quite possible that the Mughals see a resurgence in fortunes. They won't get back to where they were during Alamgir's reign, but they will have a fair bit of territory from Bengal to Rajasthan, which will likely be Mughal for a long time.

 

[Monter]

Without Nader Shah, it's quite possible that the Mughals see a resurgence in fortunes. They won't get back to where they were during Alamgir's reign, but they will have a fair bit of territory from Bengal to Rajasthan, which will likely be Mughal for a long time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO Karnal only confirmed the Mughal decline (in the most flashy way possible), couldn't some other power like the Marathas end up doing the same?

 

[Indicus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO Karnal only confirmed the Mughal decline (in the most flashy way possible), couldn't some other power like the Marathas end up doing the same?

They could, but on the other hand, the Mughals could also survive.

 

[Monter]

They could, but on the other hand, the Mughals could also survive.

Fair enough.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Bumping for interest. I'm still intrigued as to what could happen to the mughals and sikhs.

 

[phil03]

You'll probably see the Hotkar stay in power in Persia, weatering attempt at Safavids restorations without the strong hand of Nader to guide it.

As for the Mughals, the effect of the sack of Delhi tend to be ridiculously overestimated. The problems of the Mughals came to be way before that.

By this point, the once mighty Mughal empire had been bleed dry by Aurangzeb campaigns in Deccan and the civil war following his death. The Hindu majority (or anyone who wasn't muslim for that matter) had been irritated to a spectacular degree by Aurangzeb religious persecutions, making the powerbase of the Mughal state ridiculously thin for the number of discontent folks in their empire.

Meanwhile in the south the Marathas where building a great and mighty empire, pretty unifying the whole of the Deccan in their spheres of influence. So great was their strenght that their armies started to move in the northern plains and made and unmade Mughals emperors. They, not the Persians, where the bane of the Moghuls and Karnal was nothing but a symptom of the decadence of the once mighty empire.

 

[GauchoBadger]

You'll probably see the Hotkar stay in power in Persia, weatering attempt at Safavids restorations without the strong hand of Nader to guide it.

As for the Mughals, the effect of the sack of Delhi tend to be ridiculously overestimated. The problems of the Mughals came to be way before that.

By this point, the once mighty Mughal empire had been bleed dry by Aurangzeb campaigns in Deccan and the civil war following his death. The Hindu majority (or anyone who wasn't muslim for that matter) had been irritated to a spectacular degree by Aurangzeb religious persecutions, making the powerbase of the Mughal state ridiculously thin for the number of discontent folks in their empire.

Meanwhile in the south the Marathas where building a great and mighty empire, pretty unifying the whole of the Deccan in their spheres of influence. So great was their strenght that their armies started to move in the northern plains and made and unmade Mughals emperor. They, not the Persians, where the bane of the Moghuls and Karnal was nothing but a symptom of the decadence of the Mughals.

TBH, i was already aware of Aurangzeb and the Marathas.
Although, IMO, the importance of the Battle of Karnal is not to be underestimated -- the loot from the sack of Delhi was so large that Nader suspended taxes in Persia for three consecutive years. Who knows -- perhaps the mughals, with more breathing room, could have successfully counter-pushed the marathas out of mughal territory; and even if they don't, it is the marathas who will plunder the coffers of the city.
Perhaps a stabler maratha empire?

 

[phil03]

TBH, i was already aware of Aurangzeb and the Marathas.
Although, IMO, the importance of the Battle of Karnal is not to be underestimated -- the loot from the sack of Delhi was so large that Nader suspended taxes in Persia for three consecutive years. Who knows -- perhaps the mughals, with more breathing room, could have successfully counter-pushed the marathas out of mughal territory; and even if they don't, it is the marathas who will plunder the coffers of the city.
Perhaps a stabler maratha empire?

Perhaps, the Marathas where very much able to take the city but choose not too loothe it, prefering to play emperor maker instead (money is good but free territories is even better). Without Nader you will probably reach a point when whatever a candidate to the Mughal throne has to offer will be less valuable then the looting.

The Mughals pushing back at this point is very unlikely for the reasons I just mentionned: too divided, too hated by a majority of their own peoples, too bleed dry and too strong and dynamic an opponent. There is things money just can't buy and the breathing space would be relative since they will continue to suffer revolts and the Marathas will continue to eat ground as times goes by. The only thing that can save the Mughals at this point would be a man of utter genious in both politics and warfare with an iron will, so pretty much an indian Nader Shah. Not only did such an individual not exist but those do tend to take the crown for themselves afterwards, just as Nader used the Safavids as a rallying point to deal with the Afghans before getting rid of them.

 

[Indicus]

The Hindu majority (or anyone who wasn't muslim for that matter) had been irritated to a spectacular degree by Aurangzeb religious persecutions, making the powerbase of the Mughal state ridiculously thin for the number of discontent folks in their empire.

Aurangzeb's intolerance is ridiculously overestimated. More Hindus worked in his administration than ever before, stuff like him banning music are virtually uncorroborated, Aurangzeb ultimately reached an agreement with the Sikhs, and elements of the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri, such as its ban on sati, were upheld by future Indian states.

No, the collapse of the empire was caused by his overexpansion into the Deccan and the massive war with the Marathas, which drained the imperial treasuries so much that not even the invasion of Golconda could make up for it. This caused imperial neglect in the north, which caused rebellions there too among the Jats and Rajputs. And even then, I think a longer-lived Bahadur Shah I, the successor to Aurangzeb, could have stopped the bleeding.

 

[phil03]

Aurangzeb's intolerance is ridiculously overestimated. More Hindus worked in his administration than ever before, stuff like him banning music are virtually uncorroborated, Aurangzeb ultimately reached an agreement with the Sikhs, and elements of the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri, such as its ban on sati, were upheld by future Indian states.

No, the collapse of the empire was caused by his overexpansion into the Deccan and the massive war with the Marathas, which drained the imperial treasuries so much that not even the invasion of Golconda could make up for it. This caused imperial neglect in the north, which caused rebellions there too among the Jats and Rajputs. And even then, I think a longer-lived Bahadur Shah I, the successor to Aurangzeb, could have stopped the bleeding.

He also destroyed many Hindus temples and banned several religious festivals. At the end of the day the Muslims where in clear minority inside the Mughal state and only a continuous policy of complete tollerance could have prevented trouble, by going against that Aurangzeb destroyed the internal peace of his state.

 

[Indicus]

He also destroyed many Hindus temples

The destruction of Hindu temples was just part of politics. Since the medieval era, the destruction of the temples of one's enemies was just a part of politics. For instance, the Chola destroyed Pandya temples, and the Marathas destroyed a massive number of temples. And the Chola were Hindu, and the Marathas were staunch Hindus.

and banned several religious festivals.

He banned Nowruz and other non-Islamic festivals at the imperial court, not throughout the empire. Hell, his Hindu Rajput allies conducted Hindu festivals unperturbed.

 

[phil03]

The destruction of Hindu temples was just part of politics. Since the medieval era, the destruction of the temples of one's enemies was just a part of politics. For instance, the Chola destroyed Pandya temples, and the Marathas destroyed a massive number of temples. And the Chola were Hindu, and the Marathas were staunch Hindus.



He banned Nowruz and other non-Islamic festivals at the imperial court, not throughout the empire. Hell, his Hindu Rajput allies conducted Hindu festivals unperturbed.

He did very much ban some festivals accross the empire and he ordered the destruction of all temples in his empires, including those from territories the Mughals held since eons. He also did everything he could to prevent their rebuilding and was very much aiming to stamp on Hindus religious practices. As you put it yourself, he therefore marked his own Hindus subject as ennemies.

He also reintroduced the Jizza on top of everything else.

 

[Indicus]

He did very much ban some festivals accross the empire and he ordered the destruction of all temples in his empires, including those from territories the Mughals held eons.

He did not ban rituals in his empire. We have good records that Hindu festivals were celebrated in his empire, even if Nowruz suddenly wasn't.

And those territories were in rebellion. The imperial neglect of the north caused a lot of shit, including Jats close to Delhi. So, of course he destroyed the temples of his enemies while protecting the temples of his allies.

As for your "Hindu subjects were his enemies", more Hindus worked in his administration than ever before, and Hindu and Jain bankers even financed the war of succession that brought him power.

I hold some sympathy for this view. But quite frankly, it is long outdated, and it just needs to die.

He also reintroduced the Jizza on top of everything else.

He imposed it because he needed to make up for the high losses from his Deccan conquests, not because he hated Hindus. Finance was at the top of his concerns, and it's also why his tomb was not some grand, ornate construction, but instead a humble, small building.

Jizya was part of that.

 

[phil03]

He did not ban rituals in his empire. We have good records that Hindu festivals were celebrated in his empire, even if Nowruz suddenly wasn't.

And those territories were in rebellion. The imperial neglect of the north caused a lot of shit, including Jats close to Delhi. So, of course he destroyed the temples of his enemies while protecting the temples of his allies.

As for your "Hindu subjects were his enemies", more Hindus worked in his administration than ever before, and Hindu and Jain bankers even financed the war of succession that brought him power.

I hold some sympathy for this view. But quite frankly, it is long outdated, and it just needs to die.



He imposed it because he needed to make up for the high losses from his Deccan conquests, not because he hated Hindus. Finance was at the top of his concerns, and it's also why his tomb was not some grand, ornate construction, but instead a humble, small building.

Jizya was part of that.

In Aurangzeb own words to his governors:

destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels, and that they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practice of idolatrous forms of worship

That's all the empire, not just the territories in revolt. As for hindus bankers backing him that was before he began his religious persecutions and while the Jazzi might have good financial reasons I don't think the Hindus would be less annoyed by it, especially when it was insued to finance Aurangzeb Jihad in Deccan.

One can put all the nuance he want but it is undebatable that Aurangzeb marked a departure for the worst in religious policies from his predecessors.

 

[Indicus]

In Aurangzeb own words to his governors:

So, I'm showing you his deeds. And your reply is his rhetoric?

That's not a very satisfactory reply.

 

[Indicus]

In Aurangzeb own words to his governors:

Checking Mughal sources, "infidel" and "idolatry" were used as vague insults to most of the Mughal's Hindu enemies. For instance, on Akbar, Mughal sources deride his opposition for being infidels and idolators, then suddenly they turn around and praise his empire for being multiethnic with "Barhaman" (Hindu), "Musalman" (Muslim), and "Gabran" (Zoroastrian) alike living in harmony. It makes it really apparent that "kafir" and "idolater" were little more than vague insults thrown around at the empire's Hindu enemies.

As for hindus bankers backing him that was before he began his religious persecutions and while the Jazzi might have good financial reasons I don't think the Hindus would be less annoyed by it

Hindu bankers also funded his Deccan expansion to an extent, and that was well after the imposition of the Jizya tax which, according to outdated historiography of the Mughals, caused their destruction.

If the Hindu were annoyed by the institution of the Jizya, that clearly did not affect how more Hindus served in his administration than under any other Mughal emperor.

(Muslim Civilization in India by S.M. Ikram)

especially when it was insued to finance Aurangzeb Jihad in Deccan.

First of all, most of the Deccan conquests were of sultanates, so they were hardly jihads.

Second, even the war with the Marathas was supported by many Hindus because in many of their raids, such as their sack of Surat, Marathas ravaged Hindus and Muslims alike, even plundering Hindu temples. Naturally that brought Hindus against them, to the point that at the Third Battle of Panipat, Hindus actually supported the Mughals and Durrani rather than the Marathas. In addition, the whole reason Aurangzeb tried to conquer the Marathas was because they kept Prince Akbar, a prince who almost overthrew Aurangzeb by allying to Rajput rebels (they rebelled due to boring dynastic politics - not just in Europe!) in 1679, in their court, and naturally Hindus knew that there was a very good reason that Aurangzeb was conquering the Marathas.