WI: No Timur?

Now, if we assume that no Timur means survival of the GH all the way to the modern times then the
With the Russians with fire arms and forts ( guns won't be butterfield with no timur )

alongside with other nomads being agresive unlike unless the golden horde adapts to the new technologies and revolution in warfare that will occur I don't see them surviving .
 
Last edited:
With the Russians with fire arms and forts ( guns won't be butterfield with no timur )

alongside with other nomads being agresive unlike unless the golden horde adapts to the new technologies and revolution in warfare that will occur I don't see them surviving .
The GH was in a big trouble even before Timur. The Blue Horde part (European part) was suffering from the endless “succession crisis” and ended up with getting as a de facto ruler Emir Mamay. Timur helped Totkhamish to become a ruler of the White Horde (Asian part) after which he an aged to unite both parts with a relative ease (he was Genghizid and Mamay was not). But then he was trying to restore the initial Ulus Jochi by conjuring parts of the CA controlled by Timur with the predictable results: Timur retaliated and pretty much destroyed the sedentary infrastructure of the Volga region.

We can guess that unification could happen anyway but without the OTL destruction the region could end as one more power with the firearms (Timur and his successors had them) which would change the balance of power at least for a while. The big functioning towns would be there and so were extensive trade connections with the East and West. The firearms started being a military factor in the region only in the late XV and a winning factor much later so there would be a lot of time to pick them up and enough of the ‘industrial resources’ to start making them. Would the alt GH be able to end up creating its own infantry is anybody’s guess.
 
The GH was in a big trouble even before Timur. The Blue Horde part (European part) was suffering from the endless “succession crisis” and ended up with getting as a de facto ruler Emir Mamay. Timur helped Totkhamish to become a ruler of the White Horde (Asian part) after which he an aged to unite both parts with a relative ease (he was Genghizid and Mamay was not). But then he was trying to restore the initial Ulus Jochi by conjuring parts of the CA controlled by Timur with the predictable results: Timur retaliated and pretty much destroyed the sedentary infrastructure of the Volga region.

We can guess that unification could happen anyway but without the OTL destruction the region could end as one more power with the firearms (Timur and his successors had them) which would change the balance of power at least for a while. The big functioning towns would be there and so were extensive trade connections with the East and West. The firearms started being a military factor in the region only in the late XV and a winning factor much later so there would be a lot of time to pick them up and enough of the ‘industrial resources’ to start making them. Would the alt GH be able to end up creating its own infantry is anybody’s guess.
Yeah pretty much in the first part I agree kulokovo migth still happen but maybe not if by no timur that means he is never born butterflies from 1330s can make things change in the region even though the horde would go through a terrible phase post black death thar is not going away just because attempt at chenghis 2.0 is never born and the cities of the golden horde where hit pretty hard in fact that hole period was a mess

I mean as mentioned there are other groups the horde could very well collapse in to various khanates like the otl or more cohesive and bigger states the ottoman empire with more time to expand could do an attempt of what they did in the 16th century but earlier and move up the volga maybe even the alliances with crimean tartars can still exist

But hey it's still a possibility that the golden horde ends like the early manchus and adopts gunpowder weapons and more
 
Yeah pretty much in the first part I agree kulokovo migth still happen but maybe not if by no timur that means he is never born butterflies from 1330s can make things change in the region even though the horde would go through a terrible phase post black death thar is not going away just because attempt at chenghis 2.0 is never born and the cities of the golden horde where hit pretty hard in fact that hole period was a mess

I mean as mentioned there are other groups the horde could very well collapse in to various khanates like the otl or more cohesive and bigger states the ottoman empire with more time to expand could do an attempt of what they did in the 16th century but earlier and move up the volga maybe even the alliances with crimean tartars can still exist

But hey it's still a possibility that the golden horde ends like the early manchus and adopts gunpowder weapons and more
The Ottomans did try to capture Astrakhan from the Russians and even to dig Don-Volga canal but logistics proved to be too complicated even with the cooperation of the Nogais. Only a small part of the initial force managed to come back.

But in OTL even the Crimean Horde did get some artillery and a small number of the infantry. It seems that by the time Ivan IV took Kazan the locals had at least some infantry defending the town. The problem for the CH was that it’s military system was too effective to look for the change until it was too late: the Khanate was easily raising the big numbers of the good riders (mostly very purely armed) who could move fast and loot the neighbor territory. Taking into an account that the Khanate was not interested in the conquest of the territories and that it’s own territory was protected by a steppe belt, this was OK all the way into the mid-XVIII. Actually, the slave trade being the most important part of the local economy, it almost killed everything else and shaped the military system. The Khanate produced quite a few export items including the high quality knives (so popular in Europe that the Turks had been making and selling the fake ones), salt, rugs, high quality fleece, fabrics, etc. but slave trade was the biggest sector. Plus, the slaves had been widely used in the local agriculture and manufacturing (after 5 or 10 years slave was getting a freedom but most of them remained in the Khanate as the peasants of artisans). And the existing military system was the most productive in getting the new slaves while being the cheapest one: it practically did not require any state expenses because everybody had horses and, with the real weapons being too expensive, many Tatars had been armed with a sharpened stick with a horse bone tied to it.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would happen in India. Since Timur's descedents would found the Mughal Empire and destroy the Delhi Sultanate. I don't think that the Delhi Sultanate itself would survive considering that it was already in a weak state before Babur came into India. Could Vijayanagara take over the north? What about an empire coming about from one of the Rajaput states? Or would India here be divided?
 
The Ottomans did try to capture Astrakhan from the Russians and even to dig Don-Volga canal but logistics proved to be too complicated even with the cooperation of the Nogais. Only a small part of the initial force managed to come back.

But in OTL even the Crimean Horde did get some artillery and a small number of the infantry. It seems that by the time Ivan IV took Kazan the locals had at least some infantry defending the town. The problem for the CH was that it’s military system was too effective to look for the change until it was too late: the Khanate was easily raising the big numbers of the good riders (mostly very purely armed) who could move fast and loot the neighbor territory. Taking into an account that the Khanate was not interested in the conquest of the territories and that it’s own territory was protected by a steppe belt, this was OK all the way into the mid-XVIII. Actually, the slave trade being the most important part of the local economy, it almost killed everything else and shaped the military system. The Khanate produced quite a few export items including the high quality knives (so popular in Europe that the Turks had been making and selling the fake ones), salt, rugs, high quality fleece, fabrics, etc. but slave trade was the biggest sector. Plus, the slaves had been widely used in the local agriculture and manufacturing (after 5 or 10 years slave was getting a freedom but most of them remained in the Khanate as the peasants of artisans). And the existing military system was the most productive in getting the new slaves while being the cheapest one: it practically did not require any state expenses because everybody had horses and, with the real weapons being too expensive, many Tatars had been armed with a sharpened stick with a horse bone tied to it.
yeah also in battles like the battle of molodi where the Russians used from what i read their gunpowder and fought close with sword made the tartars kinda of useless in that battle

"CH was that it’s military system was too effective to look for the change until it was too late" true even though after Stephen the Great, beat them at lipnic i would assume they could have used this as wake up call but most likely they saw it as one of thing but we don't know much about the battle but since Stephen did use archers combined with gunpoweder weapons against the ottomans just a couple of years later its not impossible to think he used them at lipnic

as for the horde in the alt timeline well the golden horde would still have to deal with the rising Russians , splitting , the rising of Lithuania maybe ottoman incursions and more but it could survive for longer i do belive that but if it wants long term survival it would have to change its military or get an infantry core or maybe create their own version of the polish hussars slave could be used for a lot but history often proves that making your slaves the backbone of your army is asking for a disaster.
 
yeah also in battles like the battle of molodi where the Russians used from what i read their gunpowder and fought close with sword made the tartars kinda of useless in that battle

"CH was that it’s military system was too effective to look for the change until it was too late" true even though after Stephen the Great, beat them at lipnic i would assume they could have used this as wake up call but most likely they saw it as one of thing but we don't know much about the battle but since Stephen did use archers combined with gunpoweder weapons against the ottomans just a couple of years later its not impossible to think he used them at lipnic

as for the horde in the alt timeline well the golden horde would still have to deal with the rising Russians , splitting , the rising of Lithuania maybe ottoman incursions and more but it could survive for longer i do belive that but if it wants long term survival it would have to change its military or get an infantry core or maybe create their own version of the polish hussars slave could be used for a lot but history often proves that making your slaves the backbone of your army is asking for a disaster.

The Tatars rarely fought the pitched battles because, generally, they served no purpose. The main goal of the raids was purely “economic”, looting and capturing the slaves in the unprotected places, and within thus framework the battles usually happened on the way back when the horde was slowed down by the captured slaves.
There were few exceptions when the goal was not just a raid but a punishment of the rebellious vassal (Kulikovo, Molodi) or defense against invader/competitor (Vorskka). So the system, in general, worked fine and the the later times the Crimeans often allied themselves with somebody else (Cossacks, Ottomans) and were just a part of a bigger force.

Edit: Another model was to attack when the enemy is distracted by some other war (Crimea acting against the GH when it was distracted by confrontation with Moscow, Devlet Giray burning Moscow when most of Tsardom’s troops were fighting Lithuania, etc.).
 
Last edited:
I didn't have access to the right book to properly take a look at what would happen to India in this scenario before , but obviously the changes would be huge. In general, timurs arrival caused the fragmentation of political authority in North India that allowed for regional centres to emerge in one of the most culturally productive ages of Indian history. Architecturally, the timurid style was irresistible to the regional sultanates and Hindu kingdoms throughout india, with its complex vaunting and domes and polychrome tiles. Timurs effect was also seen more generally throughout the world of Islam by definitively rejecting the Abbasid model of sultan who fights for Islam but has no right to define it or engage in religious disputes in exchange for the 15th and 16th century model where sultans were expected to be not just aesthetically accomplished (reflecting their complete spiritual perfection) but semi divine themselves. Timur popularised the title Sahib Qiran- lord of the auspicious conjunction. It's possibly pre Islamic and denotes the fact that this ruler has universal authority because their coming was foretold in the stars, they're a new Muhammad, or Ali or maybe even Allah made flesh as Shah Ismail claimed. Sultans are expected to be saints, manifestations of divine light, and saints could transcend the barrier and become sultans like the safavids. Without this introduction of cultic power into Islamic kingship, it might look a bit more similar to European kingship, where in religious matters, the authority of the king isnt worth much and he has to submit to the religious authority of a foreign power. Because of this, I think Islam will be a much less attractive to the kingdoms of Indonesia where kings are defined by personal religious charisma/ semi divinity so that region is less likely to be islamised.

Across the Islamic world, timurid customs set a glittering cultural standard that everyone was desperate to emulate- without it, perhaps even western Islam becomes more regionalised. Without timurid ideological basis for the rulers authority in religious matters, and without having that prestigious cultural model to emulate, perhaps even the ottomans become more romanophile than otl when they conquer Constantinople, as it gives them a greater basis for sultanic autocracy than the Abbasid model of sultan subservient to ulemma.

In Bengal, the Raja Ganesh coup led to him taking over the Bengal Sultanate and it was the threat of invasion from Jaunpur (a breakaway from Delhi after Timur wrecked the place) that contributed to his son committing to Islam and going so far as to be the first non Arab to claim the title caliph. Without this, what happens in Bengal? Would they be as scared of the decentralized far away military of Delhi as the local vital Jaunpur sultanate? They definitely wouldn't restore brahmanical style Hindu kingship, but there's potential for things like discarding Persian entirely for Bengali and adopting (which happened to an extent otl anyway, but if strengthened could work the scripts as well).

On the opposite side of the subcontinent, what's happening in Gujarat? Timurs invasion allowed it to set itself up as an independent Sultanate- but I think independence is likely anyway. Before Timur the region was dominated by merchant oligarchies based in cities who made ad hoc alliances with the pastoral chiefs who dominated the country. Timurs arrival allowed the formation of a court society based around a local darbar, and it was the sultan who came to dominate the pastoralist chiefs, form a standing army and navy (at an age where those concepts were barely present in the rest of India and Europe) . Without Timur do we get more of a merchant oligarchy style of government taking the initiative in handling their own defense arrangements?There's the possibility of them working in collective being able to use Gujarats intensifying agriculture and especially world famous textile production to throw off the reins of Delhi, but if they don't or if they split into competing regions and Gujarati doesn't emerge as the language of a particular state, is there any case for a specifically Gujarati identity forming?

In general, this period was incredibly important for the formation of the Gujarati language and ideas of Gujarat as a coherent region, so maybe without an independent Gujarati state, of if there are multiple city states the language never diverges from the language spoken in the Rajput states and a more consolidated western Hindi bloc forms in opposition to central Hindi in linguistic terms at least.

The linguistic effect of the fragmentation of sovereignty in this century has been described as a vernacular revolution, as the smaller states and their constituent chiefdoms moved en masse to patronising the vernaculars instead of almost entirely focusing on Sanskrit and Persian as the two prestige languages. With larger polities, does Braj bhasha achieve its later status or is the standard based on Delhi's speech? If Bengal can expand into the declining Tuglaq Delhi sultanate, do all eastern hindi languages get folded into Bengali?

Without the massive demand for military labour from the constantly competing smaller states making people from the eastern gangetic plain cross over to the west and form the emerging Rajput classes, do the Hindi languages diverge more?

If regional languages don't attain literary status are they more isolated from Persian, which would presumably remain the unparalleled language of state- without as well established literary standards of India's vernaculars, does Persian spread more through the masses, or are the regions where awadhi was cultivated as a prestige dialect be folded into a Bengali speaking zone without the jaunpur sultanate to nurture awadhi? Would the less regionally based tughlaq sultans be as willing to integrate Jains and brahmins and Vaishnava literati into their administrations or would court culture remain more isolated from India as a whole? It might emerge that Delhi's less Indic nature pushes the Bengal sultans to embrace their Indic nature more over time- already otl Bengal sultans ritually bathed every morning in water from the Ganga. Perhaps the same could happen with Kashmir, which otl saw demands for tribute from Timur leading to the destruction of four major temple complexes to use their gold as bullion, and the extreme taxing of brahmins to meet this tribute- without Timur maybe brahmins stay more socially relevant and the islamisation of Kashmir is halted. Otl, by the end of the 15th century, the language referred to as desi or native to Kashmir by a famous Kashmiri Hindu poet was Persian, so it's possible that Kashmir emerges as a majority Hindu Persian speaking sultanate, with Kashmiri itself relegated to only being spoken by the rural population.
 
without Timur maybe brahmins stay more socially relevant and the islamisation of Kashmir is halted. Otl, by the end of the 15th century, the language referred to as desi or native to Kashmir by a famous Kashmiri Hindu poet was Persian, so it's possible that Kashmir emerges as a majority Hindu Persian speaking sultanate, with Kashmiri itself relegated to only being spoken by the rural population.
Not really kashmir was already under Shah Miri dynasty and conversion to isalm already happened (happening) also During Timur Kashmir was ruled by Sikander "Butshikan" who caused a exodus of kashmiri Hindus. No Timur could more likely mean no Zain ul Abideen (who was the second son of Sikander) who facilitated kashmiri Hindus return which would mean kashmir would have an even greater muslim majority.
 
I didn't have access to the right book to properly take a look at what would happen to India in this scenario before , but obviously the changes would be huge. In general, timurs arrival caused the fragmentation of political authority in North India that allowed for regional centres to emerge in one of the most culturally productive ages of Indian history. Architecturally, the timurid style was irresistible to the regional sultanates and Hindu kingdoms throughout india, with its complex vaunting and domes and polychrome tiles. Timurs effect was also seen more generally throughout the world of Islam by definitively rejecting the Abbasid model of sultan who fights for Islam but has no right to define it or engage in religious disputes in exchange for the 15th and 16th century model where sultans were expected to be not just aesthetically accomplished (reflecting their complete spiritual perfection) but semi divine themselves. Timur popularised the title Sahib Qiran- lord of the auspicious conjunction. It's possibly pre Islamic and denotes the fact that this ruler has universal authority because their coming was foretold in the stars, they're a new Muhammad, or Ali or maybe even Allah made flesh as Shah Ismail claimed. Sultans are expected to be saints, manifestations of divine light, and saints could transcend the barrier and become sultans like the safavids. Without this introduction of cultic power into Islamic kingship, it might look a bit more similar to European kingship, where in religious matters, the authority of the king isnt worth much and he has to submit to the religious authority of a foreign power. Because of this, I think Islam will be a much less attractive to the kingdoms of Indonesia where kings are defined by personal religious charisma/ semi divinity so that region is less likely to be islamised.

Across the Islamic world, timurid customs set a glittering cultural standard that everyone was desperate to emulate- without it, perhaps even western Islam becomes more regionalised. Without timurid ideological basis for the rulers authority in religious matters, and without having that prestigious cultural model to emulate, perhaps even the ottomans become more romanophile than otl when they conquer Constantinople, as it gives them a greater basis for sultanic autocracy than the Abbasid model of sultan subservient to ulemma.

In Bengal, the Raja Ganesh coup led to him taking over the Bengal Sultanate and it was the threat of invasion from Jaunpur (a breakaway from Delhi after Timur wrecked the place) that contributed to his son committing to Islam and going so far as to be the first non Arab to claim the title caliph. Without this, what happens in Bengal? Would they be as scared of the decentralized far away military of Delhi as the local vital Jaunpur sultanate? They definitely wouldn't restore brahmanical style Hindu kingship, but there's potential for things like discarding Persian entirely for Bengali and adopting (which happened to an extent otl anyway, but if strengthened could work the scripts as well).

On the opposite side of the subcontinent, what's happening in Gujarat? Timurs invasion allowed it to set itself up as an independent Sultanate- but I think independence is likely anyway. Before Timur the region was dominated by merchant oligarchies based in cities who made ad hoc alliances with the pastoral chiefs who dominated the country. Timurs arrival allowed the formation of a court society based around a local darbar, and it was the sultan who came to dominate the pastoralist chiefs, form a standing army and navy (at an age where those concepts were barely present in the rest of India and Europe) . Without Timur do we get more of a merchant oligarchy style of government taking the initiative in handling their own defense arrangements?There's the possibility of them working in collective being able to use Gujarats intensifying agriculture and especially world famous textile production to throw off the reins of Delhi, but if they don't or if they split into competing regions and Gujarati doesn't emerge as the language of a particular state, is there any case for a specifically Gujarati identity forming?

In general, this period was incredibly important for the formation of the Gujarati language and ideas of Gujarat as a coherent region, so maybe without an independent Gujarati state, of if there are multiple city states the language never diverges from the language spoken in the Rajput states and a more consolidated western Hindi bloc forms in opposition to central Hindi in linguistic terms at least.

The linguistic effect of the fragmentation of sovereignty in this century has been described as a vernacular revolution, as the smaller states and their constituent chiefdoms moved en masse to patronising the vernaculars instead of almost entirely focusing on Sanskrit and Persian as the two prestige languages. With larger polities, does Braj bhasha achieve its later status or is the standard based on Delhi's speech? If Bengal can expand into the declining Tuglaq Delhi sultanate, do all eastern hindi languages get folded into Bengali?

Without the massive demand for military labour from the constantly competing smaller states making people from the eastern gangetic plain cross over to the west and form the emerging Rajput classes, do the Hindi languages diverge more?

If regional languages don't attain literary status are they more isolated from Persian, which would presumably remain the unparalleled language of state- without as well established literary standards of India's vernaculars, does Persian spread more through the masses, or are the regions where awadhi was cultivated as a prestige dialect be folded into a Bengali speaking zone without the jaunpur sultanate to nurture awadhi? Would the less regionally based tughlaq sultans be as willing to integrate Jains and brahmins and Vaishnava literati into their administrations or would court culture remain more isolated from India as a whole? It might emerge that Delhi's less Indic nature pushes the Bengal sultans to embrace their Indic nature more over time- already otl Bengal sultans ritually bathed every morning in water from the Ganga. Perhaps the same could happen with Kashmir, which otl saw demands for tribute from Timur leading to the destruction of four major temple complexes to use their gold as bullion, and the extreme taxing of brahmins to meet this tribute- without Timur maybe brahmins stay more socially relevant and the islamisation of Kashmir is halted. Otl, by the end of the 15th century, the language referred to as desi or native to Kashmir by a famous Kashmiri Hindu poet was Persian, so it's possible that Kashmir emerges as a majority Hindu Persian speaking sultanate, with Kashmiri itself relegated to only being spoken by the rural population.
Can't really speak about India but Islam already have a foothold in Malay Archipelago before the time of Timur. Also the divine Kingship thing is mostly legacy of Ancient Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms in the region like Srivijava and Majapahit rather than imported concept from the Mughal since many of these Sultanate ruler is also scion of these Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms themselves (like for example Malacca and Demak Sultanate). Not to mention trade is still dominated by Muslim Merchants and some local ruler will want to gather support from these Merchant to improve themselves (like the rise of port cities in northern java and coast of Sumatra)
 
Last edited:
Can't really speak about India but Islam already have a foothold in Malay Archipelago before the time of Timur. Also the divine Kingship thing is mostly legacy of Ancient Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms in the region like Srivijava and Majapahit rather than imported concept from the Mughal since many of these Sultanate ruler is also scion of these Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms themselves (like for example Malacca and Demak Sultanate).
That's my point exactly though- divine kingship was already important in SE Asia, so they wouldn't convert to a worldview that didn't include it or they'd destroy their own power. It was the fact that because of Timur, Islam had a model of Divine kingship that could be adopted to replace the divine kingship of the Hindu Buddhist kingdoms that meant they were willing to consider it as a state religion.

As for its foothold, that doesn't mean the situation necessary for it to inevitably become the overwhelming majority is already present.


Not really kashmir was already under Shah Miri dynasty and conversion to isalm already happened (happening) also During Timur Kashmir was ruled by Sikander "Butshikan" who caused a exodus of kashmiri Hindus
Ok, the Deccan was also under the Bahmani dynasty by this point, that doesn't mean that mass conversion had begun.

Butshikan was emboldened by Timur, as he hoped to avoid invasion by impressing Timur with his piety, and Hindu temples were convenient sources of gold for tribute. Without Timur, temple complexes are more likely to survive.
 
That's my point exactly though- divine kingship was already important in SE Asia, so they wouldn't convert to a worldview that didn't include it or they'd destroy their own power. It was the fact that because of Timur, Islam had a model of Divine kingship that could be adopted to replace the divine kingship of the Hindu Buddhist kingdoms that meant they were willing to consider it as a state religion.

As for its foothold, that doesn't mean the situation necessary for it to inevitably become the overwhelming majority is already present.



Ok, the Deccan was also under the Bahmani dynasty by this point, that doesn't mean that mass conversion had begun.

Butshikan was emboldened by Timur, as he hoped to avoid invasion by impressing Timur with his piety, and Hindu temples were convenient sources of gold for tribute. Without Timur, temple complexes are more likely to survive.
But it isn't because of Timur it is more of legacy of those Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom independent of Timur action. Even then the divine kingship of the ruler is not universal in the region with place like Sumatra and Malay Peninsula put less emphasize on it compared to Java (They acknowledge far away Ottoman as legitimate Caliph). Even Mataram Sultanate (where divine kingship most prevalent and style themselves as successor of Majapahit from Demak-Pajang-Mataram continuity) send diplomatic mission to Mecca before assuming title Sultan for its ruler. Then Further east in place like Maluku and Sulawesi/Celebes Hindu-Buddhist influence is less prevalent (more indigenous belief rather than Hindu-Buddhist) so not really affected by Hindu-Buddhist view of Kingship.

I agree though it is not set in stone yet. But still it is more likely than you think by this point regardless of Timur.
 
But it isn't because of Timur it is more of legacy of those Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom independent of Timur action.
The fact that SE Asia has a divine kingship model is a legacy of Hindu Buddhist cosmology, or part of indigenous belief systems or a mixture of the two or whatever.

The fact that Islam has a divine kingship model is a legacy of Timur.

The fact that SE Asian Sultanates could adopt Islam without giving up their model of Divine kingship, is thus a legacy of Timur.

I do agree that this might not be much of an issue in for example Aceh, where there's a different political culture, but I think my point is at least especially salient for Java.

I don't necessarily see your point about Matarams mission to Mecca?
 
The fact that SE Asia has a divine kingship model is a legacy of Hindu Buddhist cosmology, or part of indigenous belief systems or a mixture of the two or whatever.

The fact that Islam has a divine kingship model is a legacy of Timur.

The fact that SE Asian Sultanates could adopt Islam without giving up their model of Divine kingship, is thus a legacy of Timur.

I do agree that this might not be much of an issue in for example Aceh, where there's a different political culture, but I think my point is at least especially salient for Java.

I don't necessarily see your point about Matarams mission to Mecca?
Mataram ruler not outright claim themselves as god representative/shadow/etc without some kind of "investiture" (for the lack of better word) from outside authority (to legitimize themselves) before claiming religious authority that came with Sultan title. While not go as far as Aceh they still feel the need to subordinate themselves by asking for it from "higher" authority to justify their claim of religious authority rather than claim it outright as god given right.

I am not argued that divine kingship is legacy of Hindu Buddhism in SEA. What i am argue is the notion that Timur provide the model for divine kingship for SEA sultanates. Rather than divine kingship model in SEA is developed locally by local ruler influenced by region past regardless of Timur. So absent of Timur will not preclude these rulers to develop divine kingship model for themselves.
 
So absent of Timur will not preclude these rulers to develop divine kingship model for themselves.
Sure they might develop it, but without Timur to solidify it as a core part of Islamic kingship, them developing it means they're less in agreement with the rest of Islamdom, and less likely to become Muslim themselves as there would be more pressure to abandon divine kingship.
 
In India the Pashtun Tribes will take over the vacuum that will never be filled by the Mughals. The Afghans became more and more important in India and the Delhi Sultanate was in a sorry state even without Timur raiding Delhi. Some Afghan Dynasty will likely depose the Delhi Sultans by the 1450s or later. It could be a continuation of the Delhi Sultanate or it could become an analogue of the Mughal Empire.
Can we not see more turkic tribes invading india rather than mongols ? AFterall without the timurid diversions against china and ottomans maybe they will find India more tempting ?
 
Can we not see more turkic tribes invading india rather than mongols ? AFterall without the timurid diversions against china and ottomans maybe they will find India more tempting ?

Theoretically speaking yes, but it is not guaranteed. Many Turkic tribes could still prefer to head for Persia. What is guaranteed is that the Pashtun tribes will use the Power Vacuum in Northern India. But how long depends on circumstances, like the Turkic tribes moving to India or another Indian power moving into the North against Delhi.
 
Top