WI: Ottoman Conquest of Persia?

ottomans03.gif

The scenario here is that Ottomans in the 1578 Safavid War inflict a crushing defeat on the Persians early in the campaign, resulting in the collapse of all military resistance.
The Ottomans, still with fresh troops and supplies sweep through most of Persia, establishing provinces along the way.

1. How plausible is this?
2. What long reaching effects would the annexation of the above territories in 1578-79 have on the socio-political history of Central Asia?
 
Last edited:
This seems pretty plausible, especially if they only take the parts of Persia that you show in your map.

This would drastically change Central Asian history. There would be another major Muslim power projecting in the region, which has European interests as well. This means that the area would be much safer from Russian expansion, and due to the Ottomans being busy with first separatist movements and then European powers, they will also be mostly safe from their protector.

And, if the Ottomans could consolidate Persia and effectively eradicate Shi'ism, then we could easily see an Ottoman Empire that is almost twice as strong, with more manpower and resources to fund campaigns in Europe. North Africa would be held on for much longer, and Egypt might never be lost, and the Balkans might also be consolidated.
 
This seems pretty plausible, especially if they only take the parts of Persia that you show in your map.

This would drastically change Central Asian history. There would be another major Muslim power projecting in the region, which has European interests as well. This means that the area would be much safer from Russian expansion, and due to the Ottomans being busy with first separatist movements and then European powers, they will also be mostly safe from their protector.

And, if the Ottomans could consolidate Persia and effectively eradicate Shi'ism, then we could easily see an Ottoman Empire that is almost twice as strong, with more manpower and resources to fund campaigns in Europe. North Africa would be held on for much longer, and Egypt might never be lost, and the Balkans might also be consolidated.

If Tehran did fall to the Ottomans, how earnestly do you think the empire's Sunni religious leadership would actually try to eradicate Shi'ism as a whole? Part of me thinks that the Sultan might order a more conciliatory attempt at bringing the Shia faith back into the Ummah first before the butchery starts
 
If Tehran did fall to the Ottomans, how earnestly do you think the empire's Sunni religious leadership would actually try to eradicate Shi'ism as a whole?

Very. Even at the time, Sunni and Shi'a faithful were emphatically against one another. The Sat acids even taught to hate Sunnis during every church service. There would be violence on the streets of the Persian cities for generations. However, since Shi'ism is restricted almost exclusively to Persia at this point, the cosmopolitan areas could probably be converted after a failed revolt or two and a few generations. It wouldn't be easy, but it would definitely be doable, and the riches of Persia would be worth it in the long run.
 
Very. Even at the time, Sunni and Shi'a faithful were emphatically against one another. The Sat acids even taught to hate Sunnis during every church service. There would be violence on the streets of the Persian cities for generations. However, since Shi'ism is restricted almost exclusively to Persia at this point, the cosmopolitan areas could probably be converted after a failed revolt or two and a few generations. It wouldn't be easy, but it would definitely be doable, and the riches of Persia would be worth it in the long run.
Well riches, getting pounded by the Mongols, then Timur then getting first overrun by the Qara Koyunlu, then Safavids then Ottomans I´m quite sure Persia will not be that rich, probably all the richness would be concentrated in Azerbaijan. Iraq would become richer though.

Unless they get bogged down in Persia for decades of sectarian and dynastic conflict, leading to their ultimate destruction.

It's possible to conquer Persia, but difficult.
Not having a organized resistance is going to be better IMO.
 
Well riches, getting pounded by the Mongols, then Timur then getting first overrun by the Qara Koyunlu, then Safavids then Ottomans I´m quite sure Persia will not be that rich, probably all the richness would be concentrated in Azerbaijan. Iraq would become richer though.


Not having a organized resistance is going to be better IMO.

Yeah, most wealth would be in Azerbaijan, you are correct there. But, Persia has great potential for power projection and some extra oil if they can hold on to it for that long.

And why would you say not having an organized resistance would be better? Up until that Battle of Chaldiran and even after it, a sort of proto-terrorism was taking place, with unorganized violence in Shi'a and Sunni cities as tensions escalated. A Sunni occupation of Shi'a Iran would only escalate things further, and if an organized and influential, yet poorly equipped, independence movement was brutally stomped out by the Ottomans, then the long term violence would probably be reduced outside of fringe groups and resistance would no longer be seen in a very favorable light, especially in urban centers and near Iraq.
 
Top