WI: The Ottoman Empire Conquered Persia/Iran (Somewhat Reestablishing Alexander's/Achaemenid Empire)

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Let's say something around the late 15th or early 16th centuries the Ottomans decide to embark on campaign to recreate the Achaemenid Empire (or Alexander's Empire) by invading east and conquering as much of Egypt, Cyrenaica, the Caucasus, Iraq, Persia, Afghanistan, and other parts of Central Asia. Considering that the Safavid Empire was at its infancy around the 15th-16th Centuries (or either non-existent depending on the time period) could it be possible for the Ottomans to successfully conquer & control that much territory and how would that impact things?

How does holding that much territory impact the rest of the history of the Ottoman Empire? How are the surrounding areas impacted? How does it impact European politics? Does it make the Ottoman conquests in Europe and the Maghreb anymore easier?

 

[LNSS]

The Ottomans were already a bit Iranized, with this they would end up becoming a full-fledged Iranian empire. Might as well change the capital to Baghdad.

 

[Shehryar]

in the above scenario, the Ottomans are wealthier from the tax income/tribute flowing from the Iranian part. a lack of an enemy on the east means that they could theoretically concentrate their forces on Europe without having to worry about a safavid Persia attacking on the east.
holding onto Persia from Constantinople, is going to be a problem you could see opportunistic governors doing a Muhammad Ali and revolting during a period of weakness. I don't see the capital being shifted from Constantinople to Baghdad, given Ottoman obsession (in fact Islamic Obsession) ,with it, as the conquest of Constantinople was prophesized by Prophet Muhammad " Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!"

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

in the above scenario, the Ottomans are wealthier from the tax income/tribute flowing from the Iranian part. a lack of an enemy on the east means that they could theoretically concentrate their forces on Europe without having to worry about a safavid Persia attacking on the east.
holding onto Persia from Constantinople, is going to be a problem you could see opportunistic governors doing a Muhammad Ali and revolting during a period of weakness. I don't see the capital being shifted from Constantinople to Baghdad, given Ottoman obsession (in fact Islamic Obsession) ,with it, as the conquest of Constantinople was prophesized by Prophet Muhammad " Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!"

Never knew Muhammad said that, either he was lucky enough to have foresaw it or he was lucky to have his followers buy into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can definitely see Europe being in even more trouble without the Ottomans dealing with serious enemies in its east. There might be an Indian kingdom or a Central Asian state but none of these would be bad enough to threaten the Ottomans the way the Safavids were in OTL. I could even see the Ottomans sacking Vienna.

 

[Socrates]

Never knew Muhammad said that, either he was lucky enough to have foresaw it or he was lucky to have his followers buy into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

He also said they would conquer Rome I believe, so basically he just promised his followers the world.

 

[Nivek]

Never knew Muhammad said that, either he was lucky enough to have foresaw it or he was lucky to have his followers buy into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can definitely see Europe being in even more trouble without the Ottomans dealing with serious enemies in its east. There might be an Indian kingdom or a Central Asian state but none of these would be bad enough to threaten the Ottomans the way the Safavids were in OTL. I could even see the Ottomans sacking Vienna.

He also said they would conquer Rome I believe, so basically he just promised his followers the world.

https://istanbultarihi.ist/423-the-conquest-hadith-and-the-muslim-sieges-of-constantinople FOUND It.

 

[Sarthak]

Not really sustainable. Taking everything west of the Zagros and Khuzestan is more sustainable in the long run.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

https://istanbultarihi.ist/423-the-conquest-hadith-and-the-muslim-sieges-of-constantinople FOUND It.

Of all seriousness though could the Ottomans have taken or at least sacked Rome? That would have serious implications.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Not really sustainable. Taking everything west of the Zagros and Khuzestan is more sustainable in the long run.

Or if the Ottomans establish a similar government to Alexander and the Achaemenids where they give the territories enough autonomy so they wouldn’t rebel.

 

[Nivek]

Of all seriousness though could the Ottomans have taken or at least sacked Rome? That would have serious implications.

They planned but got overwhelmed and decided to help the Morrocan first, have they decided to take care of persia first...the wars with Spain are butterfly away and might change plans long term

 

[schai]

If they conquered Persia, they would go forward to India and Central Asia. This would be a huge empire. Unless they changed the way of governance, I can't imagine this empire would last very last long due to its size.

 

[FesteringSpore]

I think the idea here is that the Ottomans don't waste their energies attacking the Habsburgs and whatnot, but instead pour them into conquering Persia; so you get an empire that looks like Alexander's (the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, maybe Egypt, Persia, and far off) but it's Ottoman

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

I think the idea here is that the Ottomans don't waste their energies attacking the Habsburgs and whatnot, but instead pour them into conquering Persia; so you get an empire that looks like Alexander's (the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, maybe Egypt, Persia, and far off) but it's Ottoman

Wouldn't a scenario where the Ottomans spend a great deal of time, energy, money, and manpower in the east make their frontiers in the north and west that much more vulnerable to encroachment by the Austrians/Holy Roman Empire, PLC, and Russia, and perhaps also the Spanish in the Mediterranean?

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Wouldn't a scenario where the Ottomans spend a great deal of time, energy, money, and manpower in the east make their frontiers in the north and west that much more vulnerable to encroachment by the Austrians/Holy Roman Empire, PLC, and Russia, and perhaps also the Spanish in the Mediterranean?

They could take a much more defensive position.

 

[FesteringSpore]

Wouldn't a scenario where the Ottomans spend a great deal of time, energy, money, and manpower in the east make their frontiers in the north and west that much more vulnerable to encroachment by the Austrians/Holy Roman Empire, PLC, and Russia, and perhaps also the Spanish in the Mediterranean?

Some old threads debating the issue recommend the Ottomans focus on pulling the Hungarians away from the Austrians via alliances and encouraging them to convert to Protestantism, so I figure that the Ottomans need not use force of arms to defend their European conquests while they go off reviving Alexander's empire

 

[Tibi088]

Even if they were to succeed in conquering the region I don't think thay could hold it for long. Historically Iran tends not to be ruled outside of Iran - not for long. It would also need the presence of a very significant occupation force for a long time which would be under very loose control a best from the central. This means that till the region is integrated - which wont be a short time - the Ottomans will have to be sitting ducks everywhere else. They also need huge luck to have selected very loyal governors.

So as I see it the chance of success are small - but even if they do succed the decades of respite that Europe gets will also means that their european enemies are also free to act in the timeframe. What could the spanish do in Europe if they hadnt to deal with the Ottoman for 4-5 decades lets say sometimes in the 16th century?

 

[Sarthak]

Or if the Ottomans establish a similar government to Alexander and the Achaemenids where they give the territories enough autonomy so they wouldn’t rebel.

The Ottoman Empire and the Achaemenid Empire/Macedonian Empire are very very different beasts. One cannot change a system of governance that has worked for centuries on a whim. And anyway, the Ottomans considered themselves the islamic heirs of Rome, not the islamic heirs of Macedonia and Acheamenids. You need a fundamental change in thinking for that to happen for any interest shown by the Ottomans to conquer the Iranian Plateau.

 

[Sarthak]

Historically Iran tends not to be ruled outside of Iran

Cough Seleucids, Parthians, Sassanids, Rashiduns, Ummayads, Abbassids, Ghurids, Saffarids, Buyids, Ilkhanate, Jalayirids, Kara Koyunlu, Aq Koyunlu, Timurids Cough.
All were average to middling to long lasting dynasties ruling Iran from outside Iran for a lot of time.

 

[Tibi088]

Cough Seleucids, Parthians, Sassanids, Rashiduns, Ummayads, Abbassids, Ghurids, Saffarids, Buyids, Ilkhanate, Jalayirids, Kara Koyunlu, Aq Koyunlu, Timurids Cough.
All were average to middling to long lasting dynasties ruling Iran from outside Iran for a lot of time.

The parthians base of power was Iran, the same for the Sassanians, the Saffarids, the Ilkhanate and we could argue about some of the others as well.
The Buyids, the Jalayirids, Kara Koyunlu, Aq Koyunlu, Timurids had their centre of power right next door - not in far away Constantinople.
Most of them have also adopted iranian culture.

The arabs did conquer Iran and held it for a long time - though they too moved their capital next to it in time. It also was a pretty lengthy proccess of integration.

 

[Sarthak]

parthians base of power was Iran,

No not really. It was Parthia. All their nobles were Parthian, their officers were all Parthians and all their administrators were Parthian.

Sassanians,

The Sassanians were an authentic Persian dynasty, however their powerbase remained in Mesopotamia, away from the iranian plateau, the homeland of the iranians

Saffarids

The Saffarid powerbase was in Herat, Khorasan and Balochistan, not the Iranian Plateau

Ilkhanate

Ikhanate's power base was in modern Azerbaijan and Azeri Iran today, and almost the entirety of their government, army, administration, officers, were Turks, and Mongols.

The Buyids, the Jalayirids, Kara Koyunlu, Aq Koyunlu, Timurids had their centre of power right next door - not in far away Constantinople.

True enough, however the distance between Algiers and Constantinople is the same as Constantinople to Kabul. The distance does not really matter. Good governance does, and in the early modern era, that largely depends on the kinds of governors put in place rather than anything else.