What would had happened had there been no Safavid Empire? Little known fact but prior to the Safavids Iran was a Sunni Muslim region, so no Safavids may lead to Iran remaining Sunni. The Safavids were also the first native Persian empire to rule over all of Persia since the Sassanians.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No Safavids
- Thread starter lerk
- Start date
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
If the Safavids never convert to Shi'a Islam but remain a local dynasty based in Tabriz, just ruling Azerbaijan, or Ismail is defeated as he attempts to take over the Iranian plateau we are left with a power-vacuum in both central -western Iran and Iraq ahead of the Ottoman arrival in the region. The smaller local dynasties who would be ruling the Iraqi cities and tribes are no match for Sultan Selim, and presumably he defeats the locals easier than he did the Safavids at Chaldiran or an equivalent battle. He then overruns Mosul and Baghdad and adds it to the Ottoman empire, though stabilising the region may delay his advance on Mameluke Egypt for a few years. If he succumbs to temptation to play the Alexander and attempt to move onto the Iranian plateau, there will be a clash with the Shaybanids of Uzbekistan, the steppe-origin Uzbek 'empire' based on Bukhara and the Oxus/Samarcand region who in this scenario would not have been defeated by Ismail in 1510.
The Ottoman army with its cannons was more up to date than the cavalry-based steppe Uzbeks, so Selim will probably defeat Mohammed the Shaybanid (k 1510 by Ismail in OTL) and secure the major cities of the plateau, as far as Merv. But the Shaybanids would have been able to retreat to the Oxus or into the steppes and evade pursuit, and the Ottoman army would have been too over-stretched to folow - especially if Selim hankers after Mameluke Egypt as more important and able to secure him religious prestige by taking over Jerusalem and its Caliphal claim. If Selim bothers to go after the Shaybanids across the Iranian plateau he may die (1520 as in OTL?) before he can tackle the Mamelukes; if he leaves them alone after securing the plains of Iraq he may still have time, and extra vassals for his army, to take Syria, Palestine and Egypt. We may still see a clash between the Ottomans and the Shaybanids if the latter recover and threaten Baghdad in the 1520s or 1530s, especially if Mohammed Shaybani is still alive or his son can succeed him and isn't handed over by the Ottomans to Babur and the Mughals (kin to MS's wife).
In that case, a Shaybanid counter-attack on Iraq could distract Sulaiman from his Hungarian war in 1526 or, if Hungary falls on cue, from attacking Vienna in 1529. There is no 'Sunni Ottomans vs Shi'a Iran' religious edge to the Ottoman/ Shaybanid confrontation or threat of the Iranian Shi'a subverting Turcoman tribes in E Anatolia or Iraq to revolt, but the Shaybanids could still have major steppe tribe resources to throw at the Ottomans if they can defeat the Kazakhs to their N. That will drive the Ottomans to retaliate. Or will Sulaiman bribe the Kazakhs to take the Shaybanids in the rear, and succumb to the temptation to extend his E frontier and play the 'new Roman Emperor' role against a weaker foe than the Habsburgs? We might see a 'pivot to the East' and Ottoman attempts to take over the Iranian plain, possibly if Selim had the extra time and determination to persuade his heir to think more in Middle Eastern than European terms for expansion. Or a larger Ottoman mercantile venture from Basra across the Indian Ocean to India to link up with the Mughals for a joint attack on Shaybanid Iran/ Uzbekistan?
The Ottoman army with its cannons was more up to date than the cavalry-based steppe Uzbeks, so Selim will probably defeat Mohammed the Shaybanid (k 1510 by Ismail in OTL) and secure the major cities of the plateau, as far as Merv. But the Shaybanids would have been able to retreat to the Oxus or into the steppes and evade pursuit, and the Ottoman army would have been too over-stretched to folow - especially if Selim hankers after Mameluke Egypt as more important and able to secure him religious prestige by taking over Jerusalem and its Caliphal claim. If Selim bothers to go after the Shaybanids across the Iranian plateau he may die (1520 as in OTL?) before he can tackle the Mamelukes; if he leaves them alone after securing the plains of Iraq he may still have time, and extra vassals for his army, to take Syria, Palestine and Egypt. We may still see a clash between the Ottomans and the Shaybanids if the latter recover and threaten Baghdad in the 1520s or 1530s, especially if Mohammed Shaybani is still alive or his son can succeed him and isn't handed over by the Ottomans to Babur and the Mughals (kin to MS's wife).
In that case, a Shaybanid counter-attack on Iraq could distract Sulaiman from his Hungarian war in 1526 or, if Hungary falls on cue, from attacking Vienna in 1529. There is no 'Sunni Ottomans vs Shi'a Iran' religious edge to the Ottoman/ Shaybanid confrontation or threat of the Iranian Shi'a subverting Turcoman tribes in E Anatolia or Iraq to revolt, but the Shaybanids could still have major steppe tribe resources to throw at the Ottomans if they can defeat the Kazakhs to their N. That will drive the Ottomans to retaliate. Or will Sulaiman bribe the Kazakhs to take the Shaybanids in the rear, and succumb to the temptation to extend his E frontier and play the 'new Roman Emperor' role against a weaker foe than the Habsburgs? We might see a 'pivot to the East' and Ottoman attempts to take over the Iranian plain, possibly if Selim had the extra time and determination to persuade his heir to think more in Middle Eastern than European terms for expansion. Or a larger Ottoman mercantile venture from Basra across the Indian Ocean to India to link up with the Mughals for a joint attack on Shaybanid Iran/ Uzbekistan?
heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
A couple more ideas. Granted that the Shaybanids were descended from the oldest son of Genghis Khan and had a potential role as heirs to the heritage of the Jagatai Khanate in Turkestan/Khwarezm, rallying the local princelings and tribal lords of Mongol blood, could their longer survival as a major power in both Iran and Uzbekistan lead to them seeking to claim to restore the C13th Mongol 'Ilkhanate'? And by appealing to the bloody heritage of the Mongols as ravagers of Iran and Iraq and sackers of many great cities (most notably Baghdad in 1258), put off the urban elites of the Iranian and Iraqi cities as 'just another bunch of steppe warlords out for loot'? Unless a local tribal prince arose with enough manpower to match the Shaybanids' steppe manpower, the urban centres of Iran and Iraq might then (1520s-30s?) prefer the Ottomans, a distant power who would have to give them virtual autonomy, to the Shaybanids as overlords and appeal to Sulaiman for help. At this point, the possibility of Ottoman campaigning in central Iran or calling in the Mughals or Kazakhs to help would arise - but would Sulaiman dare to trust any Ottoman general with a large army to invade Iran lest her later revolt, and so have to lead a war himself? Leaving Roxelana as unofficial regent in Constantinople/ Istanbul and taking his eldest son Mehmed along with him to gain military experience? And would S dare to install a - trusted - younger son as his viceroy in Baghdad to control the Eastern army against the threat of mutiny, only to have a civil war between his sons by Roxelana for the throne when he died in 1566 if more than one was then alive? Another 'survival of the fittest' struggle over the throne, as in 1403-13, 1481, and 1520, might well then end with a more active and competent Sultan left to rule the Sultanate in the later C16th.
If Babur does not die in 1530 (aged 47) but lives to secure full control of the Delhi region and fathers more sons, would the prospect of a vacuum in Iran (or the defeat of the Shaybanids by the Ottomans in the 1520s to early 1530s) give him good reason to make another attempt to regain his own homeland in Samarcand or his original pre-Panipat realm of Kabul? And pivot the Mughals back into Afghanistan as a major regional power, straddling the region from the Hindu Kush via the upper Indus to Lahore and Delhi? Given another 20 years of life for him to secure some stability and build a regional coalition of tribal vassals and loyal governors, this alternate Mughal state could then be divided up between his younger sons, one in Lahore and one in Kabul or Samarcand, as juniors to their senior Humayan ruling in Delhi - with a risk of civil war if Humayun was as lacking in ruthless vigour as in OTL. Would a younger Mughal prince based in Kabul with a force of conscripted Uzbek/ Kazakh warriors have the manpower to overthrow Humayun c. 1555, but H's son Akbar restore his family's grip on the throne later?
If Babur does not die in 1530 (aged 47) but lives to secure full control of the Delhi region and fathers more sons, would the prospect of a vacuum in Iran (or the defeat of the Shaybanids by the Ottomans in the 1520s to early 1530s) give him good reason to make another attempt to regain his own homeland in Samarcand or his original pre-Panipat realm of Kabul? And pivot the Mughals back into Afghanistan as a major regional power, straddling the region from the Hindu Kush via the upper Indus to Lahore and Delhi? Given another 20 years of life for him to secure some stability and build a regional coalition of tribal vassals and loyal governors, this alternate Mughal state could then be divided up between his younger sons, one in Lahore and one in Kabul or Samarcand, as juniors to their senior Humayan ruling in Delhi - with a risk of civil war if Humayun was as lacking in ruthless vigour as in OTL. Would a younger Mughal prince based in Kabul with a force of conscripted Uzbek/ Kazakh warriors have the manpower to overthrow Humayun c. 1555, but H's son Akbar restore his family's grip on the throne later?