Hotaki Persia, and No Nadir Shah

skarosianlifeform

Hi.

OTL, in 1720-1722, the Afghans (under the Hotaki dynasty) invaded and conquered Persia. However, the Safavid dynasty, represented by Tahmasp II, survived in the west. Both Russians (under Peter the Great) and Ottomans took advantage of the chaos to expand in the Caucasus.

Russia was allid with Kartli (under Vakhtang VI) and the Catholicos of Armenia. 20,000 Russian soldiers and Cossacks embarked on ships from Astrakhan, and 22000 others marched overland.
Peter the Great, however, had to return to Astrakhan, because of storms on the Caspian. He left Russian garrisons at Derbent and Svyatov Krest. Vakhtang VI was encamping at Ganja with 40,000 soldiers (Armenians and Georgians), expecting to join the Russian force. But when Peter departed, Vakhtang went back to Tbilisi.

In the spring 1723, the Russians and Tahmasp II signed a peace treaty, surrendering Shirvan, Gilan, Mazandran and Astrabad to the Russia. Ottomans and Russians came close to war, but finally made a compromise in 1724.

In 1726-1727, Ashraf Hotaki, the Afghan Shah, posing as the legitimate Iranian prince, demanded the restitution of all the annexed territories in 1722-1723. The Ottomans answered by declaring war on them. The Ottoman army was technically superior, but the Afghans sent agents provocateurs inside the enemy troops. Those agents emphasized the Sunni faith as common to Turks and Afghans, and that their natural enemy was the Persians. The Ottomans lost the batttle of Khoramabad because of that, but Ashraf did not push his advantage.
In the peace treaty of Hamadan (October, 1727), Ashraf recognized the Ottomon sovereignty over west and north of Iran.

But, the great majority of Persians viewed the Afghans as invaders. That's how Nadir Qoli Being (i.e. Nadir Shah), allied with Tahmasp II, expelled them in 1729-1730.

My goal, is to make a Hotaki Persia survive (i.e., ruled by an Afghan dynasty). I thought that Peter the Great's ship can be struck by a storm (point of divergence). I don't want to massively change the dynastics in Russia, so I would make Peter survive, and not being seriously hurt. But, right now, Peter stays on the Caspian coast, so the Russians, Georgians and Armenians work together against Persians, and possibly Ottomans as well.

Then, the Russians crush the Safavids. Tahmasp II is killed or forced into exile. So, Nadir Shah can't use him as a pawn to conquer the country. Also, Nadir Shah have to fight both Afghans and Russians. So, Nadir is vanquished, and the Hotaki survive.

What do you think of that ? The main goal is to make Nadir lose, or even be eliminated at the very beginning of the Persian "civil war" (the 1720-1730 decade). And so, the Hotaki rule Persia for at least until the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. So, there is no civil wars and dynastic changes in the remainder of the 18th century, and Persia can get more modernized. Still not the level of Europe, but a regional power in the 19th century.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 14881

Would the Sunni Shia divid kinda wreck the Hotaki?
 

skarosianlifeform

There would be many problems with that. Also, in the 19th century, the rise of nationalism, with the Persian/Azeri/Kurdish/Pachtun divide, would cause many problems.

I thought, for the first point, of a solution like the edicts of toleration (for protestants) in some Catholic countries. Not the full equality between Sunni and Shia, at first (it can come in the 19th c., with the liberal influence).

For the second point, either a unitary state but recongnizing plural cultures and languages, or a "federal" state (possibly inspired by the US and/or the UK). Perhaps dominated only by Persians and Pashtuns, perhaps more equal, I don't know yet. But I want to maintain Persia and Afghanistan united.

EDIT : But for now, I'm not sure about the point of divergence. What do you think of it ?
 
Last edited:

skarosianlifeform

Yes, the Mughals, just between Afghans, Marathas and British, are in a bad position. But, they will fare better IATL than IOTL (they would still be invaded or conquered, but the Mughal Empire would survive and keep its identity).

Also, the Hotaki would join Russia and Austria in 1735, against the Ottomans. By scoring victories against the Turks, and get back the land grabbed by Ottomans (through the war) and by Russians (because Russia, to secure Hotaki alliance, give it back like IOTL), the Hotaki consolidate their position as rightful rulers of the country.

Also, the Ottomans OTL were beaten by Russia, but were able to hold the line against Austria, and even (re)conquer Austrian land (in Serbia). Because of the Austrian pullout, the Russians had to accept a not harsh peace.

In ATL, the Ottomans would fight Russians, Austrians AND Hotaki at once. They would be beaten by Austria as well, and have to accept harsher peace with Russia. Perhaps even, Venice, seeing the Ottomans cornered by THREE (and not two) enemies, would join the fight and take back Morea and Crete (which it lost in 1718).
 

MarshalBraginsky

Banned
I can imagine Russia and Austria splitting the Balkans, Hotaki Persia gaining some territories, and can we see an independent Armenia also?
 

skarosianlifeform

Yes, it would be cool :
-Independent Armenia.
-Stronger Kartli-Kakheti (Georgian unification, a little earlier or at the same time as OTL).
-Russia gets Azov (like IOTL), but has the right fo build fortifications, and have a fleet on the Black Sea (different). If the victory is great enough, Russia can make Crimea independent (like in 1776 IOTL). Which would allow her to (slowly) swallow it earlier.
-Austria doesn't lose Serbia, and gets Bosnia and Herzegovina.
-Venice gets Morea and Crete.
-Hotaki Empire takes back the western and northern areas of Iran (and the Azerbaidjan).

I'm pondering : would Hotaki Empire (if it's mighty enough) take Mesopotamia from Turks ?
On one side, at the time, Mesopotamia was still sunni-dominated. If we add Azeris, Kurdish (of northern Mesopotamia and of Persia proper) and Arab tribes (sunni in majority), plus Pachtun, it can be more balanced against Persians Shia.

Besides, the Hotaki would sell this, to the same Persians, as glory and conquest (they would not say out loud "we want to reduce the power of Persians", of course).
Second point, Mesopotamia is a rich area.
Third point, the Hotaki would have to renounce to Georgia and Armenia (or at least, pledge to). Conquering Mesopotamia is a moral compensation for that loss.

BUT, would they have the possibility to grab it ? Even if Ottomans fight against Russians in both Balkan and Caucasus (in which Armenians and Georgians would help Russia), plus Austrians, Venetians, Persians, they are still a force to be reckoned with. They wouldn't crumble too easily. And Hotaki Empire would not be a superpower mere years after its birth.
 
Last edited:

MarshalBraginsky

Banned
They can't just keep on conquering territory within a short period of time by the state of their own military. Turkey, Russia and Austria all have advanced armies during this time.
 

skarosianlifeform

OK. Yes, you're right. Just reconquering Persian lands is already good in 1735.

Mesopotamia can wait, after some state-building, and military build-up.
 
Last edited:

MarshalBraginsky

Banned
Also, reforms. Definitely a lot of reforms are needed. For the House of Hotaki, do they also get to conquer parts of Central Asia as well down the road?
 

skarosianlifeform

Yes, a lot of reforms. On European model.

For the reforms, for developing the economy and the army, and for an expansion, Hotaki need alliances. With Russia (a good start in 1735), and why not with France and Portugal.
Precisely, those alliances can also bring European ideas (absolutism as well as liberalism) in Persia.

Portugal (PEIC) coveted Kuwait and the Maratha Confederacy. They were natural enemies of Oman (also enemy of Persia), Maratha and Ottoman Empires. If Persia seeks to expand in Mesopotamia and India, they would have the same enemies.

And to answer your question, Persia will be more focused on India, Mesopotamia, and possibly Indian Ocean (which need a Navy. More feasible with alliances). There will probably be temptations of conquering Central Asia, but the region will still end Russian in the 19th c.

The Indian expansion (in the form of influence, rather than outright annexation) would set Persians at odds with French and British (the main competitors). So, as soon as the French position is weakened in India, Persia and France would become closer. Against the BEIC.
 

Badshah

This would completely change India, as the Mughal Empire was just beginning administrative and military reform at the time....without this being practically broken after the sacking of Delhi, they will remain a major force to reckon with on the subcontinent. Obviously, the rest would depend on how well it then plays its cards, as it could go either way from there, but their legitimacy and prestige, though severely damaged, won't be sawed off and taken a dump on.

Also, with this POD, it isn't safe to simply write off things like the above and assume that history will go like OTL. Central Asia will be a Persian backyard if they play their cards right
 
Last edited:

skarosianlifeform

About the Mughals, they will still be in a very precarious position, with the BEIC, FEIC, PEIC and VOC trying to expand in India, the Hotaki Empire west, and the Marathas.

IATL, they will still lose Bengal (possibly Bihar and Oudh as well) to the BEIC, and some land south to the Marathas. Baloutchistan will also be annexed to Persia-Afghanistan (to protect their core land from European potential encroachment).

Reduced to the core (Sindh, Malwa, Gujarat, and Delhi itself), the Mughal Empire will end up under Persian influence and "protection", but will keep internal autonomy. The Mughal Emperor will also keep his moral influence. Things will not be all smooth between Mughals and Persians, but they will be bound together by the BEIC threat.

About Central Asia, Persia would be tempted to expand as well in that direction. But, the main focus will be India (and in second position, Mesopotamia and north of Arabia).

Besides, Persia and Russia will keep an alliance. The Persians will need Russian alliance, to develop their country and protect themselves. So, they will be (generally) careful to not cross the red line with Russia (in Central Asia). However, there will be some bones of contention between the two in Transcaucasia.

Now, I speak only of the 18th century. Things will become far more complicated with the French Revolution, and the subsequent wars. The 1789-1815 events will send many shockwaves in Middle East, Central Asia and India.

trollhole said:
Also, with this POD, it isn't safe to simply write off things like the above and assume that history will go like OTL.
Click to expand...

I know. But I intend to make the European (and North-American) history not TOO different from OTL. I prefer to take the OTL events, and make an altered version, rather than to create a whole new history, not recognizable.

So, there will still be American War of Independence, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, 1848 French Revolution and American civil war, for example.

BUT, many things will be changed. For example, no Peninsular War, no independence of South America in 1820s, an alternate ending for ACW, no French-Prussian war in 1870, survival of Venice Republic, no Russo-Turkish war in 1878, no conquest of Norway by Sweden...
 
Last edited:

Badshah

skarosianlifeform said:
About the Mughals, they will still be in a very precarious position, with the BEIC, FEIC, PEIC and VOC trying to expand in India, the Hotaki Empire west, and the Marathas.

IATL, they will still lose Bengal (possibly Bihar and Oudh as well) to the BEIC, and some land south to the Marathas. Baloutchistan will also be annexed to Persia-Afghanistan (to protect their core land from European potential encroachment).

Reduced to the core (Sindh, Malwa, Gujarat, and Delhi itself), the Mughal Empire will end up under Persian influence and "protection", but will keep internal autonomy. The Mughal Emperor will also keep his moral influence. Things will not be all smooth between Mughals and Persians, but they will be bound together by the BEIC threat.

About Central Asia, Persia would be tempted to expand as well in that direction. But, the main focus will be India (and in second position, Mesopotamia and north of Arabia).

Besides, Persia and Russia will keep an alliance. The Persians will need Russian alliance, to develop their country and protect themselves. So, they will be (generally) careful to not cross the red line with Russia (in Central Asia). However, there will be some bones of contention between the two in Transcaucasia.

Now, I speak only of the 18th century. Things will become far more complicated with the French Revolution, and the subsequent wars. The 1789-1815 events will send many shockwaves in Middle East, Central Asia and India.



I know. But I intend to make the European (and North-American) history not TOO different from OTL. I prefer to take the OTL events, and make an altered version, rather than to create a whole new history, not recognizable.

So, there will still be American War of Independence, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, 1848 French Revolution and American civil war, for example.

BUT, many things will be changed. For example, no Peninsular War, no independence of South America in 1820s, an alternate ending for ACW, no French-Prussian war in 1870, survival of Venice Republic, no Russo-Turkish war in 1878, no conquest of Norway by Sweden...
Click to expand...

If you're doing a TL, and that's the direction you're going in, that's absolutely fine. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top