WI: The Safavid Dynasty survives to the Present-Day

[GameBawesome]

The Safavids are arguably the most significant dynasty in modern-Iran. Under their rule, they reasserted Iranian identity in the region that hasn't been seen since the Sassanids, Persian culture flourished, and most significantly of all, made Shia Islam the official religion of Iran.

The Safavid Dynasty was actually of Kurdish origin, with the founder being Shah Ismail I in 1501. He and his successors would make Safavid Persia a major power in the 16th - early 17th Centuries, as Persian culture flourished and the Safavids went to war with the Ottomans throughout the decades. However, it was by the mid 17th to early 18th Centuries when the Safavids began to decline, due to factors such other powers such as the rising Russians, the Ottomans and most importantly the rising Afghan Hotak Dynasty. It was the last one, the Hotaks, that nearly ended the Safavids, only the Safavids to make a restoration thanks to the help of one general... and it would be that same general - Later known as Nader Shah - that would end the Safavids in 1736 and found the Afsharid dynasty. There would be brief restorations of the Safavids - Like with Suleiman II or Ismail III - But it would amount to nothing, as the Afsharids gave way to the Zand Dynasty and then the Qajar Dynasty.

What if the Safavids had a more stable regime, and managed to survive the present-day? Like, less enemies like the Hotak Dynasty, or if Nader Shah hadn't overthrown the Safavids, or an alternate way to prevent Safavid decline? How would a surviving Safavid Dynasty effect Iranian histroy?

 

[Zincvit]

Eh, Persian Culture arguably had “flourished” quite a lot during the predecessor polities like the Seljuks, the states of the Iranian Intermezzo and even during the Abbasids.

 

[mianfei]

I have sometimes considered an alternate history where the Safavids defeat the Ottomans, making the Safavid Empire the main power in the Levant. If the Safavids could have defeated the Ottomans, they would have gained critical control over Anatolia and the route to Europe. The effect of having a Shi‘ite, rather than Sunni, Muslim power controlling this region has interested me in recent years: if what Robert Spencer said in his admittedly questionable book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran be at all true, then a Safavid Empire ruling this region might have been more hostile to Jews and Christians than was even the Ottoman Empire.

However, even if the Safavids could capture Anatolia — and I do not know what departure(s) would be required, and when they would have had to have occurred, for the Safavids to decisively defeat the Ottomans — they would still face the same problems Muslim dynasties in the Levant and Iranian Plateau did in the nineteenth century and up until Gulf oil become of such decisive geopolitical importance. So, even a decisive Safavid victory over the Ottoman Empire would probably not ensure its survival into the present day.

 

[Hayatgheibi]

A lot of factors depend on how strong the successive monarchs are. The latter dynasties continued the Safavids' governmental structure, so if the Safavids are as weak as them Iran ends up on largely the same path. If the monarchs are strong, however, they are in a better position to industrialize come the 19th century. However, that will also make it even more difficult for the country to transition to democracy.

 

[GameBawesome]

I think this should be mentioned, but depending on the POD, the survival of the Safavid Dynasty may butterfly away the Hotak Dynasty and Nader Shah and the Afsharids, which already domino effects a lot of things, most importantly India and the Mughals and no Durrani Empire, so possibly no independent Afghanistan (Or at best a smaller one).

If the POD is after a permanent Safavid restoration like under Suleiman II or Ismail III, that's a different story.

 

[Wendell]

I would argue that the full-on embrace of Shiism is ultimately what did in the prospects for Iran to permanently have expanded beyond the plateau.

 

[Elfwine]

I would argue that the full-on embrace of Shiism is ultimately what did in the prospects for Iran to permanently have expanded beyond the plateau.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[Wendell]

Could you elaborate on this?

Sure. Most Persianate peoples outside of modern Iran are Sunni, and most Iranians themselves were Sunni before the Safavid period. Thus, having a state rooted in preference for Shiism made dominance of other, adjacent Persianate lands more challenging, and may have also contributed to the not infrequent wars against the Ottomans.

 

[Elfwine]

Sure. Most Persianate peoples outside of modern Iran are Sunni, and most Iranians themselves were Sunni before the Safavid period. Thus, having a state rooted in preference for Shiism made dominance of other, adjacent Persianate lands more challenging, and may have also contributed to the not infrequent wars against the Ottomans.

No chance of the other Persianate peoples also embracing Shiism, or just it being one extra step of challenge too many for a not-ideal situation of expanding there?

 

[Wendell]

No chance of the other Persianate peoples also embracing Shiism, or just it being one extra step of challenge too many for a not-ideal situation of expanding there?

The latter, as Nader Shah arguably found out, although he was post-Safavid.

 

[Hayatgheibi]

I would argue that the full-on embrace of Shiism is ultimately what did in the prospects for Iran to permanently have expanded beyond the plateau.

Well there was also the issue of being sandwiched between two of the world's largest empires, the Ottomans and Mughals.

 

[Wendell]

Well there was also the issue of being sandwiched between two of the world's largest empires, the Ottomans and Mughals.

Neither of which controlled the Persianate but Sunni areas of Central Asia.

 

[Hayatgheibi]

Neither of which controlled the Persianate but Sunni areas of Central Asia.

I’m not sure what you mean by “Persianate.” If you mean “Persian-speaking,” there has never been a “Persian” identity, and the Safavids weren’t native Persian speakers anyway. But the Ottomans ruled over many Kurds, who speak an Iranian language, and the Mughals controlled much of Afghanistan. So I don’t think language is a factor here. Furthermore, the Safavids did actually control Sunni areas, specifically Kurdistan, Baluchistan, and western Afghanistan. The former two are still largely part of Iran. The only way in which I see the Safavids losing their Sunni regions is if they become extremely zealous and strip away local leaders’ rights (who held the majority of power).

 

[dachi]

The problem with threads like this are that real life ain't like fiction when one man can simply change everything and invent something

Nothing last forever especially dynasties if we take safavid dynasties length the lasted roughly three centuries which is avarge for most dynasties

As time passes the system of government becomes more currupt and inefficient the rulers become more interested in palace life style devolution of power from the ruler to the local elite's

Safavids last shah's weren't particularly capable nor interested in governing but the problem was outside to pressure from central Asian states and encroaching russia and weakness of central govrment were Safavids downfall

 

[Hayatgheibi]

The problem with threads like this are that real life ain't like fiction when one man can simply change everything and invent something

Nothing last forever especially dynasties if we take safavid dynasties length the lasted roughly three centuries which is avarge for most dynasties

As time passes the system of government becomes more currupt and inefficient the rulers become more interested in palace life style devolution of power from the ruler to the local elite's

Safavids last shah's weren't particularly capable nor interested in governing but the problem was outside to pressure from central Asian states and encroaching russia and weakness of central govrment were Safavids downfall

It’s easy to pick on threads this way, but that’s not the purpose of alt history. We should be thinking about what conditions are necessary to fulfill the scenario and what the consequences might be.

 

[Wendell]

I’m not sure what you mean by “Persianate.” If you mean “Persian-speaking,” there has never been a “Persian” identity, and the Safavids weren’t native Persian speakers anyway. But the Ottomans ruled over many Kurds, who speak an Iranian language, and the Mughals controlled much of Afghanistan. So I don’t think language is a factor here. Furthermore, the Safavids did actually control Sunni areas, specifically Kurdistan, Baluchistan, and western Afghanistan. The former two are still largely part of Iran. The only way in which I see the Safavids losing their Sunni regions is if they become extremely zealous and strip away local leaders’ rights (who held the majority of power).

Persianate is not strictly about language, but cultural sphere, and if they barely held onto Sunni areas as you contend, would that not mean that being Sunni themselves might have helped them to hold more Sunni lands?

 

[Hayatgheibi]

Persianate is not strictly about language, but cultural sphere, and if they barely held onto Sunni areas as you contend, would that not mean that being Sunni themselves might have helped them to hold more Sunni lands?

No, I am arguing they were able to hold on to Sunni lands.

 

[Wendell]

No, I am arguing they were able to hold on to Sunni lands.

Not many in the long term. Yes, peripheral areas of modern Iran are Sunni, but a Sunni Iran might well have sustained some measure of rule as far as Badakhshan, no?

 

[Hayatgheibi]

Not many in the long term. Yes, peripheral areas of modern Iran are Sunni, but a Sunni Iran might well have sustained some measure of rule as far as Badakhshan, no?

Besides its notorious terrain making it the “graveyard of empires,” expansion to the east was again largely cut off by the Mughals. Plus, the Safavids were actually the ones who converted Iran to Shiism, so they had experience with Sunnis. If you are correct that religion is a barrier to conquest, then the Safavids should never have existed in the first place. If they somehow managed to conquer Afghanistan, the key to keeping it would be preserving the obedience of the local clans, regardless of religion. And again, it is useless to try to imagine boundaries based on language, especially since Persian wasn’t even the Safavids’ mother tongue.

 

[Wendell]

Besides its notorious terrain making it the “graveyard of empires,” expansion to the east was again largely cut off by the Mughals. Plus, the Safavids were actually the ones who converted Iran to Shiism, so they had experience with Sunnis. If you are correct that religion is a barrier to conquest, then the Safavids should never have existed in the first place. If they somehow managed to conquer Afghanistan, the key to keeping it would be preserving the obedience of the local clans, regardless of religion. And again, it is useless to try to imagine boundaries based on language, especially since Persian wasn’t even the Safavids’ mother tongue.

Chinese was not the Qing dynasty's mother tongue, yet they came to dominate virtually all Sinophone lands.