Had Iran remained Sunni...?

Sep 2013
1,110
Abu Dhabi
...
They would be occupied with consolidating those new territories than starting a war with the mighty Ottomans in 1470.
Ottomans were not mighty yet in 1470 and were exactly the force to prevent them from consolidating own rule in the Near East. Ottomans were the real threat to Ak Koyunlu and not the Alawite rebels.

Nadir Shah wouldn't even dream of taking on the Mughals say during Aurangzeb's reign. What he attacked was the ghost of the dying Mughal empire.
Well, Nader Shah wasn't ruling a superpower either when he ransacked Mughal. And in a scenario where Ottomans are the masters of Ak Koyunlu-Safavid possessions and there was no Turkish sectarian disobedience to ruling Ottomans, I'm not sure Mughal or any other contemporary empire would had withstood a consolidated attack from them.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
Ottomans were not mighty yet in 1470 and were exactly the force to prevent them from consolidating own rule in the Near East. Ottomans were the real threat to Ak Koyunlu and not the Alawite rebels.
Ottomans were not as mighty in 1470 as they would become later, but even then they were already way more mighty than the Ak Koyunlu. The Ak Koyunlu attacked the Ottomans with the hope that the Venetians would also attack from west, which didn't happen. Had they known it beforehands, they wouldn't even dream of taking on the ottomans on their own. The Ottomans were a gunpowder empire, what chance did Ak Koyunlu have?

Ottomans were no threat for them at that point. Again, Ottomans were preoccupied in the west.

Well, Nader Shah wasn't ruling a superpower either when he ransacked Mughal. And in a scenario where Ottomans are the masters of Ak Koyunlu-Safavid possessions and there was no Turkish sectarian disobedience to ruling Ottomans, I'm not sure Mughal or any other contemporary empire would had withstood a consolidated attack from them.
No, the Mughal army probably couldn't stand the full might of the Ottomans. But would the Ottomans exert their full might? No. First, the Mughal army was powerful enough to act as a deterrence. And, as was stated earlier, the Ottomans wouldn't even try with their full might as they were preoccupied in the west, recreating the Roman empire.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2013
1,110
Abu Dhabi
Ottomans were not as mighty in 1470 as they would become later, but even then they were already way more mighty than the Ak Koyunlu. ...
There's no argument about that. Ottomans were stronger and in the result were triumphant against both Ak Koyunlu and Safavids.
 
Jun 2013
1,445
Mundo Nuevo
Zagros could hold off incursions from west. If it were absolutely necessary to take Iran, the Ottomans would have come from north, through Azerbaijan.

But forcible annexation wouldn't be needed, most likely. Had the small Iranian kingdoms been Sunni, as is the premise of the OP, they wouldn't bear hostility towards the Ottomans, and vice-versa, in the first place. Ottoman sultan was the Caliph, and that itself was enough for their allegiance. Even the Mughals, who were nearly as powerful as the Ottomans, and wealthier, had to acknowledge the supremacy of the Ottoman Caliph.
It is not. Moroccans didn't recognize Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. They said the Ottomans were not Quraysh so that they had no right to the title. The Morocan Sultan claimed to be Amir ul Mumineen and they fought against the Ottomans several times. They never joined the Ottoman Empire.

The Circassian Mamluks ruling Egypt were Sunni and they violently resisted the Ottoman invasion.

Al Saud family were hardline Sunni Hanbali and they fought hard against the Ottomans and seized Mecca and Medina from Ottoman control in the early 19th century.

Where did this very false idea that Sunni states don't fight each other come from?
 
Dec 2015
510
Middle East
There are two aspects if Iran remained Sunni, one religious and the other geopolitical.

On the religious side, Shias would have been an insignificant fringe group, and the Islamic world would have been more united. Safavid Iran was what separated western (middle-eastern) Muslim world, and the eastern half.
Eventhough Sunnis make up 1.5 Billion people, they are truely and in every sense of the word an insignificant fringe group. Always have been and always will be. The so-called "Moslem" Golden Age never was thanks to the Moslems. These are facts.

Safavid-Shia Iran kept separate two preeminent Muslim empires - the Ottomans & the Mughals. If Iran had been Sunni as part of, or allied with the Ottomans, there could have been greater interaction and alliance between those two empires.
Pakistan and Bangladesh split up in two and the pakistanis killed like 3 Million Bangladeshis and then you got the nerve to blame the shias for a disunited so-called "Moslem" world?

Ottoman military machine coupled with Mughal wealth could have given rise to a true global superpower in 17th century.
The Ottomans might have had a great military power and Mughal might have been the wealthiest empire but neither the Ottoman nor the Mughal had a brain, history, civilization, culture. Not even the sunni religion neither was nor is theirs. These things are what matter: brain, history, civilization and culture and sunnis never had them and never will. Thats why they are in such a miserable shape.
 
Last edited: