This is another history essay which I am very proud of. this was a topic that I wanted to write for the longest time. During all that time, I wrote out the whole essay entirely in my head, and I was simply waiting for the opportunity to put it all on paper. I got that opportunity last year, when my history professor gave us the assignment to write about any historical topic relating to the history of the Middle East and Islam. Not only did I complete this whole assignment and hand it in way ahead of schedule (two weeks before it was due), but I also got the best mark in the whole class for it. I’m incredibly proud of this essay and the ‘A’ that I got for it because that particular professor had a reputation for being a very tough marker, who’s constant C’s and B’s were hard to crack through. However, i did and and not only was I impressed by what I did, but so was my professor who very much enjoye reading this; and I hope you enjoy reading it as much as he did.

In the early eighteenth century, Nader Shah, the last great Asian military conqueror, the man who created the largest Iranian Empire since the Sassanid Dynasty had died. However, what could have happened if Nader Shah hadn’t died? It’s a question that not too many people ever ask themselves, but it’s a question that should scare anyone who really thinks about it. At the time, Nader had created perhaps the largest and most powerful army in the world, for its time, and had become the richest man in the world. Nader Shah was also a very ambitious man, who wanted to conquer the Ottoman empire and the whole Islamic world. In his later years however, Nader Shah went mad with power and had become very paranoid; paranoid to the point that he blinded his eldest son, who was his entire world, and had executed many of his own bodyguard soldiers, the men who he should have trusted the most. His insanity and paranoia led to him being assassinated by members of his own army. Since Nader Shah was a very ambitious man with the resources that a warlord could only dream of having, what could Nader Shah have accomplished if he hand’t gone mad nor been assassinated. If he didn’t go mad or die, Nader Shah could have conquered most of the world if he wanted to.

First of all, Nader Shah, at the time, had one of the largest and strongest armies in the world. Nader Shah had build himself a military force of immense size; an army of over half a million men. According to, History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast: from the Sixteenth to the mid -Nineteenth Century, by Ahmad Hasan Dani, the military force that Nader Shah had assembled was considered extremely large “by the standards of his day.”1 On the other hand, not only did Nader Shah create a very large army, but he also created a very powerful army which was unmatched in strength. Nader Shah assembled a world-class army which was well trained, well equipped and full of veteran soldiers from all of his past campaigns across Asia. Michael Axworthy points out in his journal, “The Army of Nader Shah,” that Nader Shah’s army was more than just only “the most powerful single force in asia but possibly in the world.”2 Therefore, with one of the largest and strongest armies in the world, Nader Shah had the most essential tool necessary for world conquest. If Nader Shah did try to conquer Asia and Europe, what other army could have matched his army in size and strength? However, it takes more than just having an unbeatable army to conquer the world; it also takes a leader with the tactical skills and the ambition to lead that army to world conquest.

With his great army, Nader Shah could have conquered the Ottoman Empire. First off, Nader Shah was a very ambitious leader and desired to conquering the Ottoman Empire. RudiMatthee states in his book, The Monetary History of Iran: From the Safavids to the Qajars, that Nader Shah wanted to create an empire that stretched “from Delhi to Constantinople.”3 So would Nader Shah have succeeded if he went ahead in follow his dream of conquer the Ottomans? Nader Shah did fight and beat the Ottomans on many occasions throughout his military career; more importantly, he had decisively defeated a much larger Ottoman army at the Battle of Kars. Michael Axworthy points out in his work, The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant, that the Persian force, at the Battle of Kars, was better equipped and trained, but smaller than the newly trained, revamped and larger Ottoman force, and their artillery was superior to the Ottoman artillery.4 Even though Nader Shah had one of the largest armies in the world, he was able to use a small chunk of his overall army to defeat the much larger Ottoman force. Therefore, after Kars, no Ottoman army could have stopped the full size of Nader Shah’s superior army. Also, consider that it was at this same time that Nader Shah was going through his mental deterioration, becoming insane with paranoia. In a way, this means that Nader Shah, at his worst, was still able to defeat a numerically superior Ottoman force. Moreover, Imagine what Nader Shah could have accomplished against the Ottomans if he hand’t gone mad. In addition, Nader Shah was given the opportunity to follow through on his victory; Axworthy states in his book that, after the Battle of Kars, one of Nader’s Generals offered to “march into Ottoman Anatolia and conquer it” but Nader Shah, due to his mental deterioration, declined and returned home.5 With the superiority of his military, his past successes against the Ottomans and his ambitions of expanding across the Islamic world, Nader Shah could have successfully conquered the Ottoman empire if he tried. However, if he tried to conquer Europe, how would Nader Shah, and his army, have measured up against European armies.

If Nader Shah had conquered the Ottoman Empire, he could have then conquered Europe. Nader Shah never fought a European army, but it should’t be crazy to think that he could have been successful against European armies. For instance, at the Battle of Kars, Nader Shah defeated an Ottoman army that fought more like a European army. As Axworthy points out in his Book that the Ottomans “ordered their battle formation and fought in European fashion.”6 This was because the Ottomans had hired a French military veteran, Claude-Alexandre, compte de Bonneval, to help reform and modernize their military according to the European standards. As stated in Armstrong Starkey work, War in the Age of Enlightenment, 1700-1789, “Bonneval presented the Sultan with a comprehensive plan to reconstruct the army along Western lines to increase the effectiveness and professionalism of the Janissaries.”7 This virtually made the Ottoman army, that Nader Shah defeated at Kars, a European army. Furthermore, Nader Shah was ahead of his time militarily; while Europe was fighting according to the eighteenth century system, Nader Shah was, in some ways, fighting according the the nineteenth century system. In other words, Nader Shah’s military system was very similar to Napoleon Bonaparte’s military system of the early nineteenth century. According to Axworthy’s book, the tactics that Napoleon used against the Prussians at the Battle of Jena, such as the use of light and heavy cavalry, maneuvering with speed and the tactical use of a strong and important artillery corps, was similar to the tactics that Nader Shah used throughout his military campaigns.8 Since Nader Shah fought as Napoleon did a century earlier, then Nader Shah could have been quite successful against European armies. Also, consider that Axworthy points out in his book that the Ottomans defeated the European army of Austria, at the Battle of Grocka, with their new military reforms.9 Therefore, by process of elimination, if Nader Shah defeated a European style Ottoman army, which defeated the European army of Austria, then Nader Shah could have defeated actual European armies as well.

Finally, Nader Shah could have afforded such a long campaign. Nader Shah was a ruler with immense wealth at his disposal. After his successful campaign in India, Nader Shah plundered so much wealth from the city of Delhi, in the form of precious stones, lose jewels, and gold bars, that Vivek Rangoon Bhattacharya states in, The Saga of Delhi, that “Nadir Shah became one of the richest men in the world overnight.”10 Moreover, Matthee points out in his book that the amount of wealth Nader Shah hauled away from Delhi is equivalent to over one hundred billion dollars today.11 This means that, with his immense wealth, Nader Shah probably wouldn’t have had a problem equipping, feeding or paying his immensely large army over a long extended campaign. It’s one thing to have the military resources to conquer the world; it’s another thing to have the logistical resources to be able to keep your army fed, happy and loyal enough to follow you across the world. For any conqueror to achieve these things, they would need an immense amount of wealth. Nader Shah had the resources to pay for the maintenance of his large army and perhaps had enough wealth to have maintained it over a long campaign across West Asia and Europe.

Of course, this is all just a hypothetical argument that asks a hypothetical question. What if Nader Shah hadn’t been assassinated and what if he hadn’t gone insane? Theoretically, anything could have happened, but this is what I think could have happened. Maybe it’s just what I wanted to happen, but that shouldn’t take away from this well organized and researched argument. It is established that Nader Shah had a very large and strong army, proved himself against the Ottomans, had striking similarities military tactics to Napoleon Bonaparte and was wealthy enough to have afforded a long military campaign. If Nader Shah tried to conquer Asia and Europe, while not being assassinated or going insane, I think he could have succeeded.

___________________

1 Ahmad Hasan Dani and Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, Editors. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the Sixteenth to the mid – Nineteenth Century (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2003), 135

2 Michael Axeworthy. “The Army of Nader Shah.” Iranian Studies. Vol. 40, No. 5 (2007): 635.

3 Rudi Matthee and Willem Floor. The Monetary History of Iran: From the Safavids to the
Qajars. (London: I. B. Tauris Publishing, 2013), 158.

4 Michael Axworthy. Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant. (London: I. B. Tauris Publishing, 2006), 269.

5 Axworthy, 269.

6 Axworthy, 267.

7 Armstrong Starkey. War in the Age of Enlightenment, 1700-1789. (London: Greenwood
Publishing, 2003), 181.

8 Axworthy, 248.

9 Axworthy, 267.

10 Vivek Rangoon Bhattacharya. The Saga of Delhi. (Delhi: Metropolitan Book Company, 1977), 5.

11 Matthee, 158.

Bibliography

Axworthy, Michael. “The Army of Nader Shah.” Iranian Studies. Vol. 40, No. 5 (2007): 635,

Accessed October 10, 2015. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.langara.bc.ca/stable/25597420

Axworthy, Michael. Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant.

London: I. B. Tauris Publishing, 2006.

Bhattacharya,Vivek Ranjan. The Saga of Delhi. Delhi: Metropolitan Book Company, 1977.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan and Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, Editors. History of Civilizations of

Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the Sixteenth to the mid – Nineteenth

Century. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2003.

Matthee, Rudi and Willem Floor. The Monetary History of Iran: From the Safavids to the

Qajars. London: I. B. Tauris Publishing, 2013.

Starkey, Armstrong. War in the Age of Enlightenment, 1700-1789. London: Greenwood

Publishing, 2003.