The Battle of Samarra was the only defeat Nader-not-yet-Shah ever suffered in his entire career. Following Tahmasp II's disastrous offensive into the Caucasus in 1731, Nader sought to force the Ottomans to hand back the territories lost in that campaign by capturing Baghdad. Unfortunately for him, the Persian army's artillery, made up mostly of zamburaks, was unable to destroy the city's defenses, forcing him to try to starve its defenders into surrendering.

This gave the Ottomans enough time to assemble a relief force of 80.000 men, which defeated their opponents thanks to two major factors, the first being superior positioning - they camped next to the Tigris, giving them an easy source of water while the Persians became increasingly thirsty in the sweltering Mesopotamian summer. The second factor was the timely arrival of reinforcements the night before the battle, which allowed them to strengthen their left flank. The battle still lasted for hours, however, and the victors' casualties numbered in the tens of thousands.

So what if Nader manages to put his army close to a good source of water (alleviating his army's thirst), or the Ottoman reinforcements don't reach the battlefield in time? Baghdad will almost certainly fall in this scenario, so what happens next? Will he trade it for the eastern Caucasus, or get greedy and try to take it all - which is certainly possible, given his later victories?

Would he still invade the Mughal Empire, or focus more on attacking Syria and eastern Anatolia ITTL? Could Persia retain Mesopotamia indefinitely, assuming it doesn't fall apart as badly as it IOTL did when Nader dies?
 
While this doesn't have much to do with the battle itself, could Nader keep Abbas III as a puppet instead of usurping the throne from him? Could a lasting Safavid dynasty, even one that is almost completely powerless, help stabilize Persia's internal affairs somewhat?
 

ahmedali

Banned
The Battle of Samarra was the only defeat Nader-not-yet-Shah ever suffered in his entire career. Following Tahmasp II's disastrous offensive into the Caucasus in 1731, Nader sought to force the Ottomans to hand back the territories lost in that campaign by capturing Baghdad. Unfortunately for him, the Persian army's artillery, made up mostly of zamburaks, was unable to destroy the city's defenses, forcing him to try to starve its defenders into surrendering.

This gave the Ottomans enough time to assemble a relief force of 80.000 men, which defeated their opponents thanks to two major factors, the first being superior positioning - they camped next to the Tigris, giving them an easy source of water while the Persians became increasingly thirsty in the sweltering Mesopotamian summer. The second factor was the timely arrival of reinforcements the night before the battle, which allowed them to strengthen their left flank. The battle still lasted for hours, however, and the victors' casualties numbered in the tens of thousands.

So what if Nader manages to put his army close to a good source of water (alleviating his army's thirst), or the Ottoman reinforcements don't reach the battlefield in time? Baghdad will almost certainly fall in this scenario, so what happens next? Will he trade it for the eastern Caucasus, or get greedy and try to take it all - which is certainly possible, given his later victories?

Would he still invade the Mughal Empire, or focus more on attacking Syria and eastern Anatolia ITTL? Could Persia retain Mesopotamia indefinitely, assuming it doesn't fall apart as badly as it IOTL did when Nader dies?
The Mongol invasion is very difficult to avoid because Nader wanted treasures to fund his relatively large army

If we want to avoid him, we must kill him early and thus the Afshar empire collapse early

Or we make him take a more united mentality about Islam and instead of destroying the Mongols he supports them in exchange for money and the same for the Ottomans
 
While this doesn't have much to do with the battle itself, could Nader keep Abbas III as a puppet instead of usurping the throne from him? Could a lasting Safavid dynasty, even one that is almost completely powerless, help stabilize Persia's internal affairs somewhat?
Most definitely- if he's convinced keeping them around as puppets doesn't hurt him (which the losing the battle otl gave the lie to), the safavids are still seen as imams and the only legitimate Shia authority. Maybe they could be pushed into the more juridco-religious side of things, with the afsharids as the real power holders.


Would he still invade the Mughal Empire, or focus more on attacking Syria and eastern Anatolia ITTL?
A mughal campaign is too tempting to avoid- if successes in the west keep him occupied there he might not get time, and he doesn't know how easy it'll end up being, but if he ever gets the free time to try and secure his eastern border he'll find out.
 
Top