Turkic migrations without the spread of Islam?

[TheRejectionist]

But you never used the word "cockroach" here before?

I think I used for my countries' politicians.

 

[ATP]

The earliest Muslims were Arabs, not Turks. We're talking about Turks here.

Yes,but Persia and ERE made so many wars,that if Arabs do not profited from them weakening each other,somebody else would do so.Turks are more likely candidate.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes,but Persia and ERE made so many wars,that if Arabs do not profited from them weakening each other,somebody else would do so.Turks are more likely candidate.

There might only be a limited window of opportunity for this, though. Maybe several decades or so at the very most.

 

[stevep]

There might only be a limited window of opportunity for this, though. Maybe several decades or so at the very most.

It might depend on the circumstances. The OTL Byzantine-Sassanid war was more of a knock down fight than most of the previous conflicts, with most of the Byzantine empire overrun at one stage then towards the end a good chunk of the Sassanid empire ravaged. Previous conflicts had rarely been as devastating to both sides.

On the other hand the ruling dynasty in Iran had been displaced several times, causing periods of weakness as had some civil wars in between and it was regularly threatened by assorted groups on its eastern border so its possible that a Turkish or other group coming off the steppes could overrun much of Iran and possibly even set up a new dynasty there.

The Byzantines are more secure but as Attila showed nomadic attacks could hit them directly rather than coming through Iran 1st which would give them some warning. Or they could have some internal problems including possibly some complacency if Iran was seen in chaos that sees an attack from the east still doing a lot of damage.

 

[ATP]

It might depend on the circumstances. The OTL Byzantine-Sassanid war was more of a knock down fight than most of the previous conflicts, with most of the Byzantine empire overrun at one stage then towards the end a good chunk of the Sassanid empire ravaged. Previous conflicts had rarely been as devastating to both sides.

On the other hand the ruling dynasty in Iran had been displaced several times, causing periods of weakness as had some civil wars in between and it was regularly threatened by assorted groups on its eastern border so its possible that a Turkish or other group coming off the steppes could overrun much of Iran and possibly even set up a new dynasty there.

The Byzantines are more secure but as Attila showed nomadic attacks could hit them directly rather than coming through Iran 1st which would give them some warning. Or they could have some internal problems including possibly some complacency if Iran was seen in chaos that sees an attack from the east still doing a lot of damage.

So,turkish dynasty in Persia,and some lands taken from ERE?

 

[stevep]

So,turkish dynasty in Persia,and some lands taken from ERE?

It all depends on the circumstances but you could see a Turkish dynasty established in part or all of the core 'Iranian' heartland, in which case they probably occupy at least southern Mesopotamia as well. Whether they occupy any parts of the ERE would depend on the relative strengths of the two states and other events. For instance if there was serious internal problems inside the ERE or it faced another threat from the north or west - although the latter is probably unlikely in this time period.

 

[WolfBear]

It all depends on the circumstances but you could see a Turkish dynasty established in part or all of the core 'Iranian' heartland, in which case they probably occupy at least southern Mesopotamia as well. Whether they occupy any parts of the ERE would depend on the relative strengths of the two states and other events. For instance if there was serious internal problems inside the ERE or it faced another threat from the north or west - although the latter is probably unlikely in this time period.

I think that the real value of Anatolia for Turkic peoples was its use as grazing land. Interior Anatolia is especially ideal for this purpose:

 

[stevep]

I think that the real value of Anatolia for Turkic peoples was its use as grazing land. Interior Anatolia is especially ideal for this purpose:

That is true while they stay largely nomadic. However the coastal lands are much richer and more populous so unless they are also conquered as OTL ultimately a reformed empire would be likely to drive out/subdue such intruders. It didn't happen OTL because a weakened empire continually plagued by internal divisions and external threats never got its act together enough. Plus the Ottomans adapted with later on substantial infantry as well as cavalry forces.

There is more grazing lands further to the east which is why cavalry was always so important to the Iranian dynasties so I suspect if the ERE could stay reasonably coherent raiders would be unlikely to establish themselves in the Anatolian interior.