Hubbry Logo
Nader ShahNader ShahMain
Open search
Nader Shah
Community hub
Nader Shah
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nader Shah
Nader Shah
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Nader Shah Afshar[b] (born Nader Qoli;[9] Persian: نادرشاه افشار; 6 August 1698 or 22 October 1688[a] – 20 June 1747) was the founder of the Afsharid dynasty of Iran and one of the most powerful rulers in Iranian history, ruling as the emperor of Iran (Persia) from 1736 to 1747, when he was assassinated during a rebellion. He fought numerous campaigns throughout the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and South Asia, emerging victorious from the battles of Herat, Mihmandust, Murche-Khort, Kirkuk, Yeghevārd, Khyber Pass, Karnal, and Kars. Nader belonged to the Turkoman Afshars, one of the seven Qizilbash tribes that helped the Safavid dynasty establish their power in Iran.

Nader rose to power during a period of chaos in Iran after a rebellion by the Hotaki Afghans had overthrown the weak emperor Soltan Hoseyn (r. 1694–1722), while the arch-enemy of the Safavids, the Ottoman Empire, as well as the Russian Empire, had seized Iranian territory for themselves. Nader reunited the Iranian realm and removed the invaders. He became so powerful that he decided to depose the last members of the Safavid dynasty, which had ruled Iran for over 200 years, and declared himself Shah in 1736. His numerous campaigns created a great empire that, at its maximum extent, briefly encompassed all or part of modern-day Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Oman, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, the North Caucasus, and the Persian Gulf, but his military spending had a ruinous effect on the Iranian economy.[1]

Nader Shah has been described as "the last great Asiatic military conqueror".[10] He idolized Genghis Khan and Timur, the previous conquerors from Central Asia. He imitated their military prowess and, especially later in his reign, their cruelty. His victories during his campaigns briefly made him West Asia's most powerful sovereign, ruling over what was arguably the most powerful empire in the world.[11]: 84 

Following his assassination in 1747, his empire quickly disintegrated, and Iran fell into a civil war. His grandson Shahrokh Shah was the last of his dynasty to rule, ultimately being deposed in 1796 by Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, who crowned himself ruler of Qajar Iran the same year.[12]

Background

[edit]

Nader belonged to the Turkoman Afshar tribe, which was one of the seven tribes[c] of the Qizilbash who helped the Safavid dynasty establish their power in Iran.[13][14] The Afshar tribe had originally lived in the Turkestan region, but during the 13th century they moved to the Azerbaijan region in northwestern Iran as a result of the expansion of the Mongol Empire.[15]

Nader was from the semi-nomadic Qirqlu clan of the Afshars, which lived in the Khorasan region of northeastern Iran. They had either settled there during the reign of the first Safavid emperor, Ismail I (r. 1501–1524), or had been resettled by Shah Abbas I (r. 1588–1629) to fend off Uzbek attacks. Regardless, the Afshars' migration to Khorasan was already taking place by start of the 16th century.[16][17]

The Afshar dialect is categorized either as a dialect of the Southern Oghuz group or a dialect of the Azerbaijani.[14] As he was growing up, he must have swiftly learned Persian, which was the language of the cities and high culture. However, unless he was speaking to someone who spoke only Persian, he always preferred to communicate in Turkic.[18] His knowledge of Arabic is not documented, but it seems doubtful given his lack of interest in literature and theology.[19] Nader is known to have acquired reading and writing skills at some point in his life, probably later on.[18]

Approximately three million people or more were nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists in Iran in the beginning of the 18th century, accounting for one-third of the country's population. Strong ties of kinship as well as customs of helping each other out with fights and finances kept their tribal groups united. Despite being partially or fully absorbed into the more urbanized Persian culture, many of them nevertheless identified culturally with the Turco-Mongol heritage that had been passed down from the era of Timur and Genghis Khan. The settled population was seen by the semi-nomads and nomads as inferior. Nader was part of this heritage, which the British academic Michael Axworthy calls "paradoxical".[18]

Early life

[edit]

Nader was born in the fortress of Dastgerd[20] in the northern valleys of Khorasan, a province in the northeast of the Iranian Empire.[21] His father, Emam Qoli, was a herdsman who may also have been a coatmaker.[4] His family lived a nomadic way of life. Nader was a long-waited son in his family.[22]

At the age of 13, Nader lost his father and had to find a way to support himself and his mother. He had no source of income other than the sticks he gathered for firewood, which he transported to the market. Many years later, when he was returning in triumph from his conquest of Delhi, he led the army to his birthplace and made a speech to his generals about his early life of deprivation. He said, "You now see, to what a height it has pleased the Almighty to exalt me; from this you should learn not to despise men of low estate." Nader's early experiences did not, however, make him particularly compassionate toward the poor. Throughout his career, he was only interested in his own advancement. Legend has it that in 1704, when he was about 17, a band of marauding Uzbeks invaded the province of Khorasan, where Nader lived with his mother. They killed many peasants. Nader and his mother were among those who were carried off into slavery. His mother died in captivity. According to another story, Nader managed to convince Turkmens by promising help in the future. Nader returned to the province of Khorasan in 1708.[23]

At the age of 15, he enlisted as a musketeer for a governor. He rose through the ranks and became the governor's right-hand man.[24]

Fall of the Safavid dynasty

[edit]

Nader grew up during the final years of the Safavid dynasty, which had ruled Iran since 1502. At its peak, under such figures as Abbas the Great, Safavid Iran had been a powerful empire, but by the early 18th century the state was in serious decline, and the reigning shah, Soltan Hoseyn, was a weak ruler. When Soltan Husayn attempted to quell a rebellion by the Ghilzai Afghans in Kandahar, the governor he sent (Gurgin Khan) was killed. Under their leader Mahmud Hotaki, the rebellious Afghans moved westwards against the shah himself, and in 1722 they defeated a force at the Battle of Gulnabad and then besieged the capital, Isfahan.[25] After the Shah failed to escape or to rally a relief force elsewhere, the city was starved into submission and Soltan Husayn abdicated, handing power to Mahmud. In Khorasan, Nader at first submitted to the local Afghan governor of Mashhad, Malek Mahmud, but then rebelled and built up his own small army. Soltan Husayn's son had declared himself Shah Tahmasp II, but found little support and fled to the Qajar tribe, who offered to back him. Meanwhile, Iran's imperial neighboring rivals, the Ottomans and the Russians, took advantage of the chaos in the country to seize and divide territory for themselves.[26] In 1722, Russia, led by Peter the Great and further aided by some of the most notable Caucasian regents of the disintegrating Safavid Empire, such as Vakhtang VI, launched the Russo-Iranian War (1722–1723) in which Russia captured swaths of Iran's territories in the North Caucasus, South Caucasus, as well as in northern mainland Iran. This included mainly, but was not limited to, the losses of Dagestan (including its principal city of Derbent), Baku, Gilan, Mazandaran, and Astrabad. The regions to the west of that, mainly Iranian territories in Georgia, Iranian Azerbaijan, and Armenia, were taken by the Ottomans. The newly gained Russian and Turkish possessions were confirmed and further divided amongst themselves in the Treaty of Constantinople (1724).[27] During the chaos, Nader cut a deal with Mahmud Hotaki to rule Kalat in the north of Iran. However, when Mahmud Hotaki began minting coins in his name and asked for everyone's allegiance, Nader refused.[24][page needed]

Fall of the Hotaki dynasty

[edit]
Statue of Nader Shah at his tomb

Tahmasp and the Qajar leader Fath Ali Khan (the ancestor of Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar) contacted Nader and asked him to join their cause and drive the Ghilzai Afghans out of Khorasan. He agreed and thus became a figure of national importance. When Nader discovered that Fath Ali Khan was in treacherous correspondence with Malek Mahmud and revealed this to the shah, Tahmasp executed him and made Nader the chief of his army instead. Nader subsequently took on the title Tahmasp Qoli (Servant of Tahmasp). In late 1726, Nader recaptured Mashhad.[28]

Nader chose not to march directly on Isfahan. First, in May 1729, he defeated the Abdali Afghans near Herat. Many of the Abdali Afghans subsequently joined his army. The new shah of the Ghilzai Afghans, Ashraf, decided to move against Nader but in September 1729, Nader defeated him at the Battle of Damghan and again decisively in November at Murchakhort. Ashraf fled, and Nader finally entered Isfahan, handing it over to Tahmasp in December. The citizens' rejoicing was cut short when Nader plundered them to pay his army. Tahmasp made Nader governor over many eastern provinces, including his native Khorasan, and Tahmasp's sister was given in marriage to Nader's son. Nader pursued and defeated Ashraf, who was murdered by his own followers.[29] In 1738 Nader Shah besieged and destroyed the last Hotaki seat of power at Kandahar. He built a new city near Kandahar, which he named "Naderabad".[1]

First Ottoman campaign and the reconquest of the Caucasus

[edit]
Court scene with Tahmasp II in the centre, and Nader to his left. From an illustrated Indian copy of the Jahangosha-ye Naderi, dated 1757/58.

In the spring of 1730, Nader attacked Iran's archrival the Ottomans and regained most of the territory lost during the recent chaos. At the same time, the Abdali Afghans rebelled and besieged Mashhad, forcing Nader to suspend his campaign and save his brother, Ebrahim. It took Nader fourteen months to crush this uprising.[30]

Relations between Nader and the Shah had declined as the latter grew jealous of his general's military successes. While Nader was absent in the east, Tahmasp tried to assert himself by launching a foolhardy campaign to recapture Yerevan. He ended up losing all of Nader's recent gains to the Ottomans and signed a treaty ceding Georgia and Armenia in exchange for Tabriz.[31] Nader, furious, saw that the moment had come to remove Tahmasp from power. He denounced the treaty, seeking popular support for a war against the Ottomans. In Isfahan, Nader got Tahmasp drunk then showed him to the courtiers, asking if a man in such a state was fit to rule. In 1732 he forced Tahmasp to abdicate in favour of the Shah's baby son, Abbas III, to whom Nader became regent.[32]

Nader decided, as he continued the 1730–1735 war, that he could win back the territory in Armenia and Georgia by seizing Ottoman Baghdad and then offering it in exchange for the lost provinces, but his plan went badly amiss when his army was routed by the Ottoman general Topal Osman Pasha near the city in 1733.[33] This was the only time that he was ever defeated in battle. Nader decided he needed to regain the initiative as soon as possible to save his position because revolts were already breaking out in Iran. He faced Topal again with a larger force and defeated and killed him. He then besieged Baghdad, as well as Ganja in the northern provinces, achieving an alliance with Russia against the Ottomans. Nader scored a great victory over a superior Ottoman force at Baghavard, and by the summer of 1735, Iranian Armenia and Georgia were his again. In March 1735, he signed a treaty with the Russians in Ganja by which the latter agreed to withdraw all of their troops from Iranian territory[34][35] (those which had not already been ceded back by the 1732 Treaty of Resht), resulting in the reestablishment of Iranian rule over all of the Caucasus and northern mainland Iran.

Shah of Iran

[edit]

Nader suggested to his closest intimates, after a great hunting party on the Moghan plain (presently split between Azerbaijan and Iran), that he should be proclaimed the new king (shah) in place of the young Abbas III.[36] This small group of Nader's close friends included Tahmasp Khan Jalayer and Hasan-Ali Beg Bestami.[36] The group made no objections, but Hasan-Ali stayed silent.[36] When Nader asked Hasan-Ali why he remained silent, he replied that the best thing for Nader to do would be to assemble to all the most prominent men of the state in order to receive their agreement in "a signed and sealed document of consent".[36] Nader approved of this proposal, and the writers of the chancellery, which included the court historian Mirza Mehdi Khan Astarabadi, were instructed to sending out orders to the military leaders, clergy and nobility of the nation to summon at the Moghan plain.[36] The summonses for the people to attend had gone out in November 1735, and they began arriving in January 1736.[37] That same month, Nader held a qoroltai (a grand meeting in the tradition of Genghis Khan and Timur) on the Moghan plain. The Moghan plain was specifically chosen for its size and "abundance of fodder".[38] Everyone agreed to the proposal of Nader becoming the new king, many—if not most—enthusiastically, the rest fearing Nader's anger if they showed support for the deposed Safavids. Nader was crowned Shah of Iran on 8 March 1736, a date his astrologers had chosen as being especially favorable,[39] in attendance of an "exceptionally large assembly" composed of the nobility and military and religious elite of the nation, as well as the Ottoman ambassador Ali Pasha.[40]

He cut a deal with notables and the clergy that he would only assume the position of Shah if they promised to refrain from cursing Omar and Uthman, avoid beating themselves to draw blood at the Ashura festival, accept Sunni practices as legitimate, and to obey Nader's children and relatives after his death, thereby setting up a dynasty in his name. He was effectively realigning Persia with Sunni Islam. The notables accepted.[41] As was traditional for the ruler in Muslim nations, Nader's name was read in the Friday prayers and appeared on the coins from this point on. A new royal seal was also created, which said the following: "Since the jewel of State and Religion had vanished from its place God reinstated it in the name of the Iranian Nader".[42]

Religious policy

[edit]
Nader Shah and two of his sons

The Safavids had forced Shia Islam as the state religion of Iran. Nader may have been brought up as a Shiite on the basis of his name and background[5] but later replaced Shia law with a version that was more sympathetic and compatible with Sunni law he called the "Ja'fari school" in an effort to disassociate radical Shia Islam from the state, in part to please his supporters and also to improve relationships with other Sunni powers[43] as he gained power and began to push into the Ottoman Empire. He believed that Safavid Shia Islam had intensified the conflict with the Sunni Ottoman Empire. His army was a mix of Shia and Sunni Muslims (with a notable minority of Christians and Kurds) and included his own Qizilbash as well as Uzbeks, Afghans, Christian Georgians and Armenians,[44][45] and others. He wanted Iran to adopt a form of religion that would be more acceptable to Sunni Muslims and suggested that Iran adopt a form of Shia Islam he called "Ja'fari", in honour of the sixth Shia imam Ja'far al-Sadiq. He banned certain Shia practices which were particularly offensive to Sunni Muslims, such as the cursing of the first three caliphs of Islam. Personally, Nader is said to have been indifferent towards religion and the French Jesuit who served as his personal physician reported that it was difficult to know which religion he followed and that many who knew him best said that he had none.[46] Nader hoped that "Ja'farism" would be accepted as a fifth school (madhhab) of Sunni Islam and that the Ottomans would allow its adherents to go on the hajj, or pilgrimage, to Mecca, which was within their territory. In the subsequent peace negotiations, the Ottomans refused to acknowledge Ja'farism as a fifth mazhab but they did allow Iranian pilgrims to go on the hajj.[47] Nader was interested in gaining rights for Iranians to go on the hajj in part because of revenues from the pilgrimage trade.[1] Nader's other primary aim in his religious reforms was to weaken the Safavids further since Shia Islam had always been a major element in support for the dynasty. He had a Shia mullah of Iran strangled after he was heard expressing support for the Safavids. Among his reforms was the introduction of what came to be known as the kolah-e Naderi. This was a hat with four peaks which symbolised the first four caliphs of Islam.[1] Alternatively, it has also been recorded that the four peaks symbolised the territories of Persia, India, Turkestan, and Khwarezm.[48]

In 1741, eight Muslim scholars and three European and five Armenian priests translated the Koran and the Gospels[clarification needed]. The commission was supervised by Mīrzā Moḥammad Mahdī Khan Monšī, the court historiographer and author of the Tarikh-e-Jahangoshay-e-Naderi (History of Nader Shah's Wars). Finished translations were presented to Nader Shah in Qazvīn in June 1741, who, however, was not impressed.[citation needed]

Nader diverted money going to Shia mullahs and redirected it to his army instead.[24][page needed]

Invasion of India

[edit]
The flank march of Nader's army at the Battle of Khyber pass has been called a "military masterpiece" by the Russian general and historian, Kishmishev.

In 1738, Nader Shah conquered Kandahar, the last outpost of the Hotaki dynasty. His thoughts now turned to the Mughal Empire of India. This once powerful Muslim state to the east was falling apart as the nobles became increasingly disobedient and local opponents such as the Sikhs and Hindu Marathas of the Maratha Empire were expanding upon its territory. Its ruler Muhammad Shah was powerless to reverse this disintegration. Nader asked for the Afghan rebels to be handed over, but the Mughal emperor refused. Nader used the pretext of his Afghan enemies taking refuge in India to cross the border and invade the militarily weak but still extremely wealthy eastern empire,[49] and in a brilliant campaign against the governor of Peshawar he took a small contingent of his forces on a daunting flank march through nearly impassable mountain passes and took the enemy forces positioned at the mouth of the Khyber Pass completely by surprise, utterly beating them despite being outnumbered two-to-one. This led to the capture of Ghazni, Kabul, Peshawar, Sindh, and Lahore. As he moved into the Mughal territories, he was loyally accompanied by his Georgian subject and future king of eastern Georgia, Erekle II, who led a Georgian contingent as a military commander as part of Nader's force.[50] Following the prior defeat of Mughal forces, he then advanced deeper into India, crossing the river Indus before the end of year. The news of the Iranian army's swift and decisive successes against the northern vassal states of the Mughal empire caused much consternation in Delhi, prompting the Mughal ruler, Muhammad Shah, to raise an army of some 300,000 men and march to confront Nader Shah.[51]

At the Battle of Karnal, Nader crushed an enormous Mughal army that was six times greater than his own.

Despite being outnumbered by six to one, Nader Shah crushed the Mughal army in less than three hours at the huge Battle of Karnal on 13 February 1739. After this spectacular victory, Nader captured Mohammad Shah and entered Delhi.[52] When a rumour broke out that Nader had been assassinated, some Indians attacked and killed Iranian troops; by midday 900 Iranian soldiers had been killed.[53] Nader, furious, reacted by ordering his soldiers to sack the city. During the course of one day (22 March) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were killed by the Iranian troops and as many as 10,000 women and children were taken as slaves, forcing Mohammad Shah to beg Nader for mercy.[54][53]

In response, Nader Shah agreed to withdraw, but Mohammad Shah paid the consequence in handing over the keys of his royal treasury, and losing even the fabled Peacock Throne to the Iranian emperor.[55] The Peacock Throne, thereafter, served as a symbol of Iranian imperial might. It is estimated that Nader took away with him treasures worth as much as seven hundred million rupees. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader also looted the Koh-i-Noor (meaning "Mountain of Light" in Persian) and Darya-ye Noor (meaning "Sea of Light") diamonds. The Iranian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May 1739, but before they left, he ceded back to Muhammad Shah all territories to the east of the Indus which he had overrun.[56] The booty they had collected was loaded on 700 elephants, 4,000 camels, and 12,000 horses.[53]

Nader Shah left the area via the mountains in Northern Punjab. Learning of his planned route, the Sikhs started gathering light cavalry bands, and planned an attack to capture his plunder.[57] The Sikhs fell upon Nader's army in the Chenab valley, and seized a large amount of the booty and freed most of the slaves in captivity.[58][59][60][61] The Persians, however, were unable to pursue the Sikhs, because they were overloaded with the remaining plunder and overwhelmed by the terrible heat of that May.[62] Traveling with an advance guard, Nader Shah stopped at Lahore where he learned of his losses.[62][63] He traveled back to his forces, accompanied by Governor Zakariya Khan. Upon learning about the Sikhs, he told Khan that these rebels would one day rule the land.[citation needed] Still, the remaining plunder his forces had seized from India was so much that Nader was able to stop taxation in Iran for three years following his return.[64][65][66]

Many historians believe that Nader attacked the Mughal Empire to give his country some breathing space after previous turmoil. His successful campaign and replenishment of funds meant that he could continue his wars against Iran's archrival and neighbour, the Ottoman Empire,[24][page needed] as well as the campaigns in the North Caucasus. Nader also secured one of the Mughal emperor's daughters, Jahan Afruz Banu Begum, as a bride for his youngest son.

Central Asia, North Caucasus, Arabia, and the second Ottoman war

[edit]
Portrait of Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar

The Indian campaign was the zenith of Nader's career. Afterwards he became increasingly despotic as his health declined markedly. Nader had left his son Reza Qoli Mirza to rule Iran in his absence. Reza had behaved highhandedly and somewhat cruelly but he had kept the peace in Iran. Having heard rumours that his father had died, he had made preparations for assuming the crown. These included the murder of the former shah Tahmasp and his family, including the nine-year-old Abbas III. On hearing the news, Reza's wife, who was Tahmasp's sister, committed suicide. Nader was not impressed with his son's waywardness and reprimanded him, but he took him on his expedition to conquer territory in Transoxiana. In 1740, he conquered the Khanate of Khiva. After the Iranians had forced the Uzbek Khanate of Bukhara to submit, Nader wanted Reza to marry the khan's elder daughter because she was a descendant of his hero Genghis Khan, but Reza flatly refused and Nader married the girl himself.[67]

With regard to Central Asia, Nader viewed Merv (present-day Bayramali, Turkmenistan) vital to his north-eastern defenses. He also tried to secure the ruler of Bukhara as his vassal, imitating previous great conquerors of Mongol-Timurid descent. According to a British scholar Peter Avery, Nader's attitude towards Bukhara was irredentist to an extent that he "may even have thought that, if only the Ottoman power in the west could be contained, he might make Bukhara a base for conquests further afield in Central Asia". Nader dispatched numerous artisans to Merv in a move to prepare for an improbable conquest of distant Kashgaria. Such a campaign did not materialize, but Nader frequently sent funds and engineers to Merv trying to restore its prosperity and rebuild its ill-fated dam. Merv, however, did not become prosperous.[68]

The Battle of Kars (1745) was the last major field battle Nader fought in his military career.

Nader now decided to punish Dagestan for the death of his brother Ebrahim Qoli on a campaign a few years earlier. In 1741, while Nader was passing through the forest of Mazanderan on his way to fight the Dagestanis, an assassin took a shot at him but Nader was only lightly wounded. He began to suspect his son was behind the attempt and confined him to Tehran. Nader's increasing ill health made his temper ever worse. Perhaps it was his illness that made Nader lose the initiative in his war against the Lezgin tribes of Dagestan. Frustratingly for him, they resorted to guerrilla warfare and the Iranians could make little headway against them.[69] Though Nader managed to take most of Dagestan during his campaign, the effective guerrilla warfare as deployed by the Lezgins, but also the Avars and Laks made the Iranian re-conquest of the particular North Caucasian region a short lived one; several years later, Nader was forced to withdraw. During the same period, Nader accused his son of being behind the assassination attempt in Mazanderan. Reza Qoli angrily protested his innocence, but Nader had him blinded as punishment, and ordered his eyes to be brought to him on a platter. When his orders had been carried out, however, Nader instantly regretted it, crying out to his courtiers, "What is a father? What is a son?"[70]

Soon afterwards, Nader started executing the nobles who had witnessed his son's blinding. In his last years, Nader became increasingly paranoid, ordering the assassination of large numbers of suspected enemies. Following the orders of Nader Shah, his soldiers executed 150 monks at Monastery of Saint Elijah after they refused to convert to Islam.[71] With the wealth he gained, Nader started to build an Iranian navy. With lumber from Mazandaran, he built ships in Bushehr. He also purchased thirty ships in India.[1] He recaptured the island of Bahrain from the Arabs. In 1743, he conquered Oman and its main capital Muscat. In 1743, Nader started another war against the Ottoman Empire. Despite having a huge army at his disposal, in this campaign Nader showed little of his former military brilliance. It ended in 1746 with the signing of a peace treaty, the Treaty of Kerden, in which the Ottomans agreed to let Nader occupy Najaf.[72]

Domestic policies

[edit]
Silver coin of Nader Shah, minted in Dagestan, dated 1741/2 (left = obverse; right = reverse)

Nader changed the Iranian coinage system. He minted silver coins, called Naderi, that were equal to the Mughal rupee.[1] Nader discontinued the policy of paying soldiers based on land tenure.[1] Like the late Safavids he resettled tribes. Nader Shah transformed the Shahsevan, a nomadic group living around Azerbaijan whose name literally means "shah lover", into a tribal confederacy which defended Iran against the neighbouring Ottomans and Russians.[73][74] In addition, he increased the number of soldiers under his command and reduced the number of soldiers under tribal and provincial control.[1] His reforms may have strengthened the country, but they did little to improve Iran's suffering economy.[1] He also always paid his troops on time, no matter what.[75]

Foreign policies

[edit]
A map of the Afsharid Empire at its greatest extent, in 1741–1745

In order to construct a broad political framework that could link him to the Ottomans and Mughals more closely than the Safavids had been, Nader Shah started creating new concepts. One of these was a focus on a shared Turkmen descent, by having several official documents evoke how Nader Shah, the Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals all had a shared Turkmen background. In a broad sense, this concept mirrored the origin fables of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties.[1] The Ottomans, however, were left unimpressed with Nader Shah's new concept. According to the modern historian Ernest Tucker, comparing this concept to an early version of "pan-Turkism" would be "anachronistic and misleading." He adds that this was part of unpolished drafts of concepts that would get polished throughout the 11 years of Nader Shah's reign, and would include wide political and religious aspects.[76]

Nader's concepts regarding the Ja'farism and common Turkmen descent were directed primarily at the Ottomans and Mughals. He may have perceived a need to unite disparate components of the ummah against the expanding power of Europe at that time, however his view of Muslim unity was different from later concepts of it.[1]

He proposed a peace treaty with the Ottomans, in it, he proclaimed the Persians wanted the Ja'fari Maddhab to be incorporated as a Madhhab of Islam. An Ottoman delegation led by Mirahor Mustafa Paşa visited Nader in 1346-1340 to have negotiations in regards to this.[d] While only a nominal claim, Nader's army was increasingly drawing from Sunni Afghans, Kurds, Turkmens, Baloch, and others who were happy with a less sectarian Persia. Externally he presented Persia as completely sympathetic to Sunnis. He probably did this for political reasons in order to increase his legitimacy within the Muslim world; he would have never been accepted if he remained a radical Shia Muslim like the Safavid Shahs. Though as stated countless times before, internally, he was probably agnostic.[24][page needed]

Whenever Nader laid siege to a city, he would construct a city of his own outside the walls. His encampment was filled with markets, mosques, bathhouses, coffeehouses, and stables. He did this to show the besieged his army would be there for the long haul, to prevent diseases from spreading within his troops' ranks, and to occupy his troops' time.[24][page needed]

Death and legacy

[edit]
Depiction of the assassination of Nader Shah in 1747
A Western view of Nader in his later years from a book by Jonas Hanway (1753). The background shows a tower of skulls.[77]
Nader Shah's dagger with a small portion of his jewelry. Now part of the Iranian Crown Jewels.

Nader became increasingly cruel as a result of his illness and his desire to extort more and more tax money to pay for his military campaigns. New revolts broke out and Nader crushed them ruthlessly, building towers from his victims' skulls in imitation of his hero Timur. In 1747, Nader set off for Khorasan, where he intended to punish Kurdish rebels. Some of his officers and courtiers feared he was about to execute them and plotted against him, including two of his relatives: Muhammad Quli Khan, the captain of the guards, and Salah Khan, the overseer of Nader's household. Nader Shah was assassinated on 20 June 1747,[78] at Quchan in Khorasan. He was surprised in his sleep by around fifteen conspirators, and stabbed to death. Nader was able to kill two of the assassins before he died.[79]

The most detailed account of Nader's assassination comes from Père Louis Bazin, Nader's physician at the time of his death, who relied on the eyewitness testimony of Chuki, one of Nader's favourite concubines:

Around fifteen of the conspirators were impatient or merely eager to distinguish themselves, and so turned up prematurely at the agreed meeting place. They entered the enclosure of the royal tent, pushing and smashing their way through any obstacles, and penetrated into the sleeping quarters of that ill-starred monarch. The noise they made on entering woke him up: 'Who goes there?' he shouted out in a roar. 'Where is my sword? Bring me my weapons!' The assassins were struck with fear by these words and wanted to escape, but ran straight into the two chiefs of the murder-conspiracy, who allayed their fears and made them go into the tent again. Nader Shah had not yet had time to get dressed; Muhammad Quli Khan ran in first and struck him with a great blow of his sword which felled him to the ground; two or three others followed suit; the wretched monarch, covered in his own blood, attempted – but was too weak – to get up, and cried out, 'Why do you want to kill me? Spare my life and all I have shall be yours!' He was still pleading when Salah Khan ran up, sword in hand and severed his head, which he dropped into the hands of a waiting soldier. Thus perished the wealthiest monarch on earth.[53]

After his death, he was succeeded by his nephew Ali Qoli, who renamed himself Adel Shah ("righteous king"). Adel Shah was probably involved in the assassination plot.[34] Adel Shah was deposed within a year. During the struggle between Adel Shah, his brother Ibrahim Khan and Nader's grandson Shah Rukh, almost all provincial governors declared independence, established their own states, and the entire Empire of Nader Shah fell into anarchy. Oman and the Uzbek khanates of Bukhara and Khiva regained independence, while the Ottoman Empire regained the lost territories in Western Armenia and Mesopotamia. Finally, Karim Khan founded the Zand dynasty and became ruler of Iran by 1760. Erekle II and Teimuraz II, who, in 1744, had been made the kings of Kakheti and Kartli respectively by Nader himself for their loyal service,[80] capitalized on the eruption of instability, and declared de facto independence. Erekle II assumed control over Kartli after Teimuraz II's death, thus unifying the two as the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, becoming the first Georgian ruler in three centuries to preside over a politically unified eastern Georgia,[81] and due to the frantic turn of events in mainland Iran he would be able to maintain its autonomy until the advent of the Iranian Qajar dynasty.[82] The rest of the Iranian territories in the Caucasus, comprising modern-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Dagestan broke away into various khanates. Until the advent of the Zands and Qajars, its rulers had various forms of autonomy, but stayed vassals and subjects to the Iranian king.[83] In the far east, Ahmad Shah Durrani had already proclaimed independence, marking the foundation of modern Afghanistan. Iran finally lost Bahrain to House of Khalifa during Invasion of Bani Utbah in 1783.

Nader Shah was well known to the European public of the time. In 1768, Christian VII of Denmark commissioned Sir William Jones to translate a Persian language biography of Nader Shah written by his Minister Mirza Mehdi Khan Astarabadi into French.[84] It was published in 1770 as Histoire de Nadir Chah.[85] Nader's Indian campaign alerted the East India Company to the extreme weakness of the Mughal Empire and the possibility of expanding to fill the power vacuum. Without Nader, "eventual British [rule in India] would have come later and in a different form, perhaps never at all – with important global effects".[86] Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union is said to have admired him and called him a teacher (alongside Ivan the Terrible).[87]

The military success of Nader was nearly unprecedented for Muslim Shahs.[24][page needed]

Flag

[edit]

Nader Shah consciously avoided using the colour green, as green was associated with Shia Islam and the Safavid dynasty.[88]

Personality

[edit]

The strong character of Nader Shah is indicated by the fact that having achieved much fame and glory, he did not allow his pleasers to find great ancestors in the darkness of his origin. He never boasted of a proud genealogy; on the contrary, he often spoke of his simple origin. Even his chronicler was forced to limit himself by saying that diamond was valued not by the rock where it had been found, but by its splendor. There is a story that says, having demanded the daughter of his defeated enemy Muhammad Shah, the Emperor of Delhi, to marry his son Nasrullah, he received the answer that a royal lineage up to the 7th generation was required for marriage with a princess from the House of Timur.[89]

"Tell him," Nader replied, "that Nasrullah is the son of Nader Shah, the son and grandson of the sword, and so on, not until the 7th, but until the 70th generation."[89] Nader had the greatest contempt for the weak, depraved Muhammad Shah, who, according to the local chronicler of that era, "was always with his mistress in his arms and a glass in his hand," and was the lowest libertine and simply a puppet ruler.[90] Nader Shah once had a conversation with a holy man about paradise. After what that man described miracles and pleasures of the heaven, the shah asked:

"Are there such things as war and victory over the enemy in paradise?" When the man answered negatively, Nader replied: "How can there be any pleasure then?"[citation needed]

French orientalist Louis Bazin describes the personality of Nader Shah as follows:

Despite his obscure background, he looked born for the throne. Nature endowed him with all the great qualities that make heroes ... His dyed beard made a sharp contrast with his completely gray hair; his natural physique was strong, tall, and his waist was proportional to his growth; his expression was gloomy, with an oblong face, an aquiline nose and a beautiful mouth, but with his lower lip protruding forward. He had small penetrating eyes with a sharp and piercing gaze; his voice was rude and loud, although he knew how to soften it on occasion, as required by personal interest...

He did not have a permanent home – his military camp was his court; his palace was his tent, and his closest confidants were his bravest soldiers ... Undaunted in battle, he brought courage, and was always in the thick of danger among his brave men, as long as the battle lasted ... He did not neglect any of the measures dictated by foresight ... Nevertheless, the repulsive greed and unprecedented cruelties that wore his subjects, ultimately led to his fall, and the extremes and horrors that were caused by him, made Persia cry. He was adored, feared and cursed at the same time.[91]

English traveler Jonas Hanway, who lived in the courtyard of Nader Shah, describes him:

Nader Shah is taller than 6 feet, well-built, very physically strong. He has such an unusually loud voice that he can give orders to his people at a distance of about 100 yards. He drinks wine moderately, hours of his rest among ladies are very rare, his food is simple, and if government affairs require his presence, he rejects his meal and satisfies hunger with fried peas (which he always carries in his pocket) and a sip of water... He is extremely generous, especially to his warriors, and generously rewards all who have distinguished themselves in his service. At the same time, he is very severe and strict in relation to discipline, punishing with the death penalty all who have committed major misconduct... He never forgives the guilty, no matter what rank he is. Being on a march or in the field, he confines himself to food, drink and sleep of a simple soldier and forces all his officers to follow the same harsh discipline. He has such a strong physique that he often sleeps on a frosty night on bare ground in the open air, wrapping himself only in his cloak and putting a saddle under his head as a pillow. In private conversations, no one is allowed to talk about government affairs.[92]

Member of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre Bayen wrote about Nader Shah the following:

He was the horror of the Ottoman Empire, the conqueror of India, the ruler of Persia and all of Asia. His neighbors respected him, his enemies were afraid of him, and he lacked only the love of his subjects.[93][page needed]

One Punjabi contemporary poet described the rule of Nader as a time "when all of India trembled with horror."[94] The Kashmiri historian Lateef described him as follows: "Nader Shah, the horror of Asia, the pride and savior of his country, the restorer of her freedom and conqueror of India, who, having a simple origin, rose to such greatness that monarchs rarely have from birth."[95] Joseph Stalin used to read about Nader Shah and admired him, calling him, along with Ivan the Terrible, a teacher. In Europe, Nader Shah was compared to Alexander the Great. Starting from a young age, Napoleon Bonaparte also used to read about and admire Nader Shah. Napoleon considered himself the new Nader, and he himself was later called European Nader Shah.[96]

Nader was somewhat austere in his daily life. He always preferred plain garments and disdained courtly sophistication and lavish lifestyles, particularly that of the Safavids. He ate simple foods and restrained himself from being tied to his harem and liquor, unlike Soltan Hoseyn and Tahmasp II.[97]

Nader did not want historians to detail his military victories too closely because he feared others would copy his brilliant techniques on the battlefield.[24][page needed]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Nader Shah (1688–1747), originally named Nāder Qoli Beg, was a Turkmen warrior of the Afshar tribe who rose from pastoral obscurity to found the as of from 1736 until his death, establishing one of the 18th century's most expansive empires through relentless military campaigns. Emerging during the Safavid Empire's collapse following Afghan Hotaki invasions in the early 1720s, Nader systematically reconquered Persian territories, defeating the Afghans at battles such as in 1729 and culminating in the capture of in 1738, thereby restoring centralized rule. He then turned against the , securing victories at the Battles of and in 1733, which forced Ottoman retreats from western Persia and the . His most audacious campaign invaded Mughal India in 1739, where his forces decisively crushed the Mughals at and sacked , extracting vast treasures including the and diamond, which funded further expansions into against Uzbek khanates. At its zenith, Nader's empire spanned from the and in the west to the in the east, incorporating modern-day , , parts of , , Georgia, , , and northern , rivaling the contemporary Ottoman and Mughal domains in scale and briefly positioning him as the Middle East's preeminent sovereign. Renowned for tactical innovations like mobile and tribal integration, his conquests demonstrated exceptional strategic acumen, yet his rule devolved into tyranny marked by fiscal exactions, religious persecutions, and paranoia-fueled purges, alienating even loyalists. Assassinated by his own guards on 20 June 1747 near , Nader's death triggered the Afsharid Empire's swift fragmentation into successor states, underscoring the fragility of his personally dominated realm.

Origins and Early Career

Birth and Tribal Background

Nader Shah, originally named Nadr Qoli, was born in November 1688 into a humble family at their winter camp in Darra Gaz, located in the mountains north of in the region of . He belonged to the Qirqlu subgroup of the Afšār Turkmen tribe, a Turkic-speaking nomadic that had been resettled by Shah Esmāʿil I in the early to northern Khorasan as part of the Qizilbāš tribal forces loyal to the . These Afšār groups served as frontier defenders against Uzbek incursions from the east, maintaining a semi-nomadic centered on and seasonal migrations. The Afšār tribe traced its origins to the of , with the Qirqlu clan specifically noted for its pastoral economy and martial traditions, which provided the backbone for local leadership in turbulent border regions. Nader's family exemplified this modest tribal existence, with his father, Imām-Qoli, working as a or herdsman, reflecting the socio-economic status typical of Afšār pastoralists who supplemented herding with limited agriculture and raiding. Such backgrounds fostered early familiarity with horsemanship, tribal warfare, and survival in arid terrains, skills that later propelled Nader's military ascent amid the Safavid collapse. The tribe's integration into Safavid service had elevated some Afšār leaders to provincial governorships, but Nader's immediate kin remained outside elite circles, underscoring his rise from obscurity.

Initial Military Service

Nader Qoli Beg, born into the Afshar tribe in Khorasan around 1688, entered military life amid the nomadic warriors' tradition of raiding and defense against regional threats such as Uzbek incursions. At approximately age 18, circa 1706, he was captured during an Uzbek raid but escaped, honing survival skills that propelled him into armed irregular activities. By the early , following the Safavid collapse and Afghan dominance in eastern , Nader joined a band of robbers preying on disrupted trade routes and weakened authorities in Khorasan, quickly rising to lead them through demonstrated combat effectiveness and leadership. He then offered his band's services to Malik Mahmud Sistani, an Afghan warlord ruling Kalat who had defected from Hotaki overlord Ashraf around 1725–1726; Nader served under him initially but betrayed him during an assault on in Mazandaran. Aligning with Fath-Ali Khan Daghestani, the Safavid-aligned governor of Mazandaran, Nader's forces contributed to repelling Malik Mahmud, securing victory and earning Nader the governorship of Kalat as reward—his first formal administrative and command. This episode highlighted his tactical , shifting allegiances to exploit power vacuums in a fragmented landscape of tribal and Afghan factions.

Response to Safavid Collapse

Following the Hotaki Afghan capture of on 22 1722 and the subsequent abdication of the enfeebled Shah Sultan Husayn, the Safavid realm dissolved into anarchy, with Hotaki forces dominating central Persia while opportunistic warlords, Turkmen tribes, and rival Afghan groups vied for peripheral provinces. In northeastern , Nader Qoli Beg of the Afshar tribe positioned himself as a bulwark against this disorder, leveraging his experience as a semi-nomadic to rally local Turkmen levies and resist both Afghan raiders and internal challengers who exploited the power vacuum. His initial maneuvers emphasized defensive consolidation around key strongholds like , where he repelled early Hotaki incursions that had destabilized the region since 1719, preventing full Afghan overreach into the northeast. By the mid-1720s, Nader had neutralized prominent local adversaries, most notably besieging and defeating Malek Mahmoud Sistani, a Sistani who had seized and much of amid the collapse, thereby restoring order to the provincial capital and securing tribute from surrounding districts. This victory, achieved through tactical encirclements and exploitation of tribal rivalries, elevated Nader's stature, allowing him to amass an army numbering several thousand horsemen drawn from Afshar, Qajar, and other Turkmen clans. He further solidified his base by forging marital alliances with regional potentates, such as Baba Ali Beg of Abivard, which provided logistical support and intelligence networks essential for countering nomadic incursions. In late 1726, amid ongoing fragmentation where Ottoman and Russian forces encroached on western Safavid lands, Nader aligned with Tahmasp Mirza—proclaimed Shah in earlier that year as a Safavid claimant—replacing the slain Qajar commander Fath Ali Khan and adopting the Tahmasb-qoli Khan to signal loyalty to the puppet monarch. This partnership, pragmatic rather than ideological, enabled Nader to channel resources from Tahmasp's nominal court toward fortifying , including the recapture of strategic outposts from Afghan garrisons and the integration of defecting Hotaki auxiliaries disillusioned with their leaders' overextension. By prioritizing mobility and scorched-earth tactics against raiders, Nader's forces inflicted attrition on invaders, preserving 's autonomy and laying the groundwork for offensive reversals that would culminate in the expulsion of Hotaki rulers from Persia.

Rise Through Conquest

Defeat of the Hotaki Afghans

In 1729, Nader, commanding forces loyal to the Safavid claimant , initiated a series of campaigns to dislodge the Hotaki Afghans from central Persia following their conquest of in 1722 under Mahmud Hotaki and subsequent rule by his cousin Ashraf Hotaki. Having consolidated power in , Nader first subdued rebellious Abdali Afghans near in May 1729, incorporating many into his ranks before advancing westward against Ashraf's larger army. The decisive engagement occurred at the Battle of Damghan (also known as Mehmandust) on 29 September 1729, where Nader's approximately 25,000 troops, leveraging disciplined , maneuvers, and effective , routed Ashraf's 40,000–50,000 Afghan forces despite being outnumbered. Ashraf retreated toward , but Nader pursued relentlessly, forcing another confrontation at the Battle of Zarghan (or Mihmandust) on 15 January 1730, where his 20,000–30,000 men again overwhelmed the Afghans' 10,000–20,000, compelling Ashraf to flee southward to ; Ashraf was subsequently murdered by local rivals en route. These victories enabled Nader to enter in December 1729, restoring to nominal authority and effectively ending Hotaki control over Persia's core territories, though pockets of Afghan resistance persisted in the east. Nader's tactical emphasis on mobility, feigned retreats, and integration of defectors exemplified his military acumen, transforming a fragmented force into a cohesive capable of reversing the Safavid . The campaigns marked the beginning of Nader's dominance, shifting Hotaki remnants to defensive positions in , culminating in the prolonged from 1736 to 1738 against Hussain Hotaki, Ashraf's successor.

Reconquest of the Caucasus

Following the defeat of the Hotaki Afghan forces and the reassertion of Safavid control over core Persian territories by 1732, Nader directed his military efforts northward to reclaim the regions lost to Ottoman occupation amid the Safavid collapse of the 1720s. These areas, including parts of , , , and Georgia, had been seized by Ottoman forces exploiting Persia's weakness, with the empire claiming over eastern Caucasian principalities. Nader's strategy emphasized rapid mobilization of his disciplined and , leveraging alliances to neutralize Russian claims while confronting Ottoman garrisons directly. In August 1734, Nader subdued by capturing its capital, , from Ottoman control, securing a key gateway to the eastern and disrupting enemy supply lines. He then laid to the fortified Ottoman stronghold of on 3 November 1734, a campaign that lasted until 9 July 1735 despite fierce resistance from the garrison. Russian artillery engineers provided critical technical support during the siege, reflecting Nader's pragmatic to counter shared Ottoman threats. On 10 March 1735, amid the ongoing siege, Nader concluded the Treaty of Ganja with Russian representatives, whereby Russia relinquished most territories it had acquired in the 1720s—such as , , and parts of —and committed to a defensive against the Ottomans, allowing Nader to focus on Persian reconquest without a northern front. The fall of enabled Nader to advance into and Georgia, culminating in the Battle of Yeghevard (also known as Baghavard) in September 1735, where his forces decisively defeated a larger Ottoman through tactical flanking maneuvers and seizure of enemy artillery. This victory expelled Ottoman troops from the region, restoring Persian over Georgia and and compelling the Ottomans to negotiate, leading to the broader Perso-Ottoman truce of 1736 that largely affirmed Nader's gains in the . The reconquest demonstrated Nader's operational superiority in mountainous terrain, with his —estimated at around 50,000-80,000 men—outmaneuvering Ottoman numerical advantages through mobility and coordination with local Georgian and Armenian levies wary of prolonged Ottoman rule. By late 1735, Persian authority was reimposed across the eastern , bolstering Nader's prestige and resources for subsequent expansions.

First War with the Ottoman Empire

In the spring of 1730, following his victories against the Hotaki Afghans, Nader Shah launched a campaign against Ottoman forces that had occupied western Persian territories during the Safavid collapse. He advanced through western Persia, defeating Ottoman troops in the Battle of Hamadan, which allowed him to recapture Hamadan, Tabriz, and much of Kurdistan by August 1730. This swift operation restored Persian control over key regions lost in the chaos of the prior decade, demonstrating Nader's tactical superiority through rapid maneuvers and exploitation of local alliances, including with Sunni Kurds sympathetic to his background. The campaign was interrupted when Nader diverted forces to relieve a siege by Abdali Afghans on Mashhad in Khorasan, temporarily halting further advances. In January 1731, Shah , acting independently of Nader, mounted an offensive against Ottoman-held , but the siege ended in failure by early 1732, enabling Ottoman forces under to reoccupy lost territories in and western Persia. This setback prompted Nader to depose Tahmasp in August 1732 and assume regency for the infant , consolidating his authority to resume hostilities. By late 1732, Nader invaded , besieging from January to July 1733 with an army estimated at around 70,000 men, aiming to pressure the Ottomans into negotiations. The siege of Baghdad faltered when a relief force of approximately 80,000 Ottomans under Pasha decisively defeated Nader's troops at the Battle of Samarra on July 19, 1733, inflicting heavy casualties and forcing a Persian withdrawal. Despite this reversal, Nader negotiated a provisional in December 1733 with Ahmad Pasha of , which sought to restore the 1639 borders, exchange prisoners, and secure protections for Persian pilgrims to Shia shrines; however, disputes over territories prevented ratification. Nader then shifted focus northward, conducting campaigns in the from 1734 to 1735 that recaptured , , and other fortresses from Ottoman garrisons, culminating in victories that neutralized threats in and Georgia. The war concluded in a stalemate by 1735, with Persia regaining most pre-1722 territories in the west and but unable to secure lasting concessions in or formal Ottoman acknowledgment of gains. Nader's forces demonstrated innovative use and disciplined , contributing to six major victories over Ottoman armies, though logistical strains and divided command under Tahmasp had limited overall strategic success. This conflict honed Nader's military organization, paving the way for his subsequent conquests while exposing Ottoman vulnerabilities in coordinating multi-front defenses.

Ascension to Power

Alliance and Rivalry with Tahmasp II

In the mid-1720s, following the Afghan Hotaki invasion that toppled the Safavid dynasty in 1722, Nader aligned himself with Tahmasp Mirza, son of the deposed Shah Soltan Hosayn, who had proclaimed himself Shah Tahmasp II in Qazvin. Nader, leveraging his military prowess from campaigns in Khorasan, became Tahmasp II's principal commander, supplanting the Qajar leader Fath Ali Khan and securing key victories that bolstered the Safavid claimant. This alliance provided Nader with legitimacy under the Safavid banner while allowing him to expand his influence across eastern Persia. By 1729, Nader's forces decisively defeated Afghan remnants, culminating in the Battle of Mehmāndust on September 29, which enabled the re-entry into by December and the formal enthronement of as shah, nominally restoring Safavid rule. To solidify ties, in 1730, Nader arranged the marriage of his son Reza Qoli Mirza to Tahmasp II's sister Fatima Sultan Begum in , further intertwining their interests and granting Nader governorship over eastern provinces including his native . These steps positioned Nader as the , directing military efforts against lingering threats. Tensions emerged during the Ottoman-Persian War, as Nader led successful campaigns reclaiming western territories from 1730 onward, but Tahmasp II undertook an independent expedition against the Ottomans from January 1731 to January 1732, resulting in severe defeats and the loss of key regions such as and . Upon Nader's return to in 1732, the shah's diplomatic blunders—ceding territories via the Treaty of —provided pretext for confrontation, highlighting Tahmasp II's incompetence in contrast to Nader's victories. In August 1732, Nader compelled to abdicate in , installing the infant as nominal shah and assuming the regency himself, effectively sidelining the Safavid line while retaining its symbolic authority. This maneuver marked the transition from alliance to rivalry, as Nader's accumulated power and Tahmasp II's failures eroded the shah's position, setting the stage for Nader's own ascension four years later. Contemporary accounts, such as those by Muhammad Kazim Astarabadi, portray Nader's actions as a necessary correction to restore stability amid Safavid weakness.

Coronation as Shah

In the aftermath of his successful campaigns against the , which culminated in the recovery of western territories by early 1736, Nader Qoli Khan convened a grand assembly of nomadic and sedentary tribal leaders, commanders, and religious figures on the Moghan to formalize his supreme authority. This qoroltai, echoing the traditions of Mongol and Timurid khans, followed the effective sidelining of the infant Safavid puppet Abbas III, whom Nader had installed as nominal ruler in 1732 after deposing his father . The assembly's acclamation effectively ended Safavid legitimacy, transitioning power to Nader's Afsharid lineage. The coronation ceremony occurred on 8 March 1736, a date selected by Nader's astrologers as particularly auspicious. Amid a vast encampment, the gathered elites proclaimed Nader as shah after several days of deliberations, during which he delivered a speech outlining key policies, including the redefinition of Twelver Shi'ism under the Ja'fari madhhab to align more closely with Sunni jurisprudence and facilitate peace negotiations with the Ottomans. Attendees were required to sign an agreement endorsing these reforms and Nader's rule, underscoring the conditional nature of his elevation based on military prowess and pragmatic governance. Just prior, Nader had stipulated five conditions for Ottoman peace, prominently featuring Ja'fari recognition, though a comprehensive treaty remained elusive. Adopting the regnal name Nader Shah Afshar, he marked the founding of the , which prioritized tribal confederation and martial discipline over the clerical dominance of the Safavids. Primary accounts, such as those by Muhammad Kazim Astarabadi, Nader's court historian, emphasize the ceremony's role in consolidating loyalty among fractious Persian factions through demonstrated conquests rather than hereditary divine right.

Consolidation of Afsharid Rule

Following his self-coronation on 8 March 1736 near the Mughan plains, Nader Shah acted swiftly to eliminate the Safavid puppet regime that had lent him legitimacy during his rise, deposing the infant and thereby formally inaugurating Afsharid rule over . This move severed ties to the , which many regional notables and religious figures still viewed as the legitimate authority, prompting immediate resistance from Safavid loyalists in central provinces like and Fars. Nader responded with targeted military expeditions, deploying detachments of his disciplined and units to quell these uprisings, executing ringleaders and confiscating lands from disloyal landowners to redistribute among Afshar tribesmen. These operations, completed by late 1736, reasserted central authority and demonstrated the fragility of opposition against Nader's battle-hardened forces, which numbered over 100,000 regulars by this point. To prevent Safavid restoration plots, Nader confined the deposed —whom he had previously forced to abdicate in favor of Abbas—and ordered his blinding, a to render him unfit for leadership while preserving his life as a symbolic deterrent. Concurrently, Nader restructured provincial by installing family members and trusted Afshar commanders as governors (beglerbegis), such as his eldest son Reza Qoli Mirza in and Nasrollah Mirza in eastern provinces, thereby embedding dynastic loyalty into the administrative framework and diluting the power of pre-existing Safavid-era elites. This tribal favoritism, while effective for short-term control, sowed seeds of factionalism among non-Afshar groups like the Qajars and Bakhtiaris, whom Nader subdued through forced migrations and integration into frontier garrisons. Nader also initiated fiscal adjustments to sustain his military apparatus, discontinuing the Safavid-era practice of compensating troops via land grants (toyul) in favor of direct cash payments from revenues, which incentivized but required ongoing conquests for funding. These measures, implemented amid 1736–1737 campaigns against lingering tribal dissidents in Luristan and Khuzestan, stabilized core Iranian territories by mid-1737, allowing Nader to redirect resources toward external threats without immediate fear of collapse from within. However, reliance on and tribal underscored the conquest-driven nature of Afsharid stability, as economic pressures from taxes fueled latent discontent among urban merchants and peasants.

Peak of Empire: Major Campaigns

Invasion of Mughal India

Nader Shah's invasion of Mughal India commenced in 1738 as part of his broader campaigns to secure borders and expand territory following the consolidation of power in Persia. Motivated by the weakening state of the and the need to pursue Afghan rebels who had sought refuge under Mughal protection, Nader advanced through the , defeating Mughal forces there on November 26, 1738. His forces, numbering around 100,000, exploited the 's internal divisions and military disarray, which had been exacerbated by prior rebellions and administrative decline. The decisive confrontation occurred at the on February 24, 1739, where Nader's highly disciplined cavalry and artillery overwhelmed the larger Mughal army led by Emperor , estimated at over 300,000 men including allies. Despite numerical superiority, the Mughals suffered a catastrophic defeat within hours due to poor coordination and outdated tactics, resulting in heavy casualties and the capture of . Nader's innovative use of mobile and feigned retreats proved instrumental in routing the enemy. Following the victory, Nader entered on March 20, 1739, initially received with submission, but tensions escalated when reports of unrest and an assassination attempt surfaced. On March 22, he unleashed his troops on the city, leading to a that claimed between 20,000 and 30,000 lives over one day and the systematic plundering of its wealth. The loot included vast treasures such as the , the diamond, and an estimated 10 million rupees in gold and jewels, equivalent to billions in modern value, which funded Nader's subsequent military endeavors and temporarily alleviated Persia's fiscal strains. Nader departed Delhi on May 16, 1739, after installing back on the throne as a and extracting an of 20 million rupees. The invasion irreparably weakened the , accelerating its fragmentation and inviting further incursions by regional powers like the Marathas and , while enhancing Nader's reputation as a conqueror but straining his army through overextension.

Conquests in Central Asia

In 1740, following his return from the sack of , Nader Shah initiated a campaign against the Uzbek khanates of to neutralize chronic raids on Persia's northeastern frontiers and assert dominance over . His army, still augmented by Indian spoils and battle-hardened veterans, crossed the (Oxus) River via a specially constructed , enabling rapid deployment into hostile terrain. The expedition targeted the fragmented Janid khanates, whose rulers had exploited Safavid collapse but lacked unified resistance against Nader's disciplined forces equipped with artillery and musketry. The fell first, with its ruler Abu al-Fayz Khan mobilizing defenses but ultimately capitulating to avoid annihilation after demonstrations of Persian firepower. Nader occupied Bukhara without a major , entering the city and securing in March 1740 with minimal opposition, thereby gaining control over key oases and trade routes. He conscripted thousands of Uzbek horsemen into his ranks—reportedly up to 30,000 auxiliaries—and arranged a political marriage between his son Reza Qoli Mirza and Abu al-Fayz's daughter to legitimize vassalage, though the khan retained nominal autonomy under Persian oversight. Turning westward, Nader then subdued the (Khwarazm), whose khan Ilbars Sulayman Bahadur had rejected submission and executed Persian envoys, provoking retaliation. Persian troops defeated Khivan forces in engagements culminating in the capture of the capital , where Ilbars was executed and his regime dismantled. The conquest involved harsh reprisals, including population resettlements to curb future revolts, but inflicted heavy attrition on Nader's army due to desert conditions and guerrilla tactics; local disorders persisted until his death in 1747. These victories extended Afsharid influence across the , incorporating Central Asian resources into the empire, though administrative overstretch limited permanent control.

North Caucasus and Dagestan Expeditions

In the mid-1730s, during Nader Shah's broader reconquest of the from Ottoman and Russian influence, initial expeditions targeted resistant tribes in and the , including the , Avars, and Tabasarans, who conducted raids into Persian-controlled territories. These efforts, part of campaigns culminating in the Treaty of in 1735, involved skirmishes and punitive actions but failed to impose lasting control, as the tribes exploited the rugged terrain for . The major push came in spring 1741, after Nader's absences for Indian and Central Asian conquests allowed rebellions to flare; he assembled an initial force of 75,000–77,000, comprising about 54,500 combat troops from Persian provinces, , , and , plus 20,500–22,500 service personnel and . Advancing into , Nader aimed to subjugate key strongholds, but met fierce resistance; a critical at Andalal in 1741 inflicted severe casualties on his due to ambushes and supply strains. Reinforcements of around 45,000 arrived between February and April 1742, followed by 10,000 more by summer, enabling operations against Akush and Avar territories in July 1742, yet overall troop numbers swelled to roughly 110,000 without achieving decisive submission. The expeditions devolved into a grueling quagmire, with over 82,000 soldiers perishing—primarily from combat, but also hunger and disease—alongside additional losses among non-combatants, totaling more than 100,000 dead by late 1742. By October 1742, Nader's effective force had dwindled to about 20,000, prompting withdrawal amid unsubdued tribal defiance; the campaign marked a rare strategic failure for Nader, highlighting the limitations of his cavalry-heavy army against fortified mountain positions and . Local minting of coins in during the occupation reflected temporary administrative claims, but enduring control eluded him, fueling legends of tribal resilience in North Caucasian folklore.

Second Ottoman War and Arabian Campaigns

In January 1743, Nader Shah initiated the second phase of hostilities against the Ottoman Empire by invading Iraq, seeking to seize Baghdad—a city Persians had briefly held in the early 17th century—and compel Ottoman recognition of Shia Islam's Ja'fari school as the fifth Sunni madhhab. Persian forces swiftly overran rural areas and secondary towns in Ottoman Iraq, imposing blockades on major strongholds including Baghdad and Basra, but encountered stiff resistance from fortified positions equipped with Ottoman artillery. Sieges faltered amid supply shortages, severe winter conditions, and intelligence of domestic unrest in Iran, prompting Nader to lift operations without territorial gains and agree to a temporary ceasefire with Baghdad's governor, Ahmad Pasha, in December 1743. Hostilities reignited in 1745 as Nader redirected efforts northward into the to exploit Ottoman vulnerabilities. In August, his army routed Ottoman troops at Baghavard near , securing momentum for further advances. The campaign peaked at the Battle of (August 9–19, 1745), where Nader's approximately 80,000-strong force, leveraging superior mobility and firepower from reformed artillery and musket-equipped infantry, decisively annihilated an Ottoman army under Yegen , inflicting heavy casualties and capturing vast ; this triumph, however, yielded no strategic consolidation due to Nader's mounting and logistical strains. Attempts to press toward similarly aborted, as Nader decamped amid reports of rebellions, underscoring the limits of his overextended empire. Parallel to western fronts, Nader pursued Arabian campaigns to dominate the and counter and local Arab influence, dispatching expeditions against Omani ports from 1737 onward. By 1743, Persian naval forces, bolstered to around 30 vessels, briefly occupied , Oman's capital under the Ya'aruba dynasty, but sustained control eluded them due to guerrilla resistance, naval inadequacies, and diverted priorities; these efforts, while disrupting trade routes, ultimately failed to establish lasting Afsharid dominion in the region. The conflict concluded with the Treaty of Kordan in September 1746, negotiated northwest of , which reaffirmed pre-war borders, facilitated prisoner exchanges and pilgrim protections, but rejected Nader's demands for territorial cessions or doctrinal concessions, reflecting Ottoman resilience and Nader's internal crises that precluded exploitation of battlefield successes.

Administrative and Military Reforms

Innovations in Army Organization

Nader Shah implemented sweeping reforms to the Persian army, transitioning it from the tribal-dominated Safavid model toward a more centralized, professional force emphasizing , , and integrated gunpowder weaponry, which constituted a in the region. These changes, initiated during his rise to power in the 1720s and formalized after his 1736 coronation, prioritized state control over nomadic levies, reducing reliance on the tribes and incorporating diverse ethnic groups to foster internal competition and loyalty. By blending mobility with enhanced firepower, Nader created an idiosyncratic structure capable of rapid maneuvers and sustained sieges, enabling conquests across vast terrains from to the . The army's composition diversified ethnically under Nader, drawing heavily from Sunni , steppe , and Kurds, who outnumbered traditional Shiite and western Iranian elements; this shift, evident by the 1741 Dagestan campaign, minimized sectarian disaffection while promoting zealous rivalry among units. Core infantry included tofangchis, matchlock-armed foot soldiers recruited from the peasantry, and jazayerchis, specialized troops wielding heavy jazayer muskets weighing approximately 42.5 pounds (19 kilograms), often mounted for versatility. Cavalry remained dominant, comprising light horsemen equipped with muskets, swords, and axes—distinguished by the kulah-e Naderi conical helmets—and heavier armored lancers, with Afghan Abdali contingents forming an elite corps akin to "immortals" for . Artillery underwent significant innovation, with Nader re-establishing dedicated tupchi corps and emphasizing field pieces that outperformed Ottoman equivalents in rapidity and deployment, as demonstrated in battles like those against the in 1729. A hallmark was the zanburak, lightweight swivel guns mounted on camels for mobile , allowing combined-arms tactics that integrated with charges. was enforced through rigorous training and regular pay—such as 200,000 tomans distributed after the 1733 Baghdad siege—contrasting with Safavid laxity and enabling army growth from around 100,000 combatants in 1733 to 150,000 by 1741, peaking at 375,000 during the 1743 campaigns. These organizational advances, rooted in Nader's firsthand tactical experience, prioritized military efficacy over economic strain, often exempting troops from taxes to maintain readiness.

Economic and Fiscal Policies

Nader Shah implemented fiscal reforms aimed at strengthening the empire's revenue base amid ongoing military campaigns. He ordered a cadastral survey to compile the Raqabat-e Naderi land registers, which facilitated more systematic tax assessment and administration by documenting land ownership and productivity. These registers were noted for their accuracy and later utilized by subsequent rulers, such as , to maintain fiscal continuity. Following the immense wealth acquired from the Mughal treasury after the 1739 , Nader issued a suspending all for three years, alleviating immediate economic pressures and allowing resources to fund further expansions. However, as military expenditures outpaced the plundered reserves by 1741–1743, he reinstated and intensified collections to sustain the , imposing heavy exactions that provoked widespread rebellions and contributed to economic strain. The policy shift reflected a reliance on conquest-driven inflows rather than sustainable domestic , ultimately exacerbating instability as tax gatherers' demands ruined in several regions. In , Nader discontinued the Safavid silver ʿAbbāsi and introduced the Naderi, a standardized to match the weight of the Mughal , integrating Persian currency more closely with Indian trade networks. This reform sought to stabilize exchange and facilitate commerce, particularly after the influx of Indian spoils. He also amassed treasures from campaigns, constructing a fortified at Kalat-e Naderi by 1746 to safeguard assets. To bolster trade, Nader promoted as a key hub on the India-Russia route, leveraging its religious significance to attract merchants and pilgrims, though the empire's focus on warfare limited long-term economic diversification. Overall, while initial reforms addressed Safavid-era weaknesses like declining exports, the prioritization of military funding over structural investment led to fiscal overreach and post-assassination collapse.

Infrastructure and Land Management

Nader Shah centralized land administration by commissioning a cadastral survey, producing the Raqabat-e Naderi land registers for precise taxation, marking the first such comprehensive assessment since the Safavid era. This reform aimed to standardize fiscal extraction from agricultural lands amid ongoing military demands, eroding traditional distinctions between crown lands (khassa) directly controlled by the state and provincially administered lands (mamalek). He discontinued the Safavid-era practice of compensating soldiers through land grants (toyul), shifting toward cash payments to reduce feudal ties and enhance central authority over sources. To secure frontiers and curb nomadic unrest, Nader resettled tribes across the empire, transforming groups like the into a loyal confederacy tasked with border defense in and the northwest. These forced migrations, often punitive against rebellious clans such as the or , involved relocating populations from western provinces to eastern , reallocating lands to loyal Afshar tribesmen and diluting potential opposition through demographic engineering. Such policies prioritized military stability over , contributing to depopulation in some regions and straining local without corresponding investments in cultivation. Infrastructure development remained limited under Nader's rule, overshadowed by perpetual warfare and fiscal prioritization of the ; no major like extensive roads, canals, or irrigation systems are documented, unlike under earlier Safavid shahs. Efforts focused on , such as improving access routes for troop movements and establishing naval facilities in the using local timber from Gilan, but poor road conditions hindered even these initiatives. Overall, neglect of agricultural exacerbated economic strain, as constant campaigns diverted resources from sustaining land productivity, leading to reported declines in artisan and farmer welfare by the late 1740s.

Religious Policies and Sectarian Reforms

Efforts at Shia-Sunni Reconciliation

Nader Shah pursued Shia-Sunni reconciliation to alleviate persistent conflicts with the Sunni , which had been exacerbated by the Safavids' establishment of as Iran's state religion, and to consolidate loyalty in his multi-sectarian army comprising both Shia Persians and Sunni Turkic tribesmen. His initiatives aimed at subsuming core Shia doctrines within a broader Islamic framework, thereby diminishing the Shia clergy's political influence, which he viewed as an obstacle to centralized authority and fiscal control over pilgrimage revenues. A central element of these efforts was Nader's diplomatic proposal during peace negotiations with the Ottomans in the early 1740s to recognize —renamed the Ja'fari madhhab after the sixth Shia imam, —as the fifth orthodox school of alongside the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali madhhabs. This would have effectively integrated Shia into the Sunni scholarly tradition, allowing Nader to claim caliphal legitimacy while avoiding outright conversion or renunciation of Shiism, and potentially redirecting lucrative Iranian hajj funds from under his oversight. The Ottoman sultan, however, rejected the overture, insisting on full adherence to Sunni norms, which underscored the proposal's geopolitical intent over theological innovation. In June 1743, Nader convened an in , a Shia shrine city then under Ottoman , summoning approximately 1,000 from both sects to deliberate on doctrinal commonalities and endorse the Ja'fari framework as a unifying mechanism. Sessions emphasized shared beliefs in the , prophethood, and early caliphs while downplaying divisive issues like the and temporary marriage (mut'ah), with Nader personally intervening to coerce consensus through incentives and threats. Despite issuing a declaration affirming five madhhabs, the assembly exposed irreconcilable tensions, as Shia scholars resisted subordinating their tradition and Sunni delegates viewed the concessions as heretical dilutions. These attempts ultimately faltered due to entrenched sectarian identities and clerical opposition, prompting Nader to abandon formal pursuit of Ottoman endorsement by late 1743, though he enforced de facto unity by suppressing public Shia rituals like processions and executing refractory mujtahids. The policy reflected pragmatic rather than doctrinal zeal, prioritizing imperial stability over confessional purity, but it alienated Iran's Shia establishment without securing lasting Sunni acquiescence.

Persecution of Shia Clergy

Nader Shah's religious policies aimed to diminish the authority of the Shia clergy, whom he viewed as entrenched beneficiaries of Safavid legacies that perpetuated sectarian divisions and obstructed imperial unity. By suspending Safavid-era pious foundations (waqf), which had long provided financial independence to the ulama, he curtailed their economic power and redirected resources toward state needs, resuming such endowments only in his final year amid growing unrest. This measure weakened clerical influence, as the ulama relied on these institutions for patronage and doctrinal propagation, forcing many to seek alignment with the crown or face marginalization. Specific acts of suppression targeted prominent dissenters. In 1736, shortly after his coronation, Nader ordered the arrest and strangulation of the chief cleric (mulla-bashi) Mirza Abu'l-Hasan for his overt support of Safavid restoration efforts, signaling intolerance for clerical loyalty to the deposed dynasty. He issued proclamations to the ulama prohibiting phrases like " wali " in public rituals while permitting veneration of Ali, aiming to excise elements perceived as exclusively Shia and provocative to Sunnis. These edicts, enforced through state oversight, compelled compliance and eroded the clergy's interpretive autonomy. The 1743 assembly at , convened to elevate as the Ja'fari madhhab—a fifth alongside Sunni ones—intensified tensions, as Shia scholars resisted subordination to a framework that diluted distinctive Twelver doctrines and threatened their role as guardians of sectarian identity. Nader's insistence on banning ritual cursing of the first three caliphs (sabb and rafd) met clerical pushback, viewing it as capitulation to Sunni norms, though direct coercion at the council was limited; broader policy enforcement involved confiscation of clerical estates to fund campaigns and assert fiscal control. Such actions, while not amounting to systematic extermination, systematically undermined the mujtahids' political leverage, fostering resentment that contributed to domestic rebellions by the mid-1740s.

Proposal of Ja'fari Madhhab and Outcomes

In early 1736, during the assembly on the Mughan steppe where Nader Shah formally ascended the throne, he proposed redefining as the Ja'fari madhhab, positioning it as a fifth school of Islamic jurisprudence alongside the four Sunni madhhabs, named after the sixth Shiite imam to emphasize shared jurisprudential roots while downplaying divisive doctrines such as the and the practice of sabb (cursing the first three caliphs). This initiative required attending to endorse a document affirming the Ja'fari framework, aiming to legitimize Nader's rule by transcending Safavid sectarian exclusivity and appealing to Sunni-majority regions under his expanding empire. Nader's motivations were primarily pragmatic and political: to mitigate sectarian strife that hindered alliances with the and Mughal India, secure Iranian control over the economically vital caravan revenues, and subordinate the powerful Shiite whose loyalty remained tied to Safavid legitimacy. He dispatched embassies to Ottoman Sultan in 1736 and 1741, proposing conditions including official recognition of Ja'fari status, equal legal privileges for its adherents, and a dedicated pillar (rukn) at the for Shiite prayer. To advance the idea, Nader convened an of in in 1743, where proposals were debated, including the Ja'fari madhhab's integration and exemptions from certain Shiite rituals deemed incompatible with Sunni norms. The proposal encountered staunch opposition from both Shiite and Sunni authorities. Shiite scholars in and resisted, viewing it as a dilution of Twelver distinctiveness and a threat to their interpretive authority, while Ottoman Sunni remained skeptical, prioritizing doctrinal purity over . No consensus emerged from the Najaf deliberations, and the Ottomans consistently rejected formal recognition, leading to a 1746 treaty that addressed frontiers, pilgrim access, and prisoner exchanges but sidelined the Ja'fari issue entirely. Ultimately, the initiative failed to achieve unification or acceptance, exacerbating tensions with the Shiite clerical establishment and contributing to Nader's isolation as he resorted to coercion against dissenting , though it temporarily enabled practical concessions like Shia participation in the under his oversight. The proposal's collapse underscored the entrenched sectarian divides and the limits of top-down reform in premodern Islamic polities, leaving no lasting jurisprudential legacy beyond highlighting Nader's instrumental approach to .

Personal Traits and Governance Style

Leadership and Strategic Genius

Nader Shah exemplified leadership through personal courage and merit-based command, often leading troops from the front and promoting officers based on battlefield performance rather than tribal affiliation. His style emphasized strict , with severe punishments for disobedience, fostering an capable of rapid execution of complex maneuvers. Contemporary observers noted his strong character and military virtue as key to inspiring loyalty among diverse ethnic contingents, including Afghans, Turkmen, and Persians. Strategically, Nader revolutionized Persian forces by integrating advanced weaponry, creating specialized units such as 12,000 jazayerchis—infantrymen armed with heavy long-barreled muskets—and deploying zanburak camel-mounted swivel guns for mobile support, numbering 500 to 700 pieces. These innovations, combined with rigorous drill, enabled a shift from tribal levies to a professional that prioritized and tactical flexibility. By 1743, his forces peaked at 375,000 troops, incorporating 40,000 musketeers and a train of 116 heavy cannons and 230 mortars, making it the most formidable military in . His genius shone in adaptive campaigns: against the Hotaki Afghans in 1729, Nader defeated a superior foe at the with just 25,000 men by leveraging concentrated and volleys to shatter enemy cohesion. Facing Ottomans, he exploited mobility and surprise, as at the on June 16, 1735, where concealed flanking forces and captured enemy routed a larger Ottoman . In the 1738 maneuver, rapid scouting and disciplined cavalry feints earned praise as a "masterpiece in the history of " from Russian observers. The pinnacle of his strategic acumen was the invasion of , culminating in the on February 24, 1739, where Nader's 55,000 troops decisively crushed a Mughal force of approximately 300,000—outnumbered over five-to-one—through coordinated barrages from units and cannons, followed by devastating assaults that isolated and overwhelmed the enemy center. This victory, achieved in mere hours, demonstrated his mastery of and , enabling the subsequent sack of and extraction of vast tribute without prolonged occupation. Such feats underscore Nader's ability to integrate , , and bold execution, restoring Persian dominance across multiple fronts.

Paranoia, Cruelty, and Family Relations

In the early 1740s, following military setbacks in the and an attempt on 22 October 1742, Nader Shah exhibited signs of deepening , suspecting plots among his inner circle, including family members. He accused his eldest son and viceroy, Reza Qoli Mirza (born 1719), of orchestrating the attack during Nader's absence in , leading to the prince's blinding on 22 November 1742 as punishment, despite Reza Qoli's protests of innocence. To conceal the act, Nader ordered the execution of the seven nobles who performed the blinding, further eroding trust within his court. This incident marked a rupture in Nader's family relations, as he subsequently marginalized his other sons by exiling them or assigning them to perilous front-line duties, removing potential rivals from succession while fostering an atmosphere of familial distrust. Reza Qoli remained imprisoned, his maiming symbolizing Nader's willingness to inflict irreversible harm on kin amid perceived threats. Nader's extended beyond family, prompting arbitrary executions of courtiers, generals, and tribal leaders suspected of disloyalty, often on scant evidence. Nader's cruelty manifested in mass reprisals against rebellious groups, such as the ordered massacre of tribes following their uprising, and widespread purges that claimed thousands of lives, including soldiers after defeats in around 1743–1747. These acts, driven by fear of , alienated elites and subjects alike, with reports of whole families executed for isolated infractions. By 1747, his tyrannical behavior, including plans for further depopulation through mass killings, contributed to the culminating in his .

Interactions with Elites and Subjects

Nader Shah's governance favored merit-based promotions within the , elevating ordinary soldiers to ranks based on demonstrated competence rather than noble birth or tribal affiliation. This system rewarded and performance, enabling rapid battlefield adaptations through flexible command structures. Such practices strengthened cohesion among his core Afsharid forces but marginalized entrenched elites tied to the Safavid , whom Nader distrusted for their potential disloyalty. Over time, however, his interactions with these elites soured amid escalating ; he ordered executions of suspected conspirators among commanders and courtiers, including the blinding of his own son Reza Qoli Mirza in 1742 on allegations of regicide involvement. Relations with subjects initially benefited from distributions of plunder from conquests, which temporarily alleviated economic strains and garnered popular support in reconquered territories. Yet, to sustain perpetual warfare, Nader imposed exorbitant taxes and forced levies, exempting no region and often doubling or tripling prior rates to fund armies exceeding 200,000 men. By 1746, these fiscal exactions, coupled with punitive reprisals against tax resisters—such as village burnings and mass impalements—ignited rebellions in Mazandaran, , and , reflecting widespread exhaustion among the populace. Nader's cruelty toward subjects manifested in arbitrary violence, including the slaughter of entire families for individual offenses and the of tens of thousands for labor on fortifications, exacerbating demographic from prior invasions. Historical accounts portray this as a shift from pragmatic ruthlessness to unchecked tyranny, alienating even loyal provincial governors and contributing to the fragility of his regime.

Decline, Tyranny, and Assassination

Mounting Internal Dissent

Following the assassination attempt on Nader Shah near Darband in 1741, his paranoia intensified, leading him to suspect and blind his own son, Reza Qoli Mirza, whom he accused of plotting against him. This act of familial cruelty, coupled with broader suspicions of disloyalty among courtiers and military officers, began eroding trust within his inner circle. Historians note that Nader's mental instability, evident from 1741 to 1743, manifested in arbitrary executions and purges targeting perceived enemies, further alienating nobles and subordinates who had previously supported his conquests. To fund ongoing campaigns against the Ottomans and in the , Nader reinstated heavy taxation across Persia by 1741–1743, after a three-year tax suspension following the 1739 sack of . These levies, imposed amid economic strain from prolonged warfare, provoked widespread discontent among peasants and provincial elites, sparking rebellions that undermined administrative control. A notable uprising occurred in January 1744 near , led by Mohammad Taqi Khan Shirazi, the commander of Fars, which Nader's forces crushed by winter but at the cost of diverting resources from external fronts. By 1746, multiple revolts erupted across the empire, fueled by oppressive governance, extortionate taxes, and reports of Nader's repressive cruelty, including mass executions in response to . These uprisings, combined with Nader's growing distrust of the —particularly Afshar and Qajar tribal contingents—fostered a climate of fear and resentment within the army, as officers anticipated becoming targets of his purges. The cumulative effect alienated key supporters, setting the stage for conspiracies among the elite and troops, who viewed Nader's tyranny as a threat to their own survival.

Final Campaigns and Mental Decline

Following the triumphant but plunder-dependent Indian campaign of 1739, Nader Shah faced persistent raids from Lezgin and other Dagestani tribes into Persian Azerbaijan and , prompting a major expedition northward in 1741. Leading an army estimated at over 100,000 combatants plus 40,000 support personnel, Nader aimed to subdue these mountain guerrillas through fortified advances and punitive destruction of villages. However, the rugged terrain favored by the tribes, resulting in high Persian casualties—exceeding 82,000 soldiers killed—and limited strategic gains, as key strongholds like Andala were contested but not fully pacified. By 1743, Nader withdrew, having exacted oaths of submission from some khans but failing to eliminate the threat, a setback that strained his resources and fueled internal discontent amid exorbitant taxation to rebuild forces. Renewed Ottoman incursions in the Caucasus prompted Nader's final major external offensive, culminating in the Battle of Kars from August 9 to 19, 1745. With approximately 80,000 troops, Nader routed an Ottoman field army backed by local allies, inflicting near-total destruction and securing a decisive victory that forced Istanbul into peace talks, restoring Persian borders along the Aras River. This triumph, however, masked deepening domestic unrest, as Nader's relentless campaigns demanded unsustainable levies—up to ten times annual yields in some provinces—sparking revolts among Kurds, Baluch, and Abdali tribes in Khorasan and beyond. Signs of Nader's mental deterioration emerged prominently during and after the stalemate, manifesting as acute and erratic cruelty. In 1742, suspecting regicidal conspiracy, he ordered the blinding of his eldest son and designated heir, Reza Qoli Mirza, demanding the eyes be presented on a platter despite Reza's protests of innocence; this act, reportedly triggered by Reza's execution of a suspected plotter close to Nader, severed familial trust and alienated court elites. escalated into mass purges, with thousands of nobles, officials, and suspected enemies executed, often on flimsy pretexts, alongside public spectacles like pyramids to deter . By 1746–1747, as Nader marched against Kurdish rebels in western , his governance devolved into terror, with arbitrary killings of officers and subjects exacerbating army desertions and mutinies, though his tactical acumen persisted in suppressing immediate threats. Historians attribute this decline partly to cumulative war fatigue, unhealed wounds from earlier battles, and isolation from rational counsel, transforming the once-brilliant commander into a figure whose rages undermined his empire's cohesion.

Assassination and Immediate Aftermath

Nader Shah was assassinated on the night of 20 June 1747 at his encampment near in by a conspiracy of approximately fifteen officers, primarily from Afshar and Qajar tribal contingents within his guard. The plotters, driven by Nader's escalating , capricious tyranny, and oppressive policies that had alienated key elites amid widespread rebellions, surprised him in his and stabbed him to death. Historical accounts suggest possible orchestration by his nephew ʿAlī Qulī Mīrzā, son of the blinded prince Reza Qoli Mirza, in coordination with figures like Ṭahmāsp Khān Jālāl al-ʿUlamaʾ, though direct evidence remains contested among contemporary chroniclers such as Dunbulī and Marʿashī Ḥusaynī. In the immediate hours following the killing, the assassins mutilated Nader's body, decapitating it and parading the head through the camp to confirm his death and rally support. ʿAlī Qulī Mīrzā swiftly consolidated power, proclaiming himself Sulṭān ʿAlī ʿĀdel Shāh in on 6 July 1747 and executing several of Nader's inner circle, including the plot's apparent leaders like Sabah Dayeh, to eliminate rivals and secure his tenuous claim. However, ʿĀdel Shāh's ineffective rule, marred by famine, administrative neglect, and purges of Nader's loyalists, failed to stabilize the realm, prompting rapid fragmentation as provincial governors and tribal leaders declared autonomy. The assassination precipitated the swift disintegration of the Afsharid empire, unleashing a five-year that reduced Nāderid authority to pockets in while empowering local warlords across Persia, the , and . Key figures like Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī seized independence in , while in western Iran, rivals such as Ibrāhīm Mīrzā challenged ʿĀdel Shāh, deposing him by June 1748 and briefly holding Kirmānshāh before his own downfall. Nader's grandson Shāhrokh, leveraging alliances with Uzbek and Abdali forces, secured nominal control over Khorasan by late 1748 as a of Durrānī, though his rule endured only through intermittent subjugation by tribal coalitions until Qajar ascendancy in the 1790s. This power vacuum enabled the resurgence of suppressed factions, including , Turks, and in Khurāsān, marking the effective end of centralized Afsharid dominion.

Legacy and Historical Assessment

Territorial and Military Achievements

Nader Shah's military campaigns vastly expanded Persian territory, achieving the greatest extent since the through conquests spanning the , , and the . By integrating tribal with disciplined and , he reformed the Persian army into a formidable force capable of rapid maneuvers and sieges, numbering up to several hundred thousand troops at its peak. His initial achievements focused on reconquering Persian lands from Afghan invaders. In May , Nader defeated Abdali near , followed by a decisive victory over Ghilzai forces at Mehmāndust on 29 , which expelled the Hotaki dynasty from by December. He then besieged and destroyed in 1738 after a prolonged campaign, fully securing under Persian control. These successes restored Safavid authority temporarily and laid the foundation for further expansions, reclaiming territories lost during the collapse of Shah Sultan Husayn's reign. Against the Ottomans, Nader recaptured western Persian provinces in spring-summer 1730 and later launched major offensives, including victories at in 1745 and Bagavard near in August 1745, forcing territorial concessions in the and . His campaigns in the extended control over Georgia, , and parts of , while Russian treaties in 1732 returned some Caspian territories. In , from 1737 to 1740, Nader subdued Uzbek khanates, conquering and , and securing lands north of to south of the Oxus River. The invasion of Mughal India marked Nader's most lucrative conquest. Crossing the Indus in late 1738, he decisively defeated a numerically superior Mughal army at the on 24 February 1739, capturing Emperor and advancing to sack in March, extracting immense tribute including the and diamond. This campaign made the Mughals vassals and incorporated and into Persian domains, with the empire at its zenith controlling regions from the to the Indus. Nader's strategic use of and intelligence networks exemplified his tactical brilliance in these far-reaching operations.

Economic Devastation and Societal Impact

Nader Shah's relentless military campaigns imposed severe strains on Persia's economy, prioritizing short-term plunder over and leading to widespread fiscal disorder. While the immense treasures looted from in 1739 initially filled the treasury, subsequent wars against the Ottomans, Mughals, and Central Asian foes necessitated heavy taxation to sustain massive armies, with revenues accumulated in military elites' hands rather than reinvested in or . This militaristic focus disrupted traditional tax systems, causing and arbitrary seizures of lands and assets from defaulters, exacerbating economic collapse in regions like , where post-visit pressures triggered business failures and mass migrations to . Agriculture, the backbone of Persia's rural , stagnated profoundly under Nader's rule due to the destruction of production capacities from prolonged conflicts, neglect of administrative oversight, and depopulation of farmlands. Successive invasions and forced levies left villages impoverished, with farmers facing exploitation by collectors who commandeered harvests and, in extreme cases, conscripted family members or seized women as penalties for unpaid dues. Heavy ransoms and exactions further fueled riots among merchants and rural populations, compounding and that persisted into the post-Nader . Trade networks, both regional and international, suffered from the era's instability, as Nader's expansionist policies diverted resources to warfare and alienated commercial classes through capricious policies and insecurity along caravan routes. Internal declined amid chaos, with external exchanges hampered by border conflicts and the regime's failure to foster merchant protections, contributing to a broader economic neglect that favored over . Societally, Nader's governance inflicted profound devastation through depopulation driven by massacres, epidemics, and forced displacements, with significant numbers fleeing to Ottoman territories, , or to escape the turmoil. Continuous warfare over his 12-year reign (1736–1747) eroded social cohesion, as causeless killings—such as the slaughter of 700 in —and suppression of dissent fostered paranoia and ethical breakdown, including intra-family violence and rebellions like those led by Mohammad Khan Baluch against tax burdens. Tribal transplants for manpower and rebellion control further uprooted communities, prioritizing Sunni military loyalty over Shiite subjects' welfare and diminishing clerical influence through enforced religious policies, ultimately leaving Persia fragmented and impoverished.

Historiographical Debates and Modern Views

Historiographical assessments of Nader Shah have long divided scholars between those emphasizing his military prowess and role in restoring Persian sovereignty after the Safavid , and those focusing on his brutality, economic ruin, and failure to establish lasting institutions. Contemporary European accounts, drawing from eyewitness reports and Persian chronicles, initially portrayed him as a disciplined liberator expelling Afghan invaders, as in the (1731), but shifted to viewing him as an oriental despot after the 1739 sack of , where an estimated 20,000–30,000 civilians were massacred, earning epithets like "Plunderer of Delhi" or "Wrath of God" from observers such as Jonas Hanway, who detailed his alleged madness and unchecked cruelty. These depictions reflected Enlightenment anxieties about absolutism, contrasting Nader unfavorably with figures like by highlighting his lack of civilizing influence. In Persian sources, evaluations were similarly polarized from the outset. Pro-Nader chroniclers like Mirza Mahdi Khan Astarabadi, in his Durra-ye Naderi (completed circa 1750s), lauded his campaigns as heroic restorations of Iranian glory, crediting him with reconquering lost territories and amassing wealth equivalent to £87.5 million from alone in 1739. Critics such as Mohammad Kazem and Mohammad Hazin emphasized the human cost, including forced marches, taxation burdens, and purges that alienated elites and subjects, portraying him as a tribal whose rise from humble Afshar origins undermined Safavid cultural legacies. Qajar-era historians (1789–1925) amplified negative views to justify their usurpation, depicting Nader as a rapacious whose in 1747 precipitated deserved fragmentation, thereby elevating their own Shi'i legitimacy over his perceived Sunni-leaning reforms. Modern scholarship, informed by archival analysis, largely reconciles these poles through causal emphasis on Nader's strategic innovations—such as tribal cavalry reforms and artillery integration that enabled victories like (1739)—while attributing his decline to verifiable , evidenced by the 1740 execution of his son Qoli and massacres in (1744). Michael Axworthy, in The Sword of Persia (2006), assesses him as a "tribal to conquering ," whose empire-building exhausted resources without administrative foundations, leading to post-mortem into over a dozen states by 1750. Debates persist on his religious policies: some view his promotion of "Ja'fari" as a pragmatic bid for Ottoman reconciliation and internal unity, averting sectarian strife; others, citing forced conversions and suppression, see it as disruptive that alienated core supporters. In contemporary Iranian , nationalist currents since the Pahlavi era (1925–1979) rehabilitate Nader as a "Persian Napoleon," symbolizing resilience against foreign incursions, with over 14 editions of Astarabadi's work reflecting this shift amid Qajar weakness narratives. Yet, his "awkward" status endures due to cultural disconnects and imperialism, as notes, positioning him as a regenerator who expelled , Ottomans, and but inflicted domestic devastation comparable to his external conquests. Western analysts prioritize empirical metrics of his reign's unsustainability, such as depopulation from campaigns (e.g., 100,000+ casualties in 1741–1743) and fiscal strain from non-productive plunder economies, cautioning against romanticization despite undeniable tactical acumen. Overall, consensus holds that while Nader temporarily halted Persia's 18th-century implosion, his rule's causal chain—from genius to tyranny—exacerbated long-term vulnerabilities exploited by European powers.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.