So just assume Genghis khan was never born or died has a child. What would the effects on history be?
No mongols
- Thread starter Glory2Cabinda
- Start date
He did not grew up in a vacuum so some kind of a consolidation trend already was there but it could easily end up with a failure or a very limited success. However, the nomadic empires existed prior to Genghis and Northern China had been conquered by the nomads well. efore he was born. So the answer depends upon scenario you prefer:
1. No consolidation
2. Consolidation and creation of the state encompassing the “Mongolian” steppe with the minimal expansion beyond it.
3. Invasion of the Northern China and substitution of the Jurchens with the Mongols (or whoever). Ditto for the Tangut state (Western Xia).
4. Expansion into the CA but not China
5. #3 & #4
All of the above assume that the alt-Mongols are staying out of Europe. In which case:
(a) Slow consolidation of the Russian princedoms around two centers: Vladimir-Suzdal and Galitz.
(b) A good chance that Galitz territories are not consumed by Lithuania so there are two major ”Russian” states. Lithuania and then Polish-Lithuanian union and the PLC are much smaller but lacking certain OTL problems.
(c) Absence of a strong nomadic state on the lower Volga and later of the Crimean Khanate. A lot of changes comparing to OTL depending upon specifics of the scenario you chose all the way to the earlier ”Russian” expansion both from the Galitz- and Vladimir-based states and earlier expansion beyond the Ural. Situation with Bulgar on Volga is one more area of the speculations.
Poland is affected by butterflies long before union with Lithuania-Henry the Pious would not be killed at Legnica if there are no Mongols.
Otto Kretschmer
Banned
Poland would be more western then, right? The political center of the state would be in Silesia not in Lesser Poland.
TL: Sans Soyombo (No Mongol Empire)
This TL will be my attempt at making a spicy no-Mongol Empire timeline. Please wish me luck and constructively criticize! (Inspired by various other timelines.) Legend Military conflict Treaty/agreement Succession/death List Of Chapters Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Graphics Thread...
www.alternatehistory.com
This. Silesia was richer and more populous than Lesser Poland and would thus shape Poland's political landscape. With Silesia Poland is 40% more populous and more westward looking.
I'm not sure more conflict with the Empire would serve them well, which surely a western focus would bring.
Central Asia imo would be unrecognizable. On a positive note, Cumans still exist!!
To the contrary, I believe with Silesian lands, Poland would be able to take the role that Prussia took in the HRE.
That is doubtful. Prussian history was reliant on very specific people and events
Despite name powerbase of Prussia was located within HRE borders, unlike Poland.
I'm aware, but the origin of Prussia's rise was truly having specific kings at specific times.
The legacy of the Cumans lives on in the DNA of the Magyars, various Balkan peoples, even the Georgians have some Cuman admixture
The main problem with this video and it’s likes is that it is extremely superficial and full of the questionable speculations regarding the long-term tendencies. Basically, it is a “linear model“ (favored by Marx 😜) not even based upon a completely correct source data. Statement that the Chinese conservatism has to be blamed exclusively upon the Mongols and that without them Northern China would achieve “industrial revolution” in few years (sure, with the locals hating Jurchens to such a degree that they were siding with the conquering Mongols) without any scientific background needed for such a thing is highly questionable: based upon the iron production one may say that XVIII Russia was into the industrial revolution well ahead of Britain because it was producing more iron.
Speculations regarding future of the CA based upon the status of the XII century belong to the same group: the big states had been regularly created and disintegrated in the region and Khwaresm “empire” was a purely artificial combination of the conquered territories not closely related to each other. Chances for its continued survival were, at best, 50%.
Pre-Mongolian Rus. Author is clearly confused with the situation. The early “medieval democracy” was already pretty much gone except for Novgorod and a process of consolidation of the princely power was well advanced. Yes, most of the peasants were personally free ... and they remained in that status all the way to at least the reign of Boris Godunov with a full-scale serfdom being implemented only by Peter I, mostly by the reasons that had nothing to do with the Mongols. In general, the social process and tendencies were pretty much the same as in the most of Europe all the way to creation of the centralized and absolutist states. Links to the Western Europe had been damaged by the Great Schism and then by the “center” moving from Kiev to much more isolated Vladimir. Both events preceded the Mongolian invasion. Not that these connections, except for the royal marriages, were excessively strong with anybody but the immediate neighbors.
The Black Death issue is, of course, interesting but, with the trade routes still being in existence, it had a good chance of happening anyway and the epidemics had been happening in Europe well after the Mongolian Empire disappeared.
Last edited:
did i miss something he said there was pontential for an industrial revolution and then said their society been confucian and the beurocracy it killed their "industrial revolution" long before the mongols and the mongols only made them more conservative if you will the second is debated
but the first i dont think so the chinise did "kill "their potential industrial revolution or other due to them not having the correct midset and other things that the beurocracy was responsible for (and other not so much since it was part of their society in general)
he never said they would have an industrial revolution and even less so in few years so in the china issue he is not really wrong i wouldnt say the chinise killed their industrial revolution i would say it would never take off due to a lot of factors and the things he mentioned of the bureaucracy is oversimplied but it is one of the reasons.
as for Khwaresm “empire” they had bearly expanded to iran before the mongols show up sure it migth collapse but how long despite been an idiot Sha muhamed was good enough to expand and Jalal ad-Din was better then his father with no other strong state to challenge it and a competent sha in Jalal ad-Din ( who assuming he lives to 60 he will rule till 1260) the empire looks good till then and would depend on how bad or good is Jalal ad-Din succesor or how good did his father do at consolidating .
Last edited:
I quite agree with you that China was nowhere close to the industrial revolution but the author somehow linked its absence to the Mongols: if they had nothing to do with the issue why mention it within the context of the Mongolian conquest?
Now, as far as Khwaresm goes, it may survive for a while as a state but for how long. It was, to use Gumilev’s term, a chimera: artificial combination of the nomadic and sedentary people with no ethnic unity even among the nomadic elite: Kipchaks and Turkmens did not like each other. It did not have a coherent civic administration and the Shah had only a limited control over the provincial governors: after the famous episode with a caravan Shah refused to punish a governor because he belonged to the influential clan. It’s military organization was limited to the tribal levies with little discipline, questionable loyalty and nothing in the terms of an advanced warfare. Muhammed was justly criticized for his actions during the invasion but he did not have the realistic options: the encounter which preceded the main war was anything but encouraging. Quite possible that he initially considered the invasion as just a typical nomadic raid and in this case his actions did make sense: the raiding nomads would loot the countryside but the big walled cities remain safe and then the raiders would go away.
Jalal ad-Din was a more heroic figure but as far as competence is involved he let his army to be completely exterminated in a battle. While the Mongols had been busy elsewhere he managed to get into a conflict with pretty much all his neighbors. After establishing himself in Punjab he started a conflict with Sultan of Delhi and after being beaten “Mingburnu retreated from Lahore and moved towards Uchch, inflicting a heavy defeat on its ruler Nasir-ud-Din Qabacha, and plundered Sindh, then northern Gujarat before returning to Persia in 1224.“ After which he clashed with the Caliph An Nasser in Khuzestan and looted Georgia in 1225. Sacking of Tbilisi was not better then alleged Mongolian practices even if 100,000 killed could be an exaggeration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Thousand_Martyrs_of_Tbilisi. After which he started conflict with the Seljuks and kept fighting with them until he was defeated in 1230 (and, again, completely losing his army). Only after that Ogedei decided that everybody had enough fun and sent an army 30,000 which put an end to his career. Sorry, but he does not look as an intelligent ruler because, instead of trying to build up the coalitions against the main enemy (who was for a while distracted) he was making enemies out of all his neighbors.
Last edited:
the author or maker of the video just said the mongol conquest made the the conservitate and things that made industralization imposible in chinise society and goverment more prevolent not that the mongols stoped it .
as for the Khwaresm again the areas most of their conquest were not even 50 years old heck some were bearly 20 and then a new force cut them off.
if it were up to me i give the empire the same life span as the seljuks so about a century or century and a half
Muhammedunderstimated the mongols
" let his army to be completely exterminated in a battle." which one? in the indus? yeah due to chinghis sending 10 000 to outmanuver him after he nearly breached the nearly the center of the Mongol army ( and he had placed his army in a good defensive position the mongols out numbered him and it was nearly a mongol defeat .
also he didnt start conflict with delhi the sultan it makes no sense he wanted refuge and the sultan according to both Juvayni and Minhaj, he wanted an allience wich the sultan denied and had the envoys killed ( ad din attack Qabacha but he was enemies with the sultan) and heck the sultan send forces to his enemy or in other sources marched an army against him.
as for him in the west i mean the base of his empire or his father empire in transoxiana was cut off (so to speak the head of the snake was cut off) after the center of his empire was killed he wanted to form a neo empire as a new based and manged to pull it off for a while .
with him defeating a small mongol army going to the caucasus defeating the Eldiguzids
and heck some times he didnt even use force like in the Battle of Bolnisi were he Georgians, Kipchaks, Alans, Vainakhs and Leks came with 40 000 to defeat him and he Kipchaks to desert the coaltion
as for Yassi Chemen you are rigth but it was not a seljuk only endavor rather and abuyid seljuk one were again ad din almost won despite his small army and sittuation (with the coaltion with 42 000) and the mongols arrived after the defeat and the rebellions after him (not saying that the mongols would have lost if he won at Yassi but its a possibilty)
also i said he would be competent if he manged to keep the numerous rebelious lords and won battles and while he did loose i say what he did with a small army and no real base manage shows that he was far above his father in terms of competance so ad din with an actual base of power and bigger army could do more with out the mongols .
not that he is the next genius but the empire would do fine if not better with no mongols and him leading it.
Last edited:
The Author mentions that because he assumes a Southern China that still has those residuals of the factors of an industrial revolution and not traumatized by the mongols would be able to faster adapt to Europe if/when Europe reaches them and do a meiji restoration type quick industralization like Japan did. And the less likely argument that it would be more outward facing, maybe doing the treasure fleet thing that Ming did all the way into early colonization and/or have an independent industralization later parallel to Europe.