A European-Mongolian Alliance against Islam?

There is a particular timeline I've considered writing for a while, it would be my first one.
I first learned of the incident in question several years ago in high school while looking through a book that detailed the travels and origins of prominent Middle Eastern and Chinese explorers. One of the most fascinating stories was about a fellow named Rabban Sauma.
He was from a Nestorian family, born in 1225. A monk, he chose to travel with one of his disciples to the holy Land. Only making it as far as Baghdad due to Islamic control of his destination he settled down for a few years.

At this point some important events happened. The same disciple that he travelled with became the patriarch of the Nestorian church, giving Sauma close ties to a prominent religious icon (several khans at the time and many other Mongols were Nestorian christians), and Sauma gained quite the reputation as an explorer.

In 1287, he was commissioned by the khan of the Il-khanate to become an envoy of sorts to Christian Europe, hoping to gain an alliance against Egypt. Sauma met with bishops in Rome, Philip the Fair of France, and King Edward I of England.

Now, the main reason that Britain and France did not subscribe to such a coalition against Egypt was due to fighting between the two countries. Indeed, both Kings told Sauma that the reason they were unable to commit to such an act was due to conflict between England and France. The various european rulers including Pope Nicholas IV wrote letters back to the khan of the Il-khanate and gave vague answers, saying they couldn't gurantee an alliance.

Now, say that the Europeans were able to settle these differences. What if the pontiff and Christian rulers of Europe joined forces with the Il-khanate to drive Islam out of the Middle East? Assuming that a victory was possible, Islam might have withered significantly with the fall of Egypt and Africa would be opened to the combined European and Mongol forces. Mongol culture may have spread even further. And in the end, could we even see a sort of cold war with the Europeans and Mongols playing the parts of medieval superpowers?
 
fly.fearless said:
In 1287, he was commissioned by the khan of the Il-khanate to become an envoy of sorts to Christian Europe, hoping to gain an alliance against Egypt. Sauma met with bishops in Rome, Philip the Fair of France, and King Edward I of England.

Now, the main reason that Britain and France did not subscribe to such a coalition against Egypt was due to fighting between the two countries. Indeed, both Kings told Sauma that the reason they were unable to commit to such an act was due to conflict between England and France. The various european rulers including Pope Nicholas IV wrote letters back to the khan of the Il-khanate and gave vague answers, saying they couldn't gurantee an alliance.

Didn't those two monarchs, Philip IV of France and Edward I of England, signed a treaty which ended the first Hundred Years Wars that had opposed Capetians and Plantagenets? Treaty concluded by the marriage of Isabella of France, only daughter of Philip IV, with Edward, eldest son of Edward I of England and future king Edward II?

I don't remember exactly when the treaty was signed, though...

fly.fearless said:
Now, say that the Europeans were able to settle these differences. What if the pontiff and Christian rulers of Europe joined forces with the Il-khanate to drive Islam out of the Middle East? Assuming that a victory was possible, Islam might have withered significantly with the fall of Egypt and Africa would be opened to the combined European and Mongol forces. Mongol culture may have spread even further. And in the end, could we even see a sort of cold war with the Europeans and Mongols playing the parts of medieval superpowers?

Attacking the Middle-East once again would mean it is another crusade on the part of the Christian rulers...

During Philip IV's reign, there were Nobles and factions suggesting for a new crusade to fight againt the Muslims in the Holy Land and also to recreate the Latin Empire (Constantinople was retaken by the Byzantines). However, Philipp IV was very skeptical and never went for the project.

Even after Philipp IV's death, the possibility for a Crusade reappeared and one of its most ardent defenders was Charles de Valois, Philip IV's brother. Yet, the tenth crusade never happened... Reclaiming the Holy Land was no longer seen as a priority by European Powers.

You might say I'm only talking about Philip IV of France. But he is probably the most important figure in this scenario : he was the strongest king of France since his grandfather Louis IX (also called Saint Louis), who died during the ninth crusade, and his great-great grandfather Philipp II Augustus (the one who destroyed the Plantagenet Empire).
He made France powerful and rich via different means (notably by burning the templars) and was a competent ruler. He also moved the Pope from Rome to Avignon so that he could have a closer eye on him. Philip IV of France was probably the most powerful European ruler of the time.
As for his skepticism regarding the crusade, it could be linked to the death of his grandfather (Saint Louis died during the ninth crusade) and of his father (King Philip III of France died during the Aragonese Crusade).

Another thing against this scenario would be the perception of the Mongols by European powers : to the French, Germans, Hungarians, English and other european rulers who could be intereted, the Mongols are godless or pagan barbarians. That makes them probably on an equal level if not on a lower level than the Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Didn't those two monarchs, Philip IV of France and Edward I of England, signed a treaty which ended the first Hundred Years Wars that had opposed Capetians and Plantagenets? Treaty concluded by the marriage of Isabella of France, only daughter of Philip IV, with Edward, eldest son of Edward I of England and future king Edward II?

I don't remember exactly when the treaty was signed, though...



Attacking the Middle-East once again would mean it is another crusade on the part of the Christian rulers...

During Philip IV's reign, there were Nobles and factions suggesting for a new crusade to fight againt the Muslims in the Holy Land and also to recreate the Latin Empire (Constantinople was retaken by the Byzantines). However, Philipp IV was very skeptical and never went for the project.

Even after Philipp IV's death, the possibility for a Crusade reappeared and one of its most ardent defenders was Charles de Valois, Philip IV's brother. Yet, the tenth crusade never happened... Reclaiming the Holy Land was no longer seen as a priority by European Powers.

You might say I'm only talking about Philip IV of France. But he is probably the most important figure in this scenario : he was the strongest king of France since his grandfather Louis IX (also called Saint Louis), who died during the ninth crusade, and his great-great grandfather Philipp II Augustus (the one who destroyed the Plantagenet Empire).
He made France powerful and rich via different means (notably by burning the templars) and was a competent ruler. He also moved the Pope from Rome to Avignon so that he could have a closer eye on him. Philip IV of France was probably the most powerful European ruler of the time.
As for his skepticism regarding the crusade, it could be linked to the death of his grandfather (Saint Louis died during the ninth crusade) and of his father (King Philip III of France died during the Aragonese Crusade).

Another thing against this scenario would be the perception of the Mongols by European powers : to the French, Germans, Hungarians, English and other european rulers who could be intereted, the Mongols are godless or pagan barbarians. That makes them probably on an equal level if not on a lower level than the Muslims.

Edward I himself had led a crusade twenty years prior, he was definetely willing to throw in the English on the Mongol side.

The Mongols of the Il-khanate were predominantly Nestorian Christians. Now, the Catholic Church at the time regarded them as a heretical sect, so while an alliance upon religious grounds is not too likely, there's a possibility. Would the Europeans have seen the Nestorians as close enough to them in a theological sense to paint the Muslims as a common enemy? We'll never now.

Don't forget the Prester John legend. "The Eastern king in a Christian Kingdom was prophesied to aid the Crusades in a reconquest of the Holy Land."
 
fly.fearless said:
Edward I himself had led a crusade twenty years prior, he was definetely willing to throw in the English on the Mongol side.

The Mongols of the Il-khanate were predominantly Nestorian Christians. Now, the Catholic Church at the time regarded them as a heretical sect, so while an alliance upon religious grounds is not too likely, there's a possibility. Would the Europeans have seen the Nestorians as close enough to them in a theological sense to paint the Muslims as a common enemy? We'll never now.

Don't forget the Prester John legend. "The Eastern king in a Christian Kingdom was prophesied to aid the Crusades in a reconquest of the Holy Land."

The Byzantines were Orthodox Christians. That didn't stop the crusaders from sacking Constantinople in 1204, during the fourth crusade, and then to replace the Byzantine Empire by Crusader States, notably the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Given that example, I hardly believe that the Christians would ally with the Nestorian Christians Il-Khanate.
Now, it is also possible that I am wrong and that the Crusaders could have allied with Nestorian Christians.

So, let's look at the situation. While not impossible for Edward I to be willing to go on a Crusade once again, I think he has his hands occupied. Edward I of England did not only waged war against France : he also conquered Wales and subdued Scotland, despite fierce resistance. I'm not so sure he could abandon his conquests without being sure they will stay in English hands.

As for Philip IV of France, he has only ruled for two years in your scenario and is only aged 19. He could be more reckless than he became. He also has just been married to Joan of Navarre. But he has no children yet (his eldest son, Louis, will be born in 1289), so his descendance is not assured and his heir is his younger brother Charles.
Besides, his kingdom is not in a good situation : he will also want to stabilize it. A crusade is not a good way to stabilize a kingdom.

That leaves two of the most important European monarchs out. And with those two, you will have difficulties in finding good Crusaders.

That being said, a crusade doesn't only need French and English knights. Having the Holy Roman Emperor go for the crusade remains a possibility. The same can be said for other Christian States such as Italians and maybe Hungarians.
 
Top