A less rash Shah, a longer lasting Khwarezmid Empire, a different India??

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
What if........

In OTL Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad drew the wrath of Genghis Khan by how he treated the ambassadors sent to him and by ordering the execution of some 500 merchants.

What might have happened if the visit of the Ambassadors went differently. Instead of insulting the mongol's and killing the Muslim ambassador and merchants what happens if they are are welcomed and after discussion the Shah orders the Merchants to be released with their good and sent back the way they came.

Many historians claim that Genghis Khan had no desire or plans to attack the territory of the Shah so assuming that relations are not perfect but trade continues the position of the Shah will strengthen over time and war might be avoided indefinitely.

Where else might the Mongol's have gone?

What might the impact of their moving into the Indian Sub-Continent have been? From a quick search it seems that India was rich and divided amongst a number of states with significant political changes happening at this time.

Getting into India might be difficult. The Tibetan Empire might be collapsing but the altitude would not make it an easy invasion route.

Via Vietnam etc and through Burma is difficult territory for cavalry

Not sure about going through Afghanistan either.....

But it might be an interesting divergence in history.....
 
The Mongols would not be able to mount an invasion of India. The Kwarezmshahs own Afghanistan, Kashmir and the Khyber Pass, any other entry is not possible in the Middle Ages for massive armies.
 
He wasn't as rash as people make out.

He had spent his entire life fighting successfully against steppe nomads and upon realising he was bordering another powerful one, felt there was no way a peace could last (regardless of the intentions of it's current rulers) due to him being rich and them being nomads.

He knew there was no way he'd be able to invade the plains or win in pitched battles so he killed the envoys to draw the mongols into walled cities and forts where they could be defeated. He chose to fight on his terms because he felt a fight was inevitable.

And it was a really bad decision because he underestimated the mongols ability to cross deserts directly and conduct sieges efficiently. It was a bad call but I don't think the logic behind it (that long lasting peace was unlikely) was wrong.
 
@Youngmarshall I believe it was actually a sound strategy. To bring a nomadic horde into a frenzy and deep into his territory. Most nomadic forces would have arrived and once faced with a long siege, would either retreat or resort to infighting. It was the Kwarezmshahs experience in fighting nomads and (their own experience as Turkic nomads) that gave them this ide and plan to fight nomads and medieval strongmen. They simply called Temujin's bluff and the bluff ended up bein true and they suffered for it.

Also do note that the Khawarezmhahs are fairly overrated as an Islamic state now and then. Only decades earlier, the Kwarezmshahs were humiliated by the rump state Abbasids and they had an entire network of Ismaili militants operating in their land undermining the security of their holdings in Iran. Basically, the Khwarezmshahs were a case example of a paper tiger, at least in my opinion.
 
He wasn't as rash as people make out.

He had spent his entire life fighting successfully against steppe nomads and upon realising he was bordering another powerful one, felt there was no way a peace could last (regardless of the intentions of it's current rulers) due to him being rich and them being nomads.

He knew there was no way he'd be able to invade the plains or win in pitched battles so he killed the envoys to draw the mongols into walled cities and forts where they could be defeated. He chose to fight on his terms because he felt a fight was inevitable.

And it was a really bad decision because he underestimated the mongols ability to cross deserts directly and conduct sieges efficiently. It was a bad call but I don't think the logic behind it (that long lasting peace was unlikely) was wrong.

Ye, it doesn't seem Khawarezmhah had much of a choice.
By that time Genghis Khan was steadily subjugating the parts of the Great Eurasian Steppe to the North of the Khawarezmhah's Empire.
And you don't just unite the nomads in the steppe, you do it for a reason - to lead them pillaging/conquering the rich lands with settled population.
Khawarezmhah's lands being the closest... well, he did his math and started to act.
 
But lets actually answer the question.

Shah Muhammed doesn't provoke the mongols. They don't strike at him in 1218. Where else do they go?

Well China. The invasions of china had only started in 1205-07 and wouldn't be completed until 1279 by Genghis' grandson. Genghis himself would have been happy to just keep knocking away at china, which would have been a lfies work even with nothing else happening. They're rich, they're close, they're weak. He himself was happy enough with peace in the west and war in the east during the 1210s.

Will the mongols eventually strike into central asia and persia and then on into russia and europe anyway? I think probably yes, the Shah wasn't wrong that war was inevitable.

But if it's 10-20 years later than whose to say the results won't be different.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
But lets actually answer the question.

Shah Muhammed doesn't provoke the mongols. They don't strike at him in 1218. Where else do they go?

Well China. The invasions of china had only started in 1205-07 and wouldn't be completed until 1279 by Genghis' grandson. Genghis himself would have been happy to just keep knocking away at china, which would have been a lfies work even with nothing else happening. They're rich, they're close, they're weak. He himself was happy enough with peace in the west and war in the east during the 1210s.

Will the mongols eventually strike into central asia and persia and then on into russia and europe anyway? I think probably yes, the Shah wasn't wrong that war was inevitable.

But if it's 10-20 years later than whose to say the results won't be different.

From what I have read the Kwarezmshahs are particularly vulnerable at this time.

They have just taken over large areas and have not properly assimilated it.
They have bad relations with other nations.
They have incorrect information about the Mongol skill in siege warfare
The Shah is fearful that his army might turn against him if it is brought together in to large numbers.

Genghis Khan still dies in 1227 and the succession remains the same So if the Mongol's take 20 - 30+ years finishing off Xia and Song China what changes might happen on both sides???

The Kwarezmshahs have a clearer idea of the capabilities of the Mongols?
They are in firmer control of the lands the conquered?
Maybe the Shah is more confident in his army?

The Mongol's have assimilated more Chinese engineer units?
Maybe they have more men - or is that offset by the need for more Garrison units?

Also

If the Mongols are not invading Persia etc how does this affect the fighting against the Crusader States? Between the different Islamic states?
 
Top