A Successful Franco-Mongol Alliance?

What is the best point at which the Ilkhanate and the Crusaders could have had a functional alliance? If the two can cooperate successfully in the Levant, can they break the Mamluks? If the Mamluk Dynasty were to collapse under this pressure, what happens to Islam? What is the most the Crusaders and the Mongols can feasibly accomplish at each other’s side?

From what I’ve read, the Mongol conquest of Baghdad was a particularly traumatizing event for the Muslim world, and may have seemed like judgement day had come for Muslims at the time. Does Islam lose its steam if the Mamluks collapse and the Crusaders take Egypt?
 
What is the best point at which the Ilkhanate and the Crusaders could have had a functional alliance? If the two can cooperate successfully in the Levant, can they break the Mamluks? If the Mamluk Dynasty were to collapse under this pressure, what happens to Islam? What is the most the Crusaders and the Mongols can feasibly accomplish at each other’s side?

From what I’ve read, the Mongol conquest of Baghdad was a particularly traumatizing event for the Muslim world, and may have seemed like judgement day had come for Muslims at the time. Does Islam lose its steam if the Mamluks collapse and the Crusaders take Egypt?
Alliance was not just possible, it was offered and rejected. The usual arrangement was acknowledgement of vassal dependency from the Great Khan. Results would depend upon the specific timing: Kit-Buka was left with a force too small for a serious success even with the crusading help and later an ongoing military conflict with Berke was a priority.

As for potential impact, let’s be realistic. Islam remained the dominant religion in CA in general and in Ilkhanate specifically and Hulagu successors converted into it. AFAIK, Muslim population of Outremer was not, in general, converted into Christianity and there is no reason to expect anything of the kind in Egypt where the conquerors would be a tiny minority. As OTL demonstrated, the Muslim world managed to survive quite nicely without a Caliph of Baghdad and even expanded its territory when the Tatars converted into Islam.

It is quite possible to assume that the joined force (with more Mongols than just Kit-Bucks corps) would defeat the Mamelukes and conquer all or at least Lower Egypt. The Mongols would not stay there or in Syria due to the shortage of the pastures so the future would be up to the crusading state.
Also keep in mind tha a big part of Hulagu army had been troops lended by the Golden Horde. In OTL after the Sack of Baghdad Berke, a devoured Muslim, order his troops to leave Hulagu. Then, there was a dispute over possession of the good pastures of the Northern Caucasus in which Hulagu was defeated. To make a long story short, except for the initial part of conquest Hulagu had limited resources.
 
Alliance was not just possible, it was offered and rejected. The usual arrangement was acknowledgement of vassal dependency from the Great Khan. Results would depend upon the specific timing: Kit-Buka was left with a force too small for a serious success even with the crusading help and later an ongoing military conflict with Berke was a priority.

So, we might have to do this rather early. It would be interesting I think if we could somehow butterfly away the Latin Empire (perhaps by way of butterflying the Massacre of the Latins), for a united front of Crusaders, Byzantines, and Mongols against the Muslim world, thus fulfilling the Prester John prophecy.

However, we could also posit that Ghazan never converts to Islam, or perhaps he never ascends to the throne as well.

As for potential impact, let’s be realistic. Islam remained the dominant religion in CA in general and in Ilkhanate specifically and Hulagu successors converted into it. AFAIK, Muslim population of Outremer was not, in general, converted into Christianity and there is no reason to expect anything of the kind in Egypt where the conquerors would be a tiny minority. As OTL demonstrated, the Muslim world managed to survive quite nicely without a Caliph of Baghdad and even expanded its territory when the Tatars converted into Islam.

A conversion to Christianity wasn't really what I had in mind. Say, if the Crusaders and the Mongols can smash the Mamluks (obviously this would take place after the above proposed POD), meaning that essentially the whole of the Middle East save Arabia has been lost to non-Muslim rulers, and this state of affairs is maintained for at least a century, I think it highly possible that the Islamic world will begin to fragment, perhaps with more mystic elements along the lines of Sufism taking precedent until another religion derived from Islam, maybe something like the Baha'i faith, takes off in Iran/Mesopotamia. If we really wanted to wank the whole thing, this could happen if a Crusader Egypt were to sack (not occupy) Mecca down the line once the Crusaders had consolidated their holdings. Especially if they were to hire a contingent of Ethiopian Christian mercenaries to go along, since if I recall correctly Ethiopians sacking Mecca is a sign of judgment day in Islam.

It is quite possible to assume that the joined force (with more Mongols than just Kit-Bucks corps) would defeat the Mamelukes and conquer all or at least Lower Egypt. The Mongols would not stay there or in Syria due to the shortage of the pastures so the future would be up to the crusading state.
Also keep in mind tha a big part of Hulagu army had been troops lended by the Golden Horde. In OTL after the Sack of Baghdad Berke, a devoured Muslim, order his troops to leave Hulagu. Then, there was a dispute over possession of the good pastures of the Northern Caucasus in which Hulagu was defeated. To make a long story short, except for the initial part of conquest Hulagu had limited resources.

Do they really need to stay, though? What if the Crusader kings accept an arrangement with a non-Muslim Ilkhanate along the lines of Armenian Cilicia? Or is that completely out of the question? If they control Egypt, I'm not sure they would accept the Mongols as suzerains, but allies against any Muslim resurgence movements say, in Arabia I think is doable.
 
So, we might have to do this rather early. It would be interesting I think if we could somehow butterfly away the Latin Empire (perhaps by way of butterflying the Massacre of the Latins), for a united front of Crusaders, Byzantines, and Mongols against the Muslim world, thus fulfilling the Prester John prophecy.

To butterfly the Latin Empire you'd need the Mongols to to conquer the Seljuk Sultanate before 1202 (4th Crusade) and to make sovereign-vassal (or just an agreement to pay tribute) with the Byzantines. Taking into an account that a formal unification of the Mongolian tribes happened in 1206 and conquest of Khwarizmian Empire in 1219 - 1221, I can't see how this could happen.

Can't comment on the Islamic part of the issue deeper than I did: the matters of religion are not my area of interest.
 
To butterfly the Latin Empire you'd need the Mongols to to conquer the Seljuk Sultanate before 1202 (4th Crusade) and to make sovereign-vassal (or just an agreement to pay tribute) with the Byzantines. Taking into an account that a formal unification of the Mongolian tribes happened in 1206 and conquest of Khwarizmian Empire in 1219 - 1221, I can't see how this could happen.

Can't comment on the Islamic part of the issue deeper than I did: the matters of religion are not my area of interest.

Ummm... how did you come to that conclusion? I would think butterflying away the Latin Empire could be done internally, by way of preventing the Massacre of the Latins, perhaps with a different set of policies undertaken in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos that allow his administration to come to some sort of a settlement with the Venetians. Down the road, there isn't so much animosity between Greeks and Latins so as to provoke the massacre when he dies, and maybe he can even leave a more stable government in place when he goes. This could also be helped perhaps by a successful capture of Damascus during the Second Crusade, which, if it could be held (and that's a very big IF, I understand) and the crusade is generally more successful than it was IOTL, might help to keep relations between the Byzantines and the Crusaders going nicely over the course of the next century for when Prester John in the form of the Mongols shows up.
 
Ummm... how did you come to that conclusion? I would think butterflying away the Latin Empire could be done internally, by way of preventing the Massacre of the Latins, perhaps with a different set of policies undertaken in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos that allow his administration to come to some sort of a settlement with the Venetians. Down the road, there isn't so much animosity between Greeks and Latins so as to provoke the massacre when he dies, and maybe he can even leave a more stable government in place when he goes. This could also be helped perhaps by a successful capture of Damascus during the Second Crusade, which, if it could be held (and that's a very big IF, I understand) and the crusade is generally more successful than it was IOTL, might help to keep relations between the Byzantines and the Crusaders going nicely over the course of the next century for when Prester John in the form of the Mongols shows up.

You are "forgetting" the tensions between Byzantines and Venice which resulted in the crusaders' arrival to Constantinople in the 1st place. Before getting to Constantinople, the crusaders sacked Zara (which had nothing to do with the Massacre of the Latins being a Catholic city in Croatia) and transferred it to Venice. After this glorious deed the crusaders had been excommunicated. The Byzantines (who had been interested in regained their privileged trade position in Byzantine Empire) agreed to finance the crusaders on the condition that they'll sail to Constantinople and get involved in the local affairs that had nothing to do with the HL. Coronation of Alexios is hardly a convincing indication of a fundamental split between Greeks and Latins: he was most definitely a Greek. As a result of the Sack of Constantinople Venice did get all concessions it required (and a lot of a loot).

' The massacre itself however remains relatively obscure, and Catholic historian Warren Carroll notes that "Historians who wax eloquent and indignant—with considerable reason—about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in ... 1182."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins#Impact

'Arrangements' with Venice (just as with their Genovese competitors) meant, a monopoly on the Black Sea trade, freedom (IIRC) of taxation, privileged settlement on Byzantine territory (in Galata) and some other benefits.

Getting back to the initial issue, if
(a) everything is going nice and peachy for few decades (no Sack of Constantinople, continued crusades, etc.)
and
(b) both Byzantines and Outremer states are ready to pay tribute to the Mongols and act in concert with them (unlike OTL when, being in much worse situation they preferred to side with the Mamelukes, which tells a lot about their mental capacities). Probably Byzantines would be more or less irrelevant in that scenario.
and
(c) there is no war between Hulagu and Berke

then the joined Mongolian, Outremer (and Armenian) force could conquer Syria, advance to Egypt and conquer at least part of it. After which the Mongols are withdrawing with a loot leaving the Christians in charge of the area and the rest is open to imagination.
 
You are "forgetting" the tensions between Byzantines and Venice which resulted in the crusaders' arrival to Constantinople in the 1st place. Before getting to Constantinople, the crusaders sacked Zara (which had nothing to do with the Massacre of the Latins being a Catholic city in Croatia) and transferred it to Venice. After this glorious deed the crusaders had been excommunicated. The Byzantines (who had been interested in regained their privileged trade position in Byzantine Empire) agreed to finance the crusaders on the condition that they'll sail to Constantinople and get involved in the local affairs that had nothing to do with the HL. Coronation of Alexios is hardly a convincing indication of a fundamental split between Greeks and Latins: he was most definitely a Greek. As a result of the Sack of Constantinople Venice did get all concessions it required (and a lot of a loot).

I'm confused. First of all, you put the word "forgetting" in quotation marks, as though to imply that I'm deliberately ignoring something, which I'm not. Secondly, are you referring to the Siege of Zara that took place in 1202? Because if so, that's quite awhile after the time period I was talking about. I was talking about butterflying the Massacre of the Latins so as to put the Byzantines and the Crusaders on better terms with one another. The massacre took place in 1182, well in advance of the Siege of Zara and the reign of Manuel I Komnenos, who I was talking about possibly achieving some sort of an agreement with the Venetians that is mutually beneficial to both parties (as opposed to the Venetians getting everything they want and the Byzantine government getting nothing), reigned from 1143-1180. I was also speculating about a more successful Second Crusade, perhaps by way of Damascus being sacked (maybe captured?). We seem to be talking about different time periods, here.

'Arrangements' with Venice (just as with their Genovese competitors) meant, a monopoly on the Black Sea trade, freedom (IIRC) of taxation, privileged settlement on Byzantine territory (in Galata) and some other benefits.

That sounds like a pile of shit, from a Byzantine perspective. So, perhaps Manuel I can achieve some more favorable terms for his empire?

Getting back to the initial issue, if
(a) everything is going nice and peachy for few decades (no Sack of Constantinople, continued crusades, etc.)
and
(b) both Byzantines and Outremer states are ready to pay tribute to the Mongols and act in concert with them (unlike OTL when, being in much worse situation they preferred to side with the Mamelukes, which tells a lot about their mental capacities). Probably Byzantines would be more or less irrelevant in that scenario.
and
(c) there is no war between Hulagu and Berke

then the joined Mongolian, Outremer (and Armenian) force could conquer Syria, advance to Egypt and conquer at least part of it. After which the Mongols are withdrawing with a loot leaving the Christians in charge of the area and the rest is open to imagination.

(A) I think we can avoid this entire problem with a set of different decisions in Manuel I's reign.
(B) I cannot imagine either the Byzantines or the Crusader States paying tribute to the Mongols in this context. Assuming internal strife within the Mongols' ranks goes similarly to TOTL (the original timeline - is that a valid valid acronym?), will the Mongols be willing to cooperate with the Christian states to divide up the spoils of the Middle East? As far as I am aware, not all of the Crusader principalities involved in cooperating with the Mongols of the Ilkhanate accepted them as their suzerains or paid tribute to them, although I know some of them did.
(C) Why is this a requirement?
 
(A) I think we can avoid this entire problem with a set of different decisions in Manuel I's reign.

But even from a purely geographic perspective, of what practical help Byzantines of that time could be in a proposed Franco-Mongolian conquest of Egypt?

(B) I cannot imagine either the Byzantines or the Crusader States paying tribute to the Mongols in this context. Assuming internal strife within the Mongols' ranks goes similarly to TOTL (the original timeline - is that a valid valid acronym?), will the Mongols be willing to cooperate with the Christian states to divide up the spoils of the Middle East? As far as I am aware, not all of the Crusader principalities involved in cooperating with the Mongols of the Ilkhanate accepted them as their suzerains or paid tribute to them, although I know some of them did.

I'm talking about the pattern which existed during the 1st wave of the Mongolian conquests including those of Batu (who sent requests of submission to the Pope and Emperor Frederic II) and Hulagu. With the passage of time and ongoing disintegration of the Mongolian Empire the pattern had been changing so there could be various models, as for example, between Michael VIII Paleolog and Ilkhanate (married his illegitimate daughter to Ilkhan Abaqa) and then Nogay (to whom he married his another daughter). As I understand, none of these cases involved a formal submission and we are talking about the allied relations. However, situation with Outremer (even if just by the reasons of geography) was different. Bohemond VI of Antioch, under the influence of his father-in-law Hetoum I of Armenia, had voluntarily submitted to Mongol authority in 1260, while Hulagu was in power, making Antioch and Tripoli vassal states of the Ilkhanate.

As far as the crusades are involved, during the IX crusade Abaqa sent 10,000 troops to help Edward I and in 1280 Abaqa and Leo III (king of Armenia) urged the Franks to start a new Crusade but only the Hospitallers and Edward I (who could not come for lack of funds) responded favourably. The rest of Outremer maintained peace with the Mameluks.

'According to the 20th-century historian Runciman, "Had the Mongol alliance been achieved and honestly implemented by the West, the existence of Outremer would almost certainly have been prolonged. The Mameluks would have been crippled if not destroyed; and the Ilkhanate of Persia would have survived as a power friendly to the Christians and the West"'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arghun#Second_mission,_to_Kings_Philip_and_Edward

(C) Why is this a requirement?

Quite obviously, if we are talking strictly about Hulagu, it is rather difficult to be successful when you have two front war on your hands and when a considerable part of your initial force left you (and some of them joined the Mameluks) on the order of their ruler. The conflicts did not end with Berke's and Hulagu's death (in 1271 Abaqa'a main force had been fighting in Turkestan). Anyway, territory of Ilkhanate had limited resources of the nomadic troops comparing to those of the Blue and White Hordes and if they had an alliance instead of confrontation, Ilkhanate could get considerable reinforcements (as was the case with the initial Hulagu's army), which would allow to smash the Mameluks even without too much of a Frankish help.
 
But even from a purely geographic perspective, of what practical help Byzantines of that time could be in a proposed Franco-Mongolian conquest of Egypt?



I'm talking about the pattern which existed during the 1st wave of the Mongolian conquests including those of Batu (who sent requests of submission to the Pope and Emperor Frederic II) and Hulagu. With the passage of time and ongoing disintegration of the Mongolian Empire the pattern had been changing so there could be various models, as for example, between Michael VIII Paleolog and Ilkhanate (married his illegitimate daughter to Ilkhan Abaqa) and then Nogay (to whom he married his another daughter). As I understand, none of these cases involved a formal submission and we are talking about the allied relations. However, situation with Outremer (even if just by the reasons of geography) was different. Bohemond VI of Antioch, under the influence of his father-in-law Hetoum I of Armenia, had voluntarily submitted to Mongol authority in 1260, while Hulagu was in power, making Antioch and Tripoli vassal states of the Ilkhanate.

Right, so we might want to keep the civil war between Hulagu and Berke in this context to get the Ilkhans to come down from their high horse, so to speak. That is, if we are going with butterflying the Massacre of the Latins and subsequently the Latin Empire as well. The Byzantines in this scenario wouldn't necessarily be useful in terms of the Franco-Mongolian conquest of Egypt, but rather, in helping the Outremer states from earlier on maintain their dominance in Syria to weaken the Ayyubids before the Mongols even show up. Maybe not even in terms of lending troops, but I could see logistical support from cooperating Byzantines and Venetians being extremely helpful. This would help to put both parties in much, much stronger positions when the Mongols arrive, and after a Berke-Hulagu War, Hulagu and his successors might be even more keen on cooperating with the Christians. Of course, it's entirely possible that Berke's conversion could be butterflied by this affair, as he is said to have been converted by Muslims in a caravan at Bukhara.

Quite obviously, if we are talking strictly about Hulagu, it is rather difficult to be successful when you have two front war on your hands and when a considerable part of your initial force left you (and some of them joined the Mameluks) on the order of their ruler. The conflicts did not end with Berke's and Hulagu's death (in 1271 Abaqa'a main force had been fighting in Turkestan). Anyway, territory of Ilkhanate had limited resources of the nomadic troops comparing to those of the Blue and White Hordes and if they had an alliance instead of confrontation, Ilkhanate could get considerable reinforcements (as was the case with the initial Hulagu's army), which would allow to smash the Mameluks even without too much of a Frankish help.

So... what happens if Berke is never converted to Islam because of a different state of affairs in the Middle East starting a hundred years earlier drawing the members of that caravan elsewhere? Or perhaps... the members of it are never even born.

Are there any takers on what happens to the Muslim world however if the Ilkhans never convert and the Mamluks are smashed by an alliance of this kind? @John7755 يوحنا , perhaps?
 
Right, so we might want to keep the civil war between Hulagu and Berke in this context to get the Ilkhans to come down from their high horse, so to speak.

Let's do it one step in a time. ;)

When Hulagu started his campaign, he was given the troops mobilized all over the Mongolian Empire and presumably had the biggest Mongolian army in his disposal. With this force he could demand vassal style of cooperation from the locals (and got it in some cases). However, situation changed after the deaths of Batu and Mongke and it does not look like by the time of his conflict with Berke he had the initial numbers. Which means that he had to be more pragmatic. Even Berke (through Nogay) did not demand submission of the Byzantine Empire and was satisfied with the alliance.

OTOH, it can be argued that conflict conflict between Ilkhanate and the Blue Horde was almost inevitable: it was about the good pastures in the area of Terek River and the pastures were of a primary importance for the nomadic states.

That is, if we are going with butterflying the Massacre of the Latins and subsequently the Latin Empire as well.

Not that it matters too much within context of the subject we are discussing but, as I already mentioned, there is an opinion that these two events are not directly linked. However, the Venetian interests were clearly involved as one of the dominant factors in shaping the 4th Crusade in a way that led to the OTL events.

The Byzantines in this scenario wouldn't necessarily be useful in terms of the Franco-Mongolian conquest of Egypt, but rather, in helping the Outremer states from earlier on maintain their dominance in Syria to weaken the Ayyubids before the Mongols even show up.

It does not look like there was a need in weakening Ayyubids: Hulagu was capable of dealing with them on his own.

Maybe not even in terms of lending troops, but I could see logistical support from cooperating Byzantines and Venetians being extremely helpful. This would help to put both parties in much, much stronger positions when the Mongols arrive, and after a Berke-Hulagu War, Hulagu and his successors might be even more keen on cooperating with the Christians.

They were as keen as was possible. The problem was with the Christian side: they were either reluctant or incapable of raising the armies. Or even preferring to side with the Muslims.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Berke's conversion could be butterflied by this affair, as he is said to have been converted by Muslims in a caravan at Bukhara.

As I said, the conflict was not hinging exclusively upon Berke's faith: there was a serious border dispute.
 
Top