AHC: Khwarazmians Halt Mongol Expansion

Except Subutai would be leading the armies. The Khwarezm would get a reprieve as the Mongols would have to choose their new leader, but they'd be coming back with Subutai leading the vanguard against them (if not the whole army) as he did IOTL.

The Mongols are defeatable. Especially in this case, wherein the fighting is somewhat equal since the Khwarezm are somewhat like the Mongols.

The issue I have with Mongols making mistakes is that all of the Generals in the Mongol army will make mistakes since everyone who's who were in this campaign, Genghis, Tolui, Chagatai, Ogedei, Jochi, Jelme, Subutai, etc... Each of their armies should make mistakes and lose all of their separate battles.

If we make it realistic as possible, one army makes mistakes the other do not, the others just can simply cover those mistakes by taking over. Mongol mistakes would only delay the inevitable unless everyone participating the invasion makes mistakes.

I am thinking if the Shah just went for a decisive pitch battle. Use his numerical superiority over the Mongols rather hide in the walls. They had approx 5 to 1 advantage, with them having almost parity in fighting techniques, tactics. By avoiding to split, you take away Mongol generalship talent pool by making it one battle so the Shah can lead. Here one mistake can have a disastrous effect for all of the Mongols.
 
Last edited:
Namayan: The Mongols can win a few battles and still have their invasion fail. It's not either they lose every single engagement or Khwarezm is doomed.
 
blizzard

Shah Mohamed lost an army during a blizzard while trying to invade Iraq the year prior to the Mongol invasion. That could be a possible POD. Depending how many men he lost in that expedition, it could have made a difference.
 
Last edited:
True, but they were nigh-unbeatable. Jalal-al-Din, although managing to inflict a defeat on the Mongols at Parwan, was beaten at the Indus Valley (1221), and the Alborz Mts. (mid-1220's). I do have to admit however, Jalal was probably the most capable commander and Khwarazmian ruler during the Mongol invasions, and if he had been given time to consolidate his power, probably would've been considered the single greatest ruler of his dynasty.

From all I know Jalal-al-Din was a living legend. We have surprisingly lots of information about him. He was an outstanding son of a great father. People tend to forget that his father Kharezm Shah Muhammed was one of the great conquerors of his time.
Muhhamed was an experienced seasoned veteran who saw something overwhelming, something he had never seem in his life - the Mongols. They were such good fighters that to meet them in the open would be a folly. The only thing which could save the Khawrezmian Empire was a miracle - some catching decease among the Mongols, death of Genghiz Khan, infighting of his successors, whatever. And that was what Muhammed was patiently waiting for behind high walls or on a lonely island in the Caspian Sea.

Jalal-al-Din was young, he was high tempered, brave, energetic and lucky - he could boast something unthinkable - he beat the Mongols in the open field. Once.
He was strong as no one else, he was adored by his followers even worshipped as hero.
He had the best recommendation in the world - Gengiz Khan showed him swimming Indus River alone with his horse to his sons and said "That is the son any father could dream of and be proud".

But what did Jalal-al-Din prove?
He proved that his old man was right - only miracle could save you against the Mongols when they were at the peak of their might.
 
Last edited:
I admit I don't know much about this conflict, but what I have read, that the Khwarazmis just let the Mongols destroy city after city without organizing any kind of coherent national defense despite having a large numerical advantage, just doesn't make any sense.
 
Namayan: The Mongols can win a few battles and still have their invasion fail. It's not either they lose every single engagement or Khwarezm is doomed.

If you read, my post further you will see a solution to this. Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad mistake in OTL was refuse open pitch battle against the Mongols.

The solution is to confront the Mongols in the open field and lure all of their armies combined in one single battle rather than opposite of OTL wherein the Shah refused open battle. Therefore, Genghis split up the Mongol army doing multiple sieges in multiple cities. In the open field battle, you can have the several mistakes of the Mongols which would end and halt the Mongol expansion there.

If we do an OTL siege for every battle, the Mongols will simply come back again to siege. A mistake in one of the sieges will hardly make any difference unless the mistake takes more than half of Genghis army. The issue with this OTL scenario is the Shah does not have same talent pool of generalship the Mongols have. Plus, by being defensive, the Shah cannot engage the Mongol army that retreated from the city. It is the reason why as long as the armies are divided and the Shah refuses open field battle, Mongols will have the advantage.

If we put it during Jalal al-Din time as Shah, Khwarezm would have fewer resources and it would be too late to win the war vs the Mongols. The only time that Jalal al-Din won a battle was when he fought the Mongol army under Shikhikhutug in Parawan. Shikhikhutug was a better administrator than a battlefield commander.
 
If you read, my post further you will see a solution to this. Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad mistake in OTL was refuse open pitch battle against the Mongols.

I did read your post further. My point is that I disagree with your claim that " If we make it realistic as possible, one army makes mistakes the other do not, the others just can simply cover those mistakes by taking over. Mongol mistakes would only delay the inevitable unless everyone participating the invasion makes mistakes."

There's no rule of siege warfare that the attacker wins by default. If anything, it tends to be the other way around.

I'm not saying what the shah did OTL was a good idea - scattering his forces and providing ineffective leadership was a great blow to his chances - but I don't think putting everything on one throw of the dice in the field is a good idea, or that because the Mongols take (say) Samarkand that they'll inevitably take other cities as well, because they will keep trying until they win.
 
Although that reputed Genghis Khan quote may be apocryphal...
I've read it before but the sources seem dodgy.
May be. I was not there in person.
But one thing for sure - Genghis Khan appreciated valor and strength most of all. Jelal al Din had both in great quantities.

I admit I don't know much about this conflict, but what I have read, that the Khwarazmis just let the Mongols destroy city after city without organizing any kind of coherent national defense despite having a large numerical advantage, just doesn't make any sense.
You see we know NOW that the Mongols were exceptionally good at taking cities and all fortifications in general. But before this Khwarazmian expedition it was not that obvious. As a matter of fact in China the Mongols had had some serious problems with sieges.
We know NOW that the Mongols were the best war machine in history of the humankind and they were highly destructive in all kinds of warfare including sieges and storming fortifications.
And it is easy NOW to blame Kharezm Shah Muhammed for not knowing then things which we know NOW.

But shah Muhhamed was THEN and he made a sound decision based on what he knew THEN. The idea was that the Mongols would break their heads against the impregnable walls - these savage nomads would spend years in fruitless sieges. They would destroy the surroundings burn the countryside and facing hunger and diseases they would have to retreat back into the steppes where they belong.
 
Last edited:
May be. I was not there in person.
But one thing for sure - Genghis Khan appreciated valor and strength most of all. Jelal al Din had both in great quantities.

You sometimes write as if you were there.;) It seems a commonality among martial peoples to appreciate those attributes.

You see we know NOW that the Mongols were exceptionally good at taking cities and all fortifications in general. But before this Khwarazmian expedition it was not that obvious. As a matter of fact in China the Mongols had had some serious problems with sieges.
We know NOW that the Mongols were one of the best war machine in history of the humankind (up to that time) and they were highly destructive in all kinds of warfare including sieges and storming fortifications.
And it is easy NOW to blame Kharezm Shah Muhammed for not knowing then things which we know NOW.

Fixed that for you.:D It is perhaps unfortunate that History has painted a picture of Shah M. as being timid.

But shah Muhhamed was THEN and he made a sound decision based on what he knew THEN. The idea was that the Mongols would break their heads against the impregnable walls - these savage nomads would spend years in fruitless sieges. They would destroy the surroundings burn the countryside and facing hunger and diseases they would have to retreat back into the steppes where they belong.

Sounds like a reasonable surmise. It very well may have been that Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad made the best decisions possible with the information he had at hand. Not that a Mongol conquest was inevitable, despite their advantages. As much as Genghis reputedly referred to himself as an irresistible force of nature ("I am the flail of God"), Fortuna is a fickle creature...

I suppose another way of looking at things would be, what could the Mongols (have reasonably) done wrong or have go wrong in this campaign? Things (possibly minor in themselves) such as : what if Jebe had not captured merchants en route who could show him the oasis route through the Kyzyl Kum Desert so he could launch a surprise assault on Bukhara?
 
Last edited:
You sometimes write as if you were there.;)
You see we know that a lot of people thought that Genghiz Khan said this praise about Jelal al Din. That's the point. Was it a legend or was it true?
Hm... Does it matter?
My point was not that Genghiz Khan said these words. My point was that everybody thought that he did. They believed it. That is called a reputation.

You see there was no CNN or BBC back then and they did not take interview from Genghiz Khan. Such information spread only by the words of mouth. And it is up to you - believe it or not.
The same was with Alexander the Great for example: Alexander said this, Alexander said that, Alexander praised that guy and so on. And a lot of years later some historians wrote these rumors down. The same about Genghiz Khan.
 
May be. I was not there in person.
But one thing for sure - Genghis Khan appreciated valor and strength most of all. Jelal al Din had both in great quantities.


You see we know NOW that the Mongols were exceptionally good at taking cities and all fortifications in general. But before this Khwarazmian expedition it was not that obvious. As a matter of fact in China the Mongols had had some serious problems with sieges.
We know NOW that the Mongols were the best war machine in history of the humankind and they were highly destructive in all kinds of warfare including sieges and storming fortifications.
And it is easy NOW to blame Kharezm Shah Muhammed for not knowing then things which we know NOW.

But shah Muhhamed was THEN and he made a sound decision based on what he knew THEN. The idea was that the Mongols would break their heads against the impregnable walls - these savage nomads would spend years in fruitless sieges. They would destroy the surroundings burn the countryside and facing hunger and diseases they would have to retreat back into the steppes where they belong.

Yes, but my point is rather that you would think after the loss of a few cities, an empire of that size would sit back and think "Hmmm maybe we need to rethink our war plan".
 
You see we know that a lot of people thought that Genghiz Khan said this praise about Jelal al Din. That's the point. Was it a legend or was it true?
Hm... Does it matter?
My point was not that Genghiz Khan said these words. My point was that everybody thought that he did. They believed it. That is called a reputation.

You see there was no CNN or BBC back then and they did not take interview from Genghiz Khan. Such information spread only by the words of mouth. And it is up to you - believe it or not.
The same was with Alexander the Great for example: Alexander said this, Alexander praised that guy and so on. And a lot of years later some historians wrote these rumors down. The same about Genghiz Khan.

My humor is lost....
It is a minor point whether or not Genghis or Alexander or whomever said a certain bon mot or whatever, as you suggest.
I do agree with your general assessment of the formidability of the Mongols and the whole knowledge in hindsight issue. Those are of far greater consequence and interest.
 
Yes, but my point is rather that you would think after the loss of a few cities, an empire of that size would sit back and think "Hmmm maybe we need to rethink our war plan".

As I said earlier Muhammed with his elite guard force, his crack troops had fought against the reconnoissance force of the Mongols whom he met quite accidentally.
So he had first hand information about their martial qualities. He was not scared, no, he was too good for that. He just understood that against the whole army of the Mongols his army does not stand a chance.

So he decided to engage the Mongols in the siege warfare, hoping that it would stop them.

After the loss of a few cities, Kharezm Shah Muhammed sat back and thought "Hmmm now I am proper f*cked".
And he fled to hide away on a lonely island on the Caspian Sea if I remember correctly.
 
First of all two million soldiers is ridiculous. Even if you count adult men able to carry a sharp stick and a stone as soldiers.

I don't know... the metropolises of Choresm had millions of people, and the country lost a big part of its population after the Mongol conquest. Some scientists state that the country still hasn't fully recovered after half a millennium.

Do you have a source for better numbers?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I wonder....if a TL could be made on this, and how it would impact za warudo.

Though the question is, how would you make it work. We've established that the Mongols are beatable, we just have to figure as to how to beat them effectively. But if someone can do it, it would be the biggest post-Zoroastrianist Persian-wank of all time.
 
As I said earlier Muhammed with his elite guard force, his crack troops had fought against the reconnoissance force of the Mongols whom he met quite accidentally.
So he had first hand information about their martial qualities. He was not scared, no, he was too good for that. He just understood that against the whole army of the Mongols his army does not stand a chance.

So he decided to engage the Mongols in the siege warfare, hoping that it would stop them.

After the loss of a few cities, Kharezm Shah Muhammed sat back and thought "Hmmm now I am proper f*cked".
And he fled to hide away on a lonely island on the Caspian Sea if I remember correctly.

I agree with your assessment.
IMO Shah's assessment was:
1. As nomads Mongols is best in open warfare.
2. Mongols would be not great at siege warfare, since Mongols were nomads and not experienced in engaging siege warfare.
3. Kwarezim had numerical advantage. So he would have more defending troops. It was understood that defending city walls had advantage. Even smaller forces could defend cities from larger attacking forces.
Maybe Shah wanted to use "strategy Soviets used against Nazi during WWII". Exhaust Mongols then beat them through counter offensive. Kwarezm had population, economic and technology (???) advantage. Also Mongols were operating far from they country while Kwarezm will operate in home.
 
So yeah, your challenge is to have the Kwarezemians defeat Mongol expansion at their borders. They can be pushed back but they need to definitively stop mongol expansion in that direction.

Hand waiving plausibility, the best POD is beat Mongols as suggested by Jalal-Ad-Din. If 450,0 thousand Kwarezm troops will beat 150,0-200,0 Mongols when they cross Amu Dariya river then Mongols will need to back.
Then Mongols would retreat. Mongols need sometime to recover. Then Mongols first would attack Tangut before they attack Kwarezm again. Then Gengis will die soon. Ogodei would deal with Jin first before attacking West. So Kwarezm will be safe for good 2 decades till Mongols 2nd campaign.
 
hmm

You could always have major meeting engagement between the Mongols and Kzwarem and have the Mongols win but with Genghis and number of the senior leaders getting killed or crippled.
This worked during the Cathar crusade for Montfort after all at Murat.
 
Top