AHC/PC: Limited Mongolia

What factors would allow for the Mongols to simple limit their expansion to The regions I have colored in the map below? And what implications would this have for the world? Assume that the boundaries are less rigind, more rounded, more fluid, and all the uncolored little islets near any major coloration is taken.

Mongolia.png

Mongolia.png
 
I'm going to assume Iran is a vassal, since taking the part of Central Asia north of it while leaving Iran intact would be . . . kinda odd otherwise (as they're part of the same empire as of the Mongol invasion).

Either that, or the Khwarezm-shahs never entered into Iran and we're going low butterflies.
 
I'm going to assume Iran is a vassal, since taking the part of Central Asia north of it while leaving Iran intact would be . . . kinda odd otherwise (as they're part of the same empire as of the Mongol invasion).

Either that, or the Khwarezm-shahs never entered into Iran and we're going low butterflies.

These borders arent definite. As for Persia, I dont want the Mongols to have conquered it as a whole, if at all. More or less, these are the definite borders of Mongolia
 
If the Khwarezm Shah doesn't kill the mongol ambassadors I don't think they would have a reason to go into Iran and the middle east. However if the Yuan failed to invade Vietnam, how can they conquer of South East Asia, and could they possibly get out of Taiwan?
 
Without the Mongol attack on Baghdad, the Caliphate is going to continue and remain strong, and the Islamic world will remain a progressive and intellectual region (barring any other catastrophes), with obvious ramifications for its interactions with Europe.
 
What's the reason for the greater expansion into Kampuchea?

If the Khwarezm Shah doesn't kill the mongol ambassadors I don't think they would have a reason to go into Iran and the middle east. However if the Yuan failed to invade Vietnam, how can they conquer of South East Asia, and could they possibly get out of Taiwan?
Could the two be related? No invasion into Persia leading to greater success in Indochina and Siam?

Without the Mongol attack on Baghdad, the Caliphate is going to continue and remain strong, and the Islamic world will remain a progressive and intellectual region (barring any other catastrophes), with obvious ramifications for its interactions with Europe.
Does the world as a whole end up smarter?
 
Without the Mongol attack on Baghdad, the Caliphate is going to continue and remain strong, and the Islamic world will remain a progressive and intellectual region (barring any other catastrophes), with obvious ramifications for its interactions with Europe.

At this point in time, no Mongols could change the Sultanate in Egypt, too. No Ain Jalut could easily mean no Baibars stays a general and doesn't usurp power, and no cooperation between Sultan Qutuz and the Crusader states to beat the Mongols. We could end up seeing a situation where the Europeans continue to reinforce Acre and play off of disunity in the Muslim world to stick around for longer than they did.
 
What factors would allow for the Mongols to simple limit their expansion to The regions I have colored in the map below? And what implications would this have for the world? Assume that the boundaries are less rigind, more rounded, more fluid, and all the uncolored little islets near any major coloration is taken.

View attachment 202005

After Khwarezm, they need to be stopped by Baghdad Caliphate. That will stop them invading Persia and expanding to Islam world.
If Mongolians Stopped by Russian princes then European expansion is halted.
Chinese conquest will be successful. Being cut off from European and Middle East expansion, Mongols can spend all their energy to conquer South East Asia. However task is too high (or mostly impossible) due to geography. South East is tropic and jungle which is weak area for Mongol cavalry.
 
After Khwarezm, they need to be stopped by Baghdad Caliphate. That will stop them invading Persia and expanding to Islam world.

Except that Khwarezm at this point and Iran are ruled by the same prince.

Taking the area they have on the map but leaving Iran out of it doesn't make sense without changing that.
 
The Kingdom of Georgia and seperatly the Russian States will also have to stop the Mongols in the north to prevent expansion. A stronger Kipchak Turks could work
 
I'm going to assume Iran is a vassal, since taking the part of Central Asia north of it while leaving Iran intact would be . . . kinda odd otherwise (as they're part of the same empire as of the Mongol invasion).

Either that, or the Khwarezm-shahs never entered into Iran and we're going low butterflies.

Didn't the Safazids simply transfer into moving all of Iran proper when their Azeri speaking capital was taken (I forget which it was but I do remember that detail). Maybe they transfer the court to a city in Iran.
 
Didn't the Safazids simply transfer into moving all of Iran proper when their Azeri speaking capital was taken (I forget which it was but I do remember that detail). Maybe they transfer the court to a city in Iran.

But why do the Mongols not pursue?

It just seems odd to only take part of that state and then stop.

It's not impossible if the state is strong enough or a vassal of the Mongols like Halych, but it does need some answer.
 
Without the Mongol attack on Baghdad, the Caliphate is going to continue and remain strong, and the Islamic world will remain a progressive and intellectual region (barring any other catastrophes), with obvious ramifications for its interactions with Europe.

The Caliphate was well past its prime when the Mongols attacked, by this point the Abbassids had basically been made into the Japaneese emperor, ruling in only a nominal sense while Turkik/Persian (by this point they where pretty assimilated there) generals vie for influence. But yeah, without the mongols the middle east is likely to be much better off in the long run to the point where if things go well they won't ever fall behind Europe (although given Europes good position they are likely to level out with eachother at some point).

But why do the Mongols not pursue?

It just seems odd to only take part of that state and then stop.

It's not impossible if the state is strong enough or a vassal of the Mongols like Halych, but it does need some answer.

It is a good question. Perhaps we just get rid of the Kwarezemi conquests altogether?
 
The Caliphate was well past its prime when the Mongols attacked, by this point the Abbassids had basically been made into the Japaneese emperor, ruling in only a nominal sense while Turkik/Persian (by this point they where pretty assimilated there) generals vie for influence. But yeah, without the mongols the middle east is likely to be much better off in the long run to the point where if things go well they won't ever fall behind Europe (although given Europes good position they are likely to level out with eachother at some point).

I'm not sure that they'd avoid falling behind. Baghdad was a devastating blow, but given the direction taken by say the Mamelukes, Islam's days of progressiveness are fading for reasons not tied to Baghdad itself.

It is a good question. Perhaps we just get rid of the Kwarezemi conquests altogether?

That'd work as far as I'm concerned, but does require adjusting the map.
 
I have adjusted the map for the above. However, upon looking at it, I can not see the Mongols being able to take any of India without South-Central Asia as well. And I also do not think that they would simply stop their expansion into Central Asia if they have already conquered the areas below. So maybe the whole of the Mongol invasions are inevitable?

East Asia.png

East Asia.png
 
Top