Arab or Mongol Overstretch

Thande

Donor
Somewhat based on the other Mongol thread.

OTL, the Arab/Islamic Explosion and the Mongol conquests are somewhat comparable. Both were mainly accomplished by novel cavalry tactics against armies which didn't know how to cope with them, both were the result of formerly divided nomadic peoples closing ranks around a new identity (national in the case of the Mongols, national and religious in the case of the Arabs). And both resulted in the (relatively) rapid conquest of more lands than one might think entirely plausible if it was suggested as a WI on here.

Perhaps the most significant issue is how longstanding these conquests were. The Yuan dynasty in China lasted a good while, the Khanate of the Golden Horde ditto, and Mongol terminology became deep-grained in languages. Have you ever stopped to consider how strange it is that Khan is a fairly common name in India?

The Arabs, of course, left even more obvious traces - Islam in most of the lands they conquered, and strong cultural influences in those that did not remain Muslim (e.g. Spain). They led to the virtual reinvention of the character of Persia and North Africa, two lands which had had an established identity since before classical times.

So, what would it have taken for - on the contrary - either the Arabs or Mongols (two different scenarios, obviously) to have overstretched and for their huge empires to have collapsed. Not into culturally connected successor states, like OTL, but by native peoples rebelling and throwing out all traces of the conqueror? No Khans in India, no Arabic spoken in North Africa, etc. Make them as irrelevant as the Avars or the Huns are to modern Eastern Europe - just a dusty name in a history textbook, remembered vaguely as a passing storm.

More victories might help. The Arabs were assisted by the fact that the Jews and Monophysites of North Africa considered Muslim rule to be more tolerant than that of Orthodox or Catholic states. But what if the Arabs had taken Constantinople and tried to absorb Byzantium in the 700s, at the same time as Persia et al? How much would it have taken before the Arabs themselves were spread too thinly for the Ummayid empire to hold together even as long as it did OTL?

Ditto for the Mongols, would they have started running down if they had made a successful invasion of India and/or western Europe and become too thinly spread and coping with a wide variety of enemies and rebellious subject peoples?

Discuss.
 
maybe instead of just invading to secure their borders, the Mongols decide on a wholesale invasion of Europe, where they waste tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers, manpower, and time. having depleted their armies elsewhere in their empire, local uprisings gain much success, forcing the Khagan to abruptly pull out of Europe, and retreat to consolidate in the Khaganate. but then he dies and the Mongol hordes are plunged into civil war as various factions fight to ascend to the throne in Karakoum, all the while conquered people are rising up against their overlords.


I don't know where it would go from there, and I don't know as much about the Arabs to comment on them....
 
Heh. OTL Al-Andalus had situations where lords rose up and declared that they were Christians, and the Saxons had a similar situation going on.

I could see this happening fairly easily.
 
I think also the Little Ice Age had something to do with it. The heartland of the Mongol world was in northern climates which took a beating from the climate cooling starting in the early 1300s. Decreasing food and grass probably reduced the thin Mongol population as it was. Combine this with rising discontent among the subjects, failing economic institutions among the conquered realms which the Mongols couldn't fix, famine induced immunity issues which enabled the Black Death... The Mongol Empire was not ruleable.
 
Have you ever stopped to consider how strange it is that Khan is a fairly common name in India?

Discuss.

The Mughuls and the Mongols are the same 'family'. Babur, the founder, was a descendent of Genghis Khan.

I strongly recommend reading Amy Chua's Day of Empire. Nice short history of many historical 'hyperpower' empires that have existed thru history. Her basic thesis is that the various empires, here the Mongul (for example) reached the height of their power thru toleration of other people and religions. It is when they became intolerant towards particular members of their society is when they began to falter and then fall. An interesting premise that does historical examples.
 

Thande

Donor
The Mughuls and the Mongols are the same 'family'. Babur, the founder, was a descendent of Genghis Khan.
Er...yes. Exactly. The Mughals can be perceived as a product of the Mongol Empire. My point is, in a scenario such as that which I am suggesting, that would be inconceivable in India.
 
I was initially going to say how I can't see how any Empire which lasts atleast a generation cannot influence the culture of those who are conquered. Then I thought of Alexander and Napoleon and decided a generation is far too long, I cannot see how a culture cannot be altered by conquest or defeat.

Having been conquered, fresh would-be rulers are going to set themselves up in the tradition of the new conquerors (Mongols, Arabs), not the ones who they vanquished.

Over expansion can occur, but it is moving out from some heartland and it will tend to collapse inwards back towards that heartland. Its unlikely a remotely centralised empire will not move to secure central territories over the periphery. As such its unlikely your going to grow an Empire of any size and then suffer universal rebellion and defeat within a very short space of time.
 
Top