What if they turned the Mamluks into yet another client peoples and made them help in the conquests?
What if they turned the Mamluks into yet another client peoples and made them help in the conquests?
The Mamelukes, or the Egyptians in general?
The Mamelukes proper are just the army (and some other top offices) - they're a fraction of the population. A mostly dead fraction in this scenario.
Sell it to Hollywood...Two of their top generals were turkic nomadic people that the Mongols sold into slavery to Egypt. So, ironically, they seeded their own defeat.
Again, would be a great movie. Qutuz is minding his own business living his life as a child in Russia. For dramatic effect, Kitbuqa is the Mongol that sells him into slavery. 20 years later, Qutuz leads the Mamhluk army. Kitbuqa heads a small contingent of the Mongol army. Probably the best revenge fantasy in history.
Nope, Egypt would not hold out against the grand army of Hulagu Khan, no way.Would Egypt hold out?
The Mongols would lose steam when the Mongol Empire eventually desintegrates. That would happen in a few years after the conquest of Egypt; give or take. The Il-Khans would fight against the Golden Horde and so instead of world-conquering the Mongols would start squabbling, killing each other.When would the Mongols eventually lose steam?
Why not?Would they turn on the Byzantine Empire?
Sell it to Hollywood...
If the world Mongol Empire has a few more years of stability the Il-Khans might conquer some other territories after taking Egypt. The Byzantine Empire is closer to the Persian centre of the Hulaguid Ulus than the North Africa so it is quite natural way of further expansion.
There was no need for the Il-Khans and the Golden Horde to ally to conquer Byzantium. The Il-Khans were able to do that alone without any assistance.What if, after an Egyptian victory and a successful raiding exhibition in Poland, the Persian and Russian Khanates ally to conquer Byzantium? Does this open the door for a larger EUropean invasion? THis seems to me the most realistic way the Mongols can almost get world domination.
I continue to assert the Mongols conquering large stretches of Europe for any kind of extended period of time is absurd. They have to deal with heavily fortified land that isn't optimal for their primary tactics. Hungary was some of the best territory in Europe for them and they still couldn't subdue the forts.
There was no need for the Il-Khans and the Golden Horde to ally to conquer Byzantium. The Il-Khans were able to do that alone without any assistance.
And at the same time the door for a larger European invasion was open for the Ulus of Juchi - they might conquer good chunks of Europe: Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Germany.
It was doable for the Mongols but it was implausible at that moment because even with the current Great Khan alcoholic still alive in the depth of Asia - the tensions between the Hulaguids and the Juchids were coming to the critical point when the armed conflict for the spheres of influence was inevitable. The main problem for the Mongols was not the Byzantines or the Germans - it was the Mongols themselves.
It is a nature of things - any nation conquering so much inevitably starts squabbling among themselves.
But anyway the Mongols were closer to the world domination than any other nation before or after.
The Mongols handled crossing deserts by crossing them quickly enough that they did not run out of water. THAT was why the Mongols learned to ride their ponies 70 miles per day, transferring from one horse to another and then another every ten miles so that none of them got too tired. If they took too much time crossing stretches of sand or gobi, their horses would die of thirst and so would they. Which is why and how Mongols learned to move so fast. Outrunning word of their coming and catching enemies by surprise was simply a bonus.The relative waterlessness of Syria was a repeated problem for the Mongols, but I believe Hulegu's army was certainly enough to break the incipeint Mamluk state. Not sure what would happen next though.
I continue to assert the Mongols conquering large stretches of Europe for any kind of extended period of time is absurd. They have to deal with heavily fortified land that isn't optimal for their primary tactics. Hungary was some of the best territory in Europe for them and they still couldn't subdue the forts.
Actually, Europe did have a lot of pasture land. And hay. What did the knights graze their horses on? Or the sheep that were clipped for wool? Or cows that were milked? Except where it was too cold to farm but not cold enough for tundra, Europe had all kinds of pasture land.