Battle of Ain Jalut

That comparison immediately fails, because the Fatimids originated in Tunisia. They conquered the Maghreb before going east to Egypt, conquering it in 969. (There were several previous attempts, FWIW.) The shift of Fatimid power east from al-Mahdiyyah in Tunisia to Cairo came after it was conquered. So they were a Maghreb power expanding into Egypt, definitely not the other way around.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

they had their origins in Tunisia and conquered North Africa from there. In the early 900s they took Egypt and built Al-Qahira (modern Cairo) and operated from there. Though they still operated from Egypt and had a massive North African Empire

But even then, a Maghrebi empire that conquers Egypt and moves its capital there is still something very different from an Egyptian state that conquers the Maghreb.

What's more; the Fatimids actually lost control of most of North Africa only decades after conquering Egypt.
 
One possible knockon effect might be a stronger Ottoman Empire due to a larger Muslim exodus following the Mongol victory at Ain Jalut and their subsequent conquest of the Mamluks...

Ottoman Empire didn't exist during this time, and Mongol victory in this battle can be very well butterflying it away, as this would mean absence of the very battle that caused Mongolian position in Middle East begin to wane IOTL.
 
One question concerning the Crusaders: How fast do the heresies espoused by the Mongols fry any alliance with them?

Of course the Mongols may adopt catholicism, but that is improbable.

HTG
 
One question concerning the Crusaders: How fast do the heresies espoused by the Mongols fry any alliance with them?

Of course the Mongols may adopt catholicism, but that is improbable.

HTG

The moment that the common enemy, i.e. Islam, has been crushed and the Roman Catholics are in a pretty strong position of power over the Nestorians and other non-Catholic Christians within the Il-Khanate.

I.e. propably never.

..
You're greatly overestimating the religious fanaticism of the Crusaders here. As long as Mongols are vastly more powerful than the Crusaders and as long as the Crusader states of the Levant are vassals of the Il-Khanate, the Crusaders will be smart enough not to do anything that'd piss the Mongols off.

Sure, they'll still have objections to the Mongols' pagan beliefs and the various 'heretical' doctrines espoused by the eastern Christians - but, just like in OTL, they'll resort to sending monks and missionairies and have them write lenghty apologetic works. And the Pope will send a polite request for conversion to the Khan's court once in a while.

Hell, even when the convert to Islam Mahmud Ghazan rose to the throne and turned the Il-Khanate into an Islamic state, the Crusaders, Italians and French were still happy to maintain the old alliance with the Il-Khanate. (likewise, Mahmud Ghazan himself saw nothing wrong with allying himself with the Crusaders against the Mamluks, but that's a different story...)
 
China isn't PRIME horse country, but it's still horse country - you can feed and water them. Not so much in North Africa.

If the Mongols had defeated the Mamelukes and overrun Syria and Egypt, they would have adopted Islam and become just another ruling dynasty.

Yeah, the main problem in S China wasn't logistics; it was the terrain and weather, and the weather did kill a lot of horses. However, it's a moot point, since the Mongol army was largely infantry in S China; cavalry was rather ineffective for the most part in the siege and riverine warfare that characterized the Mongol conquest of the Song dynasty.

Unfortunately for the Mongols (fortunately for the rest of Eurasia), none of the sub-khanates were interested in creating permanent, effective and large infantry corps, even when they would've been useful, e.g., the Caucasus.
 
Top