Effects of Mongol Conquest of Egypt?

Egypt will eventually become a Coptic Kingdom. Conquering Egypt essentially means following the Nile where 90%+ of Egyptians lived, the Mongol invasion as always will devastate the Nile Basin which would lead to massive deaths, destruction of farms, essential canals and irrigation, settlements, killing of livestock etc... Pretty much what's happened in Persia that set back the region for centuries, but concentrated around the densely populated Nile where it's effect is even more horrendous.

The Mongols will convert to Coptic Christianity, expand to christian Nubia and Axum, control the red sea trade and later on deposed by a native rebellion...

Destruction caused by the Mongolian invasions depended upon the resistance: usually they were offering an option of a peaceful surrender and started doing all their favorite things (burning, looting, etc.) only after being refused. As far as the region is involved, King of a Lesser Armenia declared himself to be their vassal and participated in their operations with his troops. Taking into an account Hulagu's pro-Christian sympathies and his dislike of the Muslims, it can be assumed that, if the things are favorable to him he'd proceed with more or less the same policies and find Coptic cooperation in Egypt. Which of course assumes that he is not looting and destroying too much (hardly a good scenario for gaining their sympathies).

Taking into an account that majority of the region's population were Muslims, it is rather questionable if he was going to see his task as a complete annihilation of his future subjects, especially when a big part of his army are Muslims. The stories about the Persians not being able to get back after destruction of the irrigation system built, IIRC, some time BC does not speak well about the local population (aren't they still complaining?).

Under any scenario the Mongols would not be able to stay in the area because neither Syria nor Egypt could support big numbers of horses and cattle. Neither would they "convert to Coptic Christianity": their Christians were of the Nestorian creed.
 
It depends on a few things. When the Mongol 'World Empire' is split between the various successor states, does Egypt become part of the Ilkhanate, or another polity altogether?

If it is part of the Ilkhanate, I would go as far as to argue that the Copts will actually be favoured. Originally, the Ilkhanate favoured Nestorian Christianity over Islam, and they will likely continue this policy of favouritism for Christians that aren't aligned to a foreign power (i.e. Catholics or Greek Orthodox) over the majority Muslims. This will allow them to establish a 'middle-man' force with the Copts. I doubt that Egypt would remain under the Ilkhanate by the time that the Ilkhans convert to Islam. It is too compact a bloc, and too far from the other Ilkhan centre of power, the Iranian plateau, for the two to remain united long-term. Once the Ilkhans lose Egypt, probably a withdrawal as a result of concurrent rebellions throughout the empire, it is probable that the Copts will seek intervention by the Kingdom of Makuria, which may experience a revival as they occupy the power vacuum. This ends up as an Islam-screw in the short to medium term, as despite the region being thoroughly Muslim in faith, geopolitically the area is dominated by non-Muslims. In the long-term, who knows.
To add somewhat to this, OTL the christian world was almost a lot more aligned with the mongols, the famous franco-mongol alliance being somewhat of a historical oddity in how it never was fully realised.

Say Hulagu converts (for pragmatic reasons or due to genuine faith) to Christianity, the added benefit of a neutered Mamluk + European support could be enough for a long term and significant (perhaps dominant) Christian presence to be established.
 
If the Mamluks are contained and Egypt is conquered... Then there is a little desire left to look for allies in Christian Europe. The remaining Crusader States survive longer but act merely as vassals of the Il Khanate. The Il Khans have a strong control over the Middle East.

Hulagu still has to fight Berke* Khan of the Golden Horde however. But that won't change too much.

I still see the Il Khanate turning Islamic after Hulagu, considering adding Egypt will get the state more Muslims. And most likely Sunni Islamic. There are baptized Khans OTL but many of them either returned to their ancestral faith or later become Muslims. After all, Muslims are the majority and they will be the base of their support.

An Implosion of the Il Khanate will leave a huge vacuum which is not predictable who will take advantage of it. No Mamluks might still result in a unified Egypt subjugating Palestine and the Crusades to the Holy Lands may continue for several generations more until a stronger power takes over. Even Cilician Armenia may become much stronger.

Maybe more Turkmen Beyliks down in Syria and Palestine as well as Mesopotamia.

And this is entirely a theory. I personally don't see the Mongolians crossing the Sinai and beating the Egyptians in their homeland. A defeat beyond the Sinai means a total defeat. There isn't much more choice to retreat.
 
Last edited:
As long as the Mongol overlords are still there?

The Mongols took a very dim view of rabble-rousing within their empire. But by the same token, I don't think they would have put Copts in charge for the very reason that it would be too provocative to the Moslem majority. The Mongols valued calm within the empire, and taxes, above most else.
 
If the Mamluks are contained and Egypt is conquered... Then there is a little desire left to look for allies in Christian Europe. The remaining Crusader States survive longer but act merely as vassals of the Il Khanate. The Il Khans have a strong control over the Middle East.

But the vassal status was a normal thing at these times so nothing excessively unusual or humiliating there: vassal was required to help sovereign with the troops at the time of war and, in the case of Mongols, to pay a well-regulated tribute. The overlord was not interfering into his internal affairs.

Hulagu still has to fight Batu Khan of the Golden Horde however. But that won't change too much.

Not Batu (who never formally was a "khan" :winkytongue:) but Berke: Batu provided him with the contingents but Berke ruled at the time of the sack of Baghdad and, being a devoted Muslim, was upset with the fate of the Caliph and ordered these contingents (mostly Muslims) to leave for Egypt. Later there was a conflict over the pasture lands on the North Caucasus.

I still see the Il Khanate turning Islamic after Hulagu,
Most probably: it did even without conquest of Egypt.
 
The Mongols took a very dim view of rabble-rousing within their empire. But by the same token, I don't think they would have put Copts in charge for the very reason that it would be too provocative to the Moslem majority. The Mongols valued calm within the empire, and taxes, above most else.

IF the Muslims had a majority at that point already. Did they? At one point in history they must've crossed it, obviously, but I don't know when that happened. Christians are taxpayers after all.
 
IF the Muslims had a majority at that point already. Did they? At one point in history they must've crossed it, obviously, but I don't know when that happened. Christians are taxpayers after all.

Fair point. I confess that I assumed a Moslem majority by the 12th or 13th century, but I really have no idea.
 
But the vassal status was a normal thing at these times so nothing excessively unusual or humiliating there: vassal was required to help sovereign with the troops at the time of war and, in the case of Mongols, to pay a well-regulated tribute. The overlord was not interfering into his internal affairs.



Not Batu (who never formally was a "khan" :winkytongue:) but Berke: Batu provided him with the contingents but Berke ruled at the time of the sack of Baghdad and, being a devoted Muslim, was upset with the fate of the Caliph and ordered these contingents (mostly Muslims) to leave for Egypt. Later there was a conflict over the pasture lands on the North Caucasus.


Most probably: it did even without conquest of Egypt.

Berke Khan... ofcourse. For some reason I had Batu in my mind... how awkward...
 
The economic and demographic development of Egypt is sent several centuries backward. IOTL Egypt benefited from the mass of refugees fleeing from areas of the Middle East that were so devastated by the Mongols that by 1400 they still hadn’t recovered. Cairo might end up in the same situation was Baghdad.
 
The economic and demographic development of Egypt is sent several centuries backward. IOTL Egypt benefited from the mass of refugees fleeing from areas of the Middle East that were so devastated by the Mongols that by 1400 they still hadn’t recovered. Cairo might end up in the same situation was Baghdad.

The conquest of Egypt may be even more catastrophic for the Middle East than OTL. Unless a unified power rises from Egypt, I'd see the Levant and Mesopotamia being fragmented in small Turkmen beyliks/Arab City states. Prone for Crusader attacks... if such interest is alive post-Il Khanate.
 
Berke Khan... ofcourse. For some reason I had Batu in my mind... how awkward...

Does not really matter and mistake is quite understandable: while Batu was rather sympathetic to the Christians (his son, Sartac, was one) the conflict over the pastures on Terek River was probably hard to avoid altogether. Well, Batu with his diplomatic skills and prestige of a senior family member probably could delay it for a while but sooner or later there should be some kind of a request for Hulagu to "compensate" for the troops sent to him.

On a completely personal (and not necessarily competent) level, I can't quite get why ruler of the GH would be so concerned about these pastures: while IlKhanate was rather short of the good pastures, the GH had huge steppe territories on the Black Sea coast, in the Volga region and in the Western Siberia. So probably there was a personal animosity factor in play and/or an "objective" need to establish a clear-cut border.
 
Depends. If the Mongols conquer Egypt, what direction do they go in next? Do they go West and conquer all the way across North Africa? Or do they follow the Nile down in to Sudan and Ethiopia and conquer there?
 
Depends. If the Mongols conquer Egypt, what direction do they go in next? Do they go West and conquer all the way across North Africa? Or do they follow the Nile down in to Sudan and Ethiopia and conquer there?

They did not have enough troops for too much of the further expansion and it does not look like Sudan or Ethiopia were the good theaters for the Mongolian warfare. Hulagu got contingents from other rulers of the Mongolian Empire but this was one-time "donation": he was not going to get more and he did not get these contingents unconditionally or forever. Neither did he have really big numbers of the native nomads on his territory.
 
They did not have enough troops for too much of the further expansion and it does not look like Sudan or Ethiopia were the good theaters for the Mongolian warfare. Hulagu got contingents from other rulers of the Mongolian Empire but this was one-time "donation": he was not going to get more and he did not get these contingents unconditionally or forever. Neither did he have really big numbers of the native nomads on his territory.
Yes, the Mongols may not have liked the landscape in Sudan or Ethiopia.
 
Top