Effects on the Middle East from a Surviving Mamluk Sultanate

[MarshalBraginsky]

The Mamluk Sultanate was an interesting 'empire' in a sense that they were built on the foundation of the Cuman, Circassian and Georgian slave origin. They lasted unusually long, from the times of the Crusaders until the Ottoman Empire conquered them. Moreover, they held the holy Islamic cities of Mecca and Medina.

Now suppose what will happen to the geopolitical climate of the Middle East if the Mamluks actually avoided Ottoman conquest? Would they actually be in a position to control all of North Africa and the Levant, or would they simply be conquered by the Ottomans at a later date?

 

[LSCatilina]

It would ask for Portuguese takeover of India being butterflied. While not the only factor, the loss of the Indian spice trade monopoly was a really severe blow, that weakened them enough to be taken over.

Either that (but it's going to be hard, without catastrophic even for Portugal, whom it was the main ambition, and really supported one, since decades), or an Ottoman collapse.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

The collapse of both Portugal and the Ottoman Empire would have been in the cards, but would it also strengthen the Safavids as well? This could also have a big effect on Europe as well, since the Balkans would be spared from the Ottoman invasion.

I also wonder how would this affect the exploration of the New World and colonialism though?

 

[LSCatilina]

The collapse of both Portugal and the Ottoman Empire would have been in the cards, but would it also strengthen the Safavids as well?

Probably.

Even parallel collapse of Portugal and Ottomans in the same time, in order to be convenient enough (and that's quite obviously unlikely) wouldn't have been enough : Mameluks were quite rejected at least in Syria and Arabia, and any possible opponent would have a good time there. Assuming that Turks remained relativly desunited (or even under Persian or Egyptian clientele), it wouldn't make Egypt more strong.

As for Indias, I admit that without Ottoman growth, you'd have less ideological incitative for Portuguese explorations, mostly mercantile ones (while still with a religious drive), and that may have some repercussion (but Portugal and critically Spain reconquista -based drive isn't going to help a lot) on how these acted as colonial powers.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Probably.

Even parallel collapse of Portugal and Ottomans in the same time, in order to be convenient enough (and that's quite obviously unlikely) wouldn't have been enough : Mameluks were quite rejected at least in Syria and Arabia, and any possible opponent would have a good time there. Assuming that Turks remained relativly desunited (or even under Persian or Egyptian clientele), it wouldn't make Egypt more strong.

As for Indias, we probably traded Portuguese takeover by Spanish whom more present Reconquista-based drive isn't going to help a lot.

The Mughals at this point haven't arisen yet. Would they actually try to take over the spice trade though?

Portugal's collapse would certainly have removed a potential rival in the New World, with Spain actually taking Portuguese South America. I'm not sure if they would have the time and resources to conquer India, given the need to administer their new conquests.

 

[LSCatilina]

The Mughals at this point haven't arisen yet. Would they actually try to take over the spice trade though?

I don't really see why they would, what they could aim for would be a monopole of production (I don't know enough of Mughal history to say if it's likely or not, even if my impression is there wouldn't be something that pushed off), but what mattered of Mameluks was the control of spice trade up to North Africa and Europe.

Portugal's collapse would certainly have removed a potential rival in the New World, with Spain actually taking Portuguese South America. I'm not sure if they would have the time and resources to conquer India, given the need to administer their new conquests.

Thing is, Spain without Portugal on its way would probably just take its place. Their aim was the very same than theirs, they just tried to get around Portuguese maritime domination by new roads.
It's quite likely that Spanish traders and sailors will do the junction with India eventually, rather than trying to go by West (being seen as a foolish move originally, and quite truthfully considering Colombus' assumptions on Earth's size).
Discovery of America is still gonna happen sooner or later, and probably with at least tentatives of conquests similar to IOTL.

It doesn't mean Indian spice trade takeover is going to take the same roads, and Portugal absence would most probably delay the Mameluk loss of their monopole, giving them more time and as well Mughal presence you mentioned to limit TTL effects of it (without probably butterflying them as such).

Critically without Ottomans, it means that Spain have a free-hand on Morroco and Algerian's coast (more than the IOTL conquered harbours by Portugal and Spain), that they won't have to deal with two rivals for maritime domination, and that spice trade is going to fuel other conquests.

When it comes to parallel PodS : unless using a more earlier one, probably with Il-Khanate crushing the hell out of Ottomans and Turkish advances in Balkans, somewhat going into a much much weaker Spain and Portugal at the same time thanks to butterfly effect... It's going to be hard, and more you go begin early, more it's going to be unreckognizable and hard to predict.
I think you'll better off with only one of these getting rid of, and Ottomans absence seems more likely to me with the latest PoD avaible (that said, this last consideration is only a favourite of mine). Savafids are going to be a pain, and loss of Syria/Arabia quite possible (while less problematic) but Mameluks may live on.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

I could imagine the spice trade becoming a hotly contested competition between the latecomers into the imperial colony business.