Fates of nations without Mongol invasions

To elaborate on the title more, during the Mongol invasions, several 'nations' (to use the loosest possible definition of the term) were destroyed and annexed outright (Jin and Song China, Khwarezm, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Cuman Khaganate, Volga-Bulgaria, Kiev, Alania) while several more were weakened, sometimes beyond recovery (Poland, Hungary, Second Bulgarian Empire, Georgia, Seljuk Sultanate of Iconium, Trebizond).

What I'd like to discuss is what would happen with each of these 'nations' had Genghis Khan, say, died as a child.

Here are a few off the top of my head:

1. The Bulgarian Empire would eventually annex the crusader principalities of Achaea and Athens. Whether they could take Constantinople depends upon the position of the Empire of Nicaea.

2. OTL, the defeat of the Seljuks by the Mongols gave Nicaea some breathing space to retake their European lands and led to the breakup of the Sultanate into smaller beyliks, notably the Ottomans. In this scenario, the Seljuks are still strong and might vassalise or annex Trebizond and Nicaea earlier.

3. The Khwarezmian Shah Mohammed was, at the time of the invasion, on bad terms with the Caliph in Baghdad and was planning to invade Mesopotamia. Would he try vassalising the Abbasids or would he instead turn his attention to either Delhi or Georgia?

4. Georgia would continue to to rule as one kingdom. Depends on what happens with the Seljuks, Ayyubids/Mamluks or Khwarezmians.

5. I'm not sure where I read/heard this, but the Cumans were considering converting to Christianity when the Mongols invaded. OTL, several fled to Hungary and converted to Catholicism. Here, would they convert? Would they eventually be overthrown by another group, like, say, the Kazakhs?

6. The Volga-Bulgarians were an island of Muslims in a sea of shamanistic steppe nomads and Christian Russians. Any chance they could become a bigger regional power?
 
The Bulgarians and Hungarians would both come out better off from this. Lithuania, a lot worse.

The Seljuqs weren't doing great anyway, so you'd probably just see the status quo maintained between them and the Greeks.

Khwarezmia will probably invaded the Abbasids.

George will probably continue to grow in strength and size, it was quite powerful already.

Some of the Cumans in the far west of the Cuman-Kipchak lands had converted to Christianity, but the Cumans and Kipchaks as a whole remained mostly Tengriist, and that probably won't change for a considerable amount of time.

Volga-Bulgaria could well survive, but that's really something that's hard to predict.
 
The Bulgarians and Hungarians would both come out better off from this. Lithuania, a lot worse.

The Seljuqs weren't doing great anyway, so you'd probably just see the status quo maintained between them and the Greeks.

Khwarezmia will probably invaded the Abbasids.

George will probably continue to grow in strength and size, it was quite powerful already.

Some of the Cumans in the far west of the Cuman-Kipchak lands had converted to Christianity, but the Cumans and Kipchaks as a whole remained mostly Tengriist, and that probably won't change for a considerable amount of time.

Volga-Bulgaria could well survive, but that's really something that's hard to predict.

The western Cumans, would their orientation in terms of Christianity be towards Rome or Constantinople?
 
Which is what I thought. The idea of a Cuman hereditary monarchy developing in OTL Romania is something which intrigues me.

Although it's an interesting concept, I don't know how long that could last. The Hungarians wanted all of the lands up to the Dniester, the Romanians would soon enough push for independence (especially from a Catholic minority power, when the Romanians were Orthodox) and then you'd have the land-grabbing Russians to deal with too.
 
Although it's an interesting concept, I don't know how long that could last. The Hungarians wanted all of the lands up to the Dniester, the Romanians would soon enough push for independence (especially from a Catholic minority power, when the Romanians were Orthodox) and then you'd have the land-grabbing Russians to deal with too.

The Romanians were not yet firmly Orthodox, and in the medium to long term, I see the Cumans in this instance essentially becoming Romanians, but likely keeping the old name.
 
The Romanians were not yet firmly Orthodox, and in the medium to long term, I see the Cumans in this instance essentially becoming Romanians, but likely keeping the old name.

The Romanians were firmly Christian by this point and they belonged to the Eastern Rite. The Hungarians had a hard enough time converting the Romanians in Transylvania, I don't see how the Cumans would have much more luck.

There simply weren't enough Cumans west of the Dniester to dominate and absorb the Romanians.

If you're going to have a Cuman state, your best location is Khazaria, the Caucasus north of Georgia.
 
The Romanians were firmly Christian by this point and they belonged to the Eastern Rite. The Hungarians had a hard enough time converting the Romanians in Transylvania, I don't see how the Cumans would have much more luck.

There simply weren't enough Cumans west of the Dniester to dominate and absorb the Romanians.

If you're going to have a Cuman state, your best location is Khazaria, the Caucasus north of Georgia.

When did the Romanians become Orthodox? :confused: I thought that they were waivering in allegiance well into the fourteenth century. Also, wasn't Basarab I a Cuman anyway?
 
When did the Romanians become Orthodox? :confused: I thought that they were waivering in allegiance well into the fourteenth century. Also, wasn't Basarab I a Cuman anyway?

The Romanians were Eastern Rite from the word go. They converted to Christianity at the same time as the rest of the Roman Empire, and as long as there has been a division between the Latin and Greek rites, the Romanians have leaned towards the Greeks.

There were Cuman-descent monarchs in Wallachia, don't get me wrong, but they adopted the language, culture and every other aspect of the Romanians, not the other way around
 
The Romanians were Eastern Rite from the word go. They converted to Christianity at the same time as the rest of the Roman Empire, and as long as there has been a division between the Latin and Greek rites, the Romanians have leaned towards the Greeks.
This ignores that other Greek rite areas fluctuated.
There were Cuman-descent monarchs in Wallachia, don't get me wrong, but they adopted the language, culture and every other aspect of the Romanians, not the other way around

Where did I disagree with this?
 
This ignores that other Greek rite areas fluctuated.


Where did I disagree with this?

The Hungarians ruled Transylvania for nearly 1000 years, interrupted by the Ottomans for just over 100 years. They never managed to turn the Transylvanians to Catholicism. I just don't see why the Cumans would have any better luck.

It sounded like you wanted a Cuman State in OTL Romania, I am just debating whether that is plausible at all.
 
The Hungarians ruled Transylvania for nearly 1000 years, interrupted by the Ottomans for just over 100 years. They never managed to turn the Transylvanians to Catholicism. I just don't see why the Cumans would have any better luck.

It sounded like you wanted a Cuman State in OTL Romania, I am just debating whether that is plausible at all.

I was looking at a Cuman state in Romania which may have been Cuman only in name. I accept that the Cumans were not well suited to stay the majority for ay length of time, but I think that the name "Cumania" could survive. As far as Transylvania goes though, the only portion of it Hungary ruled consistently did embrace Catholicism.
 

Deleted member 67076

Nicea might ironically last longer as they'll be forced to focus on Anatolia instead of attempting to expand into Europe.

The Abbasids were undergoing a revival at this time, which might continue. If the Ayyubids decline isn't reversed, I can see the Abbasids expand into Syria, Armenia and possibly even bits of Anatolia.
 
Top