Mongol Victory at Ain Jalut?

What if the Mongols had continued their attack in the Middle East? Could they have conquered it, at least temporarily?
 
If the Mongols win at Ain Jalut, do they have the forces at the time to continue conquering?

The Mongol presence there was only a detachment after all, not Hugalu's full army, though when he returns he might be in a position to take Syria.

Beyond that...gets problematic.
 
Even if the Mongols fail to take and hold Egypt or the Levant, a victory at Ain Jalut would probably mean a more secure, longer-lasting Ilkhanate in Persia and Mesopotamia.
 
Even if the Mongols fail to take and hold Egypt or the Levant, a victory at Ain Jalut would probably mean a more secure, longer-lasting Ilkhanate in Persia and Mesopotamia.

Why so? Is the Ilkhanate going to be better lead or more accepted or otherwise internally better off?
 
Perhaps not, but the borders will be more secure and farther from the Persian/Mesopotamian core of the Ilkhanate; the empire will have more 'strategic depth'. Just generally one less thing to worry about.
Also, there was then talk of an alliance between the Mongols and the embattled crusader states. A stronger Mongol presence in the region would have increased the probability of the pact coming to fruition.
 
Why so? Is the Ilkhanate going to be better lead or more accepted or otherwise internally better off?

I almost wonder if this is one of the "turning points that failed to turn."

Hulegu, as Elfwine pointed out, was not present. Moreover, the Golden Horde ceased sending reinforcements to Hulegu, and the two actually began fighting.

I'm not sure I'd count out Egypt, either. The 5th Crusade shows the danger of assuming Egypt is supine and easy to conquer. Why can the Mongols take Damietta when the Crusaders couldn't?
 
I almost wonder if this is one of the "turning points that failed to turn."

Hulegu, as Elfwine pointed out, was not present. Moreover, the Golden Horde ceased sending reinforcements to Hulegu, and the two actually began fighting.

I'm not sure I'd count out Egypt, either. The 5th Crusade shows the danger of assuming Egypt is supine and easy to conquer. Why can the Mongols take Damietta when the Crusaders couldn't?

From what I understand about the Fifth Crusade was that the Crusaders traded a peace securing their aim of restoring their rule over Jerusalem for the impossibility of knocking over the Egyptian regime then in power. Things, however, are different by 1260. By Ain Jalut, another dynasty runs Egypt and the Ayyubids are mere husks of their former selves in the Levant.

I agree that Ain Jalut by itself won't change anything by itself, but does buy time and open interesting subsequent possibilities, especially if Baibars falls in battle.
 
Top