Especially Iran/Persia. Also I'm interested at how big approximately would it's population be?
No Mongol Empire - effect on Middle East?
- Thread starter paulisnotdead
- Start date
90% of the Persian population may have been killed, with the population going from 2,500,000 to 250,000, according to the topmost estimates. That, of course, is likely an exaggeration, but there's no doubt that a large chunk of Iran's population was destroyed. But, of course, a lot of the death may have been caused by the other nomadic groups coming into the region, so let's reduce the estimate quite a bit. I also think that a lot of the Persian invaders may have been caused by the Mongols, though without lots of Turks coming into India as refugees (and Islamifying it) and instead staying in Central Asia may very well cause more powerful Turks in Central Asia. Persia's population without the Mongols would be sizeably higher by at least many millions of people, but how much is dependent on Persia's history for the next 800 years.
Well that number of Persians is skewed. Considering that the Mongold devastation was primarily in the Kwarezmshah empire which was principly occupied outside the mainstay of the Iranian plateau. Their effect was much higher on the Uzbek areas and what not. Later, the Timurids and widespread disease (bubonic plague) is what really dropped the population as order broke down after the fall of the Ilkhanate.
I think the Khwarezmian Empire can sustain itself against turkic invaders pretty well without an avalanche like the mongols. Could we see a muslim perso-wank?
Also, i heard that the Baghdad-centered Abbasid Caliphate was going through a resurgence in the late 12th century before the mongols showed up. Another contender? (Correct me if i'm wrong)
Another thing -- the Sultanate of Rum was at the height of its power in the late 12th century. Hadn't the mongols defeated them, we could see the seljuks being much more of a threat to the byzantines. They even briefly conquered a portion of Crimea, so they have potential.
Also, i heard that the Baghdad-centered Abbasid Caliphate was going through a resurgence in the late 12th century before the mongols showed up. Another contender? (Correct me if i'm wrong)
Another thing -- the Sultanate of Rum was at the height of its power in the late 12th century. Hadn't the mongols defeated them, we could see the seljuks being much more of a threat to the byzantines. They even briefly conquered a portion of Crimea, so they have potential.
Last edited:
Deleted member 97083
Mongols did destroy many of the qanats, the vital underground canals used in Persia to attain water, but they were rebuilt over the years, as they always were.
Or surviving Seljuks could have been much less adaptable than the Ottomans and get defeated by the Mamluks at some point.
Destroying qanats and irrigation has a place in terms of long term population decline (see late 800s Abbasid Iraq) but destruction of such cannot lead to massive population declines short term in my opinion. The Mongols destroyed the central Asian steppe to a great degree, especially, the city of Urgench, Konjikala, Merv, Samarqand, et... Only one of those would recover to an extent and that was Samarqand and only due to its patronage under Timur. However, it is false to extrapolate the destruction of a section of a realm to its entirety.
There should be said, that the importance of the Iranian plateau at this point in history is far less than in the times of Rome and the Sassanids and as it would become in the Safavid, who would be the first true rulers worthy of the legacy of the name Arya (EDIT, since the Sassanids).
Last edited:
I am not sure about the Kwarezmshah in this scenario. While they are somewhat strong at this point, their size on the map is misleading. In actuality, they only truly ruled Khursan up to the major cities at the end of the former Silk Road, such as its major cities of Urgench, Samarqand, Gurganj, etc and then it firmly ruled northern Afghanistan. All of this growth was further only initiated and finished by 1215, only 5 years before the Mongols arrived in their territory after they conquered and absorbed the Qara-Qhitai. Their position is thus characterized by very young. Only 4 years prior to their conquest of the Ghurids in Ghazna, were vassals of larger khanates to the east.
Then we should analyze their holdings individually:
1. Their principle region was the lands of former Sogdia, Ferghana, Kwarezm, etc, comprising the former Silk Road. These were filled with great cities of great splendor and trade. However, these cities were possibly, at the height of their power since the Islamic conquest (which threw the region into turmoil between the Gokturks, Tang and Abbasid/Umayyad Caliphates). The Kwarezmshahs thus were able to take this land that had grown to be very important due to the instability and war between the Saljuqs and Ghurids, who were the previous rulers of the region.
However, despite the large cities in the area, it is hard to say these areas were a good place for a sedentary empire in this period. For instance, the entire Kwarezmshah empire held between 3,5-6 million people at its height in 1218. Compared to say, France, which had a population of 20-30 million at the same time, let's you see the sparse population of this massive border empire. Which is further weakened by the lack of large rural populations in its main region due to the prospect of invasions from the steppe. In an alternate history, set in 2000 BCE or perhaps far before, it may be possible to make this area and steppe the site of a truly great civilization with a large farming rural population but in our tl, it is not possible and instead you have roaming tribes in between major walled cities which harbor most of the regions people.
Situations like this, is rule by the sword, an empire based not on anything but it's ability to defeat foes. No Empire can sustain victory forever, which is why the trend for every state from here, is to invade the south and relocate to Hindustan or Iraq. The Kushan is the greatest example of this trend, a state based around ruling these Silk Road cities. However, no matter it's cultural development, failed to rule by the sword and was defeated and swallowed whole by the new Hepthalite White Huns which started the trend over again.
2. Iran, only recently conquered for them. Broken into three major regions.
-Fars: This is the majority of what we call the heart of Iran, the land from which both the Achaemenids and Sassanids arose. It is also historically, Persis and Anshan, the extreme outremer of the Elamite civilization. This area has been in deep decline for centuries since the fall of the Sassanids and still showed no sign of returning to prominence. As well, the area was only acquired in 1215, and only by way of series of vassals and allied in the region. Which equates to very little control. To just illustrate this, the Kwarezmshah-Abbasid war was an utter defeat for the Kwarezmshah due to their inability to march through Iran and they further apparently raised no troops from Fars.
- Khursan: This is the outlands of Iran and makes up historical Parhia. This whole area was overrun since the Saljuq period by Turkic tribes and warriors. All of which were loyal to the Kwarezmshahs and this was one area they ruled soundly. However, due to the presence of such horsemen, there was undoubtly no rural communities to grow crops of any note.
- Tabarestan/Dailam: The far north mountain region of Iranian plateau. This area was entirely under the rule of a series of warlords and Is'maili militants (remnants of the defunct Fatimid syndicates around Iran). These Is'maili held almost the entirety of the forts in the region and committed mass intrigue and political violence through the moniker of the Hashashin or Assasins/Fidayeen. The Kwarezmshahs have absolutely no way to dislodge these militants and will be defeated soundly if they tried. The Mongols were unable to dislodge these groups under Temujin in the initial conquest of Iran and were forced to turn back against their fortresses. Only with the help of the Abbasids, who had deep influence in the region and access to passes, and then intrigue by the militants who proceeded to presumably escape the region or dissimulate into the Mongol horde, did Hulagu manage to conquer the region. It should be noted, that much of the Shi'i influence on the later Ilkhans is perhaps through these Is'maili which opted to surrender their fortresses and escape into the Mongol courts.
Regardless, this is a discussion LS and I had on another thread where I theorized an alliance between the Abbasids and the Mamluks of Delhi against the Kwarezmshahs. Such an alliance would easily put back the Kwarezmshahs until they are defeated by another state from the steppe, perhaps the Naiman, Qipchaq or the Qara Qhitai. Kwarezmshahs further alone even, will not be able to defeat the Abbasids who from their base in Baghdad, had begun to build itself back into a state of power and wealth.
Last edited:
No Mongols would mean that Islam will expand to the Philippines sooner not later causing Islam to expand or push to North East Asia as well..
This might be good for the Middle eastern countries..
This might be good for the Middle eastern countries..
I am not sure about the Philippines? Why would they expand there earlier? The Mongols certainly did not stop the Islamic expansion into Java.
They prevented the spread of islam to the Philippines because before the Majapahit gained the suzerainty the Northern part of the Philippines, the Northern part of the Philippines was closely trading with the Kingdom of Pasai where Islam first spread, the majapahit suzerainty interrupted this from happening..
The Majapahit was established due to the Mongols.
Sure, this has to do with islam and the mongols, but i don't know what this has to do with the middle east.
I think an early muslim Philippines will affect the trade flow between Middle East and china/Japan..
You are convincing in your analyzing the situation.
But I am of the different opinion.
While theorizing on the ATL we have to refer to OTL.
And in OTL Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu was pretty impressive fighting on the territories, his dynasty held/claimed before; he also had some success in the lands the Khwârazmshâhs didn't touch before, but that was obviously due to the solid power-base of his dynasty and the refugees from traditional Khwârazmshâhs' holdings.
We are to have in mind that he even had some successes against the Mongols.
And that was after his dynasty was utterly humiliated by the failures of his father Muhammad II of Khwarezm, and was supposed to lose all the prestige and support among the peoples of the former Khwarezmian Empire.
If the Empire had been that weak it would have fallen down like a house of cards; and it would have been no more; the Empire would have been like a carcass of a dead animal with only vultures hovering around.
I don't know too many empires which were able to go on fighting after such tremendous blows, which the Khwarezmian Empire received.
For me that proves vitality, combat survivability of the dynasty and the Khwarezmian Empire as the whole - they put such an impressive fight under the worst case scenario of OTL, after seemingly being totally crushed and annihilated; which makes me think, that in the world without Mongols in ATL, the Khwarezmian Empire would have been the hegemonic power of the region.