No Mongol Empire
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
How do you think Northern India would have fared? Would we seen an ethnically Persian dynasty rule India?
And how would later relations between Europe and West Asia be changed by a joint ENglightenment?
Enlightenment would be difficult to combine with a surviving feudalism. Of course gun powder might arrive to Europe at a later stage - or it might be reinvented in Europe. It is also possible that the Black Death will arrive at a later stage, although less contact means that it might never arrive. Both the Black Death and gunpowder was important in bringing and en to feudalism and capitalism was strengthened by an alliance with the stronger monarchies that resulted from gunpowder as the kingdoms that were most efficient in collecting taxes managed to defeat its rivals. Capitalism was a force in the Enlightenment due to the values of the bourgeoise and because it helped destroy feudalism.
Emperor Gustavus Adolphus
Banned
Persian dynasty in India is a bit difficult. If they can subdue the various tribes in Afghanistan and Turkmenistan region, then it would be possible. Subduing such tribes is a difficult task unless they have more advanced weaponry and army. It is possible but needs further PODs with a continuing Golden Age.
Continuing Golden Age bringing about an Age of Enlightenment in both regions, simultaneously, could bring both the regions close as it brought European nations of various denominations closer, as the Age of Enlightenment dawned.
Is it really possible gunpoweder could have been reinvented in Europe? Were they going along that path?
I am just not ruling it out. Without it, the rise of the modern state, capitalism and the Enlightenment seems very unlikely. Even with gunpowder, the peasants would be in a weaker position in this scenario. The Black Death was an important factor in the social, cultural and political changes in the following centuries.
as i said a plague can still happend due to the weakening of the peasants due to the overpopulation and the end of the little optimum
An earlier Plague (The Justinian) came from Central Asia when there was no Mongol Empire so the Plague of 1347 could have come to Europe with or without a Mongol Empire or am I missing something🤔
Even without the Plague, population in Europa was already thriving and falling before it. There were too many people in Europe in that time, compared to what lands could produce. Not enough food for people. In Florence (which was very far from being a poor city), before the Plague, 40% of the people lived with around 1300 calories per day, which is about what they received in Aushwitz. 40% ! So imagine in other cities.
That's why the Plague killed so many, especially the poors. So if it wasn't the Plague, something else would have done this.
Therefore, there is no "no Plague" PoD. People would have died from other causes.
That's why the Plague killed so many, especially the poors. So if it wasn't the Plague, something else would have done this.
Therefore, there is no "no Plague" PoD. People would have died from other causes.
I mean, if you're not doing constant heavy labor that's not too bad in terms of calories.
I lived off 1200 tops for ten months and it worked wonders for me. And I'm 5'11" about and the number of calories my body needs per day is closer to 2k than 1k.
And the majority of people did not live in cities.
Sounds like starvation but then I again I have a decently fast metabolism.
Emperor Gustavus Adolphus
Banned
A surviving Roman empire or an another Imperial successor from Europe, who retains Middle East and North Africa could help? The excess of populations can always spread out, in times of need.
I don’t think that all or even most of the geographic Europe had been overpopulated. Of course, there were crowded areas (especially the big cities) but other than that there were much less people than in the later (pre modern) times and the big areas clearly were underpopulated including most of the Eastern Europe. Making the general conclusions based upon example of, say, Florence is like making assessments of the US based upon NYC.
There was no need to go beyond the European territories and migrations had been happening all the time. The Saxons has been moving to Transylvania since the XII century, Prussian and Livonian crusades happened in the XIII. The areas of the Northern coast of the Black Sea were underpopulated (to put it mildly) and in an absence of the Mongolian factor the Venetian and Genoese colonies in the Crimea could grow into something much bigger, etc. Probably the Christian rulers of the Spanish kingdoms would not object appearance of the extra “human resources” either.
BTW, it seems that Great Famine of 1315-17 (which had nothing to do with the Mongols) and the following smaller scale famines of the XIV seriously slowed down population growth anyway even if they killed fewer people.
Last edited:
Sure, it can happen, but it less contact decreases the likelihood or will at least delay it.
Sure, but in much smaller numbers. And no plague would make the Renaissance less likely, as it was partly the result of larger wealth in cities like Florence.
But then you have a POD far earlier than the Mongol Empire. The scenario here was simply that the Mongol Empire does not form.
I was quoting Florence which was very wealthy at that time, because many other cities were even worse. Europe was on the brink of collapsing before the Plague. And if you look carefuly to registers you can see it.
What Plague changed is important though. A lot, actually. Mostly a change in mentality. For instance it helpled a lot the Church to control population with guilt and fear, and create a society with with much less tolerance. All of this led to Inquisition, witch burnings, Jews burning and other horrors like this. The "Renaissance".
On the long term it probably changed the way Spanish & English colonized. A lot of english people left because of religious causes, and many Spanish conquistador had their religious agendas, too.
Would the absence of Plague changed anything ? I think maybe. But i don't think it would have been because of the death toll.
What Plague changed is important though. A lot, actually. Mostly a change in mentality. For instance it helpled a lot the Church to control population with guilt and fear, and create a society with with much less tolerance. All of this led to Inquisition, witch burnings, Jews burning and other horrors like this. The "Renaissance".
On the long term it probably changed the way Spanish & English colonized. A lot of english people left because of religious causes, and many Spanish conquistador had their religious agendas, too.
Would the absence of Plague changed anything ? I think maybe. But i don't think it would have been because of the death toll.