No Mongol Empire

How does the world change if the Mongol Empire either doesn't form or remains a very limited size?
 

Deleted member 90949

The Mongols destroyed the intellectual center of the Islamic world, brought gunpowder west, and brought the Black Death from China to Europe. All of these are believed to have contributed to European dominance. Removing them may butterfly this development away.
 
The Mongols destroyed the intellectual center of the Islamic world
Western historiography has largely overstated this. Fact is there was no single "intellectual centre" in the Islamic world, when we have other centres and we also see Islamic learning thriving after Baghdad's destruction, even under the Mongols, despite Baghdad losing its prestige.

All of these are believed to have contributed to European dominance. Removing them may butterfly this development away.

Gunpowder isn't what made Europe dominant, naval power was. This is especially the case because non-Europeans also had gunpowder technology and only until the 19th century can we decisively say Europeans surpassed all others in gunpowder weaponry, by which time they had already conquered most of the Americas, much of Oceania, most of India and not insignificant portions of South Asia and Africa.
 
The Islamic Golden Age continues unabated and there are probably more advances than in our timeline. The Islamic Golden Age came crashing down after Mohammad II of Khwarazim ensured the destruction of his empire by killing Genghis's envoys. After the destruction of the Khwarazim Empire, it was open season on the Middle East, resulting in the fall of Baghdad in 1258.

The Black Death doesn't happen, since by reviving the Silk Road, the Mongols opened a path for an Asian disease to make it's way to Europe and also, the Mongols often used plague-ridden bodies as projectiles in their sieges, so any refugees that came from newly-conquered Mongol territory would be carrying the plague. No Black Death means Europe maintains a large enough population to ensure he survival of feudalism. In our timeline, in less than 3 years, 1/3rd of the European population died. Europe would remain backwards in terms of social and political progress for at least a few more decades. Also, no Protestant Reformation since the seeds of doubt in the Catholic Church's supremacy were born during the Black Death.

Without the Yuan Dynasty, the perfection of movable type printing by Wang Zhen probably never happens. Without the printing press, information becomes harder to spread around and is more easily cotnrolled. Previously, movable type printing had existed since the 11th Century, but it wasn't until the 13th Century it was perfected. I don't doubt that someone in this alternate timeline could perfect the printing press like Wang did, but if it's not invented when it's supposed to be invented in OTL, the effects are completely different.

Without the Silk Road to provide a market for Chinese goods, China is worse off in this timeline. Different ruling dynasties aside, without Kublal Khan, animal husbandry remains the norm, with no movement towards proper agriuclture. The development of the textile industry could remain as it is in our timeline, since Huang Daopo didn't seem to rely on any government support for her work with cotton textiles. In regards to trade, China would probably remain isolated for longer than in our timeline, with no push towards opening ports to receive foreign goods such as spice and medicine.
 
The Islamic Golden Age continues unabated and there are probably more advances than in our timeline. The Islamic Golden Age came crashing down after Mohammad II of Khwarazim ensured the destruction of his empire by killing Genghis's envoys. After the destruction of the Khwarazim Empire, it was open season on the Middle East, resulting in the fall of Baghdad in 1258.

Again, this is a Western historiographical nonsensical myth that ignores that Baghdad wasn't the only Islamic centre of knowledge, when you had the likes of Timbuktu and Cairo that were never touched by the Mongols, and that ignores continued Muslim development of technology and science and continued prosperity. Some of the most beautiful Islamic art comes after the Mongol invasions. Look at Uzbek and Ottoman mosques for example. The Ottomans for that matter were masters of gunpowder weaponry and were sponsoring overseas expansion, including as far as the Horn of Africa with the Ottomans even having a province there. Heck, it is after the Mongol period that we see Muslim seafarers take an even bigger interest in Indonesia and the Philippines. It's after the Mongols that Indonesia becomes predominantly Muslim rather than just being a hub for Muslim traders with only a few Muslim states if any. The Mughals are also noted to have produced almost 1/4th of the entire world's GDP at their peak. Again, this idea of Mongols largely killing Muslim culture is a myth that needs to die and die hard at that.

The Black Death doesn't happen, since by reviving the Silk Road, the Mongols opened a path for an Asian disease to make it's way to Europe and also, the Mongols often used plague-ridden bodies as projectiles in their sieges, so any refugees that came from newly-conquered Mongol territory would be carrying the plague. No Black Death means Europe maintains a large enough population to ensure he survival of feudalism. In our timeline, in less than 3 years, 1/3rd of the European population died. Europe would remain backwards in terms of social and political progress for at least a few more decades. Also, no Protestant Reformation since the seeds of doubt in the Catholic Church's supremacy were born during the Black Death.

Europe wasn't "backwards" nor were other regions less feudal than Europe. For starters, Europeans had arguably far better seafarers than anyone in the recognised civilisations of Asia and Africa. The Vikings reached the Americas by ship before Muslims or before the Chinese despite the latter being relatively close to Canada and Alaska. Viking clinker built ships were the same ships used by Crusaders to invade and conquer portions of Syria-Palestine that eventually led to the conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire itself and the first takeover of Constantinople. Medieval Europeans also had windmills and water mills that didn't exist before in the continent and which were no less "advanced" than what was in Asia. Some of the best steel in the world was in Europe. The population density was inferior to India and China, but not to that of the Islamic world, and Europe always had an inferior population density to South and East Asia anyway even during the Greco-Roman period. The myth of early medieval European backwardness compared to other parts of the world also needs to die a violent death. Also, I really doubt the Black Death had anything to do with the Reformation when the Reformation started nearly two centuries later and even the proto-Protestant Jan Huss emerged several decades after the Black Death, while we have earlier heretical movements like the Waldesians and Cathars, all while the authority of the Catholic Church was always contested by powerful monarchs from France and the HRE and even England.


Without the Yuan Dynasty, the perfection of movable type printing by Wang Zhen probably never happens. Without the printing press, information becomes harder to spread around and is more easily cotnrolled. Previously, movable type printing had existed since the 11th Century, but it wasn't until the 13th Century it was perfected. I don't doubt that someone in this alternate timeline could perfect the printing press like Wang did, but if it's not invented when it's supposed to be invented in OTL, the effects are completely different.

The type of printing press you speak of was developed independently in Europe in the 15th century. The lack of a Mongol Empire doesn't stop this development.

Without the Silk Road to provide a market for Chinese goods, China is worse off in this timeline. Different ruling dynasties aside, without Kublal Khan, animal husbandry remains the norm, with no movement towards proper agriuclture. The development of the textile industry could remain as it is in our timeline, since Huang Daopo didn't seem to rely on any government support for her work with cotton textiles. In regards to trade, China would probably remain isolated for longer than in our timeline, with no push towards opening ports to receive foreign goods such as spice and medicine.

What is "proper agriculture"? People in Mongolia and the East Asian steppe have been growing crops for centuries. And why do we always speak of "isolation" in regards to China when China already under the Tang was an empire, when counting vassals and tributaries, of about 10 million square kilometres and receiving traders from as far as Iraq. There were Africans in the Tang Empire for Christ'sake. It also had different religious minorities, including Jews, Manichaeans, Nestorian Christians and Tengriist pagans. It hosted the last Sassanid monarchs as if that wasn't enough. Already the Han had contacts with Persians, Greeks and Romans, and also knew of Malaysians and their seafaring too. China has never been more isolated than any other culture in history.
 
I agree with Metropis45 that this is a Western Europe screw. The Mongols messed with their rivals, and the Black Death ironically benefited Western Europe by easing over-population and weakening feudalism.

Eastern Orthodox countries benefit, the Mongol hit the Russians hard and the Black Death seems to have cut short a Byzantine revival. The Delhi Sultanate (s) seem to have benefited from Muslim refugees from the Mongols, so maybe no or weaker Muslim India. Central Asia, Persia, and Iraq can only benefit though its hard to say how much. The Mongols conquered the Song, and post Yuan the Chinese have almost always been united (a few gaps such as the early 20th century), before the Mongols China went through long periods with multiple states. I think with no Mongols China is more like IOTL Europe, multiple centers of power and more tech development, with the industrial revolution likely first happening in China.
 
No Mongol Empire would create a massive butterfly effect, both in Europe, the Middle East and China. As Metropolis mentions, it would have delayed the arrival of gunpowder to Europe and the Black Death would have been avoided. It would also have a large effect on trade. As Nathan says, feudalism would probably survive and the Catholic Church would remain dominant in Europe. The Black Death unleashed enormous social and cultural changes. One might perhaps also ask if there would be a Renaissance as this was linked to those changes.

There would also be large scale butterflies when it comes to the political map of Europe. Kievan Rus had already disintegrated, but what would have happened if the Mongols had not arrived? Gunpowder in the long run had the effect of ensuring that Europe never again was invaded by steppe nomads, so ironically the Mongol invasion ensured that no one would ever again succeed in such an enterprise. A surviving Kievan Rus might mean no Polish expansion eastwards, although something similar might happen, as Kievan Rus was weak and disintegrated. What is sure is that it would not happen in the same way. The choices of various actors, not the least political actors would interact in a different way than in OTL.
 
Renaissance might still have happened as OTL, in a different and a quicker way, I believe.

Arab Abbasid Caliphate and Persia were undergoing fast progress and any invention would still come in handy for the Arabs and Persians who face the Turkic invasions.

As the Arabs and Persians progress, the Byzantines and eventually, all of Europe starts implementing the same system to earn enough progress, to compete. Though in this timeline, Europe and Middle East could see a Great Divergence, together.

Northern India could eventually come under Persian dominion after the Renaissance. Eastern Europe might look very different and so would Americas. It might be colonized very differently.

With the Age of Enlightenment and Renaissance occurring parallel in Europe and Middle East, we could see them grouping themselves into one sphere (think this is impossible? Jews in Europe and America think themselves as a part of the Western Civilization as are many Agnostics/Atheists/Deists/Pagans who are increasingly doing so).

The subsequent events may be quite different from OTL.
 
The age of Enlightenment was connected with the questioning of authority that was a result of the weakening of the Catholic Church that happened after the Black Death. Without the Black Death, the Catholic Church would have kept much of its prestige. As Nathan says, feudalism would probably have survived, as the peasants would be weaker compared to the landlords. The nobility would be stronger and without gunpowder, the strengthening of the central authority would be delayed till this arrived. The nobility would remain strong compared to a developing bourgeoise. If Max Weber is right in his analysis of capitalism, the absence of Protestantism and especially the Puritan variety would weaken the spirit of capitalism even more.
 
The age of Enlightenment was connected with the questioning of authority that was a result of the weakening of the Catholic Church that happened after the Black Death. Without the Black Death, the Catholic Church would have kept much of its prestige. As Nathan says, feudalism would probably have survived, as the peasants would be weaker compared to the landlords. The nobility would be stronger and without gunpowder, the strengthening of the central authority would be delayed till this arrived. The nobility would remain strong compared to a developing bourgeoise. If Max Weber is right in his analysis of capitalism, the absence of Protestantism and especially the Puritan variety would weaken the spirit of capitalism even more.
Not necessarily the only reason. Its just one of the possibility.

Say Mongols didn't invade. Greater Persia and Abbasid Caliphate would continue with their Golden Age and their eventual enrichment would create a competition, in multiple factors, which Europe will be forced to overcome, after decades or centuries of stagnation and political and economic insecurity.

You don't necessarily need a Great Plague to open up the way to such things. You can have various ways for it to happen. The difference in my timeline would be that Persia and the lands under it and the Abbasid Caliphate would join the Age of Enlightenment and the Great Divergence and Europe would be more.populated, in general.
 
while i agree that the whole mongols killed the islamic golden age in fact i argued it ended the 12th century .

but every area conquered by the mongols suffered a conservative backlash rusia , persia and china

the black death might not happen but a plague will happen , simple europe was overpopulated due to the little optimum which ended in the 14th century and since the weather got colder crop failures insured was not as good this led to the weakening of the peasants that combined with the colder weather and bad diet might lead to a plague that weakens the feudal system

also unlike eivind said the church was already loosing prestige, dante wrote the inferno in 1320 and he put popes in hell , not to mention that the papacy was in the time of the plague under the control of the french monarch once the pope returned to rome a schism occurred that lasted to the 15th century , plague or no this would happen and help the break the prestige of the catholic church.

powder might take longer to get to europe but even without the mongols the west might still rise as its structure of the church and the nobles vs central authority never allowed for the free thinkers to be squashed also by 1200 aquinas and many others showed that the philosophers where winning the philosopher priest argument.
it only came back in the 15th century with numerous hereies the black death and the shisiim brought it back but it was also to late since secular kings and later the reformation allowed for technological growth to be achieved .

skill with boats is geographical europe unilike china cant ignore the sea if it wants to so no mongol empire migth still result in the rise of the west
 
IMO the Black Death could still reach Europe in 1340 1350 the Eurasian Steppe was divided in many Hordes just as before the Rise of the Mongols and that didn;t stop the Outbreak.Such outbreak could reach Europe also a century before the Mongol Empire IMO
 
Not necessarily the only reason. Its just one of the possibility.

Say Mongols didn't invade. Greater Persia and Abbasid Caliphate would continue with their Golden Age and their eventual enrichment would create a competition, in multiple factors, which Europe will be forced to overcome, after decades or centuries of stagnation and political and economic insecurity.
By the time of Mongolian invasion Khwaresm empire and Caliphate had been at war so a picture of them enjoying ever increasing “enrichment” may be more than a little bit too optimistic. Caliphate (as a state) amounted to Iraq only and even this was quite recent (critical defeat of the Seljuk forces happened only in 1194). While Bagdad remained an important learning center, it is a big question if by that time it was still a
source of the scientific or technological advancement. The “West” could be poorer but not necessarily lagging behind in technology and not necessarily more politically and economically insecure.

European “stagnation” was a popular notion linked to the idea that all the time prior to the discovery and republishing of the Greek and Latin texts (the only worthy sources of everything) was an uninterrupted “Dark Age”. The notion was introduced by Petrarch, a boring snob interested mostly in re-introduction of the classic Latin (and “the former pure radiance”) while ignoring whatever developments had been taking place around him. Needless to say that this notion does not stay to any serious criticism. Europe had been developing during that “dark” period and progress between the 5th and 15th (or evening 13th) centuries had been quite significant.

As far as Khwaresm was involved, it was one of many “ad hoc” empires formed by conquest out of the wide variety of cultures and held exclusively by the military strength, which was, BTW, not too strong: Khwaresm Shahs had to rely upon the tribal levies of the various degree of quality and loyalty and quite often quarreling with each other (during the reign of Jelal ad Din the Turkmens had been offended by the Kipchaks and left him in the midst of the Mongolian invasion). So the chances are that sooner rather than later it would disintegrate as happened to the Seljuk empire.

As far as the wealth is concerned, the Great Silk Road was greatly dependent upon the general stability of the region and, by the time when Genghis came to power stability was not quite there. Episode with the looted Mongolian caravan (under protection of Genghis) demonstrates attitude of the local rulers and reaction of Khwaresm Shah demonstrate inability of the “central power” to keep its subordinates under control. So the whole transit trade could be rather unstable and the same goes for wealth related to it.

For whatever it was worth, the Mongolian conquest produced (for a while) a direct and reliable communication link between Europe and (usually closed) China. How much of a worthy knowledge had been transferred by it is anybody’s guess.
 
Last edited:
while i agree that the whole mongols killed the islamic golden age in fact i argued it ended the 12th century .

but every area conquered by the mongols suffered a conservative backlash rusia , persia and china
In the case of the Russian principalities it is rather hard to tell if the net effect was "conservative" or something completely different. Prior to the conquest "Rus" roughly speaking amounted to two sets of the principalities: 1st, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus (Central/North Eastern European Russia - lighter shades of green) and 2nd, Principality of Galitz-Wolyn (Western Ukraine -darker green in the low left corner). Plus, there were some "extras", the most important - Republic of Novgorod (most of its huge territory shown on the map was low population density area inhabited by various paying tribute tribes).
1588818556463.png

Galitz-Wolyn (or Halych-Volynia) was relatively well consolidated state squeezed between Hungary, Poland and the growing Lithuania, which was not very encouraging from a survival perspective. It was created in 1198-99 and ceased to exist in 1352.


Vladimir-Suzdal Rus was a loose confederation of the principalities formally subordinated to the most senior prince, the Great Prince of Vladimir. In a reality, just as was earlier the case with Kievan Rus, the power of a senior prince was quite nominal. The principalities had been ruled by the members of the same Rurikid family and succession was by seniority within the family (going to brother rather than to the son). Taking into an account that the number of the members in this family kept growing and every male had to get it own territory, the whole region kept being divided into the countless smaller principalities with a resulting growing mess (any "promotion" of a specific prince was resulting in a series of the seniority-based shifts of the princes from one princedom to another). Hardly a "progressive" system at all.

The Mongols, of course, killed a lot of people (the local princes had been doing the same during their endless wars even if perhaps on a lesser scale) and, what was more important from the historic perspective, seriously lowered the number of the princes. While they did not formally change rules of succession, they started with picking the most collaborating branch of the family and started with giving the most prestigious (and now vacant) principalities to them. After some period of adjustment the system changed to the conventional father-to-son with the princes of Moscow becoming almost uncontested holders of the title of Great Prince of Vladimir. Second important aspect of the change was that fast enough the Mongols switched from the system of "baskaks" (tax collectors sent from the Horde) to the tax farming: princes of Moscow had been trusted with the tax collection (and of course did not forget themselves in a process). Unsurprisingly, rulers of the Horde tended to support them against other princes so Moscow eventually grew into the by far the strongest regional state and started consolidation process. Of course, it can be said that the resulting state was very autocratic but at that time this was the only form allowing to survive being surrounded by the hostile neighbors and not having any natural borders.

It would be interesting to speculate how things may proceed in an absence of the Mongolian conquest. Probably some kind of a consolidation would happen but later than in OTL and degree of its centralization is a big question.
 
Off-topic but, the term "ad hoc empires" need immediately to be adapted by all people in the world :p
Thanks for the appreciation. x'D

Seriously, there were numerous formations of that type: territories that had little or nothing common demographically, culturally, historically and economically and without a single prevailing entity put together by a conquest, lacking the unified administration, held together by an absence of competition and falling apart easily either due to the internal problems or due to the outside pressure. Plenty of those both in Europe and Asia. Khwaresm became formally independent in 1157 and was in a process of expansion: Alaeddin Mohammed destroyed the Kara-Khitai Empire and the Gurid Sultanate of India in 1214, expanded the borders of the empire up to the Persian Gulf, launched a failed campaign against the Caliphate and was planning invasion of China (which was already invaded by the Mongols ). Jalal-Al-Din, when he became a Shah, after being defeated at Indus by Genghis fled to Azerbaijan, attacked Rum Seljuk towns in Eastern Anatolia, conquered the town of Akhlat in Turkey from the Ayyubids and conquered Georgia. Kept fighting everyone until was defeated first by the Seljuks and then by the Mongols and eventually killed. What various pieces of these states had in common? Pretty much nothing.
 
Seriously, there were numerous formations of that type: territories that had little or nothing common demographically, culturally, historically and economically and without a single prevailing entity put together by a conquest, lacking the unified administration, held together by an absence of competition and falling apart easily either due to the internal problems or due to the outside pressure. Plenty of those both in Europe and Asia. Khwaresm became formally independent in 1157 and was in a process of expansion: Alaeddin Mohammed destroyed the Kara-Khitai Empire and the Gurid Sultanate of India in 1214, expanded the borders of the empire up to the Persian Gulf, launched a failed campaign against the Caliphate and was planning invasion of China (which was already invaded by the Mongols ). Jalal-Al-Din, when he became a Shah, after being defeated at Indus by Genghis fled to Azerbaijan, attacked Rum Seljuk towns in Eastern Anatolia, conquered the town of Akhlat in Turkey from the Ayyubids and conquered Georgia. Kept fighting everyone until was defeated first by the Seljuks and then by the Mongols and eventually killed. What various pieces of these states had in common? Pretty much nothing.
If i counted it right: Turkmenistan (Khwarezm) -> Sogdia (Where the borders modern-day central asian polities flux in each other) -> India -> Persia Proper -> Mesopotamia -> China -> India again -> Azerbaijan -> Armenia -> Turkey -> Georgia

👏This👏 is👏what👏i👏call👏a👏wild👏ride👏
 
Top