Persia without the Mongol destruction

Baghdad certainly fares a lot better. It’s house of wisdom isn’t destroyed, and hundreds of thousands won’t be killed or displaced. The irrigation systems won’t be destroyed either, which will also be a plus.

On the other hand, there would be less trade and cultural contact with the east. I heard that a big reason rice is a significant part of the Persian diet was because of the mongols. And then there’s the saying that a man could walk with a golden plate on his head across the empire without fear of robbery or death.

So basically a lot could/would change.
 
Persia probably wasnt that devestated by the Mongols.

Juvayni, our primary source on the devestation caused by the Mongols, is something of a poor source. Not only was he directly in the employ of the Mongol court (which literally liked to emphasise numbers as a fear tactic), but he has built a reputation over the years for just how much he exaggerated. I.e. in the cases of both Urgench and Baghdad, he gave greater numbers of people killed than lived in each city. Contemporary sources actually talk about how bustling a city Urgench was shortly after its depopulation.

The true devestation happened under Timur rather than the mongols specifically.
 

Marc

Donor
Well, if you are contemplating no invasion of Persia (properly speaking, Khwarezmia at that point in time) - followed by Mesopotamia and points west by the Mongols - it does open up the question as where and how all that potential energy in the Mongol engine becomes kinetic. Much more of Europe? A wave of conquest springing down into India?
My slender guess is that even if the Mongols for some reason do not strike, within a few decades another Turkic federation is going to sweep over Persia. It really is their era.
 
Persia probably wasnt that devestated by the Mongols.

Juvayni, our primary source on the devestation caused by the Mongols, is something of a poor source. Not only was he directly in the employ of the Mongol court (which literally liked to emphasise numbers as a fear tactic), but he has built a reputation over the years for just how much he exaggerated. I.e. in the cases of both Urgench and Baghdad, he gave greater numbers of people killed than lived in each city. Contemporary sources actually talk about how bustling a city Urgench was shortly after its depopulation.

The true devestation happened under Timur rather than the mongols specifically.
I image that these would go hand in hand because the without the mongols the timur would not be in Persian so the midal east would avoid both sets of invasions by avoiding the first.
 
Well, if you are contemplating no invasion of Persia (properly speaking, Khwarezmia at that point in time) - followed by Mesopotamia and points west by the Mongols - it does open up the question as where and how all that potential energy in the Mongol engine becomes kinetic. Much more of Europe? A wave of conquest springing down into India?
My slender guess is that even if the Mongols for some reason do not strike, within a few decades another Turkic federation is going to sweep over Persia. It really is their era.
I would assume that Persia could maintain good relations with the Turks becusee if wikipedia is to be believed it says there ruling house was of Turkish & mamluk origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty also based on the land controlled by Persia at the time leaving very little for a mongal rout to India (although not impossible)
500px-Khwarezmian_Empire_1190_-_1220_%28AD%29.PNG

it would seem likely that they would go into Europe to a much larger degree which probably pushes there border at least as far as the HRE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia
 
The larger region for reference (1220AD).
upload_2018-11-30_15-1-7-png.423583

If rum does not collapse because they escape the Ottoman invasion of the middle east (likely if Persia does not get invaded) we do not see an ottoman empire and they are likely to unite Anatolia long term. the latter mamelukes (currently the ayyubid) will probably be stronger and may not lose Mesopotamia/Kurdish areas naturally without the Mongols unless the Persians (currently Khwarezm) and rum work out an alliance to divide the fertile crescent with rum getting the lavant and Persia getting Mesopotamia/Kurdistan areas even though the Turks and Persians were later rivals (don't know current relations) with a strong arab power in the regionn that is not a pushover like the mamlukes it makes this alliance more natral as moth partys have much to gain agenst a rival they cant beat alone. At some point, I could see these two try to work to split Georgia and with Persia getting the lions to share for possible assistance alongside rum in acquiring eygpt. That should net you most of greater Persia/Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Iran
Greatesiranmap.gif

As a whole escaping Mongal and by relation Timur destruction the Islamic world as a whole should flourish being both more populous and wealthy than what we saw and a turkish empire born out of the rum without devistation by the mongals and working in allince with the persians may make the Turks of the west even stronger then the Ottomans were in our timeline without having to contend with an eastern nabor and with more pressure put on europe (presumably becus of more mongal focus) this may allow them to make better pushes into Europe. but there is a silver lining for the HRE (even if it means they lose out in the south a bit to a stronger Turkish power. the power vacuum created by the Ottoman collapse rather then being occupied by Poland & Lithuania and Muscovy if they are destroyed to a larger extent may allow for the vacuum to be occupied by Northern Germans, Scandinavians, Hungarians and the Teutonic order which could allow for plenty of wanks to go around so its not like Europe is screwed on a side note if Novgorod makes it out without getting concerned by invading Scandinavians we may see a more democratic Russia if they can fill the vacuum left by Muscovy
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if they necessarily have to do better in other areas if they don’t conquer khwarezm. It’s possible that the mongols would go down in history as a successful steppe empire limited to the steppe and parts of northern China. This instead of the giant that they were IOTL.
 
I don’t know if they necessarily have to do better in other areas if they don’t conquer khwarezm. It’s possible that the mongols would go down in history as a successful steppe empire limited to the steppe and parts of northern China. This instead of the giant that they were IOTL.
I would assume they do better because of the middle east (particularly mountainous Persia and Afghanistan) are ill-suited for horse heavy warfare because of poor grazing land but eastern Europe is perfect until you start hitting the Hungarian Carpathian mountains, German forests and of course the castles found more commonly in central and western Europe because the mongal way of warfare is ill-suited for siege warfare which is why their expansion west should come to a halt after shortly after contact with the HRE.
 
Based on this assessment put out by the U.S Department of Agriculture which emphasizes what I said earlier it would seem that the Mongols would fallow the good grazing lands west.
OBmpCBF.jpg

whats interesting and a wildcard I never thought of but I now see by looking at the land quality the land of greater hungry if it cant hold the mountains it may be prime to be invaded by the Mongolians the way they once were by the Huns and if that happened I could see the Mongols going as far west as the Huns border as seen in this screen cap of the Huns I got from history of the European Huns (animated map) the German border would be them pushing to the natural border of the oder river I would assume around this point if the Mongols made it this far we would start getting a crusade or 3 put on the mongals to defend Catholicism which could put steam back into the northern crusades to catholicize eastern Europe as the Mongols fall back

maxresdefault.jpg
 
I would assume they do better because of the middle east (particularly mountainous Persia and Afghanistan) are ill-suited for horse heavy warfare because of poor grazing land but eastern Europe is perfect until you start hitting the Hungarian Carpathian mountains, German forests and of course the castles found more commonly in central and western Europe because the mongal way of warfare is ill-suited for siege warfare which is why their expansion west should come to a halt after shortly after contact with the HRE.

An argument could be made that they’d do the same, but I don’t see what effects no conquest of khwarezm would have on them doing any better. IOTL, they did raid into Hungary and Poland, and prolonged the instability within Poland (they were a major reason that the Germans were able to settle in Silesia and Pomerania).

I concede that they could have done better in Europe in such a scenario, but I don’t see it as a given (I don’t buy the pendulum theory). Just because they don’t conquer Khwarezm doesn’t mean they will automatically be inclined to do better elsewhere, even where opportunities are open to them.

I’m also skeptical of the applicability of your map, because it talks of soil performance and resilience. Some of the places where steppe empires are most famous for coming from, including Mongolia itself, are conspicuously lacking in this “soil performance and/or resilience”. Land quality for agriculture doesn’t translate to land quality for nomadic empire building.
 
An argument could be made that they’d do the same, but I don’t see what effects no conquest of khwarezm would have on them doing any better. IOTL, they did raid into Hungary and Poland, and prolonged the instability within Poland (they were a major reason that the Germans were able to settle in Silesia and Pomerania).

I concede that they could have done better in Europe in such a scenario, but I don’t see it as a given (I don’t buy the pendulum theory). Just because they don’t conquer Khwarezm doesn’t mean they will automatically be inclined to do better elsewhere, even where opportunities are open to them.

I’m also skeptical of the applicability of your map, because it talks of soil performance and resilience. Some of the places where steppe empires are most famous for coming from, including Mongolia itself, are conspicuously lacking in this “soil performance and/or resilience”. Land quality for agriculture doesn’t translate to land quality for nomadic empire building.
if you look at the map above you may notice that poor land qualities (7,8,9) are blurred out. according to national geographic, these "Deserts and xeric, or dry, shrublands rarely receive more than 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rainfall annually. These bone-dry ecosystems have an abundance of life and are characterized by" flatlands, rolling sand dunes, and cactus forests.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/desert-map/
6364.ngsversion.1467941011109.adapt.1900.1.jpg

here are a few of the issues the region has to deal with starting with most of Mongolia
mountains (Altai is a small division of the wider range) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_Mountains
250px-Altai_Mountains.jpg

and desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi_Desert
248px-Gobi_desert_map.png

central asia south
desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakum_Desert
248px-Karakum.png

central Asia north
mostly desert and semi-arid (but the northern is ok like in the national geographic map) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Kazakhstan
300px-Kazakhstan_map_of_K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification.svg.png

fallowing this little strip of ok land west is probably how many of these nomadic tribes that got into Europe started.
 
if you look at the map above you may notice that poor land qualities (7,8,9) are blurred out. according to national geographic, these "Deserts and xeric, or dry, shrublands rarely receive more than 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rainfall annually. These bone-dry ecosystems have an abundance of life and are characterized by" flatlands, rolling sand dunes, and cactus forests.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/desert-map/
6364.ngsversion.1467941011109.adapt.1900.1.jpg

here are a few of the issues the region has to deal with starting with most of Mongolia
mountains (Altai is a small division of the wider range) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_Mountains
250px-Altai_Mountains.jpg

and desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi_Desert
248px-Gobi_desert_map.png

central asia south
desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakum_Desert
248px-Karakum.png

central Asia north
mostly desert and semi-arid (but the northern is ok like in the national geographic map) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Kazakhstan
300px-Kazakhstan_map_of_K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification.svg.png

fallowing this little strip of ok land west is probably how many of these nomadic tribes that got into Europe started.

Really, if you look at a map of where the steppe is, you’ll see that most of it is in Central Asia, Mongolia, and what’s now southern Russia, which corresponds very well with where the greatest steppe peoples (mongols, Turks, khazars, cumans, xiongnu) based themselves. Granted, some of Europe is suitable for horse grazing and usage (Pannonian plain), but most of Europe isn’t. In fact, your agricultural map is almost inverted compared to where the steppes (good grazing/cavalry land) actually is. Note that the Middle East, India, and China proper are all not steppe, nor well suited for cavalry.

Regardless, this still doesn’t explain why the Mongols would do better in Europe because they didn’t invade Khwarezm. Yes, they did well in Europe IOTL due to geographic and political factors in Eastern Europe. Yes, there were opportunities where they could do better. But they don’t have to do better. What if Genghis is butterflies to death during an invasion of the Rus’? What if other countries are swayed by Khwarezm’s example to make peace with the Mongols? What if the Hungarians and Polish are butterflied to perform similarly to or better than OTL in battling the Mongols (maybe some Persian contingent of the army IOTL isn’t there ITTL)? Those are only a few scenarios where Khwarezm survives where the mongols don’t do any better in Europe than IOTL.
 
Really, if you look at a map of where the steppe is, you’ll see that most of it is in Central Asia, Mongolia, and what’s now southern Russia, which corresponds very well with where the greatest steppe peoples (mongols, Turks, khazars, cumans, xiongnu) based themselves. Granted, some of Europe is suitable for horse grazing and usage (Pannonian plain), but most of Europe isn’t. In fact, your agricultural map is almost inverted compared to where the steppes (good grazing/cavalry land) actually is. Note that the Middle East, India, and China proper are all not steppe, nor well suited for cavalry.

Regardless, this still doesn’t explain why the Mongols would do better in Europe because they didn’t invade Khwarezm. Yes, they did well in Europe IOTL due to geographic and political factors in Eastern Europe. Yes, there were opportunities where they could do better. But they don’t have to do better. What if Genghis is butterflies to death during an invasion of the Rus’? What if other countries are swayed by Khwarezm’s example to make peace with the Mongols? What if the Hungarians and Polish are butterflied to perform similarly to or better than OTL in battling the Mongols (maybe some Persian contingent of the army IOTL isn’t there ITTL)? Those are only a few scenarios where Khwarezm survives where the mongols don’t do any better in Europe than IOTL.

the europian steppe was A+ material but Central Asian C- material outside northern central Asia as you and northern Mongolia (historically at the time of the empire, now part of russia) which enters B and above territory as you were saying. The best land was east and west, not south because the Himalayan mountains and the Afghan Persian mountain range (their names escape me) created rain depressions of varying degrees the closer you were to the mountain range the worse it got (this can be seen if you compare southern central Asia to northern central Asia as it gets better the further you go north you can also see the same in Tebet and much of Mongolia with much of the rain that hits the region between Mongolia and central Asia being mountains)
http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=95&id=17557&kartennr=4
100790_095_4.jpg

http://www.geocurrents.info/geonotes/and-the-worlds-rainiest-place-is
World-Rainfall-Map.jpg

as to your second point, I could see Hungary holding because of its natural frontiers I'm just saying it looks like a nice prize for an ambitious khan looking to retrace the steps of the Huns seeing as that was their later seat of there empire under Attila (we think the Huns were likely central Asian probably proto Mongal or proto Turkish so they might claim the Mongols were the ancestors of the Huns coming to here to retake the land of there forefathers) and possibly make a temporary khanate there. Poland exists in an odd spot with light natural forists that dont get thick enough until you hit Pomerania and the Lithuanians with good forest coverage but a weak state relative to other nabors who could be conquered the one thing that's good for them is they have are on the low spectrum of soil its close enough to great sources spotted inside close to Warsaw
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306050
1-s2.0-S1364032116306050-gr7.jpg

there larger issue becomes we are not just talking about the Persians not getting invadesed because they were the reason the Mongols invaded the middle east, to begin with, because of there offer being rejected and their messengers killed so we are talking about the invasion force that was used to invade and hold down nearly all of the middle east and all but one of its regional Islamic powers and in doing so putting a end to the Islamic golden age starting with the side of Bagdad all on on horrid terrain which could be freed to fight on good terrain (Mongol conquest of the middle east in 1260) you can also see just about how far they went west (golden horde western border) so its not outside of reason that, that army in the middle east, if it was in europe could have finished off what little remained of Poland at least.
upload_2018-12-1_11-17-19.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-12-1_10-34-20.jpeg
    upload_2018-12-1_10-34-20.jpeg
    14.7 KB · Views: 68
Last edited:
I would assume they do better because of the middle east (particularly mountainous Persia and Afghanistan) are ill-suited for horse heavy warfare because of poor grazing land

Which did not prevent these areas from being captured by the Mongols.

but eastern Europe is perfect until you start hitting the Hungarian Carpathian mountains,

Err... did you hear about Hungarian Plain? BTW, a big part of the Eastern Europe in the XIII was hardly "perfect" being a heavily forested area with the numerous rivers and marshes. Carpathian mountains are a joke comparing to the mountain areas in which the Mongols had been successfully fighting (you can start with the Caucasus Mountains and go Eastward all the way to Pamirs and Tibet). In OTL the Mongols settled in the South-Eastern part of the Eastern Europe (Volga-Don steppes). Which did not mean that they did not conquer the forested area as well.

German forests and of course the castles found more commonly in central and western Europe because the mongal way of warfare is ill-suited for siege warfare which is why their expansion west should come to a halt after shortly after contact with the HRE.

Speaking of the forests, taiga of the Southern Siberia - conquered, forests of the Central Russia - conquered. As for the castles, this is an old spiel which belongs to the same category as the Mongolian bows falling apart in Western Europe. In other words, mostly legend. In the area of siege warfare the Mongols had been well ahead of anything available at that time in Europe and the castles of the Western Europe would not be a major issue (most of them would be simply ignored due to a simple irrelevance and inability to project any significant force beyond the neighboring village). Anyway, fortifications of the Western Europe circa XIII century were not as impressive as those of the major towns of China.

Of course, the Mongols would not settle in the areas outside steppe belt (as they did not in Russia) but they could raid Western Europe much deeper than in OTL and even establish the sovereign-vassal schema as they did in Russia, Georgia, Armenia Minor, etc. The reasons why they did not had been political and absence of conquest of Persia would have little to do with it: at least conquest of Iran and of the leftovers of Seljuk Sultanate happened after the Western campaign.
 

Marc

Donor
Just a quick note:
It's a bit of a popular misconception to identify the Mongol war engine as nearly exclusively light and heavy cavalry. They actually had a substantive and effective artillery corps for sieges, (and in some cases, battlefields) and were quite capable of fighting dismounted - think of them as being at times like dragoons. In essence, they were a distinctive state of the art force, able to deal with heavy fortifications and rugged terrain. (Not to mention being masters of psychological warfare).
The only significant qualifier would be their keen analysis of cost/benefit. Certainly Europe to the Rhine and Danube is very doable, and perhaps the Balkan peninsula as well. Past that, lots of exigences.
 
Which did not prevent these areas from being captured by the Mongols.



Err... did you hear about Hungarian Plain? BTW, a big part of the Eastern Europe in the XIII was hardly "perfect" being a heavily forested area with the numerous rivers and marshes. Carpathian mountains are a joke comparing to the mountain areas in which the Mongols had been successfully fighting (you can start with the Caucasus Mountains and go Eastward all the way to Pamirs and Tibet). In OTL the Mongols settled in the South-Eastern part of the Eastern Europe (Volga-Don steppes). Which did not mean that they did not conquer the forested area as well.



Speaking of the forests, taiga of the Southern Siberia - conquered, forests of the Central Russia - conquered. As for the castles, this is an old spiel which belongs to the same category as the Mongolian bows falling apart in Western Europe. In other words, mostly legend. In the area of siege warfare the Mongols had been well ahead of anything available at that time in Europe and the castles of the Western Europe would not be a major issue (most of them would be simply ignored due to a simple irrelevance and inability to project any significant force beyond the neighboring village). Anyway, fortifications of the Western Europe circa XIII century were not as impressive as those of the major towns of China.

Of course, the Mongols would not settle in the areas outside steppe belt (as they did not in Russia) but they could raid Western Europe much deeper than in OTL and even establish the sovereign-vassal schema as they did in Russia, Georgia, Armenia Minor, etc. The reasons why they did not had been political and absence of conquest of Persia would have little to do with it: at least conquest of Iran and of the leftovers of Seljuk Sultanate happened after the Western campaign.

I bring up the natural defenses the Hungarians could employ and I posted images of the tree coverage (it seems to be closely linked to the mountains ) I'm not trying to say these are impregnable or not impregnable but I am saying if you are fighting against horse based tactics you want land inconvenient for them so having dense tree coverage, steep inclines were they cant accelerate fast to pick up momentum for charges or trip and loss there footing, all of this increases your chance of survival but does not guarantee it Im just saying if the Hungarians want to survive they MUST hold the mountains because beyond them is step like conditions (notice were the stepps are cut off in the west that is Hungarianrian plains west of the carpathian mounts) which are MUCH more advantages to hourse warfair this is why I put so much defense on the only way they hold is to keep to the natural borders because they, like poland, made it otl but presumably we are looking at larger mongal fources withougt middleeastern destractions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe
400px-Eurasian_steppe_belt.jpg

likewise, Poland operating without these advantages also exists just north of the stepp and on the greater Eurasian plains which people so often credit as part of the reason why they cant seem to not get invaded all the time. ;)
 
Just a quick note:
It's a bit of a popular misconception to identify the Mongol war engine as nearly exclusively light and heavy cavalry. They actually had a substantive and effective artillery corps for sieges, (and in some cases, battlefields) and were quite capable of fighting dismounted - think of them as being at times like dragoons. In essence, they were a distinctive state of the art force, able to deal with heavy fortifications and rugged terrain. (Not to mention being masters of psychological warfare).
The only significant qualifier would be their keen analysis of cost/benefit. Certainly Europe to the Rhine and Danube is very doable, and perhaps the Balkan peninsula as well. Past that, lots of exigences.
I was only aware of Mongolian siege equipment in the beginning of the black death with plague victims and animals being fired over genoise merchant city walls which was used as you describe for the psychological effects and in a way it was early biological warfare but I assumed it was more limited in its usage as I had only heard of it in that instance. However, I was unaware the Mongols employed them like a semi-regular thing as you were saying thanks for the insight :D
 
Anyways, I think this thread is getting a little off topic. Let’s go back to Persia.

One thing I would ask is: how does this affect he Abbasid Caliphate? If they aren’t destroyed by the Mongols, what is their future? Do they remain a vassal of the Persians (Khwarezm in this case)? Are they still crushed by another power? Do they experience a cultural or political resurgence? How does this affect the Islamic world as a whole?
 
Top