Persia without the Mongol destruction

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?

I would assume they stay a vassal or get consumed by Persia because the caliphate seems to have peaked in power after there revival and Persia seemed ascendant at the time prior to the Mongols it looks like they were consolidating the last of there control over Persia and would likely have consolidated Azerbaijan at that point their expansion become less certain unless they cut a deal with rum who is also of Turkic origin against the Arab power of ayyubid or Christian Georgia. if you are trying to expand Abbasid specifically I could see a war at some point fought with ayyubid by Persia that gives a vassal Abbasid the rest of ayyubid controlled Mesopotamia and Kurdistan that Persia would normally take and rum where rum gets Syrian and Lebanon but that is about as big as I could see Abbasid getting unless at some point rum declines and Persia for some reason turns against them and expands west or is alternatively Persia declines at some point (which may take some time as they seemed ascendant) and rum takes up vassalage of Abbasid and when and if war happens with Persia they could give Abbasid territory to the east. (both seem unlikely but we have seen some alliances turn into historical double crosses before (Russia and Poland Lithuania)
(below is an image timelapse from 1200AD to 1230AD)

upload_2018-12-1_12-43-9.png

upload_2018-12-1_12-50-6.png

upload_2018-12-1_12-52-52.png

upload_2018-12-1_12-59-19.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-12-1_12-39-34.png
    upload_2018-12-1_12-39-34.png
    386.6 KB · Views: 49
  • upload_2018-12-1_12-41-18.png
    upload_2018-12-1_12-41-18.png
    146.3 KB · Views: 49
I bring up the natural defenses the Hungarians could employ

As a natural defense against the Mongols the Carpathian mountains are a joke. Not to mention that in mid-XIII a considerable part of these mountains belonged to the Princedom of Galitz, not Hungary. In general, defending the mountains is not a very good stratagem because you can't safely guard ALL possible passes.


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

Oh great. Following your theory the cavalry could fight only in the grass-covered plains. Probably out of all mountain areas in which the Mongols fought successfully the Carpathians presented the least "inconvenience": these mountains are low, with a lot of the gentle slopes and passes.


so having dense tree coverage, steep inclines were they cant accelerate fast to pick up momentum for charges or trip and loss there footing,

This jewel of wisdom probably means that the Mongols did not conquer Central Russia most of which in the XIII century had "dense tree coverage". Neither did not they conquer Georgia because as far as the "steep inclines" are involved the Carpathians are just hills comparing to the Caucasus Mountains. :winkytongue:

The problem with the "steep inclines" is that defenders can't fight on them either because they are also going to have problems with the footing. And, of course, the cavalry does not have to charge up and down the "steep inclines" (outside "Lord of the Rings" which, AFAIK, is not exactly a documentary) when there are passes through the mountains.

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

I may be thoroughly confused but AFAIK the Hungarians did survive even if they did not hold the mountains. They did not hold them not only in 1241 but also in 1285 when Nogai looted Transylvania.


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. ;)

Well, Poland was raided numerous times so I'd be careful about it not being invaded.
 
As a natural defense against the Mongols the Carpathian mountains are a joke. Not to mention that in mid-XIII a considerable part of these mountains belonged to the Princedom of Galitz, not Hungary. In general, defending the mountains is not a very good stratagem because you can't safely guard ALL possible passes.

Oh great. Following your theory the cavalry could fight only in the grass-covered plains. Probably out of all mountain areas in which the Mongols fought successfully the Carpathians presented the least "inconvenience": these mountains are low, with a lot of the gentle slopes and passes.

This jewel of wisdom probably means that the Mongols did not conquer Central Russia most of which in the XIII century had "dense tree coverage". Neither did not they conquer Georgia because as far as the "steep inclines" are involved the Carpathians are just hills comparing to the Caucasus Mountains. :winkytongue:

The problem with the "steep inclines" is that defenders can't fight on them either because they are also going to have problems with the footing. And, of course, the cavalry does not have to charge up and down the "steep inclines" (outside "Lord of the Rings" which, AFAIK, is not exactly a documentary) when there are passes through the mountains.

I may be thoroughly confused but AFAIK the Hungarians did survive even if they did not hold the mountains. They did not hold them not only in 1241 but also in 1285 when Nogai looted Transylvania.

Well, Poland was raided numerous times so I'd be careful about it not being invaded.
I was unaware of galitz holding parts of the mountains.

The importance of defending mountains is because of the mountain passes there is only so many passes that an army can take and so with a limited avenue of approach you can create predictability and if you can get a narrow pass you prevent cleverly flanking which they can best do in open terrain (which they can do if they breach the mountains)

Im not saying they could fight only there, I am only saying they have a distinct advantage by having full maneuverability on grassland. The Carpathian mountains are the best eastern natural defense hungry has and they certainly need would not be benefited with the conflict on the Hungarian plains.

Russia was close to there avenues of power projection,
the forests prevent the Mongols from just riding in a straight line if they could do that they could pick up maximum speed but by needing to weave in between trees they lose momentum which decreases the effectiveness of shock based cavalry charges,
I don't really need to explain to you the importance of the high ground high ground (Anakin ;) )

You are right they did survive otl but with more mogal focus presumably on Europe with no invasion of the middle east I would assume they would not but if they did holding the mountains to prevent flanking would sure go a long way to giving them a shot.

I was trying to insinuate that they would be invaded (that's why I put a winky face there)
 
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
According to this map areas that have traditionally had strong horse breeding cultures (Iran, North Africa, Arabia, Spain, Armenia, all of central asia, ect...) don't have good soil. I'm willing to bet that the map is not accurate for historical soil values (we are talking about 800 years ago) or that the means of determining a soil's worth is skewed towards growing rather than just grazing.
 
I was unaware of galitz holding parts of the mountains.

The importance of defending mountains is because of the mountain passes there is only so many passes that an army can take and so with a limited avenue of approach you can create predictability and if you can get a narrow pass you prevent cleverly flanking which they can best do in open terrain (which they can do if they breach the mountains)

IIRC, it was Jomini (not sure) who commented on a complete futility of a strategy based upon the defending the mountain passes (based upon fighting in Switzerland during the Revolutionary Wars): there are always more passes than you can defend effectively while your opponent has a complete freedom of choosing specific points of a penetration and concentrate an overwhelming force there while your forces are spread thin in an attempt to cover a very long perimeter. And taking into an account the fact that the Carpathians are rather low and not excessively steep (I happened to see them) the task becomes simply unrealistic, especially if the opponent can dismount and act on foot.

Im not saying they could fight only there, I am only saying they have a distinct advantage by having full maneuverability on grassland.

Yeah, sure. You have enough forces to cover effectively all possible passes of the Carpathians AND you have enough forces in reserve to fight on the plain AND you have enough forces to defend your cities and castles. How many troops do you have?

Oh, BTW, most of your own fighting force composed of .... (undisciplined) heavy cavalry. Not very good for fighting on the mountain slopes and not having too much of the long range weaponry. Actually, not very good in maneuvering anywhere but at least on a plain they can deliver a serious punch. If the enemy will allow them to do such a thing.

Russia was close to there avenues of power projection,
the forests prevent the Mongols from just riding in a straight line if they could do that they could pick up maximum speed but by needing to weave in between trees they lose momentum which decreases the effectiveness of shock based cavalry charges,
I don't really need to explain to you the importance of the high ground high ground (Anakin ;) )

Ah, I see. The Mongols had been riding in a straight line all the way from Mongolia to the border of the Central Russia accelerating while they were riding (did they exceed the speed of light by the end of their route? Just curious) and then .... BOOMS!!! .... they bumped into the trees with a complete loss of a momentum. In desperation they were weaving among the trees loosing all the shock value of a cavalry charge. Russians kept surrendering just out of a pure compassion: these Mongols were too pathetic... :winkytongue:

Sorry, but it looks like you simply don't understand what you are talking about. To start with, what the opponent's army (again, mostly cavalry) would be doing in a middle of a forest where it also can't fight. Why do you think that the only tool of the Mongolian tactics was a headlong attack? This applies much more to their European opponents than to the Mongols.


You are right they did survive otl but with more mogal focus presumably on Europe with no invasion of the middle east I would assume they would not but if they did holding the mountains to prevent flanking would sure go a long way to giving them a shot.

Invasion of the Middle East happened well after the Western Campaign and as such is quite irrelevant. You (I assume) are talking about invasion of the Central Asia which was over well before conquest of Russia and the Western Campaign and as such is also irrelevant. The Carpathians as a barrier preventing "flanking" is not working: the Western Campaign happened on a very long front extending from Poland to almost the Black Sea so the Carpathians could be easily outflanked, if needed.
 
According to this map areas that have traditionally had strong horse breeding cultures (Iran, North Africa, Arabia, Spain, Armenia, all of central asia, ect...) don't have good soil. I'm willing to bet that the map is not accurate for historical soil values (we are talking about 800 years ago) or that the means of determining a soil's worth is skewed towards growing rather than just grazing.
Fair point, it is a post cold war modern map, (if you look at the bottom right in small font it says 1998)
 
IIRC, it was Jomini (not sure) who commented on a complete futility of a strategy based upon the defending the mountain passes (based upon fighting in Switzerland during the Revolutionary Wars): there are always more passes than you can defend effectively while your opponent has a complete freedom of choosing specific points of a penetration and concentrate an overwhelming force there while your forces are spread thin in an attempt to cover a very long perimeter. And taking into an account the fact that the Carpathians are rather low and not excessively steep (I happened to see them) the task becomes simply unrealistic, especially if the opponent can dismount and act on foot.



Yeah, sure. You have enough forces to cover effectively all possible passes of the Carpathians AND you have enough forces in reserve to fight on the plain AND you have enough forces to defend your cities and castles. How many troops do you have?

Oh, BTW, most of your own fighting force composed of .... (undisciplined) heavy cavalry. Not very good for fighting on the mountain slopes and not having too much of the long range weaponry. Actually, not very good in maneuvering anywhere but at least on a plain they can deliver a serious punch. If the enemy will allow them to do such a thing.



Ah, I see. The Mongols had been riding in a straight line all the way from Mongolia to the border of the Central Russia accelerating while they were riding (did they exceed the speed of light by the end of their route? Just curious) and then .... BOOMS!!! .... they bumped into the trees with a complete loss of a momentum. In desperation they were weaving among the trees loosing all the shock value of a cavalry charge. Russians kept surrendering just out of a pure compassion: these Mongols were too pathetic... :winkytongue:

Sorry, but it looks like you simply don't understand what you are talking about. To start with, what the opponent's army (again, mostly cavalry) would be doing in a middle of a forest where it also can't fight. Why do you think that the only tool of the Mongolian tactics was a headlong attack? This applies much more to their European opponents than to the Mongols.




Invasion of the Middle East happened well after the Western Campaign and as such is quite irrelevant. You (I assume) are talking about invasion of the Central Asia which was over well before conquest of Russia and the Western Campaign and as such is also irrelevant. The Carpathians as a barrier preventing "flanking" is not working: the Western Campaign happened on a very long front extending from Poland to almost the Black Sea so the Carpathians could be easily outflanked, if needed.


The Mongols are stereotyped as being horse archers but they had a mixed cavalry force of horse archers and lancers so it's not like it would be useless (granted I believe they did actually have slightly more horse archers), I also don't expect hungry to hold every pass (I expect them to fail that's why I included them in my anticipated western border of the Mongols if you look back) Im just saying if the mongals are in greater numbers (which I expect they will be without the middle east) they need to plug the leaks in the mountains or get drowned out.

Do you remember when I said that cavalry tactics get debuffed in forest environment this is why I said early on I think they would be stopped shortly after hitting the HRE because of a number of factors that include, professional troops, in superior defenses like castles and natural borders like forests, rivers and the bohemian mountain range all of these things should aid in defense, not win entire wars, I don't think any individual one is a war winner, when I bring up things like forests that the terrain is a future of a battlefield that has an effect on combat, I am not claiming it is a wonder weapon that will drive the Mongols back to Asia.
Finally the Mongols the Mongol invasion of the middle east started before Europe and then overlapped with it, here is a rough wiki timeline
upload_2018-12-1_20-48-51.png

Try to reframe from personal attacks.
 
Last edited:
The Mongols are stereotyped as being horse archers but they had a mixed cavalry force of horse archers and lancers

Wrong because ALL of them had bows, even the lancers and their tactics was much more diverse than a primitive division into a shooting and shock cavalry.


so it's not like it would be useless

What exactly would not be useless?


(granted I believe they did actually have slightly more horse archers), I also don't expect hungry to hold every pass (I expect them to fail that's why I included them in my anticipated western border of the Mongols if you look back) Im just saying if the mongals are in greater numbers (which I expect they will be without the middle east) they need to plug the leaks in the mountains or get drowned out.

No offense but it is very difficult to understand what you are trying to say ("hungry" instead of "Hungary" is just one of too many cases and why should I spend time trying to figure out the real meaning of what's printed).

As for what seems to be your point, it does not make too much practical sense on 2 accounts. 1st, if not all passes are being held then your stratagem is just a suicidal trap for the defenders and 2nd, absence of the earlier conquest of Persia/Khwaresm in 1219/21 (which is NOT "Middle East") would not make any noticeable positive impact on the size of the armies engaged in conquest of the Eastern Europe and then Western Campaign (1236 - 41): these events had been separated by quite a few years and so are the Western Campaign and conquest of the Abassid Caliphate in 1257/58 (between 1236 and 1257 the Mongols just did few limited in size raids of Caliphate territory), which qualifies as "Middle East" but at that time hardly was "Persia" (as in thread's title). For the conquest of Caliphate the the Great Khan Munke ordered mobilization of the troops from all parts of the empire including the Golden Horde, which simply did not exist before 1241.

Do you remember when I said that cavalry tactics get debuffed in forest environment

I remember it and what you wrote clearly indicates (nothing personal) that you don't have a clear idea both about the Mongols and what amounts to the "forest environment". Part of the Mongolian tribes, so-called "forest Mongols", lived in taiga forests to the North of Baikal Lake. More than that, Subotai was from Uriankhai area - a heavily forested region. Central Russia was a heavily forested area in the mid-XIII. "Heavily forested" does not mean that there are only trees growing "shoulder to shoulder" because the very fact that the area was inhabited by the sedentary people and had numerous towns (not to mention even more numerous villages) clearly indicates that there are clear spaces, natural and artificially created. The same goes for the forested areas inhabited by the nomadic people. Also, even a superficial familiarity the relevant history would tell you that the "native" (Russian) warfare of that period had been based on the heavy cavalry with the addition of the horse archers (in the southern princedoms facing the steppe) and an infantry being "remote second" pretty much the same as was the case in the Central and Western Europe of that period. And these armies had been fighting each other all the time prior to the Mongolian appearance in these "densely forested" areas which according to your theory should be impossible. The same goes for the German forests: if all Germany of the XIII century is one big dense forest than there are no cities, castles, etc. and the knights (according to your theory) are pretty much useless. However we do know that none of the above is correct. Which means that most of the local population did not live in the middle of the forests and this leaves us with a fundamental question: why would the Mongols go into these forests if everything of any value is outside them?

this is why I said early on I think they would be stopped shortly after hitting the HRE because of a number of factors that include, professional troops,

The troops of the Central and Western Europe of that period were just as "professional" as their counterparts in the Eastern Europe so this can be easily disregarded. In both cases the "armies" had been ad hoc assemblies of the feudal bands based upon the heavy cavalry. In both cases an individual band was built around a feudal seignior and consisted of a number of the heavily armed horsemen supported by the mounted followers having a lighter armor. There could be some foot soldiers but they were mostly used for the defense of the fortified places and, in the field, for protecting a camp, etc. The only exception were city militias (both in the East and in the West) of a varied quality. The details varied from region to region but the principle was the same and the troops defeated at Legnitz and Sajo in 1241 were not substantially different from those defeated at Kalka in 1223 or at Sit in 1238 or from those that could be raised within the HRE.

And as far as the HRE was involved, Frederick II seemingly did not have too many illusions about a possibility of defeating the Mongols and in the mid-1241 he disbanded whatever he managed to assemble, ordered his vassals in Swabia, Austria, and Bohemia to avoid field battles, hoard all food stocks in every fortress and stronghold, and arm all possible levies as well as the general populace. In other words, engaged in the same strategy as Khwaresm Shah Mohammed during the Mongolian invasion. The main difference was (and Frederick was well up to date with the Mongolian affairs) that, unlike the case of Khwaresm, the Western Campaign was from the very beginning planned as a massive raid with no intention of a permanent conquest: on the way West the Mongols had been explicitly avoiding the prolonged sieges (even in princedoms of Galiz) to keep offensive along the long front on schedule and well coordinated.

In other words, the whole idea of the Mongolian conquest (as opposite to the raid) of the Western Europe is a popular fantasy which is goes against many known facts and can't be taken too seriously (Ogdai's death was just a convenient excuse for these issues to reveal themselves). It belongs to the same category as the Arab conquest of Europe if they won a battle of Poitiers or the Ottoman conquest of Europe if they took Vienna.


in superior defenses like castles and natural borders like forests, rivers

In the Central Russia the Mongols took by storm numerous fortified cities within a single winter campaign. Fortifications of China and those of the cities of the Central Asia quite often had been much more formidable than those of the XIII century Europe. I already addressed the "forests" issues. As for the rivers, the Mongols crossed quite a few major rivers in Asia and Eastern Europe (Volga, AFAIK, being wider than any other river in Europe) and Central Russia was/is full of the small rivers.
 
alexmilman ~ "absence of the earlier conquest of Persia/Khwaresm in 1219/21 (which is NOT "Middle East") would not make any noticeable positive impact on the size of the armies engaged in conquest of the Eastern Europe and then Western Campaign (1236 - 41): these events had been separated by quite a few years and so are the Western Campaign and conquest of the Abassid Caliphate in 1257/58 (between 1236 and 1257 the Mongols just did few limited in size raids of Caliphate territory), which qualifies as "Middle East" but at that time hardly was "Persia" (as in thread's title). For the conquest of Caliphate the the Great Khan Munke ordered mobilization of the troops from all parts of the empire including the Golden Horde, which simply did not exist before 1241."

Pauh the federalist ~ I think you will find Persia is agreed by basically everybody as being part of the "Middle East"
Dark green, the traditional definition of the "Middle East". (near universal agreeance across time)
Normal and light green, are expanded terms governing the "greater middle east" (contemporary interpretations with agreements in flux based on contrys interpretations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Middle_East
500px-Greater_Middle_East_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png
 
Last edited:
alexmilman ~ "absence of the earlier conquest of Persia/Khwaresm in 1219/21 (which is NOT "Middle East") would not make any noticeable positive impact on the size of the armies engaged in conquest of the Eastern Europe and then Western Campaign (1236 - 41): these events had been separated by quite a few years and so are the Western Campaign and conquest of the Abassid Caliphate in 1257/58 (between 1236 and 1257 the Mongols just did few limited in size raids of Caliphate territory), which qualifies as "Middle East" but at that time hardly was "Persia" (as in thread's title). For the conquest of Caliphate the the Great Khan Munke ordered mobilization of the troops from all parts of the empire including the Golden Horde, which simply did not exist before 1241."

Pauh the federalist ~ I think you will find Persia is agreed by basically everybody as being part of the "Middle East"
Dark green, the traditional definition of the "Middle East". (near universal agreeance across time)
Normal and light green, are expanded terms governing the "greater middle east" (contemporary interpretations with agreements in flux based on contrys interpretations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Middle_East

Fine but does not change anything in what I wrote: conquest of Persia (which is in thread tittle) happened well before conquest of Russia and Western Campaign and conquest of the Caliphate well after these events which means that size of the army campaigning in Europe would not be noticeably impacted if conquest of Persia did not happen.
 
Top