Timurid Egypt

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Is it possible for Timur and family to establish a state based in Egypt that lasts for at least 100 years?
 
Hello Soverihn

Well to be honest i dont know maybe but probably not Timurud was interested in China i saw it in a documentary. In fact before he died he was about to march towards it but like Genghis Khan he died mysteriously.

Hypothetically speaking his "Egyptian empire" wouldnt last long well for one heirs his empire quickly broke up after he died. Two his Base of power was in Samarkand in Uzbakistan that is a long way so communication and maintaining power wasnt going to be easy. I mean establishing control over an area the size of Egypt even today requires a lot of work.

PS hope i have been helpful.
 
As Alpha points out, Timur's primary interests and powerbase lay in the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. Egypt probably would have been a distraction from his greater goals that included sovereignty over the Mongol-Turkish peoples and the restoration of Genghis Khan's universal empire.

Even so, I do have a question about OTL, since Timur picked a fight with the Mamluk sultan, why did he stop with sacking Aleppo and damascus? Why didn't he march on Cairo?
 
I think it is eminently possible for Timur to invade Egypt. His empire bordered the Levant at one point (1399/1400) and the Jalayirids ruling Baghdad did seek refuge with the Mamluks. So maybe an ill-considered attack by the Mamluks could have brought down Timurid retribution onto Egypt.

The results... oh, man. There is no doubt that Timur would have laid waste to Egypt as he did to Persia and Baghdad, destroying Cairo, Damascus, Alexandria and wrecking the basin irrigation systems that had been in place since the Pharaohs. The population-bearing capacity of Egypt would have been sharply reduced after that, which would at least make Egypt easier to govern.

I think it's pretty much given that the Mamluk class would have been exterminated in Egypt after Timur's invasion, so that would remove a massive contributor of instability that plagued previous Egyptian regimes - and more importantly, unlike Samarkand etc. there are no nomadic tribesmen in Egypt to disturb the peace. So I don't see why Timur's descendants couldn't rule for more than 100 years in Egypt in such a case. Still going to get annexed by the Ottomans under Selim I, though.
 

Deleted member 67076

I think it is eminently possible for Timur to invade Egypt. His empire bordered the Levant at one point (1399/1400) and the Jalayirids ruling Baghdad did seek refuge with the Mamluks. So maybe an ill-considered attack by the Mamluks could have brought down Timurid retribution onto Egypt.

The results... oh, man. There is no doubt that Timur would have laid waste to Egypt as he did to Persia and Baghdad, destroying Cairo, Damascus, Alexandria and wrecking the basin irrigation systems that had been in place since the Pharaohs. The population-bearing capacity of Egypt would have been sharply reduced after that, which would at least make Egypt easier to govern.

I think it's pretty much given that the Mamluk class would have been exterminated in Egypt after Timur's invasion, so that would remove a massive contributor of instability that plagued previous Egyptian regimes - and more importantly, unlike Samarkand etc. there are no nomadic tribesmen in Egypt to disturb the peace. So I don't see why Timur's descendants couldn't rule for more than 100 years in Egypt in such a case. Still going to get annexed by the Ottomans under Selim I, though.
Interesting. So its possible for a Timurid state (like say, the Mughals) to establish itself in Egypt.

Could Egypt be taken over without being brutalized?

Why would you say that the Ottomans would crush the Timurids in Egypt? Could Timurid Egypt grow strong enough to resist them? Or would this require a POD where the Ottomans get weakened/destroyed?
 
I don't see why the Timurids couldn't have established themselves in Egypt, given the fact that Timur would have removed all the major problems that affected all Muslim Egyptian dynasties before that. A depopulated Cairo/Alexandria can't put up effective resistance, no Mamluks to form alternate centers of power, and the Timurids were Muslim so no infidels to fight against (Timur would have destroyed the Copts totally).

If Egypt is to survive being brutalized... you can't have Timur invade. But only Timur had the time/resources to contemplate attacking Egypt. Miran Shah could have, I guess, but he had 'mental difficulties' by 1400 and so couldn't ascend the throne (and he would likely have brutalized the country anyway). Shah Rukh wasn't the sort of person to contemplate invading Egypt and by that time half the empire had collapsed anyway.

Well I don't see how a devastated Timurid Egypt could possibly field enough manpower to stand against the Ottoman army. The Ottomans were also one of the first 'gunpowder empires', and the efficacy of this change (conducted by Selim I) was demonstrated against Persia at Chaldiran, which fielded a semi-nomadic army just like what the Timurids would have been accustomed to. I guess the Timurids could have tried to adopt gunpowder early but the devastated economy of Egypt would actively work against them.
 

Deleted member 67076

What if a Timurid general attacks Egypt while Timur and the main army is busy conquering some other location such as Anatolia? Could that be enough to overthrow the Mamlukes?
 
Any non-family Timurid general entrusted with such an undertaking (and therefore close to Timur) would have undoubtedly been sent on his way with the requirement that he exterminate all resistance (probably in terms of number of skulls collected, like at Baghdad). So even that will result in destruction of Egypt (which I think was the point of your argument). In any case, I'm not sure there were any other capable generals in the empire besides Timur and his family, certainly none as famous as Subotai for the Mongols.
 
Although, theoretically, it doesn't seem that anything would stand in the way of an initial Timirid conquest (so why did they stop with just taking Damascus and Aleppo from the Mamluks OTL?), how long the Timirids can hold it is predicated on the stability that Timir leaves at his death and a suppression of the infighting and civil wars within his family after his death. The Timirid domains almost immediately contracted upon his death OTL. Egypt, being so far away from the central Timirid base of power would probably quickly wither on the vine.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Yeah Egypt would be easy to conquer but as soon as Timur kicks the bucket someone else would seize power and a new dynasty installed.
 

Deleted member 67076

Any non-family Timurid general entrusted with such an undertaking (and therefore close to Timur) would have undoubtedly been sent on his way with the requirement that he exterminate all resistance (probably in terms of number of skulls collected, like at Baghdad). So even that will result in destruction of Egypt (which I think was the point of your argument). In any case, I'm not sure there were any other capable generals in the empire besides Timur and his family, certainly none as famous as Subotai for the Mongols.
Well, fuck.

Although, theoretically, it doesn't seem that anything would stand in the way of an initial Timirid conquest (so why did they stop with just taking Damascus and Aleppo from the Mamluks OTL?), how long the Timirids can hold it is predicated on the stability that Timir leaves at his death and a suppression of the infighting and civil wars within his family after his death. The Timirid domains almost immediately contracted upon his death OTL. Egypt, being so far away from the central Timirid base of power would probably quickly wither on the vine.

Yeah Egypt would be easy to conquer but as soon as Timur kicks the bucket someone else would seize power and a new dynasty installed.

Well, what about something like the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt? A successor state to the Timurids formed in the wake of the collapse of the main empire (like the Diodachi wars). With a contingent of the main steppe army becoming the new aristocracy.
 
Is it possible for Timur and family to establish a state based in Egypt that lasts for at least 100 years?

For Timur himself during his lifetime:
- definitely no. Egypt was naturally inclined to seek for independence if inside any Empire. Even the Ottomans conquering Egypt had to fight against their own governor seizing high power. Timur was wise enough to understand it. So placing his weak forces in Egypt would be invitation for the locals to rebel; placing strong Timur's forces would make them think about proclaiming independence against Timur himself. If he had invaded Egypt, laid waste, looted and massacred he would then have placed some local ruler, dynast as his vassal, like he did in Anatolia. That might have been an Abbasid Cairo Caliph or anyone else. Who knows...

For Timurids after the death of Timur:
- definitely no. The Turkoman tribes on the Western border of the Timur's Empire were waiting for his death - on hearing of that they became almost immediately virtually independent. So if some Timurid Prince had wanted to invade Egypt he would have had to fight through them which was darn hard.
 
Top