What would happen to the Abbassid Caliphate if the Mongols don't destroy it?

Elfwine

Not just the city of Baghdad, but the Caliphate. Assuming that Timur is butterflied.

Would it be able to regain any of its former power over time (the Ilkhanate didn't last very long, after all)? Would the dynasty die out or be replaced?

It seems like it was recovering in the 1200s, though on a very regional scale.
 

Prefrence

Banned
explode in on itself later, it was damn unstable after the 970's, this might work to Byzantine advantage
 

Elfwine

Prefrence said:
much of the power was in local rulers, I dont think it will last.
Click to expand...

Why not though? I mean, if its managing to regain control of Mesopotamia, why is it any more likely to collapse than any other state dependent on the loyalty of its vassals (which is...just about every state in this half of Eurasia)?

I'm not saying I'm confident it would do well, but I'd really like to see something more specific than "it was doomed" without indicating why it is going to fall apart utterly despite a promising late 12th and 13th century.

It just doesn't sound weak enough to just cease to exist in 1300 based on how it was growing up to the point of the mid-13th century. Regionally, but that's what Nicaea had only less so, and it took another two centuries to from the mid-13th century to its death. Two centuries and a lot of enemies.
 

Pachac

Either gets absorbed by Persia or collapses in a spectacular fashion when the salinization of the irrigation canals reaches a certain point.
 

Prefrence

Banned
Elfwine said:
Why not though? I mean, if its managing to regain control of Mesopotamia, why is it any more likely to collapse than any other state dependent on the loyalty of its vassals (which is...just about every state in this half of Eurasia)?
Click to expand...

a dynasty change and a few places breaking off is likely i think.
 

Elfwine

ImmortalImpi said:
Either gets absorbed by Persia or collapses in a spectacular fashion when the salinization of the irrigation canals reaches a certain point.
Click to expand...

Why so though? Looking at the latter here.

You know far more than I do about how problematic those canals are. My knowledge of Mesopotamian agriculture is "That's the Fertile crescent or something, right?"

Prefrence said:
a dynasty change and a few places breaking off is likely i think.
Click to expand...

Terse. Posts. Are. Not. Helping.

Why will that happen?

Why can't the Abbasids deal with the problems of maintaining a state but say (again) the Byzantines can do so for another couple centuries - increasingly weaker, but there was a "Byzantine Empire" up to 1453 (or later if we count the Morea as a hold out).

No offense, but if I want pessimism without explanation, I can ask the voices in my head and they say "The Abbasids were idiots."

Which...doesn't explain how they managed to go from being subservient to the Seljuks to regaining control in their own right of Mesopotamia. So obviously something else would cause a collapse if one occurred.
 

Pachac

Elfwine said:
Why so though? Looking at the latter here.

You know far more than I do about how problematic those canals are. My knowledge of Mesopotamian agriculture is "That's the Fertile crescent or something, right?"
Click to expand...

Alright, this is a bit of a fun research point for me. Mesopotamian culture has always been fairly fascinating.

Basically, in the later Abbasids, civil wars and incompetent sultans took up much of the state's resources. The fact that many of the canals were damaged didn't help their position. Around 1200 the Tigris and Euphrates were again changing course, making many canals obsolete. The Abbasids didn't have to money or manpower to replace them, with many canals(the newest versions, at least) dating back to the 800s. Couple this with the fact that many of these canals were salinized or beginning to salinize and you have a recipe for a catastrophic disaster that would devastate Mesopotamia immensely, perhaps even more than the Mongols did since much of the land would turn into salt flats.
 

Prefrence

Banned
Elfwine said:
Why so though? Looking at the latter here.

You know far more than I do about how problematic those canals are. My knowledge of Mesopotamian agriculture is "That's the Fertile crescent or something, right?"



Terse. Posts. Are. Not. Helping.

Why will that happen?

Why can't the Abbasids deal with the problems of maintaining a state but say (again) the Byzantines can do so for another couple centuries - increasingly weaker, but there was a "Byzantine Empire" up to 1453 (or later if we count the Morea as a hold out).

No offense, but if I want pessimism without explanation, I can ask the voices in my head and they say "The Abbasids were idiots."

Which...doesn't explain how they managed to go from being subservient to the Seljuks to regaining control in their own right of Mesopotamia. So obviously something else would cause a collapse if one occurred.
Click to expand...

A dynasty change is not unlikely... Whats the difference between the Umayyads and the Abassids? The umayyad dynstaty was overthrow by the abassids, then Umayyad loyalists broke off from the calpihate (al-andalus). It could happen because the Abassids were one sect of islam and the umayyads another, eventually one would get pissed at the other and try to take over again...
 

Elfwine

ImmortalImpi said:
Alright, this is a bit of a fun research point for me. Mesopotamian culture has always been fairly fascinating.

Basically, in the later Abbasids, civil wars and incompetent sultans took up much of the state's resources. The fact that many of the canals were damaged didn't help their position. Around 1200 the Tigrsi and Euphrates were again changing course, making many canals obsolete. The Abbasids didn't have to money or manpower to replace them, with many canals(the newest versions, at least) dating back to the 800s. Couple this with the fact that many of these canals were salinized or beginning to salinize and you have a recipe for a catastrophic disaster that would devastate Mesopotamia immensely, perhaps even more than the Mongols did since much of the land would turn into salt flats.
Click to expand...

That's worrisome. Even the best case assumptions I can think of are still looking at a state focused on military-politics issues, which probably means proper care of the infrastructure is secondary (since money available on hand is funneled into immediate stuff, not something as long term as the canals).

So would it be appropriate to guesstimate that somewhere in the mid-14th century this adds up to enough of a catastrophe to rip things apart?

Seems like a "good" "On top of the ravages of the Great Plague..." disaster that leaves Mesopotamia in...sorry shape, agriculturally and politically. Several (not so significant) emirates, some stronger than others, and considerable depopulation from war and plague and famine.

Wonder what happens to the Abbasids themselves in such a crisis. An ugly civil war seeing whoever seizes Baghdad sending them to apologize to Allah for their errors?
 

Ridwan Asher

How about the surrounding during this time ?

There was the strong powerful Khwarezm Empire just east of Iraq, IIRC had all of Iran under its thumb. What were they doing prior to Mongol invasion ? Were they already in decline by that time ?

How were things west and south of them also ? I'm not very well versed in this part of history after all...

But I think while they were generally recovering, the Abassids looks pretty vulnerable to me. I think it will take some time before they can stand against the gravity pull to become puppet of another powerful Sultan, and if the Khawerzm was on the decline prior to Mongol invasion, that should be a good news for the Abbassid, otherwise they will most likely be absorbed into their orbit, and later, be forced to pass the Caliphate's mantle to them.

I think with them still around, odds for the muslim position in the Levant vis a vis the crusaders will may be better comparative to OTL, but that would depend on their relations with the Mamluks of Egypt....
 

Pachac

Elfwine said:
That's worrisome. Even the best case assumptions I can think of are still looking at a state focused on military-politics issues, which probably means proper care of the infrastructure is secondary (since money available on hand is funneled into immediate stuff, not something as long term as the canals).

So would it be appropriate to guesstimate that somewhere in the mid-14th century this adds up to enough of a catastrophe to rip things apart?

Seems like a "good" "On top of the ravages of the Great Plague..." thing that leaves Mesopotamia in...sorry shape, agriculturally and politically.

Wonder what happens to the Abbasids themselves in such a crisis. An ugly civil war seeing whoever seizes Baghdad sending them to apologize to Allah for their errors?
Click to expand...


Maybe. You could have it even earlier where Persia enters on behalf of a side in a civil war, sees the weakness of the state, and seizes Mesopotamia for itself.

Scary thought: Since the rivers are elevated in relation to the land, almost all the lower lying land that was scoured with canals would turn into salt flats, making it almost impossible to farm.
 

Elfwine

Ridwan Asher said:
How about the surrounding during this time ?

There was the strong powerful Khwarezm Empire just east of Iraq, IIRC had all of Iran under its thumb. What were they doing prior to Mongol invasion ? Were they already in decline by that time ?
Click to expand...

Kicking butt, taking names, and generally establishing themselves as a New Turko-Persian Empire I think.

How were things west and south of them also ? I'm not very well versed in this part of history after all...
Click to expand...

West is the Mamelukes, South is...Arabia Insignificantia, if I'm not mistaken.

But I think while they were generally recovering, the Abassids looks pretty vulnerable to me. I think it will take some time before they can stand against the gravity pull to become puppet of another powerful Sultan, and if the Khawerzm was on the decline prior to Mongol invasion, that should be a good news for the Abbassid, otherwise they will most likely be absorbed into their orbit.

I think with them still around, odds for the muslim position in the Levant vis a vis the crusaders will may be better comparative to OTL, but that would depend on their relations with the Mamluks of Egypt....
Click to expand...

How so on being better? I mean, the crusader presence was eliminated by the end of the 13th century, how much faster are the Muslims going to move with the Abbasids?
 

Pachac

Ridwan Asher said:
How about the surrounding during this time ?

There was the strong powerful Khwarezm Empire just east of Iraq, IIRC had all of Iran under its thumb. What were they doing prior to Mongol invasion ? Were they already in decline by that time ?

How were things west and south of them also ? I'm not very well versed in this part of history after all...

But I think while they were generally recovering, the Abassids looks pretty vulnerable to me. I think it will take some time before they can stand against the gravity pull to become puppet of another powerful Sultan, and if the Khawerzm was on the decline prior to Mongol invasion, that should be a good news for the Abbassid, otherwise they will most likely be absorbed into their orbit, and later, be forced to pass the Caliphate's mantle to them.

I think with them still around, odds for the muslim position in the Levant vis a vis the crusaders will may be better comparative to OTL, but that would depend on their relations with the Mamluks of Egypt....
Click to expand...

Khawerzm was at its political and military zenith, with massive irrigation projects and conquests going on in the years before. They would look towards the assassins on Alamut and beyond them would lay the vulnerable prize of the Abbsaids. A quick grab of the state with the aforementioned circumstances would pretty easily hand Baghdad to them with little cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top