WI Illkhanate turns to christianity

The idea is that Illkhanate or other mongol state based on Persia turns ti christianity, probably an eastern branch like Miaphysitism or just plan Orthodoxy (assuming more exotic things like Manicheaism are out of the question).

Say this christian Persia consolidates its authority over Persia proper, Mesopotamia, and Syria. Christianity is finally resto red in the middle east. Maybe the Levant and Egypt too.

What are te consecuences for te ERE, Crusades, Age of Exploration, etc.
 

abc123

Banned
Nestorian Christianity, perhaps?

It would be, at least, intresting ( in Chinese sence ) to see that...

Anyone willing to write a TL about that?:confused:
 

KaiserCorax

Banned
We'd most likely see a large (20%+) Christian minority, but not majority, in the lands of the Ilkhanate, so about 20% Christian Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq etc

Byzantine Empire would never be conquered by Muslim Turks, seeing as Muslim Turks will have been subdued by Christian Ilkhanate. Byzantine Empire may still collapse, but Anatolia and Greece will remain Christian, and no Islam in Balkans.

Jerusalem will almost certainly remain in Christian hands for the rest of history.
 
We'd most likely see a large (20%+) Christian minority, but not majority, in the lands of the Ilkhanate, so about 20% Christian Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq etc

Byzantine Empire would never be conquered by Muslim Turks, seeing as Muslim Turks will have been subdued by Christian Ilkhanate.

Byzantine Empire may still collapse, but Anatolia and Greece will remain Christian, and no Islam in Balkans.

Seeing that by the time of the Ilkhanate Anatolia has already become the land of Muslim Turks, that the Ilkhanate is going to have a devil of a time securing itself long term if it is nonMuslim . . .

This makes even less sense than the scenario of Georgia bolting the barn door after the horse has fled as a way to stop the Turks. At least that potentially involved a Byzantium that could strike the Turks to some effect.

Jerusalem will almost certainly remain in Christian hands for the rest of history.

Given the above, and given that Jerusalem would have to be recaptured as of the 1250s (with later increasingly meaning a bad position to do so) . . .

Not without some doing, even if the stars align.
 
Seeing that by the time of the Ilkhanate Anatolia has already become the land of Muslim Turks, that the Ilkhanate is going to have a devil of a time securing itself long term if it is nonMuslim . . .

And by the time of the Turks, Anatolia was the land of the christian Greeks. How is it that different in this case?
 
And by the time of the Turks, Anatolia was the land of the christian Greeks. How is it that different in this case?

That its too late to prevent it from being taken by the Muslim Turks when it already is taken by them.

There are ways to keep Anatolia Christian or return it to Christian rule, but the Ilkhanate inspiring Iranian and Turkish rebellions in its own lands isn't one of them.
 
None that could be definitively called Christian, though several of the Khans had wives and mothers who were either Nestorian or held Christian sympathies.

However, one of the Khans, upon conquering Baghdad, did give the palace of the Caliph to the Cathilocos (Patriarch) of the Church of the East. There was certainly good relations between the Mongols and the Christian minority during the early period. I wouldn't be utterly surprised to see a Christian Khan or two.

Now, how well this leads to a successful Illkhanate is another matter. Although, its important to remember, that the Muslim's themselves were only a minority in the region for, at least, the first century after the conquest. So, really, I suppose it is determined more upon the skills and character of the Khans themselves.
 
If a christian khanate consolidates, what is the khan's relationship with other christian rulers? Wasn't the Nestorianism of the Church of th East considered heretic by Western Christians?
 
If a christian khanate consolidates, what is the khan's relationship with other christian rulers? Wasn't the Nestorianism of the Church of th East considered heretic by Western Christians?

Oh, definitely. That being said, I could see the Catholic and Orthodox Churches being wary but receptive, for the time being. After all, when a diplomat from the Church of the East arrived in Rome just a few decades before, relations between him and the Papacy had been good (to the point, that the diplomat, whose name escapes me right now, was allowed to say Mass in Rome). Part of this may have just been from befuddlement ("Whoa! We didn't know these guys existed. Weird!"), but could also have been happiness of seeing Christians in the East.

Now, I could see efforts to get the Khan to accept the Pope as spiritual master, and attempts to bring the Cathlicos into communion with the Pope. This will fail, naturally, and then relations may well turn sour. But, as long as the Ilkhanate is focusing its attention on Muslin nations ... well, a prodigal son is better than no son at all.
 
Now, how well this leads to a successful Illkhanate is another matter. Although, its important to remember, that the Muslim's themselves were only a minority in the region for, at least, the first century after the conquest. So, really, I suppose it is determined more upon the skills and character of the Khans themselves.

THat's not really the same situation - the Muslims were, at worst, no worse than what had come before - the Mongols were worse - both their invasion and their general governance for most of the Ilkhanate's existence.
 
THat's not really the same situation - the Muslims were, at worst, no worse than what had come before - the Mongols were worse - both their invasion and their general governance for most of the Ilkhanate's existence.

Well, yes, that goes to my point about the character and personalities of the subsequent Khans. But, just for the sake to argument, lets say that a leader of the early Illkhanate converts to Christianity who also possesses the leadership and administrative skills of Kublai Khan. In others words, its the best case scenario for this sort of thing. He lives a long life and leaves behind a well run and built government as well as a tradition of a Christian ruler who is tolerant of Islam, even if members of the Church of the East are obviously favored.

How does this play out; especially in his heirs, if not brilliant in their own right, are at least fairly competent.
 
Well, yes, that goes to my point about the character and personalities of the subsequent Khans.
This goes beyond "character and personalities". Mongol taxes are not known to be light.

But, just for the sake to argument, lets say that a leader of the early Illkhanate converts to Christianity who also possesses the leadership and administrative skills of Kublai Khan.

In others words, its the best case scenario for this sort of thing. He lives a long life and leaves behind a well run and built government as well as a tradition of a Christian ruler who is tolerant of Islam, even if members of the Church of the East are obviously favored.

How does this play out; especially in his heirs, if not brilliant in their own right, are at least fairly competent.

Okay, ignoring comments on improbability and other issues because apparently we're not concerned with how outlandish this is. . .

1) You still have a Christian ruler ruling a Muslim population that is not going to be thrilled with this. "Tolerant" of them or not, he's still an infidel and a foreigner - and turning Christian is emphasizing the latter as it makes it very unlikely that the Ilkhanate will be especially receptive to Persian culture (Kublai was a Sinophile, an Iranophile is not going to be someone deliberately embracing a foreign religion from most of his subjects).

Even if he has better urban-and-fragile-agriculture policies than the OTL khans , that's going to grate.

2) You still have the Ilkhanate in conflict - probably even more so than OTL - with the Golden Horde. This is going to interfere with the kind of policies that would rebuild Iran and build Iranic acceptance of Mongol rule simply by the nature of the beast, no matter how many points we add to their Administration skill.

3) You still have the issue that the Ilkhanate's ability to fight the Mamelukes isn't nearly as impressive as vs. the already tottering Caliphate.

4) You still have the Western powers unenthusiastic about a Franco-Mongolian alliance (even if a prodigal son is better than no son at all, there's not a lot of interest even in landing in Syria).


Frankly, I think all of this - even if somehow you get a Christian khan and one who cares about the state of Iran - is going to go no better than OTL for the Ilkhanate, and if anything see more Muslims head into Anatolia.
 
Okay, ignoring comments on improbability and other issues because apparently we're not concerned with how outlandish this is. . .

1) You still have a Christian ruler ruling a Muslim population that is not going to be thrilled with this. "Tolerant" of them or not, he's still an infidel and a foreigner - and turning Christian is emphasizing the latter as it makes it very unlikely that the Ilkhanate will be especially receptive to Persian culture (Kublai was a Sinophile, an Iranophile is not going to be someone deliberately embracing a foreign religion from most of his subjects).

Even if he has better urban-and-fragile-agriculture policies than the OTL khans , that's going to grate.

2) You still have the Ilkhanate in conflict - probably even more so than OTL - with the Golden Horde. This is going to interfere with the kind of policies that would rebuild Iran and build Iranic acceptance of Mongol rule simply by the nature of the beast, no matter how many points we add to their Administration skill.

3) You still have the issue that the Ilkhanate's ability to fight the Mamelukes isn't nearly as impressive as vs. the already tottering Caliphate.

4) You still have the Western powers unenthusiastic about a Franco-Mongolian alliance (even if a prodigal son is better than no son at all, there's not a lot of interest even in landing in Syria).


Frankly, I think all of this - even if somehow you get a Christian khan and one who cares about the state of Iran - is going to go no better than OTL for the Ilkhanate, and if anything see more Muslims head into Anatolia.

That seems like a pretty good summary, and was pretty interesting all in all. Although I know there was a fair sized Christian minority in the region at the time of the Mongol Conquest, and that the Church, initially, held pretty good relations with the Khans, I would be the first to admit I don't know much about the Illkhanate. Thanks for the summary!
 
That seems like a pretty good summary, and was pretty interesting all in all. Although I know there was a fair sized Christian minority in the region at the time of the Mongol Conquest, and that the Church, initially, held pretty good relations with the Khans, I would be the first to admit I don't know much about the Illkhanate. Thanks for the summary!

No problem. I'm not an expert, so if someone like ImmortalImpi comes along and contradicts any of this, trust them over me.

The Christian population in the region seems to have been significant enough to be something that felt the favor of the Mongols meant something, but much too small to be a serious base - and of course the more the Mongol part of the Ilkhanate is relied on at the expense of the Iranians, the less well that will sit with the latter.

Tough situation is tough - the Golden Horde had nice steppes to settle and the Yuan had the Mandate of Heaven and other Chinese factors (plus the bulk of the Mongols being there/under the same ruler as that khan) going their way, but the position of the Chagatai and Ilkhanate look like they were doomed to be shallow rooted - the former just because of where they were.
 
No problem. I'm not an expert, so if someone like ImmortalImpi comes along and contradicts any of this, trust them over me.

The Christian population in the region seems to have been significant enough to be something that felt the favor of the Mongols meant something, but much too small to be a serious base - and of course the more the Mongol part of the Ilkhanate is relied on at the expense of the Iranians, the less well that will sit with the latter.

Tough situation is tough - the Golden Horde had nice steppes to settle and the Yuan had the Mandate of Heaven and other Chinese factors (plus the bulk of the Mongols being there/under the same ruler as that khan) going their way, but the position of the Chagatai and Ilkhanate look like they were doomed to be shallow rooted - the former just because of where they were.

The Christian population had actually been much stronger a few decades earlier; but there was a wave of persecution which did a lot of damage to the Church's structure during that time. I've read that it had to do with climate change and political instability which caused people to try to find a scapegoat. The Christians were good for this since they were a sizable minority and, also, due to the fact that the Crusades were in swing (something about having roving bands of marauding Western Christians tearing up the place cause locals to turn upon their native Christian populations. I somehow doubt this is what the Crusaders had in mind. Oops!)
 
Top