What if the Mamluks had lost the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260? Could the Mongols have advanced into and conquered Egypt? Given how devastating the Mongol invasions were for Central Asia, Persia, and Iraq, I imagine Egypt would have been equally devastated. Also what would this have meant for the Crusader states that had allied themselves with the Mongols?
WI: Mongols win Battle of Ain Jalut
- Thread starter danmac
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
IIRC, the Mongols were already pulling back when the Battle of Ain Jalut was fought. This battle possibly has less macrohistorical importance than it has usually been given credit for.
I don't see Mongols advancing in Egypt. As Anaxagoras pointed out, they were already pulling back most of their forces.
That said, Syria would probably turn under Mongol hegemony, including Crusader States (that is, the ones that submit). You could see small outposts as Antioch, or even Acre if they decide to submit eventually, lasting more than IOTL but they wouldn't survive any real Mongol withdrawl.
At best, they would turn into Italian city-states protectorates (not unlike Geonese holdings in Crimea) as it happened IOTL to Tripoli and almost happened to Tyr and Acre.
Eventually it means no Egyptian hegemony over Syria and probably a return to usual political division in this region, favouring first staus quo, then any conquering power in the region.
That said, Syria would probably turn under Mongol hegemony, including Crusader States (that is, the ones that submit). You could see small outposts as Antioch, or even Acre if they decide to submit eventually, lasting more than IOTL but they wouldn't survive any real Mongol withdrawl.
At best, they would turn into Italian city-states protectorates (not unlike Geonese holdings in Crimea) as it happened IOTL to Tripoli and almost happened to Tyr and Acre.
Eventually it means no Egyptian hegemony over Syria and probably a return to usual political division in this region, favouring first staus quo, then any conquering power in the region.
If the Mamluks had lost that battle Egypt would have been open for invasion, a sitting duck.
The Mamluk system worked that way - you lose one battle, you lose one army and that's it, Egypt is lost. There were no other armies and armed people to speak of.
So the Mongols would HAVE to advance and conquer Egypt because otherwise the power vacuum in that country would attract some other conqueror.
They just did not have any other choice.
Of course there would have been a lot of looting and burning. Massacring, lots and lots of it. Murdering Mongol envoys was not to be tolerated.
Egypt would be conquered and would be a jewel in the crown of the Ilkhans.
Keeping Egypt meant that Syria, Levant, Palestina, actually all the territories between Mesopotamia and Egypt were to be put under firm, well, better iron Mongol control.
So the Crusader states would be forced to be directly ruled by the Mongols. As a matter of fact there was not such a thing as an "ally" to the Mongol Empire at this time, especially if they are not yet defeated in Ain Jalut. You either admit that you are in full power of the Mongol Khan or you are a rebel and deserve to die.
No in between, sorry.
So the Crusader states would soon know what it is - to live inside a really centralized Empire. Some of them would not like to be the "slaves" of the Mongol Khan and they would be made another good example by the Mongols. But some of the Crusaders might find that being alive is much better than being dead especially if you are a Non-Muslim in the Empire were Non-Muslim minority rule over a sea of discontented Muslims.
In OTL the Non-Muslims were privileged in Hulaguid Ilkhanate before the Mongols converted into Islam.
As for the other consequences, I tend to agree that they would not be too much.
The world Mongol Empire was doomed to fall apart in a few years and the war between the Golden Horde and Il-Khans was inevitable.
But in this alternative TL the Il-Khanate would be stronger - it had not lost an army in Battle of Ain Jalu and now it had more recourses from rich Egypt. And more than that - in OTL the Il-Khans fought in the North always keeping an eye on Egypt expecting it to stab them in the back.
Now the Il-khans would be able to throw all their weight on the Golden Horde (or Chagatai Ulus).
So the result might be better control of IlKhans over the Caucasus and Anatolia. The Bysantines would be left independent in my opinion though.
Islam would become a state religion of the Hulaguids, maybe a little later than OTL, as one of the reasons for converting was - not to give an advantage of local Muslim support to a probable invasion of Muslim Mamluks from Egypt.
Going to create an interesting conflict of interest for the military orders who now controlled many of castles. Theoretically the Pope is their boss. In practice, you either do as the local Mongol warlord says or else; the Mongols had become pretty competent at siege warfare so could open up a Crusader supercastle.
Even if no other Christian did so I would expect the Italian merchants in Levant suck up to the Mongols in return for trade. Any one from Christendom who was prepared to do business with Moslems is easily going to do the same with Prester John.
Wasn't the main reason the Mongols were turning back at that point because of the growing civil war within the empire following Mongke Khan's death. I feel that a Mongol invasion of Egypt could still be plausible after a victory at Ain Jalut. After all with the main Mamluk army destroyed at Ain Jalut then the Mongols could probably sweep into Egypt pretty much uncontested. While I doubt the Mongols could actually conquer and hold Egypt, any Mongol attack will likely devastating the country similar to how the Mongol invasions devastated Poland and Hungary 20 year earlier. Also if the Mamluk power-base is broken then we might see either an Ayyubbid restoration or some other Muslim dynasty rise in Egypt, we might even see an Abbasid restoration in Egypt if the Caliph decides to take charge after the Mongols leave.
Would the remaining Mamluks have the confidence to fight on? Their best armies had just been defeated by a smaller Mongol force and for all they knew, Hulagu might return with the main Mongol army at any time. They might surrender and accept a Mongol nominee as ruler. And subsequently revolt at the first opportunity, which wasn't far off.
Not immediatly. Mongke's succession was quite too troubled to allow a real attack after the battle, giving time to Mameluk to organise (or to another dynasty taking over).
Kubilai's early reign was mainly reserved to imposing his power against others, and in this context, a victorious Ain Jalut would have been too peripherical regarding Mongol infighting, and Hulagu would have to wait.
If the outcome of the succession war is close to IOTL, I would see western Mongols khans being more focused North and East. That said, admittedly, a non-conquering campaign isn't to be dismissed.
Apart if Egyptian state crumble after the victory (and Mameluk state was a bit too strong for this IMHO), I'd stand my case.
It depends. I am under the impression that the Mamhluks had no other army left. If this be the case, the Mongols take at least the lower nile region of Egypt but no further.
The Mongols simply backed out when the odds were in their favor in both Europe and Egypt. It is sort of like the Germans stopping half way through operation barbarossa, sitting on their hands until 1944, and then wondering why they cannot resume the offensive again only to watch themselves be overwhelmed.
The Mongols could have taken out Egypt and then, with lesser forces, perhaps go all the way to Spain. However, by Ain Jalut, most of their forces were already withdrawn, so to win the battle would simply lead to the fall of Egypt at best, but no more.
If the Mamhluks fall, maybe the Mongols hang on longer in the middle east, as their only serious competition are the crusader kingdoms and byzantium. This might help the mongols last longer as they have no serious competition to push them out (i.e. just like the Golden Horde). WIthout large regional powers to push them out, they can simply badly administrate themselves out of power slowly but surely, just as they did by propping up Muscovy and making them too powerful. THis means, a small Mongol kingdom might last until the early 15th century or perhaps even slightly beyond.
The Mongols simply backed out when the odds were in their favor in both Europe and Egypt. It is sort of like the Germans stopping half way through operation barbarossa, sitting on their hands until 1944, and then wondering why they cannot resume the offensive again only to watch themselves be overwhelmed.
The Mongols could have taken out Egypt and then, with lesser forces, perhaps go all the way to Spain. However, by Ain Jalut, most of their forces were already withdrawn, so to win the battle would simply lead to the fall of Egypt at best, but no more.
If the Mamhluks fall, maybe the Mongols hang on longer in the middle east, as their only serious competition are the crusader kingdoms and byzantium. This might help the mongols last longer as they have no serious competition to push them out (i.e. just like the Golden Horde). WIthout large regional powers to push them out, they can simply badly administrate themselves out of power slowly but surely, just as they did by propping up Muscovy and making them too powerful. THis means, a small Mongol kingdom might last until the early 15th century or perhaps even slightly beyond.
If they do then they are going to have to rethink their army. There might be enough grazing for them to be able to. Then again there might not. Either way unless they get some form of support using camels the Arabs and Berbers will counter attack and cut up their rear.
Camel mobility in the desert was what gave the Islamic armies their edge against the Christians during their conquest of North Africa. They could outflank opponents by going deep into the desert then out again. If the Mongols stick to horses then they will trapped on the coast and so vulnerable to the same strategy.
The perspective of Russian makes me wonder if the Mamelukes could only muster this one mid-size army (approx. 15k) and only had one throw of the dice, or whether (or not) they had resources elsewhere?
Last edited:
Remember that by this time Mongol armies only had a Mongol component and had major units of other ethnicities. Furthermore, they incorporated infantry units. I'm pretty sure the highly adaptable Mongols would be up to the camel challenge.
There are certainly other ways to combat Arab camel cavalry and a Mongol army cant be compared to the pathetic Christian defense of N. Africa. A far more formidable force. This is assuming butterflies allowing sufficient Mongol forces and the will to even go beyond Egypt. The latter is dubious.Could we see a Mongol raid and sacking of the cities of the Nile delta, rather than a conquest then? Something perhaps comparable to the Hungarian experience?
The Mongols meant to conquer Hungary. Fate stepped in with the Great Khans death.
If the Mongols handily won the battle without being too weakened and if the Mamelukes trully had no depth to their defense, I think it would be probable that at least probing raids would be sent into the Delta.
Maybe, while I would more likely see something alike Bulgaria : tributary and nominally vassal.
Whatever the result of the battle, Mongols were going to focus a lot on their succession crisis, so I won't expect something other than a huge raid and campaign of intimidation.
Let's see at power base of Egypt.
It does not even matter which dynasty would be in charge in Egypt after Ain Jalut. The Mameluks were the core of Egypt army for a long time before they themselves took power.
- the local Egyptian population (ethnic Egyptians) had not served in the army for about a thousand years or so, it would be a bad idea to conscript them right now, especially against the best army in the world, the Mongols. There is such thing as military tradition, which cannot be built in a few months or even years. You cannot take a local peasant, give him a spear, explain how to stick it into an enemy and hope that he will be a match for a Mongol. Actually poor martial qualities of the local population forced the authorities to buy slave warriors.
- 95% of all the Egypt Mameluks took part in the battle. There was about 5% left in Egypt which were mostly sick and second rate warriors. We know that essential feature of the Mongol warfare was to eliminate as many enemies after the battle as possible. So we may make an educated guess that there would be quite few Mameluk survivors after the unfortunate battle.
So how could you replenish Egypt's army with Mameluks? You cannot just go to the nearest local market-place and buy yourself ten thousand slave-warriors. First of all it was not any male slave who could be made a Mameluk. The traditional areas of Egypt's Mameluk slave "recruitment" were Turkic Cuman tribes, Georgians, Armenians, Circassians and some other Caucasian tribes. In OTL it was a very serious problem, even an existential threat to Egypt when Il-Khans tried to cut Egypt away from these traditional recruitment areas.
But even if we imagine that Egypt could buy slaves suitable to be made Mameluks they need at least 3-5 years to form an army, a fighting force to be reckoned with. And it was not only about military training which in itself was essential, it was the intricate system of specific loyalties of the warrior-slaves to their new masters, to Sultan, to their Mameluk caste as a whole, to Egypt protecting which was their main responsibility - these were the features which made them real Egyptian Mameluks, not just an unruly bunch of slave cut-throats.
Could Egypt buy a ten thousand new slaves suitable to be made real Mameluks? - Nope.
Did Egypt have these 3-5 years to train them? - Sorry, but no.
- There were warlike Arab tribes living on the borders of Egypt and some Turkoman tribal refugees who fled from the Mongols. They joined the Egypt's Mameluks against the Mongols as they hated them and hoped that after withdrawal of the main Mongol forces they had a good chance. But now after the defeat those Arabs and Turkomanns who survived - seriously regretted that they had not smelled the winner.
Even if some of them had joined the Egyptian resistance they would have been the serious destabilizing factor as they were alien to the political system of Egypt, their loyalties were along different lines than those of the Mameluks.
So after Mameluk disaster at Ain Jalut Egypt would be without any army able to resist the Mongols in the open field.
There would be political turmoil in Egypt, infighting.
The cities desperately trying to defend on themselves, open countryside - that is the favorite situation for the Mongols, that is where they belong. That is their favorite pastime, like hunting - moving from city to city looting countryside and giving the choice to the cities - to be burned to the ground or open the gates to their new true masters.
By the way, that where the Crusaders might get handy - like Christian Armenians and Georgians they might be trusted and used as auxiliary military force against the local Muslim population.
Last edited:
Also even if Egypt did have the time and the mnapower the new recruits would remember what happened to the last lot when the Mongols turned up and would probably desert.
Yes, like much loot can we carry off before the Mongols turn up.
The Italians are going to be rather annoyed if the Mongols clean out Egypt. It was a serious market for them. I am not got to say that they would support the Egyptians, there is no money in that. A Mongol invasion though is going to disrupt the spice trade up the Red Sea because merchants are not going to travel to a place there they will be robbed and killed. The impact of this will push up prices and cut supply throughout Europe.
Since a Mongol victory will mean the absolute destruction of Mamluk military strength who will take control of Egypt since it is obvious the Mongols would be unwilling to bother beyond simple raids. The easiest answer would be the Abbasid Caliph but while they would have the political and religious legitimacy where would they get their military power. Perhaps we might see some overly ambitious desert tribesmen sweep into Egypt from either the Sahara or from Syria and Arabia to take control. Since the Mongols will be too busy fighting their civil war they will likely accept whoever is in charge provided they pay some sort of tribute.
As for the Crusaders states were somewhat supportive of the Mongols at the time of Ain Jalut their ambivalence would quickly turn to outright hostility. For one thing the Pope had forbidden alliance with the Mongols. Also, I doubt that the Franks would be enjoy being subjects of a pagan khan and nor would they accept a pagan ruling Jerusalem. Maybe we will even see anti Mongol alliance develop between the crusaders and the new Muslim dynasty ruling Egypt. That would make for an interesting albeit somewhat implausible 8th Crusade.
As for the Crusaders states were somewhat supportive of the Mongols at the time of Ain Jalut their ambivalence would quickly turn to outright hostility. For one thing the Pope had forbidden alliance with the Mongols. Also, I doubt that the Franks would be enjoy being subjects of a pagan khan and nor would they accept a pagan ruling Jerusalem. Maybe we will even see anti Mongol alliance develop between the crusaders and the new Muslim dynasty ruling Egypt. That would make for an interesting albeit somewhat implausible 8th Crusade.
You reminded me of what happened in OTL some 10 years after OTL Battle of Ain Jalut where the Mongols had suffered humiliating defeat.
Mamelyuk sultan of Egypt Beibars bought and trained an excellent army of Mameluks which became large enough and he lead that army into Anatolia striving to wrest it out from the Mongol domination. This invasion was carefully prepared and he initially had some success.
The funny thing happened when the Mameluks got to know that the Mongol army was close - the real panic struck the Egyptian army at this news.
Sultan Beibars was forced to deal with it personally:
- he mocked at his soldiers saying that they were trembling like little girls at the sight of dust from Mongol army;he reminded that the Mongols were beaten by the Mameluks before and the like.
What makes you so sure that the Mongols would not take control of Egypt after winning Battle of Ain Jalut?
In OTL they controlled half of Anatolia which was densely populated with warlike Turkish tribes, Armenia and the like. Though these countries had their armies and military tradition.
Egypt on the other hand did not have population suitable for warfare with military tradition, so it was like a herd of fat cows. The only thing needed was to protect this herd against bandit tribes from abroad and that's it.
A few thousand Mameluks had done it just fine.
A few thousand Mongols might have done it as well. And the Mongol troops in Egypt would have the advantage of being the part of the great Empire - any moment the Grand Army of Il-Khan might appear from Asia and punish any intruders.
- What happened in OTL when the Mongols lost the Battle of Ain Jalut and lost this army?
- The Mongols lost Syria and Levant. That's true.
- Did the Muslims riot in Mesopotamia and Iran at the news of the Mongol defeat?
- Nope. Though everybody knew that the Grand Army of Hulaghu was in Mongolia to take part in election of Great Khan. But still everything was quiet which proves that the Mongols left enough forces to keep the situation under control.
So in ATL the Mongols win the Battle of Ain Jalut. They do not lose this army. And we know that this army is not needed to pacify Mesopotamia and Iran (and the Caucasus and Anatolia and other parts) as they had sufficient Mongol garrisons.
- Where can the Mongols use this army?
- Right. This army would occupy Syria/Levant and Egypt. 5-10 thousand in Egypt and 5-10 thousand in Levand would be more than enough.