WI No Mongol Empire

Another thing that may be is that the city of Baghdad today will be a thriving first-world metropolis instead of a war-torn sinkhole.
It was already mentioned, if you cared looking at your answers : Baghdad was already declining at this point, and probably not knowing a radical fall, wouldn't have recovered, at envisionable term, its past glory.
 
Seljuk empire was already reduced to an handful of principalities in Anatolia long before Mongols invasions.

Oh, right. Forget that then :p

Maybe Rum accomplishes something, then.

1. Depends on how long the Song Dynasty would've lasted. With or without the Mongols, it would've still taken quite a while for China to industrialize. As for going to Japan, remember even the Mongols weren't able to send them into submission.

2. Would've they annexed the area around Mecca as well?

3. How would it be any different from Europe retaliating towards the Ottoman threat of our timeline?

1. Due to a freak natural phenomenon though

3. Well, it's earlier. By this time the HRE wasnt the same one as in the 16th Century.

Also butterflies might, possibly, maybe, save al-Andalus, bur probably not.
 
Oh, right. Forget that then :p
Maybe Rum accomplishes something, then.

Well, it's quite possible indeed (would it be only because butterflies would be huge) and Rum admittedly go through its territorial apogee before Mongols under Kay Qubad.

Without any real threat westwards (Byzzies being really declining) or eastwards, an important principality could be maintained if it avoids succession crisis long enough.
I'm not sure they would turn against Byzantine Empire too soon, rather establishing a more sure hold on Caucasus and OTL Kurdistan against Khwarazmians, and they certainly could quicken the fall of northern remnants of Crusader States.

That said, Rum knew several crisis with the loss of Crimea and inner revolts, so nothing is granted there.
 
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but how does Kiev stay prosperous, when it was starting to decline with other Rus cities such as Novgorod and Suzdal were rising. The Kievian Rus wasn't a state in anyway like the Eastern Roman Empire. You had numerous principalities under the same dynasty feuding with each other, even when threats like the Mongols.
 
I do take note of the many possibilities of China in such a timeline. You're right, maybe China would've been in better shape without the Mongols and potentially industrialize to a certain extent.

Assuming they do end up forcing the Japanese to open up, what year/decade/century would it be?

One more thing, how long would've the Song Dynasty lasted without the Mongols?
 
One more thing, how long would've the Song Dynasty lasted without the Mongols?

The Song Dynasty could have lasted for a comparatively long time, I think. The bureaucratization of the government removed a lot of the monarch's power and placed it in the hands of the Chancellor - and you had a rudimentary party system in place (pro-Jin and anti-Jin factions) that served as a way of selecting said Chancellor.

So the Song arguably was moving away from a 'palace-based' system, with all the frailities and pitfalls that contains, into a more 'bureaucracy-based' system, which for all its faults was meritocratic and so at least you wouldn't have terrible people on the throne.

Lastly you might also want to consider the Jin, through which Song politics is inextricably linked to. A clever Jin monarch should see that a surviving Southern Song (industrialized or not) was much preferable to any alternative, due to its anti-militarism, its willingness to provide yearly tribute, and the fact that the Jin could manipulate its politics to achieve national ends. So there is an interest for the Jin to keep the Song alive - which could help in suppressing any revolts that could pop up in southern China.
 
The Song Dynasty could have lasted for a comparatively long time, I think. The bureaucratization of the government removed a lot of the monarch's power and placed it in the hands of the Chancellor - and you had a rudimentary party system in place (pro-Jin and anti-Jin factions) that served as a way of selecting said Chancellor.

So the Song arguably was moving away from a 'palace-based' system, with all the frailities and pitfalls that contains, into a more 'bureaucracy-based' system, which for all its faults was meritocratic and so at least you wouldn't have terrible people on the throne.

Lastly you might also want to consider the Jin, through which Song politics is inextricably linked to. A clever Jin monarch should see that a surviving Southern Song (industrialized or not) was much preferable to any alternative, due to its anti-militarism, its willingness to provide yearly tribute, and the fact that the Jin could manipulate its politics to achieve national ends. So there is an interest for the Jin to keep the Song alive - which could help in suppressing any revolts that could pop up in southern China.

Basically the next logical step would be a unification by a Song/Jin fusion?
 
Probably a smaller Israel, might see a proper two state situation.

Is it at possible that the Rus' states would eventually come to unite? It wasn't really kept the way it was like say, the Holy Roman Empire.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but how does Kiev stay prosperous, when it was starting to decline with other Rus cities such as Novgorod and Suzdal were rising. The Kievian Rus wasn't a state in anyway like the Eastern Roman Empire. You had numerous principalities under the same dynasty feuding with each other, even when threats like the Mongols.

UHm, i think there is a slight distinction between starting to decline and razed (and becomeing a battleground for generations).
 
Is it at possible that the Rus' states would eventually come to unite? It wasn't really kept the way it was like say, the Holy Roman Empire.

It's a bit hard to tell, butterflies being important in the region. I would think it would be eventually the case, as you still had a conscience of forming a continued entity more or less akin to a weakened HRE or Italy).
Belarus and Ukraine as "border kingdoms" may be butterflied, with a more diverse but still unified Rus' identity, closer to what existed in western Christianity than it's the case IOTL.

UHm, i think there is a slight distinction between starting to decline and razed (and becomeing a battleground for generations).
Well, Kiev was already a battleground at this point, mostly against other princes, and it's not as the city wasn't plundered already by Andrea of Suzail, Rurik of Novgorod, taking and plundering the city becoming sort of a national sport. since the half of XIIth century.
I agree that it's not the same than outright destruction, but "starting to decline" took quite a violent form there.
 
If both the Abassid Caliphate and Seljuks were in decline by the eve of the Mongol attacks IOTL, what sort of hegemon in the Middle East do you people think would've taken place instead?
 
There probably wouldn't be a single hegemon in the region.

I would see Khwarazmians taking over Mesopotamia, as Buyids did before them. They had a good rap before Mongols came in, and were powerful enough to assure their hold on Abassids.
They would have to deal with turkic peoples they allied them, against Kithans. Eastern Persia is going to be troubled quite a bit, and the political fragmentation of Khwarazmians isn't going to help.
I suppose that Abbasids Caliphes may want to take a stand, as while declining, they still managed to know some sort of authority revival, but I don't think they would have the means to resist Turco-Persian control. At best, you'd end with something akin to Papal States/HRE or France relationship.

Seljuks weren't in decline. They simply didn't existed anymore as a political entity in ME.
That said, the Sljuk-issued Sultanate of Rum chances are interesting (I've mentioned them there, some posts ago). Basically, they could set up their presence on Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus.

Couldn't the Ottomans (or something like them) still rise to power?
They would be likely butterflied. I wouldn''t see a conquest of western Anatolia happening at the same time than IOTL, and Rum is still the best candidate for the next century at least, if it doesn't collapse under its own wheight.
Without Mongols conquests, the situation would be different enough at least for a distnct beylicats period, maybe for maintaining Rum.

As for Syria, Palestine and Egypt, I could see a maintained division, with both Ayyubids and Mameluks unable to really take on each other.
At best, you'll end with two states : Syria and Egypt. At worst, while Egypt standing on its own, a series of states in Syria and Palestine reminiscent of the post-Selukid takeover situation (probably many of them clientelised either by Khwarazmians in the name of Abassids, Mameluks or even Rum)
 
There probably wouldn't be a single hegemon in the region.

I would see Khwarazmians taking over Mesopotamia, as Buyids did before them. They had a good rap before Mongols came in, and were powerful enough to assure their hold on Abassids.

They would have to deal with turkic peoples they allied them, against Kithans. Eastern Persia is going to be troubled quite a bit, and the political fragmentation of Khwarazmians isn't going to help.

I suppose that Abbasids Caliphes may want to take a stand, as while declining, they still managed to know some sort of authority revival, but I don't think they would have the means to resist Turco-Persian control. At best, you'd end with something akin to Papal States/HRE or France relationship.

I read a while ago that relations between the Abbasid Caliph and the Khwarezmians were really bad. To the point that, the entirely idiotic way the Khwarezmians brought the wrath of Genghis Khan on them was actually prompted by them getting ahold of some letter and believing that Genghis Khan was an agent or ally of the Caliph conspiring against them. Maybe I misunderstood it, though.
 
I read a while ago that relations between the Abbasid Caliph and the Khwarezmians were really bad.
It's true. As for Buyids before them, for exemple, Khwarezmians forced their entry as "protectors" of the Caliphate, and it wasn't exactly a mutual beneficial cooperation.
But at this point Abbassid power was limited and totally dominated by Turco-Persians. Would they do a stand by themselves, that they would be crushed or forced to accept Khwarezmians claims (as being called Sultan, something they were de facto already)

Maybe I misunderstood it, though.
You don't, but it wasn't really idiocy or everyone was an idiot in Arabo-Islamic Middle-East. The Caliph apparently tried to move Mongols against the Shahs some years ago, mostly driven by the hope to remove Khwarezmians out of the way (and believing that Mongols would turn at worst as the other Central Asian people : easily assimilable and converted).

I wonder how much pointing out this misconception (while it was shared by everyone) isn't tied to a need to discreditate Khwarezmians : "they asked for it, being rude to the Caliph, and also our dynasty is better"; "they asked to be invaded, and we totally wouldn't have done that if they wouldn't have been too cautious on a recent and warring neighbour".

Furthermore, the invasions and victories over China and Central Asia didn't make Genghis Khan looking as a peace's dove. Remember that Mongols just neighboured the Shahs after a swift and brutal conquest of the Kara-Kithai.

Without Mongols, and without illusory alliance between Abbassids and Mongols, things could go relativly smoother. As in, "an offer they can't refuse" eventually : in the same time that Mongols showed up, Turco-Persians prepared an army to attack Baghdad, and even if this event may be butterflied, the overall tendency probably wouldn't.
Abbassids wouldn't stand a real chance.
 
Trying to figure out how Goryeo would work out since it was already in a transitional stage when the Jin fell to the Mongols. Presumably it would be better off and, depending on how relations with the Jin go, would prepare a better military.
 
Lovely. Subscribed!

And I'm sure you all have better, more informed opinions about this than I do, but here's the little vignette I wrote about the 21st century of this timeline.

Stamboli is no longer a Christian City, they say. The Ayasophía is a crypt, and Saint Baldwin's basilica might as well be a citadel for the Venetians. The demoticci these days more likely to sing prayers at a Synagogue or Musselman Jamiya, and it seems every day more Jehosaphite stupas shoulder their way into the skyline. Look to the Dardanelle Bond, the ships strung on the woven-steel chord like beads on a necklace, the engine houses at each end spouting their black coal smoke. See the smokestacks of the fabrikásia, rising higher than any dome or minaret. And if you listen, you can hear the cries of Forum merchants from here. Constantine made Stamboli a city of God, but now she is a city of many gods, all bowing to the Almighty Dinar.​

(for some extra information see the comments on the original post)
http://bensen-daniel.deviantart.com/art/Stamboli-370383472
 
Top