WI the Mongols had conquered Egypt?

[Seraphiel]

What if in 1260 during the Mongol invasion of Syria, they had managed to go on and take Egypt? Lets say that the Khan Mongke doesnt die and Hulagu doesnt have to return home. Hulagu then proceeds to invade and conquer Egypt. Could it really be done and if so what would be the implications on the world?

 

[Tongera]

What if in 1260 during the Mongol invasion of Syria, they had managed to go on and take Egypt? Lets say that the Khan Mongke doesnt die and Hulagu doesnt have to return home. Hulagu then proceeds to invade and conquer Egypt. Could it really be done and if so what would be the implications on the world?

I would assume that they invade Europe first. But when they get to Egypt and conquer it (oh they will), it could lead to the remanents of the Crusader States surviving for longer. Once they conquer Egypt, they will probably conquer Anatolia and a bit of North Africa.

 

[Seraphiel]

I would assume that they invade Europe first. But when they get to Egypt and conquer it (oh they will), it could lead to the remanents of the Crusader States surviving for longer. Once they conquer Egypt, they will probably conquer Anatolia and a bit of North Africa.

So if Mongke had lived longer the Mongols, after taking the Levant, would invade Europe rather than move into Egypt?

 

[XanXar]

Well if they conquer Egypt there are the obvious short term consequences such as no Mamelukes. After a while they will most likely convert to Islam (Or maybe even become Coptic, THAT would be an awesome idea for a TL).
They then pretty much ride unchallenged till they reach Morocco and face the Maranids, and if they succeed they will continue on to Iberia, if they are Muslim they will continue the fight against the Reconquista. ( At this point in time, besides Granada, Muslim presence had near enough died)
After there is completely up in the air, they could fail against the Iberians, restore Al-Andalus to its former glory, the possibilities are endless.
These are just my thoughts, I once thought about this idea when I heard about the Battle of Ain Jalut. (By the way I did think about making a TL about this, and maybe I will return to the idea).

 

[Tongera]

So if Mongke had lived longer the Mongols, after taking the Levant, would invade Europe rather than move into Egypt?

Wasn't they planning too, anyway? They would move into both though, eventually.

 

[wolf_brother]

North Africa and Nubia are conquered. Morocco and Ethiopia hang on, just barely, by abandoning the lowlands to frequent Mongol raids and turning the mountains into strongholds.

What would be interesting, though unlikely, would be if the Mongolized Egyptians bypass the Ethiopians altogether and turn east across the Sahel. The later stages of the Kanem state likely wouldn't be able to resist waves of well-organized raids, let alone a true invasion, and so now the *Mongols are sitting on the border of the recently built Malian Empire.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

They conquer Egypt and in the process, Cairo is likely trashed and the Nile river will run red with the blood of the inhabitants. Whoever among the Genghisids lead the expedition to conquer Egypt sets himself up as Khan of the Nile Horde, and probably co-opts the remainder of the Mamelukes, if they haven't already been killed off already in the initial conquest. If they don't convert to Islam initially, they'll eventually convert to the Islamic religion.

The Crusader states are still going to be screwed.

 

[Seraphiel]

Well if they conquer Egypt there are the obvious short term consequences such as no Mamelukes. After a while they will most likely convert to Islam (Or maybe even become Coptic, THAT would be an awesome idea for a TL).
They then pretty much ride unchallenged till they reach Morocco and face the Maranids, and if they succeed they will continue on to Iberia, if they are Muslim they will continue the fight against the Reconquista. ( At this point in time, besides Granada, Muslim presence had near enough died)
After there is completely up in the air, they could fail against the Iberians, restore Al-Andalus to its former glory, the possibilities are endless.
These are just my thoughts, I once thought about this idea when I heard about the Battle of Ain Jalut. (By the way I did think about making a TL about this, and maybe I will return to the idea).

How plausible would it be though if the Mongols became Coptic, one of Hulagus best generals, Sitbaqu was Christian, maybe this would help other Mongols convert?

 

[XanXar]

North Africa and Nubia are conquered. Morocco and Ethiopia hang on, just barely, by abandoning the lowlands to frequent Mongol raids and turning the mountains into strongholds.

What would be interesting, though unlikely, would be if the Mongolized Egyptians bypass the Ethiopians altogether and turn east across the Sahel. The later stages of the Kanem state likely wouldn't be able to resist waves of well-organized raids, let alone a true invasion, and so now the *Mongols are sitting on the border of the recently built Malian Empire.

I say Morocco would survive the initial onslaught but they would be conquered by a successer state somewhere in the future, leading to a Russia-like situation in Iberia.

 

[Tongera]

I say Morocco would survive the initial onslaught but they would be conquered by a successer state somewhere in the future, leading to a Russia-like situation in Iberia.

Russia like situation?

 

[XanXar]

Russia like situation?

How it was full of big and little Khanates around the peninsula. Hell you already have the Taifas, all you need to do is put Khans in charge of them.

 

[Seraphiel]

What sort of religion did the majority of the Mongols at the time follow?

 

[RGB]

1. Mongols relied on massive amounts of horses. Grasslands end when you cross form Syria and into Palestine. They'd have to rely on additional manpower from Georgia/Armenia/Crusader states to take Egypt.

Once that happens the entire Ilkhanate script potentially goes out of the window. You're basically crushing the second great centre of the Muslim world after Baghdad. Things will get weird and upredictable.

2. Going all the way across North Africa - there are places that are flat and have seasonal grass and thus good for horses, but you need some megalogistics to get to them first. It's likely the Mongols wouldn't seriously bother.

But it MIGHT provoke Arab migrations a lot earlier across the Saharan Africa.

3. I don't think even Egypt could or would be controlled directly. For all their supposed "Persian" nature, the Ilkhans yearly migrated their ulus from Cappadocia through Syria and Azerbaijan to Fars, and back again. There's nothing like that in Egypt.

 

[Seraphiel]

1. Mongols relied on massive amounts of horses. Grasslands end when you cross form Syria and into Palestine. They'd have to rely on additional manpower from Georgia/Armenia/Crusader states to take Egypt.

Once that happens the entire Ilkhanate script potentially goes out of the window. You're basically crushing the second great centre of the Muslim world after Baghdad. Things will get weird and upredictable.

2. Going all the way across North Africa - there are places that are flat and have seasonal grass and thus good for horses, but you need some megalogistics to get to them first. It's likely the Mongols wouldn't seriously bother.

But it MIGHT provoke Arab migrations a lot earlier across the Saharan Africa.

3. I don't think even Egypt could or would be controlled directly. For all their supposed "Persian" nature, the Ilkhans yearly migrated their ulus from Cappadocia through Syria and Azerbaijan to Fars, and back again. There's nothing like that in Egypt.

But would the lack of grassland really stop the Mongols? Wasnt Southern China also made up of terrain that wasnt suited for the Mongol way of warfare?

 

[Alex1guy]

But would the lack of grassland really stop the Mongols? Wasnt Southern China also made up of terrain that wasnt suited for the Mongol way of warfare?

Depends how determined they are I guess.

 

[RGB]

But would the lack of grassland really stop the Mongols? Wasnt Southern China also made up of terrain that wasnt suited for the Mongol way of warfare?

Well...no. It wouldn't stop them but it would stop easy movement on native Mongol troops, something that became hugely important in later Mamluk vs. Mongol wars. The Mamluks, having less horses per soldier and going through a prepared supply line had longer logistical reach than the Mongols who relied on Syria's shrinking grassland (both sides set things on fire and created no-man's-lands, but Syria's environment is not very forgiving of that kind of shenanigans).

South China was conquered using a LOT of chinese soldiers and engineers in addition to all the usual Mongoley goodness. South China though was far tougher than anything the West had to offer, so bad example either way.

That's why I said Christian infantry and supply trains would probably be key. Or even Muslim infantry. But they'd need it, regardless, both for the first invasion and the subsequent occupation.

 

[mowque]

I meant as in stop them from invading, not stop them from conquering. The Mongol invasion of Syria used anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 soldiers, well at least according some books and websites I havve read. I doubt the egyptians would have been able to hold up against this, the only reason the mongols didnt avenge Ain Jalut was because of repeating internal problems.

I deleted that post because it was stupid. Sorry about that.

 

[Seraphiel]

Well...no. It wouldn't stop them but it would stop easy movement on native Mongol troops, something that became hugely important in later Mamluk vs. Mongol wars. The Mamluks, having less horses per soldier and going through a prepared supply line had longer logistical reach than the Mongols who relied on Syria's shrinking grassland (both sides set things on fire and created no-man's-lands, but Syria's environment is not very forgiving of that kind of shenanigans).

South China was conquered using a LOT of chinese soldiers and engineers in addition to all the usual Mongoley goodness. South China though was far tougher than anything the West had to offer, so bad example either way.

That's why I said Christian infantry and supply trains would probably be key. Or even Muslim infantry. But they'd need it, regardless, both for the first invasion and the subsequent occupation.

So an army made up of large amounts of infantry have taken Egypt but with far higher than normal casualties. Would this result in teh Mongols looting Egypt more due to the higher sacrifice?

 

[RGB]

So an army made up of large amounts of infantry have taken Egypt but with far higher than normal casualties. Would this result in teh Mongols looting Egypt more due to the higher sacrifice?

Someone said something about the Nile being red with blood and black with ink? Yes. I think it would be pretty brutal. If you resisted, you got that special kind of treatment.

I wasn't kidding about the Arab exodus either. Saharan Africa is going to hit the 16th/17th c. migrations way earlier than it expects. Could be interesting.

 

[Seraphiel]

Someone said something about the Nile being red with blood and black with ink? Yes. I think it would be pretty brutal. If you resisted, you got that special kind of treatment.

I wasn't kidding about the Arab exodus either. Saharan Africa is going to hit the 16th/17th c. migrations way earlier than it expects. Could be interesting.

Thanks now I think i have just about enough info. to start work on a TL of sorts.


But one more question, this Arab exodus would it make it more plausible for the Mongols to convert to Christianity, Hulagu was rather closer to Christianity than Islam so maybe Egypt becomes Nestorian or would that be ASB?