Then why is it logical to sack Jerusalem?
Because Jerusalem is richer than Georgia.
Because it isn't! The income from Egypt for a year alone would account for more in monetary terms than sacking Jerusalem and just about every other city in easy reach. Not to the mention very real political and religious implications of sacking Jerusalem.
True, but conquering Egypt, then sacking the Crusader states, and then taxing them directly, would bring in more money still.
The Mongols had a history of working quite happily with local authorities. They didn't tend to rule directly -- they merely appended a further level of government over the top and were content to collect the revenue through those intermediaries.
Yes, but, as I said, in a Russian state, that's not tremendously likely to work if you've just deposed/imprisoned/killed the ruling élite of the city. Therefore it makes sense for the Mongols to vassalise such states. On the other hand, in the Levant, conquering the cities works perfectly, because the cities aren't ruled by mercantile oligarchies. The Mongols can work with the merchantry much more easily as the merchants are not also the politicians and magistrates.
That still makes little to no sense.
The Golden Horde was attacking Europe through the Ukraine all the time. I never meant that the Ilkhanids should attack Europe through the Ukraine.
Name those cities, then. And what gain is there in sacking your own captive tax base?
Acre, Tripolis, Antioch, Jerusalem, Trebizond, Jaffa, Mecca, Medina. Some of these were actually sacked ATL, which makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
I'll go further: any far-sighted Mongolian ruler would simply cut out the risk of military adventurism and have them pay tribute. It's easier for everyone involved and doesn't run the risk of completely and utterly surrounding yourself with enemies for little or no gain besides the immediate: "LULZ IMMA A BARBARIAN I NEED MA GOLD"
It fits with the "LULZ IMMA A BARBARIAN I NEED MA GOLD" argument.
Why would you do that? Other than the "LULZ IMMA A BARBARIAN I NEED MA GOLD" argument. And even a partial sacking isn't going to palatable for anyone involved.
And there you have it folks: the cardinal sin.
You don't really appear to be taking my argument seriously, and Wikipedia's better than nothing at all.
That doesn't make much sense. If the Mongols are already having trouble holding their conquests and are still in the progress of cementing the necessary institutions to run it, why in the name of hell would you compound your problems by making every conceivable player in the game your enemy? When in doubt: "LULZ IMMA A BARBARIAN I NEED MA GOLD" seems to fit.
It doesn't precisely cement your institutions to have partially autonomous, quite weak, and somewhat resentful kingdoms barring the way between you and your richest province.