Alternate History Thread V

Would they bother with the excuse?

It may suprise you to know that the Mongols did not go to war at the drop of the hat or for frivlous reason. Genghis Khan sent at least two embassies to the Kwharzemian Shah, and had both of them insulted and/or killed before he was angered enough to crush them.

The war between the Timurids and Ottomans was preceded by a series of letters exchanged between Bayezid and Timur exchanging insults, plus the Karaman calling for Timurid help before Timur marched into Anatolia.

I don't really know much Mongol or Russian history anyway. All the same, I think that the Mongols are a bit nice and reasonable: they don't savagely plunder Alexandria and kill all the Copts, for example, and they go to war for political reasons against each other, rather than plundering the clear enourmous wealth of Jerusalem or eastern Asia Minor. About Jerusalem, I was saying not that Conradin was foolish for keeping his head down, but that the Ilkhan was a bit odd for not just savagely plundering Jerusalem on some trivial pretext or on no pretext at all.

The Mongols were not simplistic barbarians bent on destruction. They were empire builders and the longevity of their successor states bears testament to that fact.
 
Thanks Spyrllino I'll change the Nejd. And Karalysia, that's basically what I'm thinking.
 
Yes, the Mongols might not have been completely savage, but I still think that they would not have failed to attack Jerusalem or Byzantium sooner or later. To an extent, they were empire builders, but to an extent, they were plunderers. After all, they did sack Baghdad mercilessly. Even as empire builders, they would not have gone amiss to conquer the Levant.

Furthermore, Timur was sometime later, and quite different. His state was a sedentary Persia.

I think I'll shut up now: I'm out of my depth.
 
Yes, the Mongols might not have been completely savage, but I still think that they would not have failed to attack Jerusalem or Byzantium sooner or later. To an extent, they were empire builders, but to an extent, they were plunderers. After all, they did sack Baghdad mercilessly. Even as empire builders, they would not have gone amiss to conquer the Levant.

On the basis of what exactly? The Mongols had no problem with vassals. The Ilkhanate vassalized the Georgians, the Golden Horde had vassals of the Rus states. The sack of Baghadad was during the inttial invasion phase of the Mongol conquest and the Caliph also resisted and refused overtures for surrender. So Baghdad was made an example of, which BTW angered the Mongols that had converted to Islam including if I'm not mistaken the Khan of either Chagati or the Golden Horde.

Furthermore, Timur was sometime later, and quite different. His state was a sedentary Persia.

He was actually quite a bit worse. Timur was more of a plunderer. He didn't stay in India, or Anatolia he burnt cities, looted them, and carted away artisans and craftsmen to Samarkqand.
 
The Georgians were mountain people, not easily conquerable anyway, and not wealthy enough to worry about.
The Russians were out of the way. The Golden Horde would have had a hard job destroying their principalities and then getting their industries working again.

Jerusalem is a Holy City with enourmous prestige and wealth, fairly near the Ilkhanid heartland. Unlike the Russian cities, it was not operated by a mercantile oligarchy, and would not have fallen apart on full incorporation into the Ilkhanid empire.

Really, I find it hard to believe that the Ilkhanids would actally make alliances with all their neighbours, all of whom were potential victims for fruitful expansion, in order to be able to make war on the Golden Horde, where plunder was less and political rewards were fewer.
 
The Georgians were mountain people, not easily conquerable anyway, and not wealthy enough to worry about.

Have you told the Georgians that?

Spoiler :


The Russians were out of the way. The Golden Horde would have had a hard job destroying their principalities and then getting their industries working again.

Not that out of the way. And what industries?

Really, I find it hard to believe that the Ilkhanids would actally make alliances with all their neighbours, all of whom were potential victims for fruitful expansion, in order to be able to make war on the Golden Horde, where plunder was less and political rewards were fewer.

You'll have to take that up with the Ilkhanate and Golden Horde Khans respectively, because in OTL they made war on each other on more than one occasion until eventually the Timurids under Timur defeated Tokthaymesh and burned Sarari.
 
Have you told the Georgians that?

Spoiler :

The ability to build an empire doesn't show that you're worth conquering.

Not that out of the way. And what industries?

Pretty out of the way: why attack Russia when you can attack Europe? Metalworking mostly.

You'll have to take that up with the Ilkhanate and Golden Horde Khans respectively, because in OTL they made war on each other on more than one occasion until eventually the Timurids under Timur defeated Tokthaymesh and burned Sarari.

Yes, but they didn't make that their only serious war, did they?
 
spryllino said:
The ability to build an empire doesn't show that you're worth conquering.

Something about anchoring your flank.

spryllino said:
Jerusalem is a Holy City with enourmous prestige and wealth, fairly near the Ilkhanid heartland.

Why antagonize everyone around you when you don't have to?

spryllino said:
Unlike the Russian cities, it was not operated by a mercantile oligarchy, and would not have fallen apart on full incorporation into the Ilkhanid empire.

What does that have to do with anything?

spryllino said:
Pretty out of the way: why attack Russia when you can attack Europe?

How are you going to attack Europe? Russia is at least geographically plausible and doesn't the have whole issue of Constantinople and the Hellespont to get around. To even reach Europe proper you need to:

(A) Secure Asia Minor;
(B) Secure passage across the Hellespont;
(C) Take Constantinople;
(D) Push through Bulgaria;
(E) Then the Kingdom of Hungary; and
(F) then if you can achieve all of that, which is really a tall order: You've made it into Europe proper.

Because if you can't make it past Hungary you might as well have taken Russia.

spryllino said:
Metalworking mostly.

That's what subject people are for.

spryllino said:
Yes, but they didn't make that their only serious war, did they?

What is that supposed to mean?

spryllino said:
All the same, I think that the Mongols are a bit nice and reasonable: they don't savagely plunder Alexandria and kill all the Copts

What possible gain is there in them doing that?

spryllino said:
they go to war for political reasons against each other, rather than plundering the clear enourmous wealth of Jerusalem or eastern Asia Minor.

Eastern Asia Minor wasn't particularly wealthy at the time and Jerusalem would cause them no end of problems if they did sack it and both were less wealthy than Egypt.

spryllino said:
About Jerusalem, I was saying not that Conradin was foolish for keeping his head down, but that the Ilkhan was a bit odd for not just savagely plundering Jerusalem on some trivial pretext or on no pretext at all.

Because sacking Jerusalem would antagonize everyone including the very people you will rely on to cement your rule i.e. the Copts.

spryllino said:
Really, I find it hard to believe that the Ilkhanids would actally make alliances with all their neighbours, all of whom were potential victims for fruitful expansion, in order to be able to make war on the Golden Horde, where plunder was less and political rewards were fewer.

The Mongols did in OTL..
 
Something about anchoring your flank.

That's why it was logical to make the Georgians vassals.

Why antagonize everyone around you when you don't have to?

To get plunder.

What does that have to do with anything?

If the Mongols attack a mercantile republic and depose the leaders, I theorise that the economy of the republic is far more likely to collapse than if it had not been a mercantile republic.

How are you going to attack Europe? Russia is at least geographically plausible and doesn't the have whole issue of Constantinople and the Hellespont to get around. To even reach Europe proper you need to:

(A) Secure Asia Minor;
(B) Secure passage across the Hellespont;
(C) Take Constantinople;
(D) Push through Bulgaria;
(E) Then the Kingdom of Hungary; and
(F) then if you can achieve all of that, which is really a tall order: You've made it into Europe proper.

Because if you can't make it past Hungary you might as well have taken Russia.

I was talking about attacking Europe through Ukraine.

That's what subject people are for.

Yes. That's what I was saying. The Mongols vassalised the Russian principalities, as long as they were obedient, rather than raiding them, because they gave more tribute that way, because of their industries such as metalworking.

What is that supposed to mean?

What possible gain is there in them doing that?

Eastern Asia Minor wasn't particularly wealthy at the time and Jerusalem would cause them no end of problems if they did sack it and both were less wealthy than Egypt.

Because sacking Jerusalem would antagonize everyone including the very people you will rely on to cement your rule i.e. the Copts.

The Mongols did in OTL..

I concede here that I don't really know what I'm talking about. I could try to explain, but I'd probably fail dismally, and so I won't bother. My point is, in brief, that the powerful Mongols were surrounded by wealthy and relatively weak cities, and I don't think that any empire in that sort of position would have passed by the chance to plunder them.
 
They would if they were co-religionists who at least nominally respected their authority. See Genghis Khan's relations with Persia before they spurned them.

Wikipedia said:
In the early 1200s, the Khwarezmian Dynasty was governed by Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad. Genghis Khan saw the potential advantage in Khwarezmia as a commercial trading partner using the Silk Road, and he initially sent a 500-man caravan to establish official trade ties with the empire. However, Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, attacked the caravan that came from Mongolia, claiming that the caravan contained spies and therefore was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia. The situation became further complicated because the governor later refused to make repayments for the looting of the caravan and handing over the perpetrators. Genghis Khan then sent again a second group of three ambassadors (two Mongols and a Muslim) to meet the Shah himself instead of the governor Inalchuq. The Shah had all the men shaved and the Muslim beheaded and sent his head back with the two remaining ambassadors. This was seen as an affront and insult to Genghis Khan. Outraged Genghis Khan planned one of his largest invasion campaigns by organizing together around 200,000 soldiers (20 tumens), his most capable generals and some of his sons. He left a commander and number of troops in China, designated his successors to be his family members and likely appointed Ogedei to be his immediate successor and then went out to Khwarezmia.

Is this what you mean? If so, it hardly illustrates that Genghis Khan was ever trying to do anything except make money. The Shah here was not Genghis Khan's co-religionist either. Besides, Genghis Khan had plenty of other wealthy nations to attack, like China.
 
You're essentially arguing, however, that the Mongols will raid Christian states that pose little military threat, just because they can offer plunder.

Any far-sighted Mongolian ruler would realize that the trade to be had from alliance with the Crusader states, and therefore, with the Italian city-states backing them, would be far more profitable than simply rolling them over. And no Christian Mongol ruler in his right mind would sack Jerusalem.
 
Yes, that's what I'm arguing. I'd say that a far-sighted Ilkhanid ruler would see that, in the long run, they can get at least as much trade going by conquering the Crusader states (not to mention the immediate bonus in the form of plunder). These states' economies shouldn't collapse as soon as the Mongols take over (especially given that they're not mercantile oligarchies like many of the Russian states), and could thrive perfectly well in the new political environment, providing plenty of tax to the Ilkhanids.

The Italian mercantile states, equally, will happily trade with a Mongol-controlled Levant; in any case, if Genoa pulls out of trade in the region, Venice steps in, and vice versa. The potential for this sort of trade is shown by the Genoan trading privileges, ATL and OTL alike, in the Muslim empires of the Ottomans and the Golden Horde. However, the Italians should have even fewer scruples, given that they would be trading with an empire of Christian Mongols.

In addition, in response to your edit, I see your point, but I'd say that they could justify sacking Jerusalem if they wanted to, perhaps avoiding particularly holy bits, and the Ilkhan could use this to show to the Great Khan that he was not being, in Yui's terms, "radicalized". If they didn't sack Jerusalem, they could still sack the rest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the ports such as Acre, Antioch, and Tripolis.
 
It was? As I said, I clearly don't really know what I'm talking about. I'll look it up.
 
The potential for this sort of trade is shown by the Genoan trading privileges, ATL and OTL alike, in the Muslim empires of the Ottomans and the Golden Horde.

Do you have any idea how many wars the Ottomans fought against Venice?
 
The Genoese had plenty of trading priliveges. I know that the Venetians were a lot more hostile, and fought many wars with the Ottomans. I was talking about the Genoese there. The Venetians, though, secured privileges too of various sorts at various points.
 
Having half-read the Wikipedia article, I think that you're probably right to a greater extent than I thought. I never knew that the alliance was projected OTL. I still think, though, that, on the one hand, the non-existence of the Mameluke state renders the alliance less useful for the Mongols than in OTL, while, on the other hand, Mongol power, contrary to OTL where it did not control Syria, envelops the Levant, which means that control of the coast would be of great economic and strategic benefit to the Ilkhanate.
 
spryllino said:
That's why it was logical to make the Georgians vassals.

Then why is it logical to sack Jerusalem?

spryllino said:
To get plunder.

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.

spryllino said:
If the Mongols attack a mercantile republic and depose the leaders, I theorise that the economy of the republic is far more likely to collapse than if it had not been a mercantile republic.

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.

spryllino said:
I was talking about attacking Europe through Ukraine.

That still makes little to no sense.

spryllino said:
I concede here that I don't really know what I'm talking about.

So why say it?

spryllino said:
I could try to explain, but I'd probably fail dismally, and so I won't bother.

Good..

spryllino said:
My point is, in brief, that the powerful Mongols were surrounded by wealthy and relatively weak cities, and I don't think that any empire in that sort of position would have passed by the chance to plunder them.

Name those cities, then. And what gain is there in sacking your own captive tax base?

Thlayli said:
You're essentially arguing, however, that the Mongols will raid Christian states that pose little military threat, just because they can offer plunder...
Any far-sighted Mongolian ruler would realize that the trade to be had from alliance with the Crusader states, and therefore, with the Italian city-states backing them, would be far more profitable than simply rolling them over.

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"

Thlayli said:
And no Christian Mongol ruler in his right mind would sack Jerusalem.

It fits with the "LULZ IMMA A BARBARIAN I NEED MA GOLD" argument.

spryllino said:
In addition, in response to your edit, I see your point, but I'd say that they could justify sacking Jerusalem if they wanted to, perhaps avoiding particularly holy bits, and the Ilkhan could use this to show to the Great Khan that he was not being, in Yui's terms, "radicalized". If they didn't sack Jerusalem, they could still sack the rest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the ports such as Acre, Antioch, and Tripolis.

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.

spryllino said:
Having half-read the Wikipedia article, I think that you're probably right to a greater extent than I thought.

And there you have it folks: the cardinal sin.
spryllino said:
I never knew that the alliance was projected OTL. I still think, though, that, on the one hand, the non-existence of the Mameluke state renders the alliance less useful for the Mongols than in OTL, while, on the other hand, Mongol power, contrary to OTL where it did not control Syria, envelops the Levant, which means that control of the coast would be of great economic and strategic benefit to the Ilkhanate.

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.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom