ThePest179
Banned
Assuming Genghis Khan takes an arrow to the knee while trying to unify the Mongol tribes and dies from an infection, how much better off would the Muslim civilizations be?
Muslim Civilizations without the Mongol invasions?
- Thread starter ThePest179
- Start date
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Nasir-al-Din al - Tusi's Theory of Evolution, or an equivalent, is more widely accepted earlier, and even spreads to the West.
Massively.
Baghdad was destroyed. It's difficult to picture just how devastating the Mongol invasions were, but I'll try to translate it into modern terms. It's estimated that up to 90% of the population of Iran died. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad, where all the books of the world were collected along with all the knowledge of world civilisation at the time, was destroyed and the books were burned. Millions are said to have perished in the massacre.
The Muslim world never recovered from the damage done by the invasions. Even the irrigation systems of Iraq were destroyed and never repaired. The damage was cataclysmic. Henceforth, the Golden Age of Arabic civilisation was effectively over. Although other great Muslim empires of the Ottoman Turks and the Iranian Safavids would rise again, the Mongol attacks do seem to have coincided with a turn away from Science in the Muslim world and an increasingly hardened religious stance.
That said, the Mongols cannot be blamed for 100% of the Muslim world's subsequent decline, because the roots of trouble (at least in Scientific terms) appear to go all the way back to the Abbassid Caliph al-Mamun (813-833AD), who persecuted the traditional religious scholars in favour of the Mu'tazlism school of philosophy, which was heavily influenced by ancient Greek rationalism. Unfortunately, al-Mamun began to execute those who did not embrace Mu'tazilism. His brutal persecution and suppression of traditional Islam eventually triggered a backlash. This backlash gathered such strength that it actually became illegal to to copy books of philosophy within 50 years of his death. The backlash gave rise to the anti-rational Ash'ari school of thought, which was directly linked to the downfall of Arabic science. The Ash'aris discouraged original thought and discovery, and instead emphasised a strict adherence to the Quran and to a religious basis of study.
A key moment was the publication of a book called 'The Incoherence of Philosophers' by al-Ghazali in the 12th century, which attacked the Greek philosophers as well as Arabic figures such as Avicenna that dared to use reason and philosophical inquiry. The Ash'aris denied the study of the natural world in search of natural laws, and replaced it with God as the only cause of events. After that, the decline of Arabic science was gradual, but the damage had been done. Although progress continued in some places, such as Central Asia and the Shia world for longer, after the 14th century, the Muslim world produced very few innovations.
So yes, the Muslim world would be a lot better off without the Mongols. But it's hard to say to what extent the triumph of the Ash'aris was linked to the Mongol destruction of Baghdad. It does seem quite plausible that the destruction of urban civilisation and the utter ruin of the Caliphate would have contributed to a turn towards the supernatural and away from science.
Who knows, perhaps the Muslim cultures would have retained a bit more of their earlier progressive spirit if it hadn't been for the Mongols.
Last edited:
ThePest179
Banned
Bumping to ask:
Might the Muslim civilizations become more advanced than European ones, if given enough time?
Might the Muslim civilizations become more advanced than European ones, if given enough time?
My opinion is that Muslim civilization was already on its way out, and that the West was gradually coming to terms with the full extent of its cultural and geostrategic potential (the Europeans had already broken the Muslim monopoly on Mediterranean trade, for instance). In fairness, however, the Mongol conquests greatly accelerated the Islamic twilight, robbing the Arabs of their scholarly heritage and shattering the prevailing political order in a manner unseen for two centuries.
Basically what was already said.
What remained of Ayyubid power was really limited and disputed in Syria, but Mameluk Egypt could actually do better in Palestine critically against Crusader States that couldn't use Mongols as a "rear shield".
The period would be far from peaceful, with Syria and Mesopotamia turning (once again) as shattered states disputed by Turks, Egyptians and Persians.
Abassid Caliphate was already more than declining before Mongols came up. At best, the Caliphate will devolve more into a Papal States feature, independent but with limited geopolitical impact, more likely being under the thumb of someone else.
Not that Arabo-Islamic world didn't already make several original scientific progress at this time, of course. And it's more than likely that technologies as compass would pass trough them rather than directly or half-directly reach Europeans trough Mongols as they did IOTL
But the political structure of Middle-Eastern states does prevent a real political revival of Abassids.
It doesn't mean that you won't have new powers : the Khwarazmian Empire would be a fair candidate for the maintain of old Silk Road structures or even creating new ones south of devastated Central Asia (passing trough North India), as without the Mongol rise, it would be still quite stable and wealthy.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Khwarazmians playing a similar role than Buyids before them on Abassids.
Basically, the regions that would directly benefit from an absence of Mongols invasions would be the peripherical east of Arabo-Islamic civilisation : Persia, Turks, India.
The Islamic West would be more or less untouched, while you could have interesting consequences in Anatolia :
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.
The absence of a clear hegemony over the Silk Road would have interesting consequences : not as long-range exchanhes as IOTL; lesser european presence (no Marco Polo, no Catholic missions in China, overall a less known Asia for Europeans) that would be delayed and passing trough Egyptian/Indian knowledge rather than Mongol.
Age of Discovery, while probably still happening with Europe being basically untouched, could be greatly modified, maybe at the relative benefit of Arabo-Islamic world, in spite of its decline.
Another interesting change could be a delayed use of gunpowder in both Arabo-Islamic world and Christiendom. IOTL it was transmitted to the former that transmitted it to the latter, so you'd have not much of a geopolitical change; but culturally on the other hand...
What remained of Ayyubid power was really limited and disputed in Syria, but Mameluk Egypt could actually do better in Palestine critically against Crusader States that couldn't use Mongols as a "rear shield".
The period would be far from peaceful, with Syria and Mesopotamia turning (once again) as shattered states disputed by Turks, Egyptians and Persians.
Abassid Caliphate was already more than declining before Mongols came up. At best, the Caliphate will devolve more into a Papal States feature, independent but with limited geopolitical impact, more likely being under the thumb of someone else.
Not that Arabo-Islamic world didn't already make several original scientific progress at this time, of course. And it's more than likely that technologies as compass would pass trough them rather than directly or half-directly reach Europeans trough Mongols as they did IOTL
But the political structure of Middle-Eastern states does prevent a real political revival of Abassids.
It doesn't mean that you won't have new powers : the Khwarazmian Empire would be a fair candidate for the maintain of old Silk Road structures or even creating new ones south of devastated Central Asia (passing trough North India), as without the Mongol rise, it would be still quite stable and wealthy.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Khwarazmians playing a similar role than Buyids before them on Abassids.
Basically, the regions that would directly benefit from an absence of Mongols invasions would be the peripherical east of Arabo-Islamic civilisation : Persia, Turks, India.
The Islamic West would be more or less untouched, while you could have interesting consequences in Anatolia :
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.
The absence of a clear hegemony over the Silk Road would have interesting consequences : not as long-range exchanhes as IOTL; lesser european presence (no Marco Polo, no Catholic missions in China, overall a less known Asia for Europeans) that would be delayed and passing trough Egyptian/Indian knowledge rather than Mongol.
Age of Discovery, while probably still happening with Europe being basically untouched, could be greatly modified, maybe at the relative benefit of Arabo-Islamic world, in spite of its decline.
Another interesting change could be a delayed use of gunpowder in both Arabo-Islamic world and Christiendom. IOTL it was transmitted to the former that transmitted it to the latter, so you'd have not much of a geopolitical change; but culturally on the other hand...
Also a larger world wide population without the mongols and the Black Death that followed them, China and the islamic world and Europe would have a lot more people, which may help feudalism as the dramatic loss of people led to paid workers instead than serf labours too becoming the dominant labour force.
I'm really skeptical at no Black Death because of the absence of Mongols. Plague was endemic in whole parts of Asia and already jumped in Europe in the absence of a political/economical continuum twice or three times already.
I simply don't see any reason for why it should wait for one to appear this time. It would be quite the patient and polite small bacteria.
Actually, an agricultural crisis was already on the rails both in Eastern Arabo-Islamic world and in Europe.
The one in Mesopotamia is directly tied up to the economical and political decline of its entities : irrigation structures were already being abandoned or badly maintained before Mongols, which would have meant agricultural decline at short term (of course, the large scale of destruction didn't helped).
In Europe, before the Black Death began to strike, you had an important crisis incoming : too many people with the agricultural production not able to follow. You already had important starvation crisis in the early XIVth century.
Serfdom already largely disappeared from Western Europe in the early XIVth century, and even ended up being illegal (Louis X le Hutin's edit in 1315 for exemple).
While the picture of a classical Middle Ages with lords oppressing the lot of poor and shit-covered serves is without a doubt scenic, it also have without a doubt little grasp on reality.
On this matter, it would have relativly few impacts. The movement of serve liberation was already on the rails.
Now, yes, you'd have social changes : a lesser urbanisation (many people going to refugee themselves on cities), but as well a less opportune situation for popular classes (not only what would remain of servage, but as well free peasants and denizens).
With famine, you'll have to deal without the positive consequences of the plague : popular classes managed to have better statues and became somewhat healthier.
See, with a lack of workforce, landowners and lords had to make bigger concessions if they wanted their own to stay there and/or to attract newcomers.
Culturally, on the other hand, the whole pious and "medieval" Great Awakening movement (use of bilbical names being far more widespread being a clue) would be butterflied and it would have a great impact : lesser persecution of Jewish communauties, no art works on macabre or at the contrary "fleeing" in pleasure genres.
Which could mean, if a Renaissance-equivalent appears (as it's likely at this point) it could be more in the general continuity than IOTL rather than opposed to a Late Middle Age seen by its proponents as ridden by epidemics, mysticism and cynism.
That depends you could see a Sunni Persia as the Anushtingids had recently conquered Persia under Muhammad II. As for the Islamic Golden Age I have heard it was on it's way out anyway. Rum could still exist in some form or another from from a strict no Mongol invasion of Persa POD anyway.
I'm really skeptical at no Black Death because of the absence of Mongols. Plague was endemic in whole parts of Asia and already jumped in Europe in the absence of a political/economical continuum twice or three times already.
I simply don't see any reason for why it should wait for one to appear this time. It would be quite the patient and polite small bacteria.
The evidence for the Black Death being bubonic plague is very weak. As is the evidence for it being a bacterial disease or even being a single disease at all.
Personally, I find the case for the Black Death being an ebola-like hemorrhagic fever to be the most convincing possible identity. Second to that, I would suspect the Black Death to be a melange of diseases.
However, I do agree that no Mongols does not necessarily save Eurasia from being swept by disease - populations were high and the climate was taking a less clement turn, meaning those populations were likely to become undernourished and thus vulnerable to a plague sweeping through them.
fasquardon
bukhara and khwarezm will be the big winners (at least in the short term) as they will have a chance to survive and flourish with the silk road trade. however, people seem to neglect the numerous inventions & military innovations that the mongols and later turks have brought with them. so if/when the crusades happen the knights will have an easier time. with no fresh horse-nomad recruits, i can see things going worse rum & successors. probably no mamluks. in facts turks can even be assimilated all over the middle-east like the yuan were in china or they actually were in persia. as for the black death etc, even if black death per se isn't butterflied, you would be unleashing a billion bacterial butterflies so who knows. while good points were made about the decline of mutazila, with an existing "academic" (and yes those are huge quotation marks) environment and the lack of an existential threat on their doorstep, the more rationalist-minded thinkers might have a chance against ghazali et al. india will probably be less islamized (no mongol-successors to steamroll the indian states) but whether it's more or less fragmented than otl depends on whether a native dynasty manages to get their stuff together.
It had been identified with the Justinian plague by a recent study, and without much doubt with plague bacilla. An ebola-like fever was regularly supposed by a militant part of some historians but not only unproven, but more and more disproven by litterary sources, archeological remains.
The massive consensus is for plague. Not that, of course, other diseases didn't participated to the overall death rate : dysantry for exemple, certainly beneficied from a context with a lot of deads and crush in what sanitation you already had. It would be more true to say that plague caused the Black Death than being the same, eventually, even if we're talking of a MAJOR cause and actor.
Do we assume Khwarazm is going to do great? I'm thinking that the Kara Khitai might still continue to contain them on the northeast border, and maybe thwart them. After all, that's what occurred historically even when the Kara Khitai had been weakened by internal strife. Since the Kara Khitai were destabilized by Kuchlug, who was fleeing Genghis, taking out Genghis means getting rid of the Kuchlug threat. So maybe getting rid of the Mongols doesn't actually lead to Khwarazm's dominance.
I think it is assumed that whoever is actually ruling khwarezm will do great as they will not have been deprived of their urbanization, know-how and population i.e. not get razed. the area used to be quite the center of trade and culture before the mongols as i understand. so it could be khitai or someone else just someone who prefers to rule the area instead of destroying it. just like like turkish rule in persia & mesopotamia compared to that of the mongols.
Kara-Kithans, while still strong, weren't able to enforce their suzerainty over Khwarazmians anymore, even in the early XIIIth century when they were still able to defeat them.
The (partially) fiscal revolt in Central Asia, around 1207/1208, against them certainly point out inner issues even before Mongol takeover and was exploited by Khwarazmians when they defeated the Khanate in 1210.
We most probably won't see Kuchluk leading this revolt as IOTL, as he was "pushed" west by Genghis but the bulk of the revolt would still be there, and while revoltees as Arslan Khan could lead them, I've an hard time agreeing that neighbouring tribes and peoples that were IOTL conquered by Mongols would simply not raid and/or intervene in this mess where they would have everything to win.
The main difference, IMO, could be the absence of a "strong man" to rule the KK, but I think it would eventually play right into Kharazmian hands in this case (although that without fear of Kuchluk, they might simply hold at the former Western Kara-Khanid territory with Smarkand as IOTL (and maybe eastern part too, while I could see it rather vassalized) rather than going too deeply in Central Asia and going for Qipchaqs.
After all Iraq and India are going to be more interesting, ITTL, for them.
Basically : my guess if that if Kara-Kithai are still holding a territory from Talas to Cherchen they could consider themselves lucky enough.
The (partially) fiscal revolt in Central Asia, around 1207/1208, against them certainly point out inner issues even before Mongol takeover and was exploited by Khwarazmians when they defeated the Khanate in 1210.
We most probably won't see Kuchluk leading this revolt as IOTL, as he was "pushed" west by Genghis but the bulk of the revolt would still be there, and while revoltees as Arslan Khan could lead them, I've an hard time agreeing that neighbouring tribes and peoples that were IOTL conquered by Mongols would simply not raid and/or intervene in this mess where they would have everything to win.
The main difference, IMO, could be the absence of a "strong man" to rule the KK, but I think it would eventually play right into Kharazmian hands in this case (although that without fear of Kuchluk, they might simply hold at the former Western Kara-Khanid territory with Smarkand as IOTL (and maybe eastern part too, while I could see it rather vassalized) rather than going too deeply in Central Asia and going for Qipchaqs.
After all Iraq and India are going to be more interesting, ITTL, for them.
Basically : my guess if that if Kara-Kithai are still holding a territory from Talas to Cherchen they could consider themselves lucky enough.
I feel that some in this thread are getting ahead of themselves in assuming that the Khwarizm Shahs will become some sort of imperium and that it is for sure that they will dominate the Abbasids. Contrary to popular belief, it can be argued, the Khilafah was making a small recovery having secured Iraq and parts of Syria, primarily Tikrit, Samarra, Kerbalah etc this was under the Caliph
Al-Nasir li-Din Allah, who reigned for 47 years, in fact he willingly disobeyed the Khwarizmshahs and called their bluff, and the Khwarzim were engulfed in a blizzard at the Zargos mountains. This would be a huge prestige gain for the Caliph, but it would also inflate his successors head.
By this I mean that it was not even set in stone that Hulagu Khan would have been able to take Baghdad or Alamut for the matter. I can corraborate this with sources that say Hulagu was quite afraid and worried about the invasion of Baghdad, fearing the strength and size of the Abbasid militia, as well how large and strong the city was. However, learning from his ancestor 30 years earlier Caliph Al-Musta'sim (don't feel like typing his full name) believed simply (also through the "advice" of his idiotic vizier) that Allah would stop the enemy before they reached him, this is covered in his letters sent to Hulagu while was in Alamut. In fact he thought either Allah would stop the Mongols with a calamity before they arrived or that throwing rocks at them from the walls would stay the horde. Therefore against the will of his marshal, ("They believe matters to be simple yet it is the sword whose edge is sharpened for the encounter") neglected defense and did not put up a fight, eventually surrendering and being executed. Had the Caliphs not been so cocky and hopeful of some calamity or auspicious event, than perhaps we could see an actual long lasting independent Abbasid caliphate. It is even recorded that the Kwarizemshahs minted coins claiming the Abbasids as their suzerain.
As far as the Mid East, to begin without it is possible that without the great fame gained (that brought jealousy) that Qutuz the Mamluk would remain in power butterflying Baibars, and perhaps giving Outremor some more precious time.
The Kwarizmshahs are a wildcard, their track record was looking good, but can they beat the Karakhanids or Khara Khitai? They will not be able to take out Baghdad before defending their eastern door, which is hard to say if they could. Further more it is hard to tell how much better the Khwarizmshahs could get, it is worthwhile to know that Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad II was arguably (not counting Mengburnu) the greatest of the Shahs of Kwarizem and he was crushed. Who's to say he won't anger his rival the Khara Khanid and fall victim to them?
The Khilji dynasty is another wildcard in India, it in the future assuming a Khara Khanid or Kara Khitai invasion of Khwarizem could lead their own invasion of Afghanistan.
The Hashashin would remain the enigmatic group they were and would rule from Alamut as they had done before. If Iran ever becomes dominantly Shia it would most likely be Nizari or Ismaili rather than Twelver.
Timur and his exploits never happen, obviously. This could lead to a higher concentration of heterodox religious groups such as Zoroastrians, Christians and Shia throughout his enpire. As well Islam as practiced in India would be more syncretic with Hinduism, as that was the very reason (at least reported) for his invasion of the Delhi Sultanate.
I am not of the opinion that removing the Mongol horde would result in greater scientific expansion at least to the level of the past. For one thing, Iraq was already on the decline far before this and far before the Khilafah. It can be argued that Iraq has been on a steady decline since at least the Neo-Assyrian Empire till modern times, all the Mongols did was put salt on wounds. In fact I could argue that it was partly the Abbassids and Umayyads doing for the rapid decline, Zanj rebellion and whatnot.
As well it was not just Al-Ghazali and fundamental Sunni Islam that did in the Caliph but the general decadence and weakness/deterioration of the common view of the Amir al-Mu'minin. Just because the Mu'Tazilites created lots of philosophy and practical things does not mean they have a good effect on the nation, this was represented in history. The common man saw or heard, that the Caliph was practicing Bidaa in his court, well that's fine he knows best, but whenever the Qarmations sack Mecca putting bodies in the Zam Zam well and stealing parts of the Kaaba and making the Abbasids pay for it back is not okay, and it is what truly led to the fall of the Caliphate not just fundamentalist philosophers.
Al-Nasir li-Din Allah, who reigned for 47 years, in fact he willingly disobeyed the Khwarizmshahs and called their bluff, and the Khwarzim were engulfed in a blizzard at the Zargos mountains. This would be a huge prestige gain for the Caliph, but it would also inflate his successors head.
By this I mean that it was not even set in stone that Hulagu Khan would have been able to take Baghdad or Alamut for the matter. I can corraborate this with sources that say Hulagu was quite afraid and worried about the invasion of Baghdad, fearing the strength and size of the Abbasid militia, as well how large and strong the city was. However, learning from his ancestor 30 years earlier Caliph Al-Musta'sim (don't feel like typing his full name) believed simply (also through the "advice" of his idiotic vizier) that Allah would stop the enemy before they reached him, this is covered in his letters sent to Hulagu while was in Alamut. In fact he thought either Allah would stop the Mongols with a calamity before they arrived or that throwing rocks at them from the walls would stay the horde. Therefore against the will of his marshal, ("They believe matters to be simple yet it is the sword whose edge is sharpened for the encounter") neglected defense and did not put up a fight, eventually surrendering and being executed. Had the Caliphs not been so cocky and hopeful of some calamity or auspicious event, than perhaps we could see an actual long lasting independent Abbasid caliphate. It is even recorded that the Kwarizemshahs minted coins claiming the Abbasids as their suzerain.
As far as the Mid East, to begin without it is possible that without the great fame gained (that brought jealousy) that Qutuz the Mamluk would remain in power butterflying Baibars, and perhaps giving Outremor some more precious time.
The Kwarizmshahs are a wildcard, their track record was looking good, but can they beat the Karakhanids or Khara Khitai? They will not be able to take out Baghdad before defending their eastern door, which is hard to say if they could. Further more it is hard to tell how much better the Khwarizmshahs could get, it is worthwhile to know that Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad II was arguably (not counting Mengburnu) the greatest of the Shahs of Kwarizem and he was crushed. Who's to say he won't anger his rival the Khara Khanid and fall victim to them?
The Khilji dynasty is another wildcard in India, it in the future assuming a Khara Khanid or Kara Khitai invasion of Khwarizem could lead their own invasion of Afghanistan.
The Hashashin would remain the enigmatic group they were and would rule from Alamut as they had done before. If Iran ever becomes dominantly Shia it would most likely be Nizari or Ismaili rather than Twelver.
Timur and his exploits never happen, obviously. This could lead to a higher concentration of heterodox religious groups such as Zoroastrians, Christians and Shia throughout his enpire. As well Islam as practiced in India would be more syncretic with Hinduism, as that was the very reason (at least reported) for his invasion of the Delhi Sultanate.
I am not of the opinion that removing the Mongol horde would result in greater scientific expansion at least to the level of the past. For one thing, Iraq was already on the decline far before this and far before the Khilafah. It can be argued that Iraq has been on a steady decline since at least the Neo-Assyrian Empire till modern times, all the Mongols did was put salt on wounds. In fact I could argue that it was partly the Abbassids and Umayyads doing for the rapid decline, Zanj rebellion and whatnot.
As well it was not just Al-Ghazali and fundamental Sunni Islam that did in the Caliph but the general decadence and weakness/deterioration of the common view of the Amir al-Mu'minin. Just because the Mu'Tazilites created lots of philosophy and practical things does not mean they have a good effect on the nation, this was represented in history. The common man saw or heard, that the Caliph was practicing Bidaa in his court, well that's fine he knows best, but whenever the Qarmations sack Mecca putting bodies in the Zam Zam well and stealing parts of the Kaaba and making the Abbasids pay for it back is not okay, and it is what truly led to the fall of the Caliphate not just fundamentalist philosophers.
Last edited:
Nobody even said that...
If you honestly read the thread, instead trying for heads, you'd see that while the general assumption (which may be wrong) is that Khwarazmians would do clearly better than IOTL, and have good odds taking regional leads.
In fact, only I mentioned this as a possibility. Could we at least avoid caricaturizing other interventions for the sake of it?
That Abbassids were able to secure an independent dominion over central Iraq is a thing : to say they didn't largely declined from the power they had before, on the other hand.
I think the Papal States' comparison (as ill-fitting it may be : all comparison are flawed at some point) is interesting. While I admit than saying that they will, no matter what, ends under the thumb of someone else is exaggerated (but I still think you have good chances for that); Caliphal sovereignty over his Iraqi holdings depended a lot from its religious/political legitimacy more than being a true military power.
As you said : Khwarazmian defeat in 1217 owes more to poor strategy and army advance than a true military action of al-Nasir. Without back alliance against Muhammad, things could go really harshly for him : there's a reason why he tried to avoid direct confrontation, after all.
That said, I don't think that direct attack is bound to happen, even in the case of a Khwarazmian regional hegemony. Having another Shah, maybe appointed trough Terken's shenanigans
Doesn't part of its cockiness comes from the really humiliating Khwarazmian's defeat in 1217? In this case, wouldn't a different campaign (see below) that still ending with their defeat but more threatening be interesting on this regard?
It's true, but it's the case for many other dynasties in all the Arabo-Islamic world, without for this suzerainty to be really applied. Calling it "lip service" would may be unfitting because it covered a political/religious reality, but it doesn't mean Abbassids had a real grasp on their policies.
As for Kara-Khanids, their former western territories were already being taken over by Khwarazmians in the end of the first decade of the XIIIth century and eventually all Mavarannahr/Transoxiana was took over quickly. I'm more reserved for Kashgaria, mostly because Kaka-Khanids and Kara-Kithai would have to deal with their own problem (on which we could actually see the first using the revolts of this late decade at their profit, without a "strong man" as Kuchluk to unify the lot of the rebels).
As for Kara-Kithai, see above for my piece of opinion. They're not doomed, but would have an hard time holding more than Talas at this point on their western borders.
I'd add that how quick were people as Yeti-Su or Kara-Khoja to switch alliegances IOTL, point that Kara-Kithai suffered themselses several inner issues at this point that Khwarazmians could exploit, not to undergo conquest, but to affirm their hold on Transoxiana up to Aral Sea.
It's not because you won't have Mongol pressure that these inner issues are going to disappear, and with Khwarazmians on the rise, it's rather Kara-Kithai that are going to suffer from the situation (altough I don't say they won't hold : just that they weren't in position to hold out their main foes entierly).
Muhammad saw his dominion expanded Southwards in the same time he was constantly present in Samarkand IOTL, so I'd say that multiple expansions in the same time is made even more doable ITTL, within reasonable limits.
Not that they will be bound to takeover Abassids but I maintain what I said earlier : to me, they seem a fair candidate to regional domination, from the immediate pre-Mongol situation.
Now, to be fair, there were inner issues that should be dealt with : important power of generals, political infighting (with Terken Khatun, especially, who can play a role in a deposition of Muhammad and possible renewed links with Abassids, IMO, critically giving they ruled entiere parts of the empire by herself).
But the western focus of Khwarazmians, basically their best chance at a stable regional domination, isn't going to be forgotten after 1217 (assuming it's just as a humiliating defeat it was IOTL : couldn't the army advance be delayed or advanced ITTL, giving a less pressing situation on eastern borders with the absence of Kuchluk?)
Weren't they, though, still mostly stuck in Bengale with Ghiyasuddin dealing with succession crisis, then defeat against Delhi, then rebellion in recent conquests until Delhi swalloed it up?
Do you think they would have it differently ITTL? I must say I'm not too sure what absence of Mongols could change, except having Gurhids less preoccupied by their north-western borders and more ready to deal with their Bengali neighbours, but I may be short-sighted there as I'm quite limited on Indian history.
Yea, my strength is not in Indian history either, I was adding it as another venue for a regional power than the Kwarizemshahs. The Khiliji were the Delhi sultanate in fact the second. They would succeed the Mamluk dynasty of Delhi. My point was that if there was no Ilkhanate blocking the path, what is stopping the Khiliji from striking the Kwarizemshahs? Especially whenever Kwarizem is basically surrounded by potential rivals. The Abbasids alliance could indeed come from India.
I did read the thread. I personally did not see anyone speaking about the survival of the Abbasids, and assumed their utter weakness. Most I read took it for granted that the Abbasids would be conquered. Sorry if I misread. Either ways, I decided to defend the Abbasids chances and present an alternative, is that wrong?
Yes I know the Abbasids had declined from the power they were previously, but compared to their 'strength' under the Saljuks, their state during Al-Nasir was far betters and could be characterized as a recovery.
The only problem is that if a caliph tries to display a papal like authority as in he becomes a figurehead and does not claim the entire islamic world, his authority is illegitimate according to the Sunnah. The Abbasids knew what they were doing, they were attempting to reconquer the Islamic world for themselves, unless they changed their Fiqh, they will not assume the role of a "pope" for long. The Abbasids could possibly build a very secure regime in Iraq that could last for a very long time, especially if they continually ward of enemies from the east and remove the Hashashin.
That's what I alluded too, that it would be better for the Abbasuds to gain a victory on the field of battle or outside Baghdad than having some calamity do it for them. I believe as well that it is possibke for the Abbasids to decisively defeat the Kwarizemshahs at Baghdad, just like how it was very possible that they could've beaten Hulagu.
To be honest my knowledge on the Karakhanids and Kara Khitai are limited to their interactions with the Islamic states, and do not know very much about them.
I'm not sure they're related, though. I made a (really quick, so that's barely an opinion) search and I didn't find a familial link (I admit that I tought it was at first giving the similar names).
The Khiliji of the early XIIIth century were mostly ruling in Bengale, not Northern-Central India, and were quickly crushed by Mameluks in mid-XIIIth; while the Delhi Khilijii apparently come from North-West and took over in late XIIIth century. Between them, I didn't find a direct link (but, then again, someone more knowledgable than I on Indian history, and that's not gonna be hard, could proove me it's the case).
That could be interesting, indeed. An Indian Mameluk/Abbassid alliance against Khwarazmians could actually work, even if I'm not that sure that it would be as efficient than the earlier agreement with Seljuqs (I could see rather some form of Persia vs. India "cold war").
After all, Iltutmish recieved the sultanate from Abbassids, even IOTL.
That said, Mameluks suffered from political unstability : Iltutmish was a strong leader but his predecessors and successors had to deal with succession strife, revolts, etc.
You'd say that was the lot of most Arabo-Islamic dynasties in this region, and that Khwarazmians weren't immune to that (and that Muhammad II could actually fell victim of such ITTL). But I'm under the impression that at the early XIIIth century, they still were stable enough and with enough potential to more easily overcome it.
Still, an interesting point.
That's not what is wrong, IMO, but trying to create a strawman for arguing what is a perfectly defendable position.
It's not against *you*, personally, but about something I fear is recurrent on this board is the caricature of posts of someone you don't agree with; and that had me carried away : I apologize if my tone was offensive.
But as far as I can tell, only I mentioned a possible Khwarazmian hegemony over Abbassids (maybe I read too much onto this, but as I only advanced that, I saw the "some people" as contemptous) on this thread and I certainly not put it as a certainty, while I agree what I said about Abbassid's power should be nuanced (as you made fair points).
I think we can debate, or even not agree (after all, AH *is* a speculative tought experience) without trying to depict one's opinion simplistically, don't you?
I was more thinking about the contemporary "pontifical monarchy" from the late Gregorian Reform.
Popes as Innocentus III can hardly be considered as a figurehead when he actively claims being "declared princes on Earth with the power to overthrow, to destoyr, to dissipate, to build and to plant", being able to maintain his policies against the emperors and to make papacy as much influent politically that it never was afterwards.
We're talking of people that claimed to ensure the political union of Christiendom over all the universe, and I'm quoting there.
Similarly, I could see Abbassids that while still claiming overlordship over the whole Islamic world (as you said, the minute they would cease doing so, they would stop being Caliphes) and still actively trying to enforce it as they could; effectively ruling a limited territory (compared to their former empire and claims) in Iraq.
They could enforce it westwards even more easily with the disappearance of Fatimids and the political fragmentation of the ME Arabo-Islamic states. Basically playing as arbitles in this region, while their official "recognition" as Caliphes would be seen as IOTL (in India, Al-Andalus, etc.) as legitimizing regional power.
It's possible : alough I'd disagree it would be the most plausible conclusion. Khwarazmians were kinda the big guns in the region in the early XIIIth, in spite of several issues; and it would require much from Abbassids in order to both go against them directly (which they carefully prevented to do IOTL) and to make agreements and alliances with their foe's neighbours against them.
Critically, Khwarazmians doesn't need to takeover Baghdad : they could pull a Buyid and "only" tookover (or just ruin) Central Iraq which would mean a more complacent Caliphe (while, again, I'm talking less about conquest than forcing Abbassids to concede sultanate).
One could rightfully points that Abbassids at this point were undergoing several social and political troubles while they weren't in the XIIIth century.
But Khwarazmians were as well a more unified threat than Buyids were, even at their height.
I'm mostly using myself Bregel and the UNESCO History of Central Asia, so my knowledge isn't that best about them as well.
Search Khajī dynasty (1290-1320) with that said the Mamlukes would do fine to be a Abbasid ally.
Sorry, if I seemed to make your argument or anyone else's as simplistic. To be honest I was just using string rhetoric to get my point across. Sorry if I seemed to characterize others views. Either ways back in subject.
The object for the Khilafah is for the enemy to the east to be restrained, not necessarily to be defeated. Therefore the Khilafah needs a ward, someone who has size and prestige to frighten their would be opponents, as well the Khilafah needs to keep every bit of religious authority as it can that might mean a capture of Alamut or more interesting a formal and sponsored Jihad upon Outremor, which the previous Abbasids had neglected and ignored in favor of fighting Shia or simply relished the fall of the Saljuks and the beating the Shia Fatimids. However it might help them more in the long run to crush the Hashashin rather than Outremor, Europe was already looking away from Crusades, while the Hashashin still had support, prestige and an agenda. The Abbasids then need to decide whether they should attempt to conquer Egypt/Levant or remain in its defensive shell. I do not know which would be the best for them, but their success is somewhat plausible, especially if it Qutuz is not killed by Baibars and is instead replaced with a weak Mamluk, who might be easy pray for a defiant and driven Caliph.
As well, the odds of the Caliph I feel might also be based upon his defeat of the Turks (Mamluks, Kwarizemshahs etc) as in removing and discrediting their rule. This might be able to gain them the ability to strike in the Arab world. This as well will be attempted no matter what, the Abbasids will call upon the Sunnah to help them and will invade. Even if it would be better for them to cocoon in Iraq.
I know the Kwarizemshahs were strong and could fulfill a Buyyid role, but I would say that the Abbasids are in a better position to resist now than they were during the Buyyids. For one the Abbasids were fresh off of one of the worse series of rebellions, civil wars and palace strife in history, they were definitely not in position to defend themselves. As I have said it was possible for the Abbasids to beat Hulagu much less Muhammad II.
Hmm, I did not know that the pope claimed that title, however it is still a slightly flawed comparison. As far as I know the pope did not look at strong nations like Hungary, France, Poland-Lithuania and say hey I want to conquer you because it is my right as the Pope to do so and it says so right in the scripture. The Abbasids and Umayyads were like this. For one thing except in the Caesero-papism system, there was not a all encompasing regime within Christendom nor had there been a tradition, were as in Islam (differs with sect) it is part of the Sunnah of the prophet to create and preserve the Caliphate so that the Ummah and Ulema will be a single body with a single Al-Mu'minin (Caliph). There is entire criteria for this and books upon books on what defines a Caliph, who was a Caliph, how is it created etc. In fact it is my personal belief through study that it was the influence of the Shurha or better known as the Khwarij for the fall of the Caliphate at least at its heart (combined with the Shia). If you would like, I could give you Ahadith were it is explicitly said that the Caliph must rule with his "right hand" as in he rules the entire Ummah himself just as the Sunnah prescribes, therefore the Abbasids would not continue in this disgraceful (to them lol) position for long or at least until they have the means to resist it.
Anyways, let's try and focus on other areas as well, I am curious to see how the Kwarizemshahs deal with the Hashashin, perhaps Abbasids let them try their luck lol, then come in and take the credit or discredit the failure. The Abbasids were trying to play this game with Hulagu, Al-Musta'sim in fact claimed the capture of Alamut and congratulated Hulagu but refused to allow him to stay in Baghdad with his men, thus the invasion.