WI: Mongol conquest of Egypt

johnreiter

Banned
What if the Mongols win the Battle of Ain Jalut and kill Baibars, and then go on to conquer Egypt?

What would be the affects of this long and short term? I assume when the Empire disintegrates, the Ilkhanate will inherit Egypt. They too will disintegrate in time, but what will happen to Egypt, and how would it be different from OTL?
 
What if the Mongols win the Battle of Ain Jalut and kill Baibars, and then go on to conquer Egypt?
A lot of dead people in Egypt
What would be the affects of this long and short term? I assume when the Empire disintegrates, the Ilkhanate will inherit Egypt. They too will disintegrate in time, but what will happen to Egypt, and how would it be different from OTL?
Hey, I'd say they're going to conquer Anatolia as well. The Ottomans will be vassalized. In the long run this will probably delay the Ottoman rise for a long time, with the Turks having to deal with the expulsion of the Mongols from Anatolia first. The Ilkhanate may inherit Egypt, but it is also possible to have another Mongol khanate. We probably have a Mongolian elite in Egypt. Regarding the economy, I don't know if they can be like the Mamelukes and continue exploring the region or try to make the region prosper. In relation to the Ottomans, if they ascend. I tend to think that they will be more resistant than the mamelucos. Which makes the conquest of Egypt unlikely or more difficult. This will also make the Portuguese turned the entire Indian Ocean into a Portuguese lake. Only the Ottomans managed to compete with them in this region. So then the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Sea will be completely dominated by the Portuguese.

Oh and the commander of this invasion did not like Muslims and preferred Christians. So they will probably be used as enforcers of the Mongols.
 
Last edited:
What if the Mongols win the Battle of Ain Jalut and kill Baibars, and then go on to conquer Egypt?

At ain Jalut the Monhgols had been most probably grossly outnumbered so even the victory would not mean a complete annihilation of the Mamluks and conquest of the huge country with less than 10,000 was hardly possible.

BTW, the Mamluks had been led by Qutuz and if Baybars is killed in a battle it means that he does not kill Qutuz after it.
What would be the affects of this long and short term? I assume when the Empire disintegrates, the Ilkhanate will inherit Egypt.

Egypt and even Syria were ill-suited for a permanent maintenance of a big cavalry force and, anyway, Ilkhanate was not in a good strategic position for their conquest: there was a permanent danger from the GH on the North: in 1262 the Ilkhanate’s army was defeated on the Terek River and the war continued after Hulagu’s death.
They too will disintegrate in time, but what will happen to Egypt, and how would it be different from OTL?
 
At ain Jalut the Monhgols had been most probably grossly outnumbered so even the victory would not mean a complete annihilation of the Mamluks and conquest of the huge country with less than 10,000 was hardly possible.
10,000 Mongols are a very significant military force in this period. And Egypt has historically been conquered by small military forces; the Mamluks are incredibly unpopular, so there probably won't be any great rising of the Egyptians against the Mongols. Once the Mamluks have been expelled, the Mongols can pretty much just take over the existing administrative structures.
 
My personal idea is that the Mongols, in their love of imposing foreign bureaucracies with no local power bases, heavily employ crusaders to man the government in Egypt.

Islam as a political force suffers a major prestige set back.

Together with a stronger presence in Anatolia and therefore increased contact with Byzantium, the position of Christians in Mongol Egypt means that a larger segment of the Mongol elite are drawn to Christianity. That makes the religious development of the ilkhanate a lot more fluid- with islams position weakened, Buddhism might cement itself for mongols in Iran and the Caucasus.

Michael Palaiologos might have a very interesting career here- if the mongols are stronger in Anatolia, he’d be desperate to win their aid. Instead of marrying an illegitimate daughter to the ilkhan as in otl, I could see a legitimate daughter being married to him and even a promise for her son to be named heir as long as he’s raised Christian. After all Michael’s own son Andronikos is only a year old at the time of ain jalut, and his health could fail.

Imagine an ilkhan Roman emperor who rules over not just the Balkans and Anatolia, but also Syria and Egypt- even if only briefly as a Muslim reaction against the Christianising government forces them out by 1300.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
My personal idea is that the Mongols, in their love of imposing foreign bureaucracies with no local power bases, heavily employ crusaders to man the government in Egypt.

Islam as a political force suffers a major prestige set back.

Together with a stronger presence in Anatolia and therefore increased contact with Byzantium, the position of Christians in Mongol Egypt means that a larger segment of the Mongol elite are drawn to Christianity. That makes the religious development of the ilkhanate a lot more fluid- with islams position weakened, Buddhism might cement itself for mongols in Iran and the Caucasus.

Michael Palaiologos might have a very interesting career here- if the mongols are stronger in Anatolia, he’d be desperate to win their aid. Instead of marrying an illegitimate daughter to the ilkhan as in otl, I could see a legitimate daughter being married to him and even a promise for her son to be named heir as long as he’s raised Christian. After all Michael’s own son Andronikos is only a year old at the time of ain jalut, and his health could fail.

Imagine an ilkhan Roman emperor who rules over not just the Balkans and Anatolia, but also Syria and Egypt- even if only briefly as a Muslim reaction against the Christianising government forces them out by 1300.
Fun, but seems like the 'rule of cool' and a wishful stretchy-stretch
 
There's no guarantee that the Mamluks losing at Ain Jalut would guarantee Mongol rule over Egypt. It may mean the Mongols would rule over Syria and Palestine for a time which is an interesting scenario of its own. Of course, let's play along. It would be an interesting situation. I think much like the Mamluks changed little from the Ayyubids, I doubt that much would change from the Mamelukes. A significant component of the Mamluks' ethnic composition were Turks, people who were not complete strangers to serving alongside the Mongols and the same would be true for the Ilkhans. And in lieu of the few ethnic Mongols that would be around, the Ilkhans and their subordinates in Egypt would need to rely on these pastoralists to serve in the cavalry. The infantry would likely be predominately Arabs with smaller numbers of Copts and even Crusaders.

As for Coptic Christians having a prominent role, that could be a possibility. Or not. Keep in mind that Saladin when he took over Egypt, he banned Christians from having administrative roles in the government. High-ranking Christians and their families were strongly encouraged to convert to Islam and likely the same was true under the Mamluks. That said, the Ilkhans may relax these restrictions to allow a small number of Latins to serve them. That depends on how relations with the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Christian Europe is. If hostile, I don't expect much to change. If neutral to friendly, there may be a moderate to extensive Latin presence.

Interestingly enough, the Mamluk accession process is vaguely similar to the Mongol tradition. When a Mamluk Sultan dies, it more or less involves a council of emirs and lesser mamluks who would convene in Cairo and elect the next Sultan who assumes the title of al-malik. It wasn't as formalized as the Mongol tradition. That said, I imagine this council of emirs and mamluks would be re-imagined as an Egyptian Kurultai. Speaking of which, Egypt is too far for the Ilkhan to rule directly. One would expect Kitbuqa to be left in charge initially but keep in mind, he's not of Genghis Khan's bloodline. Can't have someone like that getting too big for their britches. I think there are several candidates to become the Ilkhanid ruler of Egypt:
  • Jumghur: The son of Hulegu and his principal wife Guyuk Khatun; died en route to Iran IOTL; butterflies may cause him to survive; I am not unsure if he was the eldest son or the second eldest). It is unknown what his religious affiliation is but I'd guess that he was a Buddhist or Tengriist.
  • Abaqa Khan: He was the IOTL successor to Hulegu and has already served as the governor of Turkestan.
  • Ahmed Tekuder: He was an OTL ruler of the Ilkhanate and was the seventh son of Hulegu. While he was baptized as a Nestorian Christian, he converted to Islam due to influence from his religious mentor Kamal al-Din Abd ul-Rahman. He may likely still convert to Islam if under the influence of the Mamluks under him. If the Mamluks are wiped out during the initial Mongol conquest, he may convert to Catholicism and become known by his baptismal name Nicholas.
  • Yoshmut: He was one of Hulegu's eldest sons and the OTL viceroy of Arran and Azerbaijan
If Cairo is simply sacked, I expect it to remain the capital. What can be destroyed can be rebuilt. And the Cairo Citadel has been a stronghold for Egypt's rulers from Saladin well into the nineteenth century. I do not anticipate that to change. If Gaza is razed to the ground and its population is exterminated, then maybe the Egyptian Mongols would move the capital somewhere closer to the Nile Delta where their horses can graze. Perhaps Damietta? El Mahalla El Kubra? Mansoura?
 
While the Mongols will use Christians in administration and governance, I find it hard to believe they'd either convert to any Christian sect (be it Copticism or Nestorianism), let alone give Buddhism more power (even if there will be at least a few Buddhists in Alexandria again for the first time since Antiquity). They aren't going to succeed in conquering Egypt without the support of at least some emirs who were pro-Mamluk OTL. Further, ruling Egypt means they'll have to come to terms with the Crusader sponsorship of piracy, and that probably means at least one Mongol-Crusader war.

I'm curious what would happen to the Abbasid caliph in Cairo. I'd assume he'll be deported back to Baghdad to remain as a pillar of legitimacy for the Ilkhanate. Since several times there were proposals for an expedition to capture Mecca and Medina, we can assume this would also be a Mongol campaign. I definitely cannot see the Ilkhanate doing anything but converting to Islam should they grab those cities, since it's far too beneficial among the people with actual power in their empire.

Problem is this structure is very unstable. They already some problems governing Anatolia OTL since their governors there would take independent action contrary to what the state desired (i.e. the one Mongol general who murdered the Armenian king to strengthen his position among local rulers, or Timurtash who outright rebelled at one point) and Egypt gives one hell of a powerbase. Dealing with this draws attention away from critical frontiers in the north and east against the Jochids and Chaghatai Khanate and means some tribal allegiances might shift in the wrong direction--OTL this hindered Ilkhanate invasions of the Levant.
10,000 Mongols are a very significant military force in this period. And Egypt has historically been conquered by small military forces; the Mamluks are incredibly unpopular, so there probably won't be any great rising of the Egyptians against the Mongols. Once the Mamluks have been expelled, the Mongols can pretty much just take over the existing administrative structures.
The Mamluks were surprisingly resilient. The first decade of the 14th century they suffered a huge defeat against the Ilkhanate and lost Damascus, faced a series of crusader raids, faced rebellions from over a dozen emirs, dealt with uprisings among coastal Bedouins as well as the Druze and Maronites, and had a short but violent succession struggle, yet the state ended up defeating all of this and Egypt remained prosperous (the Levant did not thanks to the piracy and Mamluk neglect).
Hey, I'd say they're going to conquer Anatolia as well. The Ottomans will be vassalized. In the long run this will probably delay the Ottoman rise for a long time, with the Turks having to deal with the expulsion of the Mongols from Anatolia first. The Ilkhanate may inherit Egypt, but it is also possible to have another Mongol khanate. We probably have a Mongolian elite in Egypt. Regarding the economy, I don't know if they can be like the Mamelukes and continue exploring the region or try to make the region prosper. In relation to the Ottomans, if they ascend. I tend to think that they will be more resistant than the mamelucos. Which makes the conquest of Egypt unlikely or more difficult. This will also make the Portuguese turned the entire Indian Ocean into a Portuguese lake. Only the Ottomans managed to compete with them in this region. So then the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Sea will be completely dominated by the Portuguese.

Oh and the commander of this invasion did not like Muslims and preferred Christians. So they will probably be used as enforcers of the Mongols.
I'd say the Ottomans are a non-entity TTL since they'd be the victims of someone like Timurtash who manages to subdue them and as government authority weakens, may well establish an independent state (as Timurtash's chief lieutenant Eretna later did) that could finish subjugating the Anatolian beyliks and either become another Sultanate of Rum or follow the more ambitious path the Ottoman Empire did OTL.

Ilkhanate Egypt will probably not be as prosperous as OTL since a lot of its trade will instead go through the Levant.

What happens in Egypt after the Ilkhanate loses control (and they will, they will be lucky to survive the Black Death and the droughts of the mid-14th century), I'm not sure. Maybe another Mamluk Sultanate gains power, maybe another crusade will sweep into the region and make Egypt a Christian kingdom, or maybe the post-Mongol state will prosper. It could be an Ilkhanate remnant akin to the Chaghatai ones in Central Asia, or it could be something like the Timurids or Jalayirids where a powerful emir rules in the name of the khan but the khan has no actual power and eventually the khan is cast aside and the emir mints his own coins.

As for the Portuguese, neither the Mamluks nor Ilkhans had much of a naval tradition to speak of, so while they'll very likely have a Red Sea fleet as the Mamluks did, they'll outsource their naval policing needs to the Crusaders or Italian city-states.
 
let alone give Buddhism more power (even if there will be at least a few Buddhists in Alexandria again for the first time since Antiquity).
Buddhism was pretty strongly promoted throughout all ilkhanid domains in the second half of the 13th century otl, with Muslim courtiers showing a considerable level of insecurity regarding it.

I’d expect at least the establishment of a few Buddhist monasteries in Egypt and a number of Buddhist court officials.
 
The Mamluks were surprisingly resilient. The first decade of the 14th century they suffered a huge defeat against the Ilkhanate and lost Damascus, faced a series of crusader raids, faced rebellions from over a dozen emirs, dealt with uprisings among coastal Bedouins as well as the Druze and Maronites, and had a short but violent succession struggle, yet the state ended up defeating all of this and Egypt remained prosperous (the Levant did not thanks to the piracy and Mamluk neglect).
I don't think they'd survive a full-blown Mongol invasion of Egypt though. From Ain Jalut, the Mongols could be at Cairo within a week, well before any effective resistance in Egypt itself could be mobilized. And once the invaders start ransacking the Nile valley, the chaos would likely cause a complete collapse of govermental authority throughout lower Egypt. Even very well organized agricultural states tended to fold like lawn chairs before the Mongols, so I think that a rapid conquest of Egypt by Mongol forces is indeed possible.

The Mongols also have potent local allies: Coptic Christians are still a sizable group in this period, and a canny Mongol commander could easily gain their support against the Mamluk-Arab establishment.
 
I've read online that the mamluks on return from ain jalut faced a Shia rebellion in cairo which they crushed, i imagine this could be part of the collapse if the mongols win.

The late 13th century had many attempts for mongols to enist crusader support, i can see this being succesful if they want help capturing egypt, but whats difficult is seeing how the papacy would deal with a mongol empire that is a global power which rules the levant and egypt.
 
Arkenfolm makes good points.

There would be no need to move the Ilkhanid capitol to Egypt or to spin off another caliphate. Egypt had been ruled successfully by Mesopotamian/ Iran based empires before (the Persians and the early Arab Caliphates).

What would likely happen is that the Ilkhanids would collapse around the time they did historically, and Egypt wins up with the Mamluks in power again, or with some similar group in power. I don't understand how this butterflies away the Ottomans, so there may well be no long term repercussions.

The one significant change is that the Crusader kingdoms survive until well into the 14th century as Mongol vassals, much how Trebizond did. Eventually some Egyptian based Muslim dynasty or the Ottomans get around to eliminating them. The Crusader kingdoms lasting longer might have butterflies, though the survival of the remnants of the fourth crusade kingdoms to the 17th century didn't wind up affecting much.
 
Did a check on Wikipedia. Ain Jalut took place in 1265. The first Muslim Ilkhanid ruler took power in 1285 and was deposed. They didn't adopt Islam as their religion until 1295, and remained quite tolerant of non-Islamic religions.

I don't see how Ilkhanid Egypt bans non-Muslims from holding office, and the Mongol pattern was in making use of religious minorities.

Its worth noting that there were more Christians, both in terms of raw numbers and as a percentage of the population, in Egypt and Syria than in Mesopotamia and Iran. The Mongol rule would probably boost Middle Eastern Christianity, and in this situation the Ilkhanite adopting Christianity is more plausible, but I still think they adopt Islam like the Golden Horde and the Central Asian khanate.
 
Top