[Question] How did the Mongols manage to conquer the Middle-east?

[Vikingpower]

Hello.

I am just wondering what was the main reason that the Muslim states lost to the Mongol advance (except Egypt)?

1. Like why did they not manage to form a great alliance or something before the Mongols invaded their lands?

2. They used a similar tactics and had probably a better equipment than the Mongols, so were they really aware about their enemies potential or did they fail to scout it out in advance before the Mongols came at their doorsteps?

3. The Muslim states were probably the most civilized area at that time, but did they possess any tactical knowledge which was similar to the Roman Vegetius or Maurice Strategikon to systemize their warfare?

I have read it in the third book of Steven Runciman that the crusading kingdom was like some festering sore which hindered the muslims from uniting against mongols, but I wonder whether its significance was exaggarated?

[nurhak]

one thing i know was that mongols had managed to scare the enemy before they conquered middle east,for example they massacred villages/cities and left few persons to tell the horrible story to the others

[matmohair1]

THE MONGOLIAN ART OF WAR

technically nobody at that time expected them or ever heard of the word mongol.
Modern archeology has show that they were not a chaotic rabble of savages in sheep skins.
In fact, they did wear colorful clothing and excellent armor.
The mongols used siege technology to a great extent borrowing Chinese practices and customs.

(5+ Bonus : element of surprise / 10+ Bonus : fear and confusion )

1 - establish a meritocracy and accept neighboring tribes and clans into your empire

2 - conquer china, which was divided at that time into 4 kingdoms (Sung, Xia, Khitan & Jurchen)

3 - reorganize your army and adopt what ever you find including Chinese Tactics, armor and siege technology

4 - make use of mercenaries and auxiliary forces especially the Chinese and Turkic tribes of Eurasia

5 - move on to capture Russia and Central Asia

6 - deploy spies to infiltrate towns before a siege or plan of conquest

7 - use scare tactics and scorched earth policy only when needed (you will later need the land and its workforce)
choose your target wisely, this will sett a warning to other nations & their doors will open out of fear.

8 - ignore your lost battles and try to learn from your mistakes

9 - a true strategist's place is in the commanders tent planning the next move
& not dieing on the battle field and effecting his troops moral.

10 - in times of peace give the impression that you are a cultured and respectable patron of the arts to show that you are a legitimate monarch
& always bear in mind that you were destined to rule the earth

well, you cant conquer an empire as large as this with an army of light skirmishers and peasant nomads alone!

And that, is why, they were so unstoppable !

(P.S. I know this map is a bit exaggerated !)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[C.Maximus]

THE MONGOLIAN ART OF WAR

technically nobody at that time expected them or ever heard of the word mongol.
Modern archeology has show that they were not a chaotic rabble of savages in sheep skins.
In fact, they did wear colorful clothing and excellent armor.
The mongols used siege technology to a great extent borrowing Chinese practices and customs.

(5+ Bonus : element of surprise / 10+ Bonus : fear and confusion )

1 - establish a meritocracy and accept neighboring tribes and clans into your empire

2 - conquer china, which was divided at that time into 4 kingdoms (Sung, Xia, Khitan & Jurchen)

3 - reorganize your army and adopt what ever you find including Chinese Tactics, armor and siege technology

4 - make use of mercenaries and auxiliary forces especially the Chinese and Turkic tribes of Eurasia

5 - move on to capture Russia and Central Asia

6 - deploy spies to infiltrate towns before a siege or plan of conquest

7 - use scare tactics and scorched earth policy only when needed (you will later need the land and its workforce)
choose your target wisely, this will sett a warning to other nations & their doors will open out of fear.

8 - ignore your lost battles and try to learn from your mistakes

9 - a true strategist's place is in the commanders tent planning the next move
& not dieing on the battle field and effecting his troops moral.

10 - in times of peace give the impression that you are a cultured and respectable patron of the arts to show that you are a legitimate monarch
& always bear in mind that you were destined to rule the earth

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm pretty sure the Chinese conquest came after the middle east so they woulnt have had access to such Chinese tactics or technologies but none of this mattered the fact they had little to no infantry gave them a huge advantage on Iranian desert and Russian steppe they ran into trouble with the Teutons and polish due to thick forests and limited land. Terrane heavy Knight infantry would dominate in

[nurhak]

I'm pretty sure the Chinese conquest came after the middle east so they woulnt have had access to such Chinese tactics or technologies but none of this mattered the fact they had little to no infantry gave them a huge advantage on Iranian desert and Russian steppe they ran into trouble with the Teutons and polish due to thick forests and limited land. Terrane heavy Knight infantry would dominate in

the Mongols won many victories in European landscape, the went back for the death of their leader

[Filips Augustus]

the Mongols won many victories in European landscape, the went back for the death of their leader

yeah but they didn't fight the most powerful Europeans, like France, England and HRE, so we will never know wich one was stronger

[Dago Red]

yeah but they didn't fight the most powerful Europeans, like France, England and HRE, so we will never know wich one was stronger

These Europeans you speak of..... the most powerful collection of them, the most armed, armored, and martially skilled were together in the Kingdom of Jerusalem for many hundreds of years. They were brokering an alliance with the Mongols before they were routed back to the West and places like Cyprus and Rhodes.

[megalitho]

wikipedia

"The mobility of individual soldiers made it possible to send them on successful scouting missions, gathering intelligence about routes and searching for terrain suited to the preferred combat tactics of the Mongols."

[trollface]

they had a modern army system: highly disciplined troops led by proven commanders i.e. not just royalty like most other nations. They also had excellent engineers, same reason the romans had a huge empire basically.

[matmohair1]

The real major battles between the Mamluks and Mongols
took place during the early 14th century, by the time the Ilkhanids were firmly established
- Both were able to field armies of equal force and tactical experience

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Later on they converted to Islam and settled in the region.
Many khanates were established such as the Ilkhanids, Jalayrids and the Golden Horde.
As the last caliph was dead the mongols wanted to be granted that honor
and warfare came back in the form of gift bearing and diplomatic missions.
The Title was claimed by the the Mamlukes, Ottomans and the Mongols

- Ironically all sides began to adopt the Qilin standard which was a Chinese symbol of legitimate kingship

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ardashir 7]

(Its All About The Caliphate)
The Muslims of that time were counting on their Caliphate (The Abbasid Caliphate) to protect them from any invader..the golden age of the Abbasid caliphate was from the time of Caliph Abu Jafar Abduallah Al Mansur to Caliph Harun Al Wathiq...after that the Caliphate divided to several Sultanates ( Tulunid-Samanid-Ayyubid-Seljuks-Fatimid...) for that the Caliphate's power has weakened and couldn't stand a chance against the mongols, also the last Caliph (Al Musta'sim) wasn't the man of the hour...he wasn't a good negotiator or tactician...also the traitor mou'id al din al alqamy the shiite played a big rule in baghdad's surrender...Dividing The Caliphate was the first reason in defeating the muslims and bringing the Caliphate back is the only way to restore the golden age of Islam and someday we will unit again this i promise.

[matmohair1]

What really happened to Baghdad !

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It wasn't Al Alqamy ! - that was a myth they used to tell us in schools here in the Arab world

the myth states that Al Alqamy seduced the caliph to ignore military matters (which is false : the Abbasids were already in decline and were not able to pay their troops well). They tell us that Al Alqamy opened the doors (as simple as that !) because Hulagu khan promised him that he will be the future governor of Baghdad.

in realty the records don't mention Al Alqamy, & the person who ended up as governor of Baghdad was actually Ala'iddin Ata-Malik Juvayni.

simply
1 - no one expected them
2 - the Abbasids were already weak
3 - the mongols used siege technology

no one wants to admit that they were beaten by an overwhelming force - so thy just invent lies to justify their failure & ignore the reality of the situation - we always think we are superior & stronger while our foes were inferior, worthless, naked scum.
- every nation has its own version of the movie 300

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another myth was that the mongols were book destroyers and that they brought illiteracy to the region

most people think this is true unfortunately and we hear it in schools and sermons - mongol book hunt / burning or... whatever
- that they gathered all the books and through then into the river just to cross it so the river ran black from the ink of so many lost written treasures.

This story was stolen from a late Zoroastrian propaganda against the caliph Omar. they said that he burned their religious text & threw the rest into the rivers. He then burned the library of Ctesiphon and massacred all the scholars, which left them illiterate for the coming generations.

in reality the books all survived and were studied later on in the house of wisdom in Baghdad.
the library of Ctesiphon was still working and in use
until the Abbasid period where al the scholars moved to work in Baghdad.
the building later fell into ruin during the 10th century. No scholar was killed

why would anyone destroy something he/she new was economically important

so what really happened to the house of wisdom ? - it simply caught fire when the city was burned

You can conducted scorched earth policy to cut losses and subdue the rest of the world with fear.
but you cant massacre every-where all the time (I experimented that while playing Stainless steel )

- you will need subjects, workers and a population to sustain the land
they needed farmland and they needed urban centers and trade

- scorched earth policies were only conducted when needed and when they were expected to give the intended results
- after they established a firm grip on their newly conquered land massacres where not necessary anymore

The didn't destroy everything just for fun - if they did they would waste their effort rebuilding everything all the time

In fact the Islamic civilization survived the mongol conquests
both the Mamluks and the ottomans were powerful enough and art, literature, science and technology flourished again

- it fell later during the age of colonialism along with the New-World, Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Pacific

[Ardashir 7]

Easy mate ,this man wasn't a legend...he has really governed baghdad for a several months..he died in the same year the mongols occupied the Abbasid capital..and mate what overwhelming force are u talking about?? Caliph Al Mustansir had 150,000 trained warrior to defend baghdad...but in the time of his son
Al Musta'sim they have become only 10,000 !!!....We can't call 10,000 a force if they are fighting Hordes !!!
The Caliph was completely wrong in trusting such a man...fighting such barbarians was completely hopeless.

[SuleymanGroznii]

What really happened to Baghdad !

It wasn't Al Alqamy ! - that was a myth they used to tell us in schools here in the Arab world

the myth states that Al Alqamy seduced the caliph to ignore military matters (which is false : the Abbasids were already in decline and were not able to pay their troops well). They tell us that Al Alqamy opened the doors (as simple as that !) because Hulagu khan promised him that he will be the future governor of Baghdad.

in realty the records don't mention Al Alqamy, & the person who ended up as governor of Baghdad was actually Ala'iddin Ata-Malik Juvayni.

simply
1 - no one expected them
2 - the Abbasids were already weak
3 - the mongols used siege technology

no one wants to admit that they were beaten by an overwhelming force - so thy just invent lies to justify their failure & ignore the reality of the situation - we always think we are superior & stronger while our foes were inferior, worthless, naked scum.
- every nation has its own version of the movie 300

Well said. It's ironic how Europeans and Americans have thought (well, during the short 10 years or so that most Americans have had a half-accurate idea of what a Muslim actually is...) that Muslims and people in/from the Middle East/Central Asia in general hold the Crusades as their ultimate grievance--I've read (many, many, many times...) that most didn't even make a note as to what the Crusades were before 100 years ago or so, and that the Mongols have always been the big "Boogieman."

As to why the Mongols were so successful in the Middle East, I'd agree somewhat but add that there was severe political and military instability that began with the Fatimid Caliphate and the division between the seriously confusing number of new states that popped up throughout the tenth and thirteenth centuries. It certainly helped the First Crusade (as did little events like the "People's Crusade" marching against Nicaea before the actual Crusaders, which Kilij Arslan to believe something to the effect of "Oh goodie, more clueless idiots to hack up!"), which was yet another destabilizing force in the region. Even still though (and in basic agreement with you), most of these factors were self-inflicted by other Muslims or blowback from previous decisions.

As for actual military prowess, it is true that the Mongols were far more sophisticated and advanced soldiers than most serious historians, never mind laypersons, assume. They were not the strongest on the steppe though, at least those soldiers that were actually Mongols, and not Turks etc. I've read many sources and military historians (Hildinger's book states it pretty emphatically, off the top of my head) describe their bows as basically being inefficient pieces of crap e.g. that they were too large to actually use the mechanical advantages of a recurve style composite bow, didn't even have a recurve-style shape, etc, etc. Basically, they didn't do anything special as far as technology or tactics, other than Chingiz Han's political accomplishment of uniting an usually large number of tribes with each other. Once it reached a certain size it snowballed across Eurasia, not to mention the fact that Chingiz was a great (and very underrated) general and strategist. (the systematic dismantling of Khwarezm is quite an awe-inspiring campaign).

So it wasn't that the Mongols were an especially bad ass bunch, it's that Chingiz made a large number of tribes from the steppe politically cohesive. That was quite the achievement, and it was almost completely political. Any factors involved in rapid expansions of the Achaemenid, Roman, Parthian/Sassanian, Arab, and Ottoman Empires can be observed in Chingiz's conquests as well. He did all the hard work, and his successors' used that template (which Hulegu did not follow at all in the Middle East IMO) for as long as they reasonably could.

Since they were united at a time when the Abbasid caliphate had splintered and fragmented into several disorganized units, and the caliphate itself had become a "de jour" power to the Seljuk Turks, who were also becoming quite disorganized (even by the time of the First Crusade in 1095), by the time they arrived (especially with that ruthless bastard Hulegu) in the Middle East, the only military power able to check them was the Mamluks in Egypt (which invites all kinds of arguments).

Another myth was that the mongols were book destroyers and that they brought illiteracy to the region

most people think this is true unfortunately and we hear it in schools and sermons - mongol book hunt / burning or... whatever
- that they gathered all the books and through then into the river just to cross it so the river ran black from the ink of so many lost written treasures.

This story was stolen from a late Zoroastrian propaganda against the caliph Omar. they said that he burned their religious text & threw the rest into the rivers. He then burned the library of Ctesiphon and massacred all the scholars, which left them illiterate for the coming generations.

in reality the books all survived and were studied later on in the house of wisdom in Baghdad.
the library of Ctesiphon was still working and in use
until the Abbasid period where al the scholars moved to work in Baghdad.
the building later fell into ruin during the 10th century. No scholar was killed

why would anyone destroy something he/she new was economically important

so what really happened to the house of wisdom ? - it simply caught fire when the city was burned

You can conducted scorched earth policy to cut losses and subdue the rest of the world with fear.
but you cant massacre every-where all the time (I experimented that while playing Stainless steel )

- you will need subjects, workers and a population to sustain the land
they needed farmland and they needed urban centers and trade

- scorched earth policies were only conducted when needed and when they were expected to give the intended results
- after they established a firm grip on their newly conquered land massacres where not necessary anymore

The didn't destroy everything just for fun - if they did they would waste their effort rebuilding everything all the time

Oh I totally disagree, but only with re to Hulegu, who was an outlier among the various Mongol leaders (NOT great khans, but generals etc), who wisely observed diplomatic immunity and avoided sacking towns etc. Hulegu is up there with Timur as far as being a perfect example of how not to establish stable states.

[chris7ian]

Well said. It's ironic how Europeans and Americans have thought (well, during the short 10 years or so that most Americans have had a half-accurate idea of what a Muslim actually is...) that Muslims and people in/from the Middle East/Central Asia in general hold the Crusades as their ultimate grievance--I've read (many, many, many times...) that most didn't even make a note as to what the Crusades were before 100 years ago or so, and that the Mongols have always been the big "Boogieman."

So are you saying that the US should ally with Mongolia and start supplying them with M1 Abrams, Bradley's, Humvee's, etc. and let them recreate the horde?

Not quite- Ireland and Lithuania were rather backwards for centuries in the Middle Ages, especially the former. And most of Africa, being relatively isolated from the rest of the world, was behind the times as well (with the obvious exception of Mali).

Ireland's population in the medieval era was puny, there was a realistic chance that it's population was lower than that of Baelric Isles for example . it was almost surely smaller than Sardinia, and at least 30-50 cities in the world had more people in it's city proper than the entire Island of Ireland.

Population in marco context is generally a very sound judgement of how developed the area was in pre-industrial period.

It was only until the introduction of Potatos that Ireland's population began to grown to something that resemble modern day purportion of Ireland. Before that, it was the back water of back waters.

In what way was Ireland a backwater, "A place or situation regarded as isolated, stagnant, or backward" from the free dicitionary.

Ireland wasn't very populated and was at the edge of the known world, but they weren't savages living amongst the animals live cromagnon man. The Irish quickly embraced Roman Catholicism and were instrumental in its spread across not only the Isles, but Germany, and Scandanavia as well. Some claim Irish monks were in North America about 900 years before Columbus. They were hardly isolated, being neighbors to the Roman empire for several hundreds of years. The Irish were highly skilled artisans during the Roman age. They weren't concerned with military expansionism like most, seems to me they might have been more "civilized." Irish monks were responsilble for saving many of the countless treasures that might have been lost during the sack of Rome when they translated and copied these texts.

Sure their population might have been stagnant living on a rocky island not suited for many crops but they weren't backward by any means. That is just racisim introduced by Normans who regarded them as inferior as a means to justify invading and conquering them, and possibly by the Romans before them.

From Wikipedia: I know but I don't have time to read books about what I know to be true.

Tradition maintains that in AD 432, St. Patrick arrived on the island and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity. On the other hand, according to Prosper of Aquitaine, a contemporary chronicler, Palladius was sent to Ireland by the Pope in 431 as "first Bishop to the Irish believing in Christ", which demonstrates that there were already Christians living in Ireland. Palladius seems to have worked purely as Bishop to Irish Christians in the Leinster and Meath kingdoms, while Patrick — who may have arrived as late as 461 — worked first and foremost as a missionary to the Pagan Irish, converting in the more remote kingdoms located in Ulster and Connacht.

Already being baptized long before any organized attempt by any church. Obviously these early Irishmen were educated and able to enteract with Romans and others. Not so dumb and not so isolated it seems. Also Ptomely talks of Romans assisting Irish allies in attacks in Ireland, even though Rome never sought Ireland.

The Druid tradition collapsed, first in the face of the spread of the new faith, and ultimately in the aftermath of famine and plagues due to the climate changes of 535–536. Irish scholars excelled in the study of Latin learning and Christian theology in the monasteries that flourished shortly thereafter. Missionaries from Ireland to England and Continental Europe spread news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin learning during the Early Middle Ages. The period of Insular art, mainly in the fields of illuminated manuscripts, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, the Ardagh Chalice, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island. Insular style was to be a crucial ingredient in the formation of the Romanesque and Gothic styles throughout Western Europe. Sites dating to this period include clochans, ringforts and promontory forts.

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/201...-of-whiteness/

[Illidan1371]

What really happened to Baghdad !

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It wasn't Al Alqamy ! - that was a myth they used to tell us in schools here in the Arab world

the myth states that Al Alqamy seduced the caliph to ignore military matters (which is false : the Abbasids were already in decline and were not able to pay their troops well). They tell us that Al Alqamy opened the doors (as simple as that !) because Hulagu khan promised him that he will be the future governor of Baghdad.

in realty the records don't mention Al Alqamy, & the person who ended up as governor of Baghdad was actually Ala'iddin Ata-Malik Juvayni.

simply
1 - no one expected them
2 - the Abbasids were already weak
3 - the mongols used siege technology

no one wants to admit that they were beaten by an overwhelming force - so thy just invent lies to justify their failure & ignore the reality of the situation - we always think we are superior & stronger while our foes were inferior, worthless, naked scum.
- every nation has its own version of the movie 300

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another myth was that the mongols were book destroyers and that they brought illiteracy to the region

most people think this is true unfortunately and we hear it in schools and sermons - mongol book hunt / burning or... whatever
- that they gathered all the books and through then into the river just to cross it so the river ran black from the ink of so many lost written treasures.

This story was stolen from a late Zoroastrian propaganda against the caliph Omar. they said that he burned their religious text & threw the rest into the rivers. He then burned the library of Ctesiphon and massacred all the scholars, which left them illiterate for the coming generations.

in reality the books all survived and were studied later on in the house of wisdom in Baghdad.
the library of Ctesiphon was still working and in use
until the Abbasid period where al the scholars moved to work in Baghdad.
the building later fell into ruin during the 10th century. No scholar was killed

why would anyone destroy something he/she new was economically important

so what really happened to the house of wisdom ? - it simply caught fire when the city was burned

You can conducted scorched earth policy to cut losses and subdue the rest of the world with fear.
but you cant massacre every-where all the time (I experimented that while playing Stainless steel )

- you will need subjects, workers and a population to sustain the land
they needed farmland and they needed urban centers and trade

- scorched earth policies were only conducted when needed and when they were expected to give the intended results
- after they established a firm grip on their newly conquered land massacres where not necessary anymore

The didn't destroy everything just for fun - if they did they would waste their effort rebuilding everything all the time

In fact the Islamic civilization survived the mongol conquests
both the Mamluks and the ottomans were powerful enough and art, literature, science and technology flourished again

- it fell later during the age of colonialism along with the New-World, Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Pacific

i wanna make somethings clear here about this ''book hunting'' az u call it...when the mongols attacked they burnt down everything destroying every city in theire path...thus many huge librarys were burnt down and destroyed while they were doing that in iran.
yet in the arabic period the word book hunting doesent mean to actually burn the librarys but it means destorying the old culture completely...i mean before the arabs attacked there werent ANY muslims living in iran how come that only a few years afterwards EVERYONE were muslims?!
TBH arabs were really expert at FORCING theire culture to the others...as good as it survived untill now!

[Heeehehe]

What really happened to Baghdad !

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It wasn't Al Alqamy ! - that was a myth they used to tell us in schools here in the Arab world

the myth states that Al Alqamy seduced the caliph to ignore military matters (which is false : the Abbasids were already in decline and were not able to pay their troops well). They tell us that Al Alqamy opened the doors (as simple as that !) because Hulagu khan promised him that he will be the future governor of Baghdad.

in realty the records don't mention Al Alqamy, & the person who ended up as governor of Baghdad was actually Ala'iddin Ata-Malik Juvayni.

simply
1 - no one expected them
2 - the Abbasids were already weak
3 - the mongols used siege technology

no one wants to admit that they were beaten by an overwhelming force - so thy just invent lies to justify their failure & ignore the reality of the situation - we always think we are superior & stronger while our foes were inferior, worthless, naked scum.
- every nation has its own version of the movie 300

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another myth was that the mongols were book destroyers and that they brought illiteracy to the region

most people think this is true unfortunately and we hear it in schools and sermons - mongol book hunt / burning or... whatever
- that they gathered all the books and through then into the river just to cross it so the river ran black from the ink of so many lost written treasures.

This story was stolen from a late Zoroastrian propaganda against the caliph Omar. they said that he burned their religious text & threw the rest into the rivers. He then burned the library of Ctesiphon and massacred all the scholars, which left them illiterate for the coming generations.

in reality the books all survived and were studied later on in the house of wisdom in Baghdad.
the library of Ctesiphon was still working and in use
until the Abbasid period where al the scholars moved to work in Baghdad.
the building later fell into ruin during the 10th century. No scholar was killed

why would anyone destroy something he/she new was economically important

so what really happened to the house of wisdom ? - it simply caught fire when the city was burned

You can conducted scorched earth policy to cut losses and subdue the rest of the world with fear.
but you cant massacre every-where all the time (I experimented that while playing Stainless steel )

- you will need subjects, workers and a population to sustain the land
they needed farmland and they needed urban centers and trade

- scorched earth policies were only conducted when needed and when they were expected to give the intended results
- after they established a firm grip on their newly conquered land massacres where not necessary anymore

The didn't destroy everything just for fun - if they did they would waste their effort rebuilding everything all the time

In fact the Islamic civilization survived the mongol conquests
both the Mamluks and the ottomans were powerful enough and art, literature, science and technology flourished again

- it fell later during the age of colonialism along with the New-World, Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Pacific

I don't think so. The Abbasid Caliphate is perhaps one of the greatest civilisation ever formed, it's magnificent is beyond that of the Ottoman Empire.

Baghdad is destroyed by The Mongol (though some my contribute too for Baghdad is not sacked just once, but they propably done the most terrible) let's see what Professor say about it

"Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (Steven Dutch)

an account from medieval historian (cited by.. another professor)

"They swept through the city like hungry falcons attacking a flight of doves, or like raging wolves attacking sheep, with loose reins and shameless faces, murdering and spreading terror...beds and cushions made of gold and encrusted with jewels were cut to pieces with knives and torn to shreds. Those hiding behind the veils of the great Harem were dragged...through the streets and alleys, each of them becoming a plaything...as the population died at the hands of the invaders." (Abdullah Wassaf as cited by David Morgan)

"Some historians believe that the Mongol invasion destroyed much of the irrigation infrastructure that had sustained Mesopotamia for many millennia. Canals were cut as a military tactic and never repaired. So many people died or fled that neither the labor nor the organization were sufficient to maintain the canal system. It broke down or silted up. This theory was advanced by historian Svatopluk Souček in his 2000 book, A History of Inner Asia and has been adopted by authors such as Steven Dutch."

there maybe some propaganda, like that story of Al Alqamy (?, I don't know), but the mongol sack of baghdad are terrible. perhaps the mongol just fulfill their promise

"When I lead my army against Baghdad in anger, whether you hide in heaven or in earth, I will bring you down from the spinning spheres; I will toss you in the air like a lion. I will leave no one alive in your realm; I will burn your city, your land, your self. If you wish to spare yourself and your venerable family, give heed to my advice with the ear of intelligence. If you do not, you will see what God has willed." -Hülegü

but the Mongol know that their enemy is strong

According to the Secret History of the Mongols, Genghis Khan and his successor, Ogedei, ordered their kheshig member, Chormaqan, to invade Baghdad.[10] In 1236, one division of the Mongol army under Chormaqan invaded Irbil, the sphere of the Caliphate.[11] Since then, Mongol raids on Irbil and the caliphate, even down to the walls of Baghdad[12], became an almost annual occurrence.[13] The armies of the caliphate defeated Mongol detachments in 1238[14] and 1245[15].

thats why the Mongol fielded a force that are probably the largest ever fielded by the Mongols - to fight the Caliph, whereas their (The Mongols) army usually outnumbered by their enemy

WAllahu A'lam

[Ichon]

"Some historians believe that the Mongol invasion destroyed much of the irrigation infrastructure that had sustained Mesopotamia for many millennia. Canals were cut as a military tactic and never repaired. So many people died or fled that neither the labor nor the organization were sufficient to maintain the canal system. It broke down or silted up. This theory was advanced by historian Svatopluk Souček in his 2000 book, A History of Inner Asia and has been adopted by authors such as Steven Dutch."

thats why the Mongol fielded a force that are probably the largest ever fielded by the Mongols - to fight the Caliph, whereas their (The Mongols) army usually outnumbered by their enemy

WAllahu A'lam

There is some evidence that the irrigation works were already suffering some neglect before Mongols- partially due to less rainfall as part of the global cooling mentioned in my post above and partially as Abbasids had been vassals of Seljuks who demanded large tributes in both gold and slaves which drained local manpower and then with the brief Abbasid resurgence when Seljuk empire fell apart most energies were directed toward expansion not improving the agriculture of Tigris/Euphrates valley.

I do agree with the second point about the largest force the Mongols ever assembled for a single campaign. Attacking Abbasid Caliph could have been a direct challenge to Muslims depending on how it was seen in other parts of the Mongol empire and the power of the blow had to be overwhelming. Machiavelli would have given the same advice.

[matmohair1]

.and mate what overwhelming force are u talking about?

by overwhelming I didn't mean by strength or numbers
I was referring to modern day interpretations in the Arab media and schooling system
and its not my opinion

what no one wants to acknowledge is that kingdoms & empires come and go (الحرب سجال)
and that the mongols had what it takes to create one
they were civilized enough but committed atrocities sometimes to maintain it
this is just what Rome, KOJ and others were doing around the world

why cant this simple logic be taught in our schools rather than random conspiracy theories

[trollface]

the mongols spared christians? They sound like bros why did they suddenly give up the christian alliance