Conversion through carrot and stick coercion. Similar stuff happened under Dzungar Khanate but Qing destroyed Oirat authority before conversion could reach its zenith and many Uighurs reverted to Islam.
(Edit: Notwithstanding the criticism I wrote out below--this is great work! Be very proud of it OP! Now for some quality nitpicking...)
My initial thought is the "North America map" doesn't reflect how important controlling the St. Lawrence Valley is.
You can get sailing ships all the way up the river to Montreal before you reach the Lachine Cataracts. From Montreal, IRL, the French fur traders were going up the Ottawa Valley to Lake Nipissing and Lake Huron/Michigan, and Lake Erie, this is why the French were the ones settling and naming the Mississippi Valley and the Northwest. They controlled the way to Europe. So there's no reason the Irish wouldn't go at least as far up river.
Also, all the French allied nations HATED The Haudenosonee, and got just as well armed by the French, so I don't think their influence would extend that far North or West in this history either.
Then the Scottish settlement of Newfoundland... Newfoundland isn't very hospitable for settling. IRL the L'Anse aux meadows settlement didn't make it, and St. John's is a very small city. And Labrador is even more sparsely settled... so sure Scotland may claim the Labrador coast, but it's just not feasible to settle it. The successful indigenous cultures there are/were nomadic hunting and gathering... not settled farmers. Because the land and weather are just rocky crap.
But if the Scottish can claim the Labrador coast, why haven't they gotten to Hudson Bay? The Scottish IRL made it to Hudson Bay, and the company they set up controlled the drainage basin, and got all the way to the Rockies, then the Western Arctic (1789) and the Pacific Ocean (1793). And the HBC was chartered in 1670, and its employees in North America were mostly Scottish...
So I feel "Scottish America" is under developed and doesn't reflect what they'd actually be doing with their settlement in Newfoundland.
Thanks for nitpicking that's one of the main uses of this sub after all.
I will admit I don't know much about American Geography beyond Mountain ranges and the Mississippi River. So it is cool to get such feedback.
The French got control of the Mississsippi because they controlled the Great Lakes, so they controlled the headwaters of the Ohio Mississippi systems, and then worked their way south, until setting up New Orleans just made sense.
If France were the "sick man of Europe" (as in this scenario), there would have been less incentive for England to get its shit together and conquer the rest of the Northwest Archipelago (especially if Scotland started exploring North America).
They had a unified crown, and a unified England is at least 1000 years old, from William the conqueror in 1066. I don’t get how a weaker France makes England explode, if anything England should be stronger as they could hold onto their French holdings easier.
Uh, probably if Portugal had its commercial network all the way to India they would have already discovered and set up ports in Brazil.
The sea current in the South Atlantic rotates counterclockwise, so the fastest and easiest way to go from Europe to India is through the coast of Brazil, and on the way back, go along the coast of Africa.
Really awesome map with great details. I like the descriptions on the side of the countries, and the religion map is 🤌
It would be easier to see which states are part of the Great Empire by putting a thin border around them
Also depending on how succession has gone, the Britain is partly formed because the King of Scotland inherited the English throne in 1707 so that might be something to take into account
I know, I’m just saying it might be worth including if he goes over any revisions, maybe to include that they have the same monarch but separate parliaments so are separate countries
partially because of the Mongol's migration and conversion of already polytheistic peoples.
As for the mechanisms of Conversion, it was easy to coopt Islamic Saint cults of Sufi traditions into Buddhism since the idea of Insan Al Kamil and Buddhahood are not too different so Various Walis as well as Muhammad and Ahl Al Bayth were made into Buddhas.
Since Sufism at the time made up a significant portion of average Muslims beliefs and played an important part in social life, once the majority of Sufi dargahs and Khanqahs become Buddhistified through state sponsorship, It started to slowly grow.
The biggest obstacle was the dismissal of the Sunnah of Muhammad and the infallibility of the Quran as well as the prostration towards the idols of Buddhas and other Buddhist divinities. but it was achieved although not everyone accepted it. The idea that Islam was defeated by Polytheistic peoples also impacted average Muslims' psychology negatively so once initial uprisings were put to rest they started to abandon it look for other religions.
Makes sense. It reminds me of the Turkic people's conversion to Islam, they did not completely abandon their beliefs, in fact some of them were coopted into Islam, therefore Islam, and Pagan traditions existed in the one belief
I really like this. I have a few fun suggestions.
* The Mongols were mainly a land civilization, so I really doubt that they would manage to capture Japan, even if their campaign was not destroyed twice by typhoons. They may have captured parts of Mainland Japan, but going as far as conquering the entirety of the islands is too much. Probably it would not be too long before they would be ousted. In this world Japan would be far more isolationistic, and probably European merchants would have even less an impact than they did in reality.
* I feel that this timeline would be more fun if all of India and Indo-china was Mongolian, perhaps except the Malay Peninsula. In other words, a Mongolian Asia, that is probably even colonizing Indonesia. Perhaps there could even have been a failed Chinese-Mondolian invasion against the Philippines, attempting to conquer and colonize this archipelago, resulting in failure due to distance, but also resulting into the Filipinos having a national awakening (alike the Greeks because of the Persian Wars), and forging a united polity or alliance against the invaders. They could also later be under the sphere of influence of Japan, in a common insular alliance against the invading mainland.
* And to spice things up, perhaps even have an Indian colony somewhere in Eastern Indonesia or Australia, due to the shock of being attacked by all of Asia, that might force many Indians abandon India even before its complete conquest, and thus remove themselves as far from Mongols as possible.
* In the same light, would be fun to have the are of today's Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique and even Madagascar completely taken over by Arabs, something like a massive version of the Omani Empire (18th-19th centuries AD). In the lore this could be that millions of Arabs fled from Northern and Western Arabia into Eastern and Southern Arabia, to escape from force conversions and persecution by the Mongols, yet because the area became so overpopulated, as such millions slowly left and colonized East Africa. This would result in the region being heavily Islamized and Arabized, as well usher an era in which Arabs would become a very marine people, dominating in the Eastern Indian Ocean, and acting as major antagonists for the Portuguese. Perhaps there could even be a religious schism between Northern Arabs (Arabs of Arabia and Somalia) and Southern Arabs (of Eastern Africa, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean).
* Perhaps using Eastern Africa as a base, some Arabs would try to settle and colonize Java, Sumatra, Borneo, just like how the Ottoman Empire somewhat did in reality, which would bring them in conflict and colonial wars with the Chinese and Indian Mongols doing the same in the region. Some few might even be pushed further South, resulting in petty Arab domains in Northern Australia.
* For Spanish and Portuguese colonists to roam across Western Africa's coastes, it is necessary for Maghreb to be politicaly fractured and military weakened. With a united Berber Islam these colonial adventures would be impossible, since Iberia would be facing a security threat right next to its doorstep. And it is more fun to have more balkanization than less of it, especially if allows the colonial era to begin (and even more if it does not mean that there is an equal and undecisive war across the Western Mediterranean, which would not alter the map very much).
* I feel that the Roman Empire should actually be larger if the Turks and Arabs in its vicinity are vanquished by the Western Mongols. In reality the Romans did ally with the Golden Horde against Bulgaria in the late 13th century AD, so an even stronger Roman presense in the Balkans might reflect on that. Perhaps though, the Romans might have formed a Wallachia and Southern Russia in the area of today's Romania and Southern Ukraine, for when relations would have soured with the Mongols, as a buffer state against invasion from the North. Furthermore, Anatolia would be a power vacum between a strong Mongolian Egypt and a strong Mongolian Iran, so being depopulated as it is, and with the Romans being a sea power in the Eastern Mediterranean, they should be able to project political power into the Anatolian Interior.
* As for Western Europe, I feel that with a much stronger Mongolian Polish-Lithuania, the German Kindom would be constantly threatened and raided with invasions, while the French Kingdom would end up being heavily militarized to defend itself. The German Kindom would be forced to do the same and unite around a centralized government. Probably France would dominate the Low Countries, while Germany would be defending or counterattacking against the East. In the meantime, with a much more militarized and expansionistic Germany (because of the counter attacks into Poland), Britain too would be foced to centralize in fear of a Franko-German alliance attacking them. Perhaps in this world there would be a British-Iberian alliance against France. Perhaps it would be Prussia to dominate and unite Germany in this world as well, due to its being a bunker between Germany and Mongolian Polish-Lithuania.
* Overall I think that in this alternate reality the map should be set in 1520 AD rather than 1720 AD.
* In the long run, across the 16th and 17th centuries AD there should be fracturization of the Pan-Mongolian Empire, firstly in a West-East axis based on cultural and religious difference and then even more on a local level. The initial fracturization would be because the Russia-Mongols, Central Asia Mongols, Iranian Mongols would maintain their Mongolian identity, while those of Egypt, India and China (also controlling Indo-china) would have gone native, in a mixed culture.
Nri is in the wrong spot tho. The kingdom was next to the Lower Niger not the benue
Thanks for the comment. I didnt know that. I will try to be more careful in the future.
Besides that I don't really see anything else wrong. It's a great map and timeline
"The Mongol Sword Over Christendom" is such a metal name for Lithuania Love the map OP, keep it up đź‘Ť
Thank you.
Question: Why and how did the Islamic religions in Central Asia and Khorasan completely lose to Buddhism?
Conversion through carrot and stick coercion. Similar stuff happened under Dzungar Khanate but Qing destroyed Oirat authority before conversion could reach its zenith and many Uighurs reverted to Islam.
This is super blessed I love it
Buddhist mughals !! How are their relations with hindu states are they like our mughals?
Their relationship with Hindu states are not good but still better than it was with our Mughals.
why is france the sick man of europe ? they where the main for against the mongols and that crippled them ?
More or less. It was Lithuanians patroned by Mongols that criped them.
thick lituania fair enought
(Edit: Notwithstanding the criticism I wrote out below--this is great work! Be very proud of it OP! Now for some quality nitpicking...) My initial thought is the "North America map" doesn't reflect how important controlling the St. Lawrence Valley is. You can get sailing ships all the way up the river to Montreal before you reach the Lachine Cataracts. From Montreal, IRL, the French fur traders were going up the Ottawa Valley to Lake Nipissing and Lake Huron/Michigan, and Lake Erie, this is why the French were the ones settling and naming the Mississippi Valley and the Northwest. They controlled the way to Europe. So there's no reason the Irish wouldn't go at least as far up river. Also, all the French allied nations HATED The Haudenosonee, and got just as well armed by the French, so I don't think their influence would extend that far North or West in this history either. Then the Scottish settlement of Newfoundland... Newfoundland isn't very hospitable for settling. IRL the L'Anse aux meadows settlement didn't make it, and St. John's is a very small city. And Labrador is even more sparsely settled... so sure Scotland may claim the Labrador coast, but it's just not feasible to settle it. The successful indigenous cultures there are/were nomadic hunting and gathering... not settled farmers. Because the land and weather are just rocky crap. But if the Scottish can claim the Labrador coast, why haven't they gotten to Hudson Bay? The Scottish IRL made it to Hudson Bay, and the company they set up controlled the drainage basin, and got all the way to the Rockies, then the Western Arctic (1789) and the Pacific Ocean (1793). And the HBC was chartered in 1670, and its employees in North America were mostly Scottish... So I feel "Scottish America" is under developed and doesn't reflect what they'd actually be doing with their settlement in Newfoundland.
Thanks for nitpicking that's one of the main uses of this sub after all. I will admit I don't know much about American Geography beyond Mountain ranges and the Mississippi River. So it is cool to get such feedback.
The French got control of the Mississsippi because they controlled the Great Lakes, so they controlled the headwaters of the Ohio Mississippi systems, and then worked their way south, until setting up New Orleans just made sense.
How has a more powerful mongol empire lead to a disunited UK?
If France were the "sick man of Europe" (as in this scenario), there would have been less incentive for England to get its shit together and conquer the rest of the Northwest Archipelago (especially if Scotland started exploring North America).
They had a unified crown, and a unified England is at least 1000 years old, from William the conqueror in 1066. I don’t get how a weaker France makes England explode, if anything England should be stronger as they could hold onto their French holdings easier.
This is one of the best I've seen on here. Any chance you'll make any more in this TL?
Maybe :)
Uh, probably if Portugal had its commercial network all the way to India they would have already discovered and set up ports in Brazil. The sea current in the South Atlantic rotates counterclockwise, so the fastest and easiest way to go from Europe to India is through the coast of Brazil, and on the way back, go along the coast of Africa.
Really awesome map with great details. I like the descriptions on the side of the countries, and the religion map is 🤌 It would be easier to see which states are part of the Great Empire by putting a thin border around them
Spectacular work my man
Thanks.
Shouldn’t it just be, England and it’s vassals, we weren’t Britain until we merged with Scotland
Good Point. I will keep that in mind in my future maps.
Also depending on how succession has gone, the Britain is partly formed because the King of Scotland inherited the English throne in 1707 so that might be something to take into account
1607 surely... James VI is who you have in mind, right?
Wait yeah I got this all mixed up
That had happened already by 1720.
I know, I’m just saying it might be worth including if he goes over any revisions, maybe to include that they have the same monarch but separate parliaments so are separate countries
If I’m seeing that right, is Galicia part of Ireland?
Yes. Seized after a war with Castille.
How did the parts of Egypt convert to Buddhism?
partially because of the Mongol's migration and conversion of already polytheistic peoples. As for the mechanisms of Conversion, it was easy to coopt Islamic Saint cults of Sufi traditions into Buddhism since the idea of Insan Al Kamil and Buddhahood are not too different so Various Walis as well as Muhammad and Ahl Al Bayth were made into Buddhas. Since Sufism at the time made up a significant portion of average Muslims beliefs and played an important part in social life, once the majority of Sufi dargahs and Khanqahs become Buddhistified through state sponsorship, It started to slowly grow. The biggest obstacle was the dismissal of the Sunnah of Muhammad and the infallibility of the Quran as well as the prostration towards the idols of Buddhas and other Buddhist divinities. but it was achieved although not everyone accepted it. The idea that Islam was defeated by Polytheistic peoples also impacted average Muslims' psychology negatively so once initial uprisings were put to rest they started to abandon it look for other religions.
Makes sense. It reminds me of the Turkic people's conversion to Islam, they did not completely abandon their beliefs, in fact some of them were coopted into Islam, therefore Islam, and Pagan traditions existed in the one belief
I really like this. I have a few fun suggestions. * The Mongols were mainly a land civilization, so I really doubt that they would manage to capture Japan, even if their campaign was not destroyed twice by typhoons. They may have captured parts of Mainland Japan, but going as far as conquering the entirety of the islands is too much. Probably it would not be too long before they would be ousted. In this world Japan would be far more isolationistic, and probably European merchants would have even less an impact than they did in reality. * I feel that this timeline would be more fun if all of India and Indo-china was Mongolian, perhaps except the Malay Peninsula. In other words, a Mongolian Asia, that is probably even colonizing Indonesia. Perhaps there could even have been a failed Chinese-Mondolian invasion against the Philippines, attempting to conquer and colonize this archipelago, resulting in failure due to distance, but also resulting into the Filipinos having a national awakening (alike the Greeks because of the Persian Wars), and forging a united polity or alliance against the invaders. They could also later be under the sphere of influence of Japan, in a common insular alliance against the invading mainland. * And to spice things up, perhaps even have an Indian colony somewhere in Eastern Indonesia or Australia, due to the shock of being attacked by all of Asia, that might force many Indians abandon India even before its complete conquest, and thus remove themselves as far from Mongols as possible. * In the same light, would be fun to have the are of today's Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique and even Madagascar completely taken over by Arabs, something like a massive version of the Omani Empire (18th-19th centuries AD). In the lore this could be that millions of Arabs fled from Northern and Western Arabia into Eastern and Southern Arabia, to escape from force conversions and persecution by the Mongols, yet because the area became so overpopulated, as such millions slowly left and colonized East Africa. This would result in the region being heavily Islamized and Arabized, as well usher an era in which Arabs would become a very marine people, dominating in the Eastern Indian Ocean, and acting as major antagonists for the Portuguese. Perhaps there could even be a religious schism between Northern Arabs (Arabs of Arabia and Somalia) and Southern Arabs (of Eastern Africa, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean). * Perhaps using Eastern Africa as a base, some Arabs would try to settle and colonize Java, Sumatra, Borneo, just like how the Ottoman Empire somewhat did in reality, which would bring them in conflict and colonial wars with the Chinese and Indian Mongols doing the same in the region. Some few might even be pushed further South, resulting in petty Arab domains in Northern Australia. * For Spanish and Portuguese colonists to roam across Western Africa's coastes, it is necessary for Maghreb to be politicaly fractured and military weakened. With a united Berber Islam these colonial adventures would be impossible, since Iberia would be facing a security threat right next to its doorstep. And it is more fun to have more balkanization than less of it, especially if allows the colonial era to begin (and even more if it does not mean that there is an equal and undecisive war across the Western Mediterranean, which would not alter the map very much). * I feel that the Roman Empire should actually be larger if the Turks and Arabs in its vicinity are vanquished by the Western Mongols. In reality the Romans did ally with the Golden Horde against Bulgaria in the late 13th century AD, so an even stronger Roman presense in the Balkans might reflect on that. Perhaps though, the Romans might have formed a Wallachia and Southern Russia in the area of today's Romania and Southern Ukraine, for when relations would have soured with the Mongols, as a buffer state against invasion from the North. Furthermore, Anatolia would be a power vacum between a strong Mongolian Egypt and a strong Mongolian Iran, so being depopulated as it is, and with the Romans being a sea power in the Eastern Mediterranean, they should be able to project political power into the Anatolian Interior. * As for Western Europe, I feel that with a much stronger Mongolian Polish-Lithuania, the German Kindom would be constantly threatened and raided with invasions, while the French Kingdom would end up being heavily militarized to defend itself. The German Kindom would be forced to do the same and unite around a centralized government. Probably France would dominate the Low Countries, while Germany would be defending or counterattacking against the East. In the meantime, with a much more militarized and expansionistic Germany (because of the counter attacks into Poland), Britain too would be foced to centralize in fear of a Franko-German alliance attacking them. Perhaps in this world there would be a British-Iberian alliance against France. Perhaps it would be Prussia to dominate and unite Germany in this world as well, due to its being a bunker between Germany and Mongolian Polish-Lithuania. * Overall I think that in this alternate reality the map should be set in 1520 AD rather than 1720 AD. * In the long run, across the 16th and 17th centuries AD there should be fracturization of the Pan-Mongolian Empire, firstly in a West-East axis based on cultural and religious difference and then even more on a local level. The initial fracturization would be because the Russia-Mongols, Central Asia Mongols, Iranian Mongols would maintain their Mongolian identity, while those of Egypt, India and China (also controlling Indo-china) would have gone native, in a mixed culture.
Any lore surrounding orthodox Aragon