I apologize in advance to the reader for the mass of links - a lot of material has accumulated, often the events in them are connected or mutually complemented. It is much easier to understand the logic of thoughts in the article, knowing the previous materials. But in order not to bother you with transitions, I will try (if possible) to compress everything into one text.
Why are they looking for logic only when it is profitable?
Sometimes, erroneous initial data confuse researchers and do not allow explaining the logic of what is happening. In this case, they say: either there is an error here, or I don’t know something important. There are especially many such questions in history.
For example, all textbooks and the media talk about the Mongoloid aborigines of Siberia. And scientists find archaeological material in Siberia, the Far East and North China (read more: Who are they - the true masters of the Far East?), Proving the long-term residence of people of the white race.
At the same time, the Chinese keep repeating about their "rights" to Primorye (for more details about the history of China, read the cycle - Fake antiquity of China. White Gods.). The Japanese will bury themselves in the Kuriles and part of Sakhalin (read the cycle: Not Japanese Japan. Ainu are the first samurai.).
Horses, people mixed in battle …
Where is the logic? If in these regions since ancient times there have been various cultures, including Europeoids, then why are they now only remembering the Mongoloids? Who decided that and why? The deceptive impression is created that the claims of the Chinese and Japanese are justified …
Promotional video:
I am a supporter of the version about the deliberate distortion of world history in the 16th - 17th centuries (which no one really hides: Comrade, believe: the history of the past is the door to the future!) And at the same time, I cannot accept all the conclusions of the authors of the New Chronology (read more about it - What is "New chronology"? Briefly.).
Therefore, I explain some events from my own point of view. In no way claiming that my version of events is the only correct one. This is my personal view of history and I do not impose it on anyone….
Fragment of the battle.
Where did it come from…
The fact of the crusade of the Mughals, with the aim of capturing Jerusalem and "liberating" (from Muslims) the Tomb of Jesus Christ, is not very well known, in contrast to the much-publicized crusades of the European knights. To hide - they do not hide, but they do not advertise either.
But the event itself is not ordinary! In traditional history, the "Mongols" are portrayed primarily as pagans who are tolerant of other religions. In this regard, it is somewhat strange that the flourishing and rapid development of the Christian Church in Russia happened precisely at the time of the “Mongol yoke” (read more in two articles - The whole truth about the baptism of Russia). And after it passed, on the contrary, a systematic curtailment of the church in rights and finances began.
Mongol warriors.
Even more incredible is the story of the crusade of the pagans to the Holy Land for the "liberation" of the Christian Holy Sepulcher. Whatever pluralism and religious tolerance may be among the pagans, but what we know about these "uneducated shepherds from the steppes of Mongolia" (from the canonical version of history) does not fit into the campaign for FAITH.
However, the Great Khan Munke, after the kurultai, sends one of Kublai's brothers to conquer China, and the other brother Hulagu to "liberate" the Holy Sepulcher, simultaneously destroying the assassin sect and conquering the Abassid caliphate.
Legendary Mongols.
The reasons for the campaign according to the official history
Reading materials about this amazing campaign, it is easy to notice the amicable expression of surprise in the writings of historians - how to explain such non-standard actions? Three main versions are offered: 1) fulfillment of Genghis Khan's behest to conquer “the whole world - from ocean to ocean”; 2) the influence on Khan Hulagu of his Christian wife (Nestorian persuasion) and 3) the desire to plunder the rich Middle Eastern countries.
1) To fulfill the covenant of Genghis Khan, it was more logical to continue expanding in the western direction. Khan Batu was still alive, who went to Europe and as historians tell us, his influence on the Great Khan Munke was enormous, and his ambitions remained. In addition, they explain to us that he was a Muslim and categorically objected to the attack on fellow believers in the Middle East (in this regard, his unprecedented benefits and rights for the Christian church in Russia look even more strange!).
He was against to such an extent that Khan Hulagu went on a campaign - at first he was in no hurry, fearing a blow to Batu in the back! And only after the death of Batu (3 years after the start of the campaign) and receiving confirmation of loyalty from his son, Khan Sartak (in the form of troops), in fact, he began to take action. Wasn't it more logical to expand at the expense of the infidels in Europe than to sow discord among our own? Strange …
This is the normal option.
2) Hulagu's wife probably had an influence on her husband, but what relation did she have to the Great Khan Munka, as well as the kurultai of the "Mongols", at which (as we already understood far from unanimously) this decision was made? With all due respect to the role of women in the affairs of the rulers and the fate of the world, this version looks unfounded.
3) An understandable desire to rob the richest Middle East does not fit with Hulagu's further actions. Having captured Baghdad and Syria - why move in the direction of a strong Mamluk Egypt? The intelligence and analytics of the "wild nomads" worked surprisingly well and surely provided Hulegu with data on the power of the Mamluks.
Moreover, the Mamluks were at home and had the opportunity to dispose of the unlimited resources of Egypt, in contrast to the "Mongols". And why leave the 20-thousandth detachment, reinforced by Armenian and Georgian Christian units (who definitely did not go to rob!), Going to the election of a new Great Khan, after the news of Munke's death - was he going to return and finish the job? The loot had long been sent to the rear. Doesn't sound like stupid self-interest.
Rob the loot …
That is, historians admit that it was precisely a crusade, but its motivation remains unclear.
So what does everything look like in terms of alternate history?
Continuation: "The Mongol Crusade. The Phantom of Decay".