What's new

The Mongol Destruction of Baghdad

The Mongols also started to have divisions within themselves that slowly weakened them. If the Mongols in their original form existed, Saladin would not have been victorious;
Even Muslims were divided into several khilafats (I will call them kingdoms) such as Abbasids, Seljuks of Rum, Almoravids, Nasrids and Mamluks at the time of siege of Baghdad. There were seprate rulers in India (Alauddun Khilji defeated Mongols in early 1300s).

Even Salahuddin didn't enjoy full khilafat. Muslim world continued to be divided in his era. A united Muslim force vs a united Mongol army, I would say Muslims would have been victorious. But that's my opinion. Mongol invasion of Iraq was a surprise for the khalifa of Arabian peninsula. He couldn't even expect that Mongols would attack baghdad (because he thought the Caliphate was invincible).

I like how Alauddin Khilji killed 20000 Mongols.. and they tasted the barbarism at the hands of Khilji (it is sometimes required to instill fear in the enemy). And he was successful in doing that.
 
You have not presented any substantial evidence or proof to back up your claims except for hearsay. Saladin was not a good strategist or tactician. It would be best if you correctly studied the crusades besides YouTube videos.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I've spent enough time studying military history to have a good enough opinion to stand on.

In the 1st Crusade, Jerusalem was captured by the Crusaders, establishing the Christian Levant. During the 2nd Crusade, Saladin comes along and retakes Jerusalem. The 3rd Crusade resulted in the Ramla Agreement to keep the status quo in the region for some time -- Saladin kept Jerusalem; however, the Crusaders held the main parts - Coastal Cities -. They also captured the City of Acre, which gives a direct landing platform (beachhead) into the area, among other territories that give inland access to Muslim lands. Richard leaves the region to consolidate power back home.

This is where the fun part starts and why I say Saladin and many Muslim Military leaders are failures. So much resource was spent in recapturing and defending Jerusalem, which is strategically useless and makes it difficult to defend and easily susceptible to being cut off from outside supplies. This allowed Richard to cut off supplies from Egypt and Syria to Saladin forces, who were forced to retreat into the walls of Jerusalem, allowing the Crusades to establish firm control in surrounding territory. Rather than focusing their military strategy on retaking the coastal cities Antioch, Tyre, Acre, and Jaffa to cut off Crusader forces, they settled for Jerusalem while leaving the Keys in the hands of the Crusaders.

The latter had enough time in a few years to regroup and resupply themselves with weapons and men into the region. Coming back to Saladin, rather than building a Navy as the head of united Egypt & Syria, he just sat around doing nothing, to put it plainly, while Christian forces were re-arming and using Cyprus to amass their army for the 4th Crusade. Read Page 12 on-wards: (https://deremilitari.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gillingham2.pdf)

Saladin and other military leaders' failure to secure the home front leads to further losses of life, money, and blood in the 5th, 6th, and 7th Crusades. You have to look no further than Germany, WWII Normandy; once the beachhead was established, Allied Forces dropped supplies and consolidated and started making advances; not going to go into deep history on this, but you get my point.

Saladin took Jaffa (from the land route, but remember he failed to build a navy during the Ramla Agreement Period, which could've helped him); Richard regrouped and, by sea, launched a naval raid, and was successful in retaking it, look at the map and see how vital this is -- he had Christian soldiers captured. Still, the fool fails to kill them off. Instead, Richard frees them, his army adds more men, and Saladin is forced to surrender.

In the 2nd and 3rd Crusades, we lose more territory to them to hold one useless city, but not a single port city.

Below is what Saladin Chronicler said after the 3rd Crusade, and he couldn't think through what to do next and what to plan next to fix his error:

I fear to make peace, not knowing what may become of me. Our enemy will grow strong now that they have retained these lands. They will come forth to recover the rest of their lands, and you will see every one of them ensconced on his hilltop,' meaning in his castle, 'having announced, "I shall stay put," and the Muslims will be ruined.'

These were his words, and they came about as he said.

@villageidiot
@Foinikas
aziqbal's numbers were exaggerated. The numbers of Crusader armies were usually about 20,000-30,000 max. Weird numbers of 600,000 that he mentioned,are just fantasy.
 
losers like you should stick to sucking up to China and brown nosing white masters

when brown loser like you start making up tails about glorious China we know we are laughing basket of the world

When you couldn't effectively counter what I wrote, you bring in China when that country has nothing to do with this conversation.

Where have I started making glorious tails of China? I have been critical of them in various ways.

On the other hand, you are a different story; you can go back into your history and see how you've been pushing up the British but have a profile pic of JF-17, a Chinese-made plane, made by the people you hate so much. Tell me one thing clown during our wars has the British sent any supplies to further our war efforts? No, it was Chinese who sent the ammunition along with our regional partners. Your brown head is stuck up the British collective asshole to the point the HMS Elizabeth sprung a leak.

aziqbal's numbers were exaggerated. The numbers of Crusader armies were usually about 20,000-30,000 max. Weird numbers of 600,000 that he mentioned,are just fantasy.

He's an illiterate clown, a YouTube scholar at best.
 
Last edited:
Even Muslims were divided into several khilafats (I will call them kingdoms) such as Abbasids, Seljuks of Rum, Almoravids, Nasrids and Mamluks at the time of siege of Baghdad. There were seprate rulers in India (Alauddun Khilji defeated Mongols in early 1300s).

Even Salahuddin didn't enjoy full khilafat. Muslim world continued to be divided in his era. A united Muslim force vs a united Mongol army, I would say Muslims would have been victorious. But that's my opinion. Mongol invasion of Iraq was a surprise for the khalifa of Arabian peninsula. He couldn't even expect that Mongols would attack baghdad (because he thought the Caliphate was invincible).

I like how Alauddin Khilji killed 20000 Mongols.. and they tasted the barbarism at the hands of Khilji (it is sometimes required to instill fear in the enemy). And he was successful in doing that.

Good post.

Luckily or unluckily for the Arabs, only Iraq/Baghdad was ravaged (the most eastern part of the Arab world) but at the same time Baghdad was the world's (arguably) most important city (at that time) and the center of Islamic knowledge. After the Mongols had ravaged Iran next door and killed millions there


some Iranians butthurt over Arab rule, pointed the Mongols towards Baghdad and rest is history. In fact the Islamic world has (one could argue) been in a crisis ever since and the destruction of Baghdad also ended the "Islamic Golden Age".

However I am curious how the Mongols would have feared against the Arabs in Arabia proper and their famous Arab cavalry and as famous Arabian horses. Even the Bedouin were notorious for their cavalry and infantry skills. It would have been an equal match up IMO with Arabs having the advantage of knowing the terrain and having the numbers.

So not the least surprised that an army mainly composed of Arabs (Mamluks and also the armies under Saladin) and Turks managed to give the Mongols their first large-scale military defeats.

In any case, fair play to the Mongols, they were far away from home (logistics and being outnumbered) etc. which is the same reason why the Arabs had failed to fully invade what is modern-day India 600 years prior.
 
Last edited:
Good post.

Luckily or unluckily for the Arabs, only Iraq/Baghdad was ravaged (the most eastern part of the Arab world) but at the same time Baghdad was the world's (arguably) most important city (at that time) and the center of Islamic knowledge. After the Mongols had ravaged Iran next door and killed millions there


some Iranians butthurt over Arab rule, pointed the Mongols towards Baghdad and rest is history. In fact the Islamic world has (one could argue) been in a crisis ever since and the destruction of Baghdad also ended the "Islamic Golden Age".

However I am curious how the Mongols would have feared against the Arabs in Arabia proper and their famous Arab cavalry and as famous Arabian horses. Even the Bedouin were notorious for their cavalry and infantry skills. It would have been an equal match up IMO with Arabs having the advantage of knowing the terrain and having the numbers.

So not the least surprised that an army mainly composed of Arabs (Mamluks and also the armies under Saladin) and Turks managed to give the Mongols their first large-scale military defeats.

In any case, fair play to the Mongols, they were far away from home (logistics and being outnumbered) etc. which is the same reason why the Arabs had failed to fully invade what is modern-day India 600 years prior.

Logistics is vital for any war effort.

However, the reason I give more weight to the Mongols is that they utilized local resources and effectively deployed them on the front lines. They adapted pretty well.
 
Logistics is vital for any war effort.

However, the reason I give more weight to the Mongols is that they utilized local resources and effectively deployed them on the front lines. They adapted pretty well.

Yes, logistics and population too. Back then sheer numbers made a huge difference on their own. Much more so than today given all the new modern technology.

But unlike almost all imperial powers before and arguably after them, whether Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Persians, Chinese, you name them, their brutality and massacres knew no equals.

It is very telling that Arabs left all ancient remnants in every territory that they conquered 600 years prior from Western Europe (Portugal, Spain etc.) to Central Asia/Xinjiang/Pakistan/Gujrat in the East, and hardly ever engaged in any massacres or destroyed any historical artifacts let alone entire cities or towns.

In fact the only ones that even could compete with the Mongols (just a tiny bit) were a modern phenomenon of criminals (ISIS) which tells it all. Or the Taliban destroying ancient Afghan (Buddhist heritage) such as the Buddhas of Bamyan.

Simply put, the Mongols brutality is notorious and unprecedented which is probably why the very name of theirs (Mongols) became a synonym for a swear word in many languages of the world.

Another "curious" thing is to think how irrelevant the Mongols have become and have been for the past 500 + years. Their heydays were very short. They are very small in numbers too. Mongolia is a huge country but just 3 million people live there. More Mongols live in China than in Mongolia.

There are just 10 million Mongols in the entire world today. That is the population of modern day Baghdad in 2022.


Food for thought.
 
Had Saladin came a little later he would have handed the Mongols their defeat

his armies were light and fast, they used diversion and hit and run tactics very well

however the Mamluks did what no one else could do, they defeated the Mongol Heavy Calvary in close combat
Incorrect
 
@PakFactor There was a reason why Crusaders make strong forts along the way, when they were marching to Jerusalem, they have their eyes on the price but even they know without controlling the outskirts of the region its impossible to achieve the goal they are looking to achieve, Arabs are bedouins and they will keep raiding the pilgrims until a large army assemble and those raiders vanish in desert. I wouldn't call Saladin a Failure, his tactic in battle of Hattin was good, he exhausted the heavy Knights and burned trees in the direction of the Crusaders to further demoralize them.

Muslims from the very beginning never rely on numbers, Battle of Qadisiyya and Yarmook are example of that, going back Badr/Uhud/Khandaq, You have to out smart your enemies but have to keep in mind the possibility that enemy can outsmart you. If Muslims were united at the times of Mongols the results would be a lot different and Bhagdad would stand.
 
When you couldn't effectively counter what I wrote, you bring in China when that country has nothing to do with this conversation.

Where have I started making glorious tails of China? I have been critical of them in various ways.

On the other hand, you are a different story; you can go back into your history and see how you've been pushing up the British but have a profile pic of JF-17, a Chinese-made plane, made by the people you hate so much. Tell me one thing clown during our wars has the British sent any supplies to further our war efforts? No, it was Chinese who sent the ammunition along with our regional partners. Your brown head is stuck up the British collective asshole to the point the HMS Elizabeth sprung a leak.



He's an illiterate clown, a YouTube scholar at best.
One thing I love to see is these clowns suffering while China rises.

If Muslims were united at the times of Mongols the results would be a lot different and Bhagdad would stand.
There is a scale balance between settlers and nomads, when one side is weak and divided, the other rises.
 
There is a scale balance between settlers and nomads, when one side is weak and divided, the other rises.
The first civil war cause much damage, the Muslims were divided brutally, and as the Caliphate expands the reach of Caliphs diminish, Justice were left in the hands of psychopaths which was one the strong point of a Islamic Caliphate. No Empire can rise forever, every empire see their downfall be it Romans, Islamic, Mongols, British , American or xyz.
 
The first civil war cause much damage, the Muslims were divided brutally, and as the Caliphate expands the reach of Caliphs diminish, Justice were left in the hands of psychopaths which was one the strong point of a Islamic Caliphate. No Empire can rise forever, every empire see their downfall be it Romans, Islamic, Mongols, British , American or xyz.
Actually it's pretty much the same on our side, three Chinese dynasties on each other's throat for hundred years until they were all weaken and corrupted and finally let the wolf out,
you can stopped the nomads before they adopted the settlers' technology, in the Mongol case, the first time they stepped out of the grassland and had no ideas of how to besiege a western Xia city, but the next time they comes back, everything was different as they have captured Jin dynasty engineers and vast fortunes, then it's pretty much like snowball effect, more city taken, more wealth, more engineers, more armored and more cannon fodders...
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Pakistansi are lying to themselves again---. It was not for the muslim uniting---but the muslims were not prepared for the threat of the mongols.

Before Hulugu Khan had killed the Khalifah of baghdad after finding his wealth---he was known to have stated " if you had spent this gold to prepare for an army---you would not be begging for your life---.

As for Ain-jaloot victory---the muslims are bragging about it---.

Just like christians brag about defeating the mongols in europe---.

At ain jaloot---muslims faced an INFERIOR mongol army under an INFERIOR mongol general---.

Hulugu Khan had been called back to Karakurum----due to a power struggle for the seat of the leadership of the mongols---.
 
Hi,

Pakistansi are lying to themselves again---. It was not for the muslim uniting---but the muslims were not prepared for the threat of the mongols.

Before Hulugu Khan had killed the Khalifah of baghdad after finding his wealth---he was known to have stated " if you had spent this gold to prepare for an army---you would not be begging for your life---.

As for Ain-jaloot victory---the muslims are bragging about it---.

Just like christians brag about defeating the mongols in europe---.

At ain jaloot---muslims faced an INFERIOR mongol army under an INFERIOR mongol general---.

Hulugu Khan had been called back to Karakurum----due to a power struggle for the seat of the leadership of the mongols---.

Thank you! But explaining stuff to Pakistanis is akin to driving one's vehicle into a bridge's pillar, as you've seen with the poster I was engaged with. The other issue I have is how some latch onto Saladin's soft personality and traits, and those do not make an effective leader I would stand behind to waste my life on.
 
The Mongols also started to have divisions within themselves that slowly weakened them. If the Mongols in their original form existed, Saladin would not have been victorious; if you study the crusades, even his scribe wrote that Saladin regrets many of the decisions he's made that cost too many lives and wasted resources. For example, he wasted too much time on siege tactics and not cutting off the supply routes of the crusaders; allowing them to regroup the Battle of Jaffa with King Richard is just one example of how not to war. This almost reminds me of the Ukraine-Russian Conflict and Russia repeating the mistakes of Saladin, costing them the wa
Saladin took on 6 Kings from Europe simultaneously and over 1 million came with Fredrick from Germany alone

less than 1/10 returned home and Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands for next 700 years until Arabs sold it out

Saladin was a true master tactician and Mongols would have stood ZERO chance against him
if only outcome of a different battle situation account for a different battle situation. You might be correct. However, there was a reason why mongols conquered wherever they went.

Hi,

Pakistansi are lying to themselves again---. It was not for the muslim uniting---but the muslims were not prepared for the threat of the mongols.

Before Hulugu Khan had killed the Khalifah of baghdad after finding his wealth---he was known to have stated " if you had spent this gold to prepare for an army---you would not be begging for your life---.

As for Ain-jaloot victory---the muslims are bragging about it---.

Just like christians brag about defeating the mongols in europe---.

At ain jaloot---muslims faced an INFERIOR mongol army under an INFERIOR mongol general---.

Hulugu Khan had been called back to Karakurum----due to a power struggle for the seat of the leadership of the mongols---.
Hulugu did go back but qutbugha was no less a general. Baybars was a master tactician. Who defeated and continued to keep christians and mongols at bay even after that battle. Muslim all be it a little late learned the tactics of mongols of spreading the battle across to scatter the forces and feigning retreat and counter applied them.

However, all that being said. if turks did not fell into disarray post Malik Shah and Anatolian Seljuk(Ru'm )banded together with Seljuks in the Middle East and persia. We would neither have had to deal with Crusades nor Mongols. All these little turk offshoots of small states opened the door for all this. But I guess that is how the cycle of crest and trough goes...
 
Last edited:
Saladin was a true master tactician and Mongols would have stood ZERO chance against him

Saladin was a soldier in Turkish Army ( ZENGI Dynasty ) of the Great Seljuk Empire

Turkish Atabeg Nureddin Zengi sent Turkish Army , Saladin and his uncle Shirkuh to Egypt to fight Crusaders

that was Turkish Army led by Saladin


even BAIBARS KHAN was Turkic origin Sultan of Egypt in the Mamluk Bahri dynasty
He was Commander of the Turkic MAMLUK forces that inflicted a defeat on the 7th Crusade of King Louis IX of France

also BAIBARS KHAN led the vanguard of the Turkic MAMLUK forces at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 which marked the first substantial defeat of the Mongol Army and is considered a turning point in history


Turks and Mongols are Cousins
The first substantial defeat of the Mongol Army was by the Turks
 

Back
Top Bottom