What's new

The Mongol Destruction of Baghdad

Those were literally former Arab slaves. The Circasians and Mamluk Turks. Hence the name Mamluk. They were used as mercenaries by Arab rulers.

Mamluks were slave soldiers

And Arabs were become slaves to Turkic Mamluks who ruled Egypt

Turkic Mamluk BAHRİ Dynasty ruled Egypt between 1250 and 1382

and the Circassian Mamluk Burji Dynasty ruled Egypt between 1382 and 1517

in finally Turkish Ottoman Empire ruled Egypt between 1517 and 1914
 
And Arabs were becomes slaves to Turkic Mamluks who ruled Egypt

Turkic Mamluk BAHRİ Dynasty ruled Egypt between 1250 and 1382

and the Circassian Mamluk Burji Dynasty ruled Egypt between 1382 and 1517

in finally Turkish Ottoman Empire ruled Egypt between 1517 and 1914

Slaves by those Arabized Mamluks becoming patrons of Arab culture and civilization, adopting Arabic (they already did that from birth), Arabic being the official language of the Mamluk State, adopting Arabic titles (Sultan) etc. Strange idea of "slaves". Even more so when the Abbasid Arab Caliph had the religious authority in the Mamluk Sultanate.

Circassians are not Turkic. They are Caucasian people and one of the largest Circassian communities in the world are based in Arab countries.

No they did not. Muhammad Ali Pasha (an Albanian) ruled from 1805. Until 1952 his dynasty ruled Egypt until they were removed by the Egyptian military in the 1952 coup. Also it was nominal rule more than anything else. The local Pashas did their own things most of the time in the various provinces.

You made some absurd fake claims of it only being Turks who defeated Mongols in the Middle East which is a lie. Most of the armies of Saladin and the Mamluk Sultanate were Arabs. The battles against the Mongols took place on Arab lands. The idea that no Arabs took place and that they did not play a role is moronic nonsense propaganda and rewriting of history.


Anyway back to the Mongols who have nothing to do with Turks or Anatolian people. Even less so back in 1258.
 
Last edited:
Circassians are not Turkic. They are Caucasian people and one of the largest Circassian communities in the world are based in Arab countries.

I told you Turkic Mamluk BAHRİ Dynasty ruled Egypt between 1250 and 1382

and the Circassian Mamluk Burji Dynasty ruled Egypt between 1382 and 1517

I know Circassians are not Turkic


No they did not. Muhammad Ali Pasha (an Albanian) ruled from 1805. Until 1952 his dynasty ruled Egypt until they were removed by the Egyptian military in the 1952 coup.

Muhammad Ali Pasha was a Vali of the Ottoman Empire

and Egypt officially remained part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914
 
You don't see people in Cairo speaking Circassian or Kipchak Turkic and claiming to be Kipchak Turks, do you?

We cares about only rulers of Egypt

and Kipchak Turk origin Mamluks ( Bahri Dynasty ) ruled Egypt between 1250 and 1382

even Turkic origin Tulunids ruled Egypt between 868 and 905


Turks ruled İran between 960s and 1925
Turks ruled İraq and Syria for centuries
Turks ruled Egypt for centuries
Turks took Anatolia from the Eastern Roman Empire and still Turks in Anatolia

from the 10th century to 20th century .. Turks dominated the region from İran to Egypt
 
We cares about only rulers of Egypt

and Kipchak Turk origin Mamluks ( Bahri Dynasty ) ruled Egypt between 1250 and 1382

even Turkic origin Tulunids ruled Egypt between 868 and 905


Turks ruled İran between 960s and 1925
Turks ruled İraq and Syria for centuries
Turks ruled Egypt for centuries
Turks took Anatolia from the Eastern Roman Empire and still Turks in Anatolia

from the 10th century to 20th century .. Turks dominated the region from İran to Egypt

so you are saying Turks ruled Egypt for close to 800 years ?

I would say that is a unfair projection
 
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
and the very reason that you cannot come out of this nationalistic sentiment was the reason of the divide that open the door for crusades.
 
But it is important to understand events correctly and read situations correctly. Allah Almighty have given all humans an excellent brain to use.

---- ----


@aziqbal
@PakFactor
Hi,

If Musharraf had said not---pakistan would not have existed as it does now.

If someone still does not understand how many of those in power are on US payroll then & now---then it is their in not comprehending the issue properly.

Pakistan's nucs were tactically neutered by the US long time ago---. They still are,
 
so what happened to Safavids ?

including Safavids , and Safavids were Turk ( Azerbaijan and Turkiye same nation )
still there are over 30 million Turks in Iran

Iran was ruled by the Turks between 960s and 1925
Ghaznavids
Seljuks
Ildenizis
Khwarazmshahs
Safavids
Afshar Dynasty
Qajar Dynasty

in 1925 British helped Reza Shah Pahlavi to destroy Turkic Qajar Dynasty in Iran
 
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
LOL... Europeans lost completely to Saladin and therefore would like to think their defeater is the most powerful. But Mongols calvaries were quick and their arrows were accurate. They learned to shoot their arrows from young ages on the galloping horses. Their tactics were learned from the most fearsome tacticians in the world -- wolves that threatened Northern and Western China at the time. Mongols also learned from Song troops some forms of firepowers. Against well-built cities with high and solid walls, Mongols were known to use bio-weapons. They casted dead horse carcasses that were contracted with viruses into the cities and sickened the defending soldiers and civilians. Mongol leaders since Ghenghis were great students of Chinese tacticians and strategicians from books like the Art of War. Mongols only learned whatever that helped them win the battles like engineering, weapon makings, tactics, logistics, but ignored other facets of Chinese civilization like art, music, etc. Mongols' arrows were the most advanced at the time not because of their distance but their accuracy from galloping horses. Their calvaries mastered the tactics Sun Tzu left behind -- Be Water, and their tactics could be very cruel. They could let their own soldiers fought for hours while waiting for the enemies to get tired and their calvaries with fresh legs could roam in and crash the enemies.
 
Mongols only learned whatever that helped them win the battles like engineering, weapon makings, tactics, logistics, but ignored other facets of Chinese civilization like art, music, etc.
Well, this is typical barbarian behavior.

We can still see political fractions that exhibit a similar approach in Turkiye today.

"We only need technology, and it is only acceptable if it is weapon technology!" LOL
 
Well, this is typical barbarian behavior.

We can still see political fractions that exhibit a similar approach in Turkiye today.

"We only need technology, and it is only acceptable if it is weapon technology!" LOL
The early tribal system of the Mongols were inherited from the Xiongnu, a Steppe group of tribes that threatened China for 300 years. After the Han (under Hanwu emperor) crashed the Xiongnu using Genering Huo Qubing's calvaries, the remaining Xiongnu escaped and settled down in what today known as Turkey. The Xiongnu's tribal system formed the early Mongol tribal system until Ghenghis changed it to favor warriors. Basically, that's militarization of the society's resources for wars. The Mongols adopted the Chinese political system on top of their tribal systems as they defeated the Han-influenced Jin, which defeated and succeeded another larger Han-influenced empire Liao. Mongols used the Chinese political system to help them rule vast lands as the tribal system of using relatives and friends can't help them govern lands far beyond their borders. But militarily the Mongols are still tribal in structure.

So I don't think Saladin could fight the Mongols. Saladin is quick to the European's heavy armies but slow to the Mongols' calvaries.
 
So I don't think Saladin could fight the Mongols. Saladin is quick to the European's heavy armies but slow to the Mongols' calvaries.
I don't think either. But I don't think it's because of speed.

The Mongols were very very quickly assimilated the resources in the hostile lands for themselves, while at the same time applying the 'scorched earth' tactic against their native enemies. Like locust!

Even today, there is no army that can implement this tactic as effectively as they do.
 

Back
Top Bottom