ArabianEmpires&Caliphates
SENIOR MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/squardonleader.jpg)
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,377
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Honorable Arab Empire & Caliphates
Ottomans despite being Hanafi Sunni Muslims are not and were never “Arabised” by any stretch of the imagination. Just look at their language, dress habits and culture in general.
As far as region of modern-day Saudi Arabia is concerned, it had been subdivided into 4 distinct regions since ancient times; Hejaz on the Western shore, Nejd in the Middle and “Al-Bahrain” on the East (which included Qatar & Bahraini Islands) with a vast ‘Rub al Khali’ or the empty quarter in the South.
Arguably, except for a brief period in the early 19th century when it was occupied by the Mohammad Ali Pasha of Egypt; Nejd plateau in central Arabia has been largely independent since the decline of Abbasside rule around 10th century. However, Hejaz, as well as the AG coastal region, was under the Ottoman. Ottoman took control of Iraq and Eastern Arabia after defeating the Safavids of Iran during the 1532-1555 Ottoman –Safavi wars.
To the best of my knowledge, Ottomans had 3 Vilayats (Provinces) in the Arabian Peninsula for about 400 years. These were Vilayet of Hejaz, Vilayet of Yemen and Vilayet of Basra. However, if we are talking about a conquest by a non-Muslim European nation, then I agree with you.
Not sure if serious or joking.
Sure, the same Ottomans whose entire bureaucracy was copied and stolen from past Arab Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid), whose system was Arab in nature (Caliphate), whose titles were Arab (Caliph, Sultan), whose language was an Arabic dialect (Ottoman language was basically an Arabic dialect - to this day Turkish has more Arabic loanwords than any other foreign language and that despite the reforms 100 years ago that erased old Anatolian Muslim culture by large), the alphabet was Arabic, most of the land was Arab, population, huge influence on dress, culture, cuisine, music, poetry, architecture etc.
It is like claiming that water is not wet.
KSA is made up of many more historical regions. Al-Bahrain translates to Eastern Arabia which stretches from Southern Iraq to Eastern Oman in Sur.
That occupation was never a full occupation and lasted mere months. Proved unsuccessful.
Ottomans controlled less than 10% of modern-day Eastern Province of KSA and once again it was very short-lived and local rulers ruled.
Similarly in Hijaz. Sharifs of Makkah (second most important person after the Sultan/Caliph in Istanbul) was ruling and Ottoman presence (the "Ottomans were local Hijazi Arabs mostly) were limited to military garrisons in the cities.
That is why you cannot mention a single Arab-Turkish war other than the Arab revolt and successful Yemeni victories against the Ottomans. The Ottoman elite in Istanbul were more busy focusing on tiny Balkan that was more proximate to Istanbul. The few regions of the Arab world where the Ottomans were accepted allied with the Ottomans, hence why the local rulers remained in place and hence why you had no Arab-Ottoman wars (most Ottomans were Arabs to begin with) other than those I just mentioned and some sporadic revolts in modern-day Palestine where local rulers took power from other Arab rivals, mostly in modern-day Syria, Mount Lebanon (Lebanon) and Southern Syria.
Mongols were defeated by the Mamluks.
Qutuz and Baybars were Kipchak Turks not Arabs.
I do agree Saladin was more of an Arab than a Kurd.
Mamluks were a tiny minority limited to Cairo. All the fighting was done by the average Arab. Ever read the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and other historians (Arab and non-Arab) from that era? 99,9% of the people were Arab. The original Mamluks were not Turks either by originally pagan Caucasians brought to/bought by Arabs in Cairo as slaves/mercenaries who later took power after rebelling against their overlords. The Ottomans copied that system with the janissaries who were a power of their own for a long time until their time ended as well.
And let us be honest, those Kipchak Turks (few Mamluk dynasties) have little to nothing to do with Anatolians or modern-day Turkish people.
It's ridiculous to claim that Arabs somehow disappeared, lol. In fact the Mongols did 100 times more damage to Central Asia, South Asia and Iran than any Arab region with the exception of Baghdad which was ravaged due to the Abbasids (back then) losing their old power and mostly focusing on science, theology rather than military power as in the old days and the Abbasid Caliphate being ruled by local rulers (each province) and the capital (Baghdad) no longer having the power it once had.
In any case the Mongols would never have been able to conquer Arabia due to geography, their small numbers (Arabs far outnumbered them) and the fact that much of Arabia was still inhabited by warlike nomads who mastered the same tactics the Mongols did and who would have defeated them in their own home turf.
Last edited: