Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12th May 2005, 10:31 PM   #1
M.carter
Member
 
M.carter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 176
Default

Yes but you must remember that most of the medieval european historians generalized the whole middle east under the term 'Turks', as most crusades that were launched, encountered turkish lands and armies at first.

In a documentary I saw in discovery channel a few years ago (probably 'battlefield') the episode was about hattin. The narrator said that before besiegin Tiberias, Saladin knew that he was going to draw the cusaders into open battle, and he asked his advisors to the best horse-archers around. They advised him to go with the bain-tayy tribe. When he sent his emmisarries, the bani-tayy demonstrated their horsemanship by hunting rabbits on horseback with bows/arrows! Saladins emmisarries paid their sheik five hundred gold dinars to reqruit almost three thousand of these horsemen for a few months, until the sultan releases them from his service. Now these were certainly not just hunters, but feirce warriors, as the bani-tayy was a beduoin tribe.


As I said, yes there were mamluks in Saladin's army, but they were only his personal bodyguard, probably numbering no more than 500 cavaliers. Mamluks had only appeared in the Islamic world, the policy of turkish slave warriors was only started by Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun, and was stopped after his death, but was one of the important factors of the decline of Abbasid power in the region. It was re-initiated again in the time of Nur-ed-din.

Speaking of martial races, you cannot deny that arabs werent martial, during the early Ummayad period, they ALONE and I repeat, ALONE forged the worlds second largest empire in the entire history of mankind, from Spain to the borders of western China, encountering berber, nubian, sudanese, spanish, probably turkish (tranxoanian campaigns), tartars, Sindi's, Indians, and even Chinese (battle of Talas river) resistance or armies on the way. No Turks, Persians, Berbers or any other race was involved in that expansion period. Its hard to say that armies such as these who destroyed any resistance in their way werent made up of a warrior class.

Why are u seeing this discussion as heated? we are only having a peaceful debate here

Last edited by M.carter; 12th May 2005 at 10:47 PM.
M.carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:06 PM   #2
Rivkin
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
Yes but you must remember that most of the medieval european historians generalized the whole middle east under the term 'Turks',
as most crusades that were launched, encountered turkish lands and armies at first.
It's not exactly true. For example "The Siege and Capture of Antioch" 1097-1098 by Raymond d'Aguiliers:
"After Bohemund had besieged a certain village, be heard some of his peasants suddenly fleeing and shouting, and when he had sent knights to meet them, they saw an army of Turks and Arabs close at hand."

The quote from the source mentioned in the first post (cocnerning Saladin's conquest of Egypt):
"He then put all of the Caliph's children to the sword, so that he might be subject to no superior but might rule as both caliph and sultan. He was afraid, since the Turks were hated by the people, that sometime when he went to visit the Caliph, the Caliph might order his throat to be slit."

Arab armies are mentioned a lot when it comes to the Crusades, and often clearly distinguished from Turks. I did not however see anything mentioning arabs as one of the main sources for Saladin's army (to be precise - never seen anything about arab units in Saladin's army).
Moreover Saladin and his people (turks) clearly mentioned separately from the local people who "hate" them.

We can assume that all medieval european sources, and all modern western authors are making a mistake when they identify at least significant parts of Saladin's army as turks, or when they talk about mass introduction of mamluks into pre-Saladin Egypt (like Bernard Lewis above) or about Saladin's mamluks.

They can all be confused concerning the distinction in between of turks and arabs. But is it really likely ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
As I said, yes there were mamluks in Saladin's army, but they were only his personal bodyguard, probably numbering no more than 500 cavaliers. Mamluks had only appeared in the Islamic world, the policy of turkish slave warriors was only started by Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun, and was stopped after his death,
So all of those sources I've cited about black and white mamluks in Egypt, like Sanders, Lewis, and the sources they cite - do they all lie ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
Speaking of martial races, you cannot deny that arabs werent martial, during the early Ummayad period, they ALONE and I repeat, ALONE forged the
If you mean the quote from Lewis:
"In recruiting barbarians from the "martial races" beyond the frontiers into their imperial armies, the Arabs were doing what the Romans and the Chinese had done centuries before them. "

then - do you think by "martial" races beyounf the frontiers Lewis meant arabs ? How they happened to be beyound the frontiers of their own empire ? Why he needs to specially call them "martial races" beyound the frontiers, especially in the paragraph dealing with alans and other tribes ?

Concerning the arab martial race - it's a different topic. I think we have enough problems dealing with the nationality of Saladin's warriors.
Rivkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:17 PM   #3
M.carter
Member
 
M.carter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 176
Default

I do certainly believe that there were some turkish elements in saladin's army, but regarding the mamluks, I still stand to my point that these were only a few, and were employed as Saladin's personal guard. I mean, logically, why would Saladin, in Egypt or southern Syria, go all the way to far eastern anatolia to recruit soldiers, when he certainly had a lot of them in the lands he was in, the caliph certainly could send him some troops. Yes, there was certainly turkish soldiers in saladins army other than mamluks, I believe mainly baltajis, but most of it i believe would be consisted of arabs. Saying that his armies were only made up of turks sounds very illogical.
M.carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:28 PM   #4
Aqtai
Member
 
Aqtai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Merseyside, UK
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
I do certainly believe that there were some turkish elements in saladin's army, but regarding the mamluks, I still stand to my point that these were only a few, and were employed as Saladin's personal guard. I mean, logically, why would Saladin, in Egypt or southern Syria, go all the way to far eastern anatolia to recruit soldiers, when he certainly had a lot of them in the lands he was in, the caliph certainly could send him some troops. Yes, there was certainly turkish soldiers in saladins army other than mamluks, I believe mainly baltajis, but most of it i believe would be consisted of arabs. Saying that his armies were only made up of turks sounds very illogical.
I don't think anyone is saying that Salaheddin's army was exclusively Turkish, but Turks would have been in the majority. In the 12th century there were Turks settled in Syria and Iraq. Futhermore he wouldn't have needed to go to eastern Anatolia to purchase Turkish slaves, they were easily available in the slave markets of Cairo, Damascus and Aleppo.

Finally were would Salaheddin have got all these Arab soldiers from? A 12th century Muslim ruler would not have considered the urban population of Cairo or Damascus or the fellahin of the countryside soldierly material. These cities did have a military class of Turkish and Kurdish origin whose family business had been soldiering for several generations. Salaheddin himself was one of these. His father Ayyub, his uncle Shirkuh, his brothers Abu-bakr and Turan-Shah were all soldiers. If Salaheddin had not become Sultan, doubtless his children would also have soldiers.
Aqtai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:39 PM   #5
M.carter
Member
 
M.carter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqtai
Finally were would Salaheddin have got all these Arab soldiers from? A 12th century Muslim ruler would not have considered the urban population of Cairo or Damascus or the fellahin of the countryside soldierly material. These cities did have a military class of Turkish and Kurdish origin whose family business had been soldiering for several generations. Salaheddin himself was one of these. His father Ayyub, his uncle Shirkuh, his brothers Abu-bakr and Turan-Shah were all soldiers. If Salaheddin had not become Sultan, doubtless his children would also have soldiers.
Most of the Ummayads armies were from syria, since Muawiya's time. All the troops that beseiged constantinople in Muawiya's reign were from damascus. There certainly were some bedouin tribes left to make up an army. Most of the ummayad expansion armies came from the yemeni arabs, the qaysiya, and these tribes also were stationed in the hammad (syrian desert) and in large numbers during saladin's time, waiting to be recruited for another great fight!
M.carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:51 PM   #6
Aqtai
Member
 
Aqtai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Merseyside, UK
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
Most of the Ummayads armies were from syria, since Muawiya's time. All the troops that beseiged constantinople in Muawiya's reign were from damascus. There certainly were some bedouin tribes left to make up an army. Most of the ummayad expansion armies came from the yemeni arabs, the qaysiya, and these tribes also were stationed in the hammad (syrian desert) and in large numbers during saladin's time, waiting to be recruited for another great fight!
Muawiyya was an Arab, I have no doubt that other Arabs would have been happy to follow him, Salaheddin was not an Arab. The military displacement of Arabs however started in the Abbassid period when the Abbassids recruited first Khurasanis, then Daylamis and Turkish mamluks into their armies.

With regards to the bedouins, there were bedouins in Salaheddin's Army, and their numbers swelled when a campaign was on. But they were never the core of his standing army, their first loyalty was always to their tribes. They would not have wanted to live permanently in damascus (when not on campaign) having to take orders from someone who was not of their tribe or clan.
Aqtai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:59 PM   #7
M.carter
Member
 
M.carter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqtai
Muawiyya was an Arab, I have no doubt that other Arabs would have been happy to follow him, Salaheddin was not an Arab. The military displacement of Arabs however started in the Abbassid period when the Abbassids recruited first Khurasanis, then Daylamis and Turkish mamluks into their armies.

With regards to the bedouins, there were bedouins in Salaheddin's Army, and their numbers swelled when a campaign was on. But they were never the core of his standing army, their first loyalty was always to their tribes. They would not have wanted to live permanently in damascus (when not on campaign) having to take orders from someone who was not of their tribe or clan.
I fully agree with what you are saying here.
M.carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2005, 12:26 AM   #8
Rivkin
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqtai
I don't think anyone is saying that Salaheddin's army was exclusively Turkish, but Turks would have been in the majority. In the 12th century there were Turks settled in Syria and Iraq. Futhermore he wouldn't have needed to go to eastern Anatolia to purchase Turkish slaves, they were easily available in the slave markets of Cairo, Damascus and Aleppo.

Finally were would Salaheddin have got all these Arab soldiers from? A 12th century Muslim ruler would not have considered the urban population of Cairo or Damascus or the fellahin of the countryside soldierly material. These cities did have a military class of Turkish and Kurdish origin whose family business had been soldiering for several generations. Salaheddin himself was one of these. His father Ayyub, his uncle Shirkuh, his brothers Abu-bakr and Turan-Shah were all soldiers. If Salaheddin had not become Sultan, doubtless his children would also have soldiers.
We are in a complete agreement. The same picture is true for almost the entire muslim world - even during the wars in Georgia, despite the fact that Tbilisi's Caliphat was mostly populated by arabs, all those 250-500,000 muslim armies that fought there consisted mostly of turks.
Rivkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2005, 12:04 AM   #9
Rivkin
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
I do certainly believe that there were some turkish elements in saladin's army, but regarding the mamluks, I still stand to my point that these were only a few, and were employed as Saladin's personal guard. I mean, logically, why would Saladin, in Egypt or southern Syria, go all the way to far eastern anatolia to recruit soldiers, when he certainly had a lot of them in the lands he was in, the caliph certainly could send him some troops..
I re-quote Bernard Lewis " As early as 766 a Christian clergyman writing in Syriac spoke of the "locust swarm" of unconverted barbarians -- Sindhis, Alans, Khazars, Turks, and others -- who served in the caliph's army."

On Caliph's black army vs. Saladin:
"Moved, according to a chronicler, by "racial solidarity" (jinsiyya), they prepared for battle. In two hot August days, an estimated fifty thousand blacks fought against Saladin's army in the area between the two palaces, of the caliph and the vizier."

"Ahmad b. Tulun (d. 884), the first independent ruler of Muslim Egypt, relied very heavily on black slaves, probably Nubians, for his armed forces; at his death he is said to have left, among other possessions, twenty-four thousand white mamluks and forty-five thousand blacks. "

Caliph would gladly give Saladin "arab units". Unfortunately at this point for centuries already (776 and 884) the army of Egypt consisted at least to the great extent from black and white mamluks.
Unfortunately Saladin pervceived Caliph's army (especially his 50,000 black mamluks, truly loyal to Caliph) as an obstacle in front of Saladin's ascention. He killed them.

Why they used turkomans and later caucasians instead of arabs ? Ibn-Khaldan on a different ocasion talks about islamic states succumbing to luxury and decadence. Again, I would recommend Bernard Lewis "Race and Slavery in the Middle East" - he gives all the reasons - turks and nubian mamluks were loyal to their employer, they were readily available in large numbers, qualified commanders and trainers were also readily available among turks.

One should also mention that since 11th century every year lords from caucasus had to supply hundreds of mamluk-able slave boys to seljuks (mostly shipped to Mosul and Damascus). These were very cheap soldiers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
Yes, there was certainly turkish soldiers in saladins army other than mamluks, I believe mainly baltajis, but most of it i believe would be consisted of arabs. Saying that his armies were only made up of turks sounds very illogical.
There were some arabs, and even some caucasians (however the latter ones really play important role only since 1250). There were also black nubian mamluks and "other" mamluks. But most of the army were turks and turkish mamluks. Seljuks, kipchaks etc. etc.
That's what the western historical science thinks today (the quotes above).
Rivkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2005, 11:09 PM   #10
Rivkin
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.carter
In a documentary I saw in discovery channel a few years ago (probably 'battlefield') the episode was about hattin. The narrator said that before besiegin Tiberias, Saladin knew that he was going to draw the cusaders into open battle, and he asked his advisors to the best horse-archers around. They advised him to go with the bain-tayy tribe. When he sent his emmisarries, the bani-tayy demonstrated their horsemanship by hunting rabbits on horseback with bows/arrows! Saladins emmisarries paid their sheik five hundred gold dinars to reqruit almost three thousand of these horsemen for a few months, until the sultan releases them from his service. Now these were certainly not just hunters, but feirce warriors, as the bani-tayy was a beduoin tribe.
Excellent ! Now we know about 1000 bedoin arabs being employed by Saladin. I suspected that there should've been some arab units in his army, and was quite flustrated by the absence of any mentioning of them in the sources I've seen. Now we have to deal with the rest of the army.
Rivkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.