Salahadin's army

[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.

[Aqtai]

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.

[M.carter]

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!

[Aqtai]

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.

[M.carter]

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.

[Rivkin]

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]

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.

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).