Salahadin's army

[Rivkin]

As most of you probably aware in the thread "Movies ..." we have a heated discussion with Mr.Carter on who were the soldiers of Saladin - I stand behind the theory that they were turkish tribesman (seljuks and others), plus black and white mamluks, Mr.Carter stands behind the theory that they were arabs.

I think it's better to discuss this issue separately (it's not exactly movie related):
To bring some legitimacy to my point I have to cite:

To prove my point that the army at the time of Saladin was composed of turkish tribes and mamlukes, I can cite:

Ambroise on the Saladin's siege of Acre:
"With numberless rich pennons streaming
And flags and banners of fair seeming
Then thirty thousand Turkish troops
And more, ranged in well ordered groups,
........."

French Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae:
" the Templars in the rear came under a crushing Turkish attack"
Old French Continuation of William of Tyre (Lyon Eracles version) (first half of XIII century account on the battle of Hattin:
"Saladin asked, 'Prince Reynald, by your law, if you held me in your prison as I now hold you in mine, what would you do to me?' He replied, 'So help me God, I would cut off your head.' Saladin was greatly enraged at this most insolent reply and said, 'Pig, you are my prisoner and yet you answer me so arrogantly.' He took a sword in his hand and thrust it right through his body. The Mamluks who were standing nearby rushed at him and cut off his head. Saladin took some of his blood and sprinkled it on his own head in recognition that he had taken vengeance"

Encarta Encyclopedia on Africa:
"In 1171 a Kurdish military officer named Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, also known as Saladin, seized the Egyptian throne and founded the Ayyubid dynasty. His action was prompted by the threat to Egypt posed by Christian Crusaders from Western Europe who had seized control of much of Palestine (see Crusades). Saladin reformed the army, imported more Mamluks, and placed the land estates and the collection of taxes in the hands of successful Mamluk officers."

The siege of Acre according to Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, ed. William Stubbs, :

" Acre was hemmed in on all sides, besieged by an infinite multitude of people, people from every Christian nation under heaven, people chosen from all the Christians, people well fitted for war and unremitting labor. The people had now besieged Acre for a very long time and they had been troubled by many afflictions, by constant labors, by shortages of food, and by many adversities, as has in part been pointed out above.

There appeared beyond them, furthermore, an innumerable army of Turks, who covered the mountains and valleys, bills, and plains. Here and there they fixed their tents, made of various patterns of flowing colors."

From De Expugatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum:
The Capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, 1187:

"The Turks unceasingly hurled rocks forcefully against the ramparts."

From William of Tyre:
Latin Disarray - Politics in the Latin Kingdom, 1150-1185:

"Shirkuh was succeeded by Saladin, the son of his brother, Najm-ad-Din. Saladin was a man of keen intelligence. He was vigorous in war and unusually generous. The first sign of the character of his rule came when he visited his lord, the Caliph, to Pay him the customary homage. It is said that when he entered he knocked the Caliph to the ground with a stick that he held in his hand and killed him. [note: William's account of the Caliph's death is not supported by other sources and it would appear that the Caliph Adid died a natural death on September 13, 1171, bringing the Fatimid caliphate to an end in 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. He therefore anticipated the Caliph's design and inflicted upon the unsuspecting Caliph the death which, it was said, the latter intended for him."

J. J. Saunders. A History of Medieval Islam.:

" The Fatimid regime had, in fact made a surprising recovery from what had seemed certain ruin. A dreadful six years' famine had paralysed Egypt from 1067 to 1072; the civil government virtually broke down; thousands fled from the country, and the misery of those who remained was heightened by the brutal lawlessness of the Turkish, Berber and Sudanese slave soldiery who killed and robbed in quest of food and plunder. The Fatimid Empire all but vanished."


Bernard Lewis. Race and Slavery in the Middle East:
"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. In the scale of this recruitment, however, and the preponderant role acquired by these recruits in the imperial and eventually metropolitan forces, Muslim rulers went far beyond any precedent. 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."

"In Egypt, the manpower resources of Nubia were too good to neglect, and the traffic down the Nile continued to provide slaves for military as well as other purposes. Black soldiers served the various rulers of medieval Egypt, and under the Fatimid caliphs of Cairo black regiments, known as 'Abid al-Shira', "the slaves by purchase," formed an important part of the military establishment. They were particularly prominent in the mid-eleventh century, during the reign of al-Mustansir, when for a while the real ruler of Egypt was the caliph's mother, a Sudanese slave woman of remarkable strength of character. There were frequent clashes between black regiments and those of other races and occasional friction with the civil population. One such inci- dent occurred in 1021, when the Caliph al-Hakim sent his black troops against the people of Fustat (old Cairo), and the white troops joined forces to defend them. A contemporary chronicler of these events describes an orgy of burning, plunder, and rape. In 1062 and again in 1067 the black troops were defeated by their white colleagues in pitched battles and driven out of Cairo to Upper Egypt. Later they returned, and played a role of some importance under the last Fatimid caliphs.

With the fall of the Fatimids, the black troops again paid the price of their loyalty. Among the most faithful supporters of the Fatimid Caliphate, they were also among the last to resist its overthrow by Saladin, ostensibly the caliph's vizier but in fact the new master of Egypt. By the time of the last Fatimid caliph, al-'Adid, the blacks had achieved a position of power. The black eunuchs wielded great influence in the palace; the black troops formed a major element in the Fatimid army. It was natural that they should resist the vizier's encroachments. In 1169 Saladin learned of a plot by the caliph's chief black eunuch to remove him, allegedly in collusion with the Crusaders in Palestine. Saladin acted swiftly; the offender was seized and decapitated and replaced in his office by a white eunuch. The other black eunuchs of the caliph's palace were also dismissed. The black troops in Cairo were infuriated by this summary execution of one whom they regarded as their spokesman and defender. 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."

[Rivkin]

I must add that nowhere I've seen any references to Saladin's arab soldiers, there are dozens more medieval and modern texts I can cite, and they all speak of seljuks, turks, mamluks, blacks, but not arabs (even through no one argues agains the existance of powerful arab Caliphs and commanders of that time).

I have also to note that I excluded works of caucasian nationalists such as Nasidze, due to some noticable "pro-caucasian" bias in them. I also have to note that a lot of powerful arab historians seem to diverge in their opinions from the mainstream when it comes to certain "issues", such as the existance of pre-roman judea or the degree of islamization and arabization of islamic armies of 10-19th centuries. I don't want to comment on who is right in this discussion, but merely trying to portray the current state of historical affairs.

To what all this discussion goes ? It goes to what kind of weapons were used by islamic armies in Egypt/Palestine/Syria in the time of Saladin - turkish arms seem to be somewhat appropriate to be used by these armies.

On the depictions of islamic armies of XII-XIII century (which I hope I will be able to post soon) I've seen both straight and curved swords.

I really hope my ignorant verses will be corrected by more knowladgable forum members.

[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.

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

[Rivkin]

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 ?

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 ?

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]

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.

[Aqtai]

I didn't know this thread had been started, otherwise i would have posted here rather than the movie thread.

Any way here's my two cents worth, or should that be two fils?

Many Islamic states used slave warriors or mamluks from very early on. The 'Abbassid Khalifas were using Turkish mamluks in the 9th century, Ahmad ibn Tulun was himself the son of a Turkish mamluk. Nur-ed-din Mahmud's father Emad-ed-din zenki was originally a mamluk in the Seljuq army. However these mamluks were usually relatively few in number and acted as a body guard to the ruler. The exception was the Fatimids who had large numbers of Nubian slave infantrymen and the later Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. Salaheddin had a bodyguard of several hundred mamluks called the halaqa, i.e. ring.

The rest of Salaheddin's army was a mixture. he disbanded most of the old Fatimid army after he seized power in Egypt because their loyalty to him was suspect. His light cavalry would have been made of up Turcoman horse-archers who had settled in Syria and Northern Iraq. His heavy cavalry was made up of Kurds, free Turks who had settled in the cities of syria and Northern Iraq for one or two generations, sons of mamluks and a small number of Arabs from the bedouin tribes of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. he would have had some Arab heavy infantry from the Syrian cities as well as bedouin infantry.

Now the days when I was fascinated with Islamic history are long behind me so I can't produce quotes, and all my books are still at my parents house, i can't see my wife agreeing to me filling our house with dusty old books on Islamic history.

However I do remember this, Turks dominated later Islamic armies because they were seen as a loyal, martial and warlike people, more so than the Arabs. the rulers of later Islamic states like Nur-ed-din Mahmud and the Seljuqs were also Turkish. They trusted their fellow Turks more than the Arabs. Salaheddin started his career as an officer in Nur-ed-Din's army.

Settled Arabs in the cities of Egypt and Syria acted as an intellegensia, they made up the civil service, the judiciary and of course the imams, and preachers were all Arab. The bedouins were of course fine infanry and cavalry but they were rightly seen as unreliable as their primary loyalty was always to their clan and tribe, not to Turkish and Kurdish rulers who they viewed as usurpers.

There were of course exceptions to this, the tiny Emirate of Shayzar, which is where Usama ibn Munqidh was from had a mainly Arab 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 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).

[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]

At last, I've got to see my books
.
For example on Caliph al-Mamun's (786-833) army it's said:

"He bought numerous turks and paid high prices for them. He sometimes paid as much as 200,000 dirhams for one Mamluk.....He ousted Arabs, the prophet's people, with whom god established the muslim religion from the diwan and stopped their pay. And their pay was stopped and ever since they have noe been paid. He introduced Turks in their stead and he took off the dress of the arabs and their attire and put on the dress of ajam, against whom god sent his prohet Mohammed in order to kill them and fight them. Arab rule ceased to exist with him and by means of him. Since his time and his reing the Turks.... became the rulers..."

Al-Maqrizi "Kitab al-Niza wal Takhasum

There are dozens of other citations, all coming to one - since 9th century the armies of Caliphs were filled with mamluks, in particular - turkish mamluks.