![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
|
![]() Quote:
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:
That's what the western historical science thinks today (the quotes above). |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|