Salahadin's army

M.carter · 12th May 2005, 10:31 PM

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

12th May 2005, 10:31 PM	#3
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	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.