The Mongol Destruction of Baghdad

[Corruptistan]

What about Turks, they were Muslims but just as cruel

Well, you can look at the scientific contribution of the Ottomans to get an idea. A dynasty that dominated much of the Middle East for 400 years from 1517 until the start of WW1. Ironically at that very same time the same West had their renaissance, scientific progress, colonization of the "new world", everything that solidified their current world dominance. This would not have happened in such a fashion without the decline of the Muslim world after 1258.

The Ottomans for instance banned printing condemning the Muslim masses to permanent ignorance by large.

Also ironically the European renaissance was heavily influenced by Arab/Muslim scientific contributions during the Islamic Golden Age. From Al-Andalus to Baghdad to Samarkand.

The Arabs and the Italian Renaissance​

The Arabs and the Italian Renaissance

The word Renaissance is taken in the West to mean the Italian Renaissance, the rebirth of classical European culture after a long period dominated by the Christian Church. A church that, in some significant respects, tried to set aside the pagan, non-Christian,...

link.springer.com

The Arab Influence on the Italian Renaissance

https://iiit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/books-in-brief_studies_in_islamic_civilizations.pdf

How Muslims contributed to European Renaissance

West was able to undergo many geographical discoveries building on Muslim scholarship

gulfnews.com

Or the Arab contribution to the transformation of agriculture in Europe with corresponded with the rise of European populations.

Arab Agricultural Revolution: The Transformation In Agriculture​

Arab Agricultural Revolution: The Transformation In Agriculture

The Arab Agricultural Revolution was the transformation in agriculture from the 8th to the 13th century in the Islamic region of the Old World. The agronomic li

cropforlife.com

Arab Agricultural Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway we cannot generalize, everyone had their bad contributions to humanity (looking at it in hindsight) but the Mongols were in a league of their own.

I mean what did they even leave in terms of influence, architecture, culture, language, cuisine etc.? Everywhere where they settled they became a part of the society. Whether Arabized, Persianized, "Indianized" (MUghals) (in lack of better words), Russified etc.

Are there even any ancient artefacts in Mongolia proper? I have never heard about that. Not even a single remnant or monument or grave of their greatest ruler Genghis Khan.

I always say about the Mongols that they came abruptly with unseen brutality and left as quickly without much to show for other than their brutality and destruction that they left behind.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Well, you can look at the scientific contribution of the Ottomans to get an idea. A dynasty that dominated much of the Middle East for 400 years from 1517 until the start of WW1. Ironically at that very same time the same West had their renaissance, scientific progress, colonization of the "new world", everything that solidified their current world dominance. This would not have happened in such a fashion without the decline of the Muslim world after 1258.

The Ottomans for instance banned printing condemning the Muslim masses to permanent ignorance by large.

Also ironically the European renaissance was heavily influenced by Arab/Muslim scientific contributions during the Islamic Golden Age. From Al-Andalus to Baghdad to Samarkand.

The Arabs and the Italian Renaissance​

The Arabs and the Italian Renaissance

The word Renaissance is taken in the West to mean the Italian Renaissance, the rebirth of classical European culture after a long period dominated by the Christian Church. A church that, in some significant respects, tried to set aside the pagan, non-Christian,...

link.springer.com

The Arab Influence on the Italian Renaissance

https://iiit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/books-in-brief_studies_in_islamic_civilizations.pdf

How Muslims contributed to European Renaissance

West was able to undergo many geographical discoveries building on Muslim scholarship

gulfnews.com

Or the Arab contribution to the transformation of agriculture in Europe with corresponded with the rise of European populations.

Arab Agricultural Revolution: The Transformation In Agriculture​

Arab Agricultural Revolution: The Transformation In Agriculture

The Arab Agricultural Revolution was the transformation in agriculture from the 8th to the 13th century in the Islamic region of the Old World. The agronomic li

cropforlife.com

Arab Agricultural Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway we cannot generalize, everyone had their bad contributions to humanity (looking at it in hindsight) but the Mongols were in a league of their own.

I mean what did they even leave in terms of influence, architecture, culture, language, cuisine etc.? Everywhere where they settled they became a part of the society. Whether Arabized, Persianized, "Indianized" (MUghals) (in lack of better words), Russified etc.

Are there even any ancient artefacts in Mongolia proper? I have never heard about that. Not even a single remnant or monument or grave of their greatest ruler Genghis Khan.

I always say about the Mongols that they came abruptly with unseen brutality and left as quickly without much to show for other than their brutality and destruction that they left behind.

I was talking about like the real Turks, the one from CA not ottomans,.they were white and civillized just followed a Turkic culture I think

 

[merzifonlu]

What about Turks, they were Muslims but just as cruel

The Mongols also inflicted great damage on the Turks in Anatolia. And twice, the first was during the Anatolian Seljuk period, and the second by Timur, in Ottoman period.

In summary, while the Mongols were a threat to everyone, the Turks were only a threat to non-Muslims.

 

[Corruptistan]

I was talking about like the real Turks, the one from CA not ottomans,.they were white and civillized just followed a Turkic culture I think

Ottomans were proper Central Asian Turks (Oghuz Turks). Later they began intermarrying with mainly Circassians, Greeks/people from the Balkans, some Slavic slaves, a few Arabs etc.

Where do you think that tradition of Ottoman brothers killing each other came from and why do you think that there are hardly any male Ottoman descendants left despite them ruling for so long?

It is because they killed each other in order to get power. This is a Turkic/Mongol "tradition" so to speak. You should read up on it, many Pakistanis have a deluded view of the Ottomans due to Ertugrul.

Also Ottoman scientific contribution was a joke compared to the Arabs or Persians. it's not even funny. As for civilized, it depends who you ask and which part of Ottoman history. Until the late 1600's, the Ottomans were a formidable power militarily but afterwards they began their long decline.

Anyway Ottomans were in many ways a Arabized and Persianized entity with heavy Byzantine influnece in for instance architecture. Those Ottoman mosques for instance are Byzantine in origin. Ottoman Turkish for instance was more Arabic than Turkish which is why Arabs of today can understand more of it than Turks. Most of the Ottoman population was Arab too. Much of Ottoman cuisine was Arab. After 1517, where the Ottomans reached the Middle East proper, they got access to a huge amount of new spices, dishes etc. Which is why Turkish cuisine is so rich in its many influences. Local Anatolian influences, Greek, Arab, Turkic, Persian etc.

The Ottomans were a fusion of many cultures just like modern-day Turkey is (Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Circassians, people originally from the Balkans, Greeks etc.)

But Ottomans and Mongols should not be mentioned in the same sentence. Mongols left nothing worth to marvel at in terms of legacy other than military conquest and brutality to put it harshly.

 

[MastanKhan]

not only Egypt but also Iran

Iran was ruled by the Turks between 960s and 1925

Hi,

Pakistanis are so ignorant about Islamic history---. They are clueless about the rule and influence of the turks in the islamic world---.

Even though most of the muslim rulers in india had Turkic origins.

 

[Corruptistan]

I wonder how the Mongols would have performed against Bedouin (not the sedentary or semi-sedentary kind but the fully nomadic one) cavalry in the Middle East at the time? I honestly don't think that they would have been able to defeat them, unless in their own home turf of geography (Central Asian steppes and deserts) and vice versa, but it is certainly an interesting "what if scenario".

Bhai,just for your information:

View attachment 899065


View attachment 899067


View attachment 899074


View attachment 899076

I rest my case. Now it makes sense why he shamelessly and foolishly claims that Arabs had no role in those military victories against Mongols despite those battles taking place on Arab lands and most of the armies (regular soldiers) being local Arabs. Also completely baffling to talk about some Turkic Kipchak rule of Egypt, Syria, Hejaz etc. being an example of "Arabs being slaves" when those same Mamluks were literally Arabized and patrons of Arabic culture on every front, be it architecture, culture, language, customs, titles (Sultan is an Arabic title not an Turkic one last time I saw), religion etc.

Also Mamluk literally means "one who is owned". They were nomadic Kipchak and other Turkic soldiers (mostly but not only) who were taken as war bounty by the Arab rulers and later raised in elite military regiments. Later they took power on their own.

I think that Ottomans copied this "system" (in fact Romans and others used it too) in regards to their janissaries.

Also not to put a dagger in his heart, but those Kipchak Turks have little to do with modern-day Anatolians (Turkish people). In fact even the small Turkic ancestry of modern-day Turks is mostly Oghuz and not Kipchak Turkic

In fact those Mamluk Kipchaks (if not intermarried with Arabs) have more in common with modern-day Kazakhs and Tatars.

 

[merzifonlu]

As a footnote, there is no such thing as Byzantine. The name of that state is the Eastern Roman Empire. and shes people are Romans.

For this reason, the word "Greek" has two meanings in Turkish. One is Yunan, that is, Ionian, and the other is Rum, that is, Roman.

In a way that I do not fully understand why, those in Greece we call Yunan, those in Cyprus we call Rum.

 

[Corruptistan]

Hi,

Pakistanis are so ignorant about Islamic history---. They are clueless about the rule and influence of the turks in the islamic world---.

Even though most of the muslim rulers in india had Turkic origins.

Actually this is not true.

All the earliest Muslim rulers/dynasties in Pakistan proper, Southern India, Sri Lanka and elsewhere were either local or Arab in origin. Later came the Turkic (not Turkish) dynasties. One cannot ignore the Iranic ones either whether native (mostly Pashtun) or Central Asian Iranic in origin (Tajik).

Most of our Sufi saints were Arab and Persian in origin too. In fact the overwhelming part. I am talking about the foreigners here.

Mughals for instance were an Mongol dynasty (in origin) but later they intermarried with Turkic people in what is today Uzbekistan and Central Asia and later they became "Indianized" and due to their Muslim faith they became naturally Arabized and Persianized hence the use of Arabic and Farsi in their courts. This fusion of Arabic, Farsi, local Indo-Aryan languages (Sanskrit mostly) and Turkic linguistic influences mostly in terms of military vocabularly, gave rise to Urdu.

Ironically the Ghazvanids (the first Turkic Muslim dynasty that reached South Asia) was of Mamluk origin (slaves originally) and where Persianiate in culture mostly.

However yes, Turkic Muslim dynasties played an important role in solidifying Islam in South Asia but large areas of Pakistan proper were Muslim prior to Turkic rule. Many people somehow forget that often.

As a footnote, there is no such thing as Byzantine. The name of that state is the Eastern Roman Empire. and shes people are Romans.

For this reason, the word "Greek" has two meanings in Turkish. One is Yunan, that is, Ionian, and the other is Rum, that is, Roman.

In a way that I do not fully understand why, we call those in Greece we call Yunan, while those in Cyprus we call Rum.

Byzantine here does not necessarily mean Greek. It is just the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire (the same ones that founded the city of Istanbul). However the Byzantine Empire was dominated by Greek language and culture, including the architecture.

Which is why the Ottoman Sultans, when they conquered Constantinople (later Istanbul) began to call themselves as "Emperors of Rum" (Rum is the Arabic word for Rome).

 

[LeGenD]

@Khan2727

Genghis Khan is one of the greatest yet terrifying leaders to ever exist. He can be credited for uniting disparate tribes in his homeland and utilizing them for his cause and conquests, reshaping the course of history in the process.

Mongols in World History | Asia for Educators

afe.easia.columbia.edu

Mongols can be credited for teaching others about the art of warfare if not more.

But following link makes a good case for Mongolian Legacy and impact in broader terms:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/khan1/hd_khan1.htm

 

[Corruptistan]

@Khan2727

Genghis Khan is one of the greatest yet terrifying leaders to ever exist. He can be credited for uniting disparate tribes in his homeland and utilizing them for his cause and conquests, reshaping the course of history in the process.

Mongols in World History | Asia for Educators

afe.easia.columbia.edu

Mongols can be credited for teaching others about the art of warfare if not more.

But following link makes a good case for Mongolian Legacy and impact in broader terms:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/khan1/hd_khan1.htm

Nobody can deny the Mongol military legacy and heritage. However my posts/criticism was more aimed at how little the Mongols gave/left to the world other than just that. The ones that did where no longer Mongols proper but as I wrote fully "Arabized", "Persianized", "Indianized" etc. dynasties that had intermarried wtih locals and adopted local culture.

For instance despite the Mughals being a part of the Barlas Mongol clan (their dynasty), the Mughals had little to do with anything Mongol whether in origin (eventually) or anything else.

Bahadur Shah Zafar:

Supposed modern-day descendents of Mughals:

Destitute 'heir' of Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar demands ownership of New Delhi's Red Fort

“Can you imagine that the descendant of the emperors who built Taj Mahal now lives in desperate poverty?” asks Sultana Begum.

www.dawn.com

I mean, those are proper Biharis by large today.

Mongolian people:

I rest my case.

 

[Al_Muhannad]

including Safavids , and Safavids were Turk ( Azerbaijan and Turkiye same nation )
still there are over 30 million Turks in Iran

Iran was ruled by the Turks between 960s and 1925
Ghaznavids
Seljuks
Ildenizis
Khwarazmshahs
Safavids
Afshar Dynasty
Qajar Dynasty

in 1925 British helped Reza Shah Pahlavi to destroy Turkic Qajar Dynasty in Iran

Wait till the Aryans of mother Persia find out that farsi is a Turkish language in the sense that turks financed it and more farsi literature was produced in turkish lands (e.g Hindustan). Same story for Urdu.

 

[Genghis khan1]

For instance despite the Mughals being a part of the Barlas Mongol clan (their dynasty), the Mughals had little to do with anything Mongol whether in origin (eventually) or anything else

Mughal are Tatars not mongols. There is intermixing in of some tribes over the time but Tatars and Mongols are genetically and even look different. There is lot of misinformation out there that Mughals = Mongols.

 

[Al_Muhannad]

Allah Almighty helps the deserving in mysterious ways of-course.

The mamluks only won the battle in Ain Jaloot. Before that there was a secret war was going on. The one of ideology. Sufis & scholars also deserve the same credit for their efforts if not more.

 

[Corruptistan]

Mughal are Tatars not mongols. There is intermixing in of some tribes over the time but Tatars and Mongols are genetically and even look different. There is lot of misinformation out there that Mughals = Mongols.

The Mughals belonged to the Barlas tribe (paternally) which is a Mongol tribe. As I wrote, later the ancestors of Mughals began to intermarry with Turkic peoples/tribes in modern-day Central Asia.

This is why the founder (Babur) of the Mughal Empire's father was born in Uzbekistan (modern-day).

Umar Shaikh Mirza II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His father on the other hand was born in Herat.

Abu Sa'id Mirza - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that person's grandfather (Miran Shah)

Miran Shah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

was a son of Timur.

And Timur was of Mongol origin and belonged to the Mongol Barlas tribe, as I wrote.

The origin of the Timurid dynasty goes back to the Mongol tribe known as Barlas, who were remnants of the original Mongol army of Genghis Khan,[2][9][10] founder of the Mongol Empire.
​

Timurid dynasty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So if we go by paternal ancestry (which is what we do in our part of the world and most of the world -always been the case), they (Mughals) are Mongol in origin.

But as I wrote, there was very little (if anything) Mongol about the Mughals other than their distant ancestry.

 

[Foinikas]

As a footnote, there is no such thing as Byzantine. The name of that state is the Eastern Roman Empire. and shes people are Romans.

For this reason, the word "Greek" has two meanings in Turkish. One is Yunan, that is, Ionian, and the other is Rum, that is, Roman.

In a way that I do not fully understand why, we call those in Greece we call Yunan, while those in Cyprus we call Rum.

Maybe it's a leftover from the old era. Besides,you can still call a Greek Yunan and Rum. What we call Byzantines with the modern term,were majority Hellenic people,medieval Greeks basically,who considered themselves heirs of the Roman Empire,since it was the direct continuation of it. That's why,even though most knew they were greek,they used the term Roman to describe themselves and their State. That's why it also persisted until the early 20th century and Greeks called themselves Romios(or Romii in plural),apart from Hellenes. And that's also why the Rum and Rumca terms persisted.

Of course for the "professor" of history and military stuff,the Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) was never greek. Even if the chronicles of the era from foreigners,called them "Greek".

But of course,it's the guy who talks about Turkic pyramids in China and says the Mediterranean peoples,who lived in the area since the most ancient times,have no naval history...

Eh...