Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What is the correct version of Saladins name?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What is the correct version of Saladins name?
    Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 06:57
I told that light cavalary was composed of turckoman ,Kurds , barbars and Arab cavalary men.heavy cavalary was composed aminly from Mamlukes majority of them Qipchaqs but there was georgian , Byzanthian and Armenian mamlukes. Saladdin Army was heir of Fatemids and Nureddin  army.
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 20:20
Originally posted by Miller

Originally posted by azimuth

the borrowed bit is not sure off since i still think that it is an arabic word



Many of these concepts were introduced to Arabs by Islam. What were the pre-Islamic Arabs talking about when they used words like heaven and hell in their conversation why did they have words for concepts they did not believe in or knew about

well there were alot of christan and jew arabs living in Arabia before islam what do you think they called heaven and hell?


Originally posted by Miller


Originally posted by azimuth

but generally if the word is used for more than 1000 years it is part of the language

Interesting rule!

i didnt say that it is a rule. i put 1000 years as an example which obviously you liked

anyway my point is as long as the word is used by the people in their language to a point that when you ask anyone of them they would say that this word is their word and their language consist of this word and other words. then its Part of that language and its orgin is from different language.

Originally posted by Moustafa Pasha

His real name in Arabic is Salah El Din Yousef Ibn Ayoub known in te islamic world as Khalifa Salah El Din El Ayoubi, who united the Moslem world and defeated the crusaders.

i think he is known as Sultan Salah El din not khalifa

Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by azimuth

the word mosque is an ENGLISH word with an Arabic orgin in Arabic it is Masjed.
so, for example "Iran" is an Arabic word because you were using it for many many years! right?!

i dont know how to get my point to you here, well i'll try  Mosque is Not an Arabic word  ok?

the word Mosque is an english word used by english speakers and some other languages maybe but not used in ARABIC.

the word mosque came from the word masjed which is a word used by Arabic language and other languages i think too.

so it is an english word with an Arabic orgin how many times did i wrote that already!!

you at your posts some where wrote or copied  ARABIC words with Persian orgin !!!!

so why is it hard for you to understand that?

the word Iran is a country name. when we as Arab say iran it means the country called iran. that what it means to us.

to you maybe it would mean a larger region. so its a name of country to us. doesnt have another meaning like you.

so YES  Iran in Arabic is called Iran.

 

 

Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by azimuth

so if you spoke to a spanish speaker and asked him if the word Aruz is spanish he will say YES and its originally ARABIC.
NO they won't.... Nobody NORMAL will tell you the origin of a word when having conversations! besides, not everybody has studied linguistic.

ok then they would say that it is spanish word. fair enough. and an educated one who knows the word's orgin would say its spanish word which its orgin is Arabic.

in Arabic we still use the same word.


Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by azimuth

Arabic words does not exist in Spanish Dictionaries, that why they call it Spanish dictionaries. not Aarabic Spanish Dictionaries.
they must indicate the origin of the word, just like English dictionaries; when you see a de or fr you'll know they're German and French, or Persian dictionaries; if you see a "ain" it means it's Arabic "far" means French, so I assume all dictionaries indicate the origin of each word, maybe not Arabic ones.

they must indicate or they must not indicate     the point is that it is a Spanish dictionary which deals with spanish words. and explain them, in the explaining it may mention the ORGIN of the word if it is Arabic , latin or whatever.

 


Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by azimuth

again the words are part of the language and the language consiste of these words putting aside where the words came from
that's why we have a science called etymology and linguistics.

i know.!

so the misunderstanding i think is between the Word in the language and its orgin.

 


Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by azimuth

hope that example is good enough.
no it wasn't at all

well iam repeating what iam saying everytime and i dont think that you are getting my point each time.

 

 

Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
  Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 00:08
Originally posted by azimuth

well there were alot of christan and jew arabs living in Arabia before islam what do you think they called heaven and hell?

There were Jews and Christians living in Arabian peninsula( not in Mecca), but they did not speak Arabic. Christians spoke Syraic. I hope you are not saying that prophet learned all these concepts from talking to Christians and Jews. My understanding was that Arabs were suppose to be in Jihalet period ( ignorant of teachings of God) before Islam was revealed

 

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 02:21
Originally posted by Miller

Originally posted by azimuth

well there were alot of christan and jew arabs living in Arabia before islam what do you think they called heaven and hell?

There were Jews and Christians living in Arabian peninsula( not in Mecca), but they did not speak Arabic. Christians spoke Syraic. I hope you are not saying that prophet learned all these concepts from talking to Christians and Jews. My understanding was that Arabs were suppose to be in Jihalet period ( ignorant of teachings of God) before Islam was revealed

 

as i said there was ARABIC jews and christans and they lived in makka and in yemen too before islam and they spoke arabic.i dont think they spoke syraic or other languges at least not as their first languages.

plus the word we are talking about here was din which means religion and whatever religion they had they must called it din there are no other word to describe religion but Din. even before islam.

 

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2005 at 20:27

Originally posted by Hushyar

I told that light cavalary was composed of turckoman ,Kurds , barbars and Arab cavalary men.heavy cavalary was composed aminly from Mamlukes majority of them Qipchaqs but there was georgian , Byzanthian and Armenian mamlukes. Saladdin Army was heir of Fatemids and Nureddin  army.

Light cavalary was mainly formed by Seljuk Turks.

And those hired soldiers are Qipchaks TURKS, used as a heacy cavalry.

Anyway, auxilliary Seljuks always had Ghulams who were formed by non-Seljuk elements.

I can not claim Saladin' s army was the heir of Fatemids. It is true he ruled Egypt as the representator of Nureddin but first in those days he had his own contigent , second, we are talking about Salahaddin, ruler of Syria and Egypt. In close combats, on most of the occasions Crusader heavy cavalry (Knights) were superior. What Salahaddin succeded was to hunt them down by archers. Especially in Hattin that worked.



Edited by HulaguHan
Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 01:46

HulaguHan said :
Light cavalary was mainly formed by Seljuk Turks

Light Cavalary was composed of Turcomans , Kurds, barbars and Arabs. Read Ibn Asir It must be a Turkish translation in Turkey.

And those hired soldiers are Qipchaks TURKS, used as a heacy cavalry.

They were not Hired ,They were slaves who being captured by slajuqs in cacausia and being sold in Islamic countries.(exactly like ghulams) And they were not only Qipchaqs ,There were Georgians, Armenians, Byzanthians , Saqhlabs (Slavic slaves in Islamic times), but majority were Qipchaqs  and then in 14th century in Mamalik Times many Qipchaqs came voluntary and joined heavy cavalry.

Ofcourse as they became mamlukes they got a land (Iqta') that could be passed to their childrena and also they little by little became the commanders of army.

Anyway, auxilliary Seljuks always had Ghulams who were formed by non-Seljuk elements.

Ghulams were non Muslim slaves (mainly Turk or Indian or Byzanthian) that being captured and trained as heavy cavalry. Ghualms were being installed as a pat of Army in Abbasid Time and then Samanid and Ghaznavid and Saljuq all used it and It is considered as the mainstay of Army. Turks considered the majority of ghulams.
In Egypt Mamlukes are exact counterpart of ghulams.
Allies were hired muslim peoples like Kurds Arabs Deylams Turcomens Babars Ghuries (In depends on region) that helped main army and considered the light cavalry or infantry men.
There were also an army that composed as volunteers who were named as Ghazies and they were zealous muslims that from all of the Islamic countries came and fought with kafirs.

Nureddin Army differed from Slajuqian Army in Iran.Salddin Army differd with Nureddin Army.

I can not claim Saladin' s army was the heir of Fatemids.

But he was.

It is true he ruled Egypt as the representator of Nureddin but first in those days he had his own contigen

Shirkuh and saladdin captured Egypt with only their Kurdish detachment because Nureddin didnt want Egypt fell in the hands of Christians. When Shirkuh died Saladdin became ruler of Egypt and It was clear that he must rely on local troops so before conquering the Syria His army was made  actually from Fatemids, Later when he captured Syria he heavily used from Nureddin Army because they had better military value.

we are talking about Salahaddin, ruler of Syria and Egypt

Yes and heir of both kingdom.

What Salahaddin succeded was to hunt them down by archers. Especially in Hattin that worked.

The role of Archers is  heavily exaggerated in Cruaders. Even the big composite bows couldnt  inflict heavy casualty in Crusaders Army lines. This was clearly shown in Those times Historian texts that Cruasaders were were considered as a tank.
Saladdin Tactics was simple, He perished enemys infantry men, Encircled the knights, captured all of water supplies and made fire and lead their smoke to Knights and when they heavily exhausted attacked them with his own heavy cavalry.


In close combats, on most of the occasions Crusader heavy cavalry (Knights) were superior


Zangi was the first man that understand that against crusaders , the light cavalry has no use. So he was first to use heavy cavalary against Crusaders and later Nureddin completed his father works. Later muslim rulers all had heavy cavalry and used them against crusaders.

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 02:00

Hushyar, here actually you correct me. Yes, sorry, you havementioned good points. Let me qote the issues, where I think I was wrong.

You are correct, I confused qipchaks with some other Turkik people came to Manzikert on Byzantine side.

Originally posted by Hushyar

HulaguHan said :
Light cavalary was mainly formed by Seljuk Turks

They were not Hired ,They were slaves who being captured by Seljuqs in cacausia and being sold in Islamic countries.(exactly like ghulams)

And they were not only Qipchaqs ,There were Georgians, Armenians, Byzanthians , Saqhlabs (Slavic slaves in Islamic times), but majority were Qipchaqs  and then in 14th century in Mamalik Times many Qipchaqs came voluntary and joined heavy cavalry.

Ofcourse as they became mamlukes they got a land (Iqta') that could be passed to their childrena and also they little by little became the commanders of army.

Ghulams were non Muslim slaves (mainly Turk or Indian or Byzanthian) that being captured and trained as heavy cavalry. Ghualms were being installed as a pat of Army in Abbasid Time and then Samanid and Ghaznavid and Saljuq all used it and It is considered as the mainstay of Army. Turks considered the majority of ghulams.
In Egypt Mamlukes are exact counterpart of ghulams.
Allies were hired muslim peoples like Kurds Arabs Deylams Turcomens Babars Ghuries (In depends on region) that helped main army and considered the light cavalry or infantry men.
There were also an army that composed as volunteers who were named as Ghazies and they were zealous muslims that from all of the Islamic countries came and fought with kafirs.

Zangi was the first man that understand that against crusaders , the light cavalry has no use. So he was first to use heavy cavalary against Crusaders and later Nureddin completed his father works. Later muslim rulers all had heavy cavalry and used them against crusaders.

Comments above are perfect to be honest.

Now here where I (If I remember correct) do not agree with you

Nureddin Army did not differ from Seljuk Army, Nurreddin was an Atabeg of Mousul, a Seljuk. If you consider the Seljuk army who invaded Iran, yes there are differences off course, but as you havementioned, either your opinion or my opinion, Seljuks were the true fraction who formed the army. Like you said, Mamelukes are their prisoners...

Do not go that far, Mongol light cavalry have shown magnificent performance against Teutonic knights. Mate, this is precise technique. Light soldier with great discipline is simply the best. Zangi, sure prefered to have close action but that is because of the several defeats Seljuks encountered in the fisrt crusades, oin Dorlyum, in Nicea, around Antioch Crusader victories against Ridwan, Zengi and Kerboga...

There were no chance, Crusaders, thanks to Alexius, studied Seljuk tactics well and Seljuks were not as much disciplined as Cenghis army... So they had no chance agains crusader knights of Frankish in close combat. Anyway, you pointed out strong things. Thanks.



Edited by HulaguHan
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 02:07

Turkish "slave" cavalry in Abbasid days were a bit Praetorian guards rather than an action Ghulams...

These guys were really hired soldiers, but immaturely, they tried to serve Abbasid Caliphate by helping to destory it.

It is a long story...

Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 03:38

HulaguHan:
You are too dogmatic in accepting some facts.
Slajuq army was not a special and defined kind of army like Roman Army or Othman Army.It was varaible and changed by time and place.Until the the end of Alparsalan rule the main army of saljuqs were compsed of Oghuz Turcomen light cavalry men,And by this army Iran, Central Asia and Anatolia Iraq and Syria have been conquered.In the end of his rule Alparsaln again used Ghulam army of ghazanavids.Malikshah completely changed Saljuq army and create a complicated army (foot soldiers, professional foot archers, extensive use of allies,light Turcoman cavalaries,heavy ghulam cavalaries, spear men...) and until of Sanjar this army remained unchanged.
In Anatolia Light cavalary Turcomens remained the mainstay of Army.(because of the geographical condition of anatolia and light cavalary were more mobile) although they later used heavy cavalary (maybe in Time of Qlich Arasaln II but still in the terrible defeat of Byzanthiane in 1176 light cavalry turcomens  played the main role.).Artuqs and Mosul Atabegs ,Atabegs of Buri and Saljuqs of Syria used the combined light cavalary of Turcomens and Kurds.(It was saljuqs that introduced Kurds to Syria and Lebanon).Zangi started using heavy cavalary and also started to use Arab warriors (because of their knowledge in deser war).I have no special knowledge about Hamedan(or Iraq) saljuqs and Atabegs of Ildgaz (Azerbaijan Atabegs),Daneshmandians, Kerman Saljuqs and other states but I think they all used the combined techniques and soldiers.What I want to say in those huge Islamic lands every ruler used its own special tactics and army and until the othmans no Islamic country has a defined and constant military system.



Do not go that far, Mongol light cavalry shon magnificent performance against Teutonic knights. Mate, this is precise technique. Light soldier with great discipline is simply the best. Zangi, sure prefered to have close action but that is because of the several defeats Seljuks encountered in the fisrt crusades, oin Dorlyum, in Nicea, around Antioch Crusader victories against Ridwan, Zengi and Kerboga...

Mongol had heavy cavalry (actually semi heavy) and used it with their own light cavalry.But its wrong to compare Mongol tactics with others, they had many innovations in using army and their army was very disciplined and their techniques was completely different from others for example saljuqs.We know saljuq style of war and it was documented by all Islamic writers It was completely different from mongols.So expecting that Comanders of Islamic Army to use the Turcomens as mongol in front of Crusaders is wrong.And mongols, If Europeans instead of Heavy cavalary composed of undisciplined soldiers used a a combination of Heavy and semi heavy cavalary (under heavy training) and also support of a good and disciplined foot soldiers ,They could achieve better results agianst Mongols.Mongols won the war because they acted as one body.



There were no chance, Crusaders, thanks to Alexius, studied their tactics well.

But still in 1176(572 A.H) Qilich Arsalan II defeated Manuel I by the same tactic that 100 years before him, Alparslan used in Malazgirt.

 

Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2005 at 03:42
Originally posted by HulaguHan

Turkish "slave" cavalry in Abbasid days were a bit Praetorian guards rather than an action Ghulams...

These guys were really hired soldiers, but immaturely, they tried to serve Abbasid Caliphate by helping to destory it.

It is a long story...

They were started as that but later they achieved more imporatant role and actually It was samanaids that elaborated Ghulam system and used it as an effective weapon.

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jul-2005 at 21:42

Hushyar, Miriakefalon and Manzikert are way too much different battles. Where did you learn Turkish (oh sorry Persian, Seljuk) history? It completely sucks... Oh sorry, I forgot, you learned our history from the sources where Seljuks, Safavids, Afsarids are thought as Persian/Iranian. Miriakefalon was an ambush, while Manzikert was an open battle.

Early Seljuk army and Mongolian armies are very similar. And Mongols never actes as one body.

Mongols and every central asian Turkik tribes divided their armies into Tumens (Look at secret history of mongolia, It is also called Tubegen), which are 10000 people.

Mongolian archer cavalary never was a heavy cavalry.

for example I remember Grousset claims Mete Han had 100.000s of soldiers, but infact it is highly exagarating. At the same time, the Hun cavalry tumens attacked many places and that is the main reason of these exaggarations. Mongols have continued the exact tactics of their ancestors Tu-c'hueh and Huns. Except their sieges were different (thanks to Chinese). Both divided their armies and attacked many places, especially our European raid was exactly like a Hunnic invasion tactic.

There is nothing called semi-heavy cavalry BTW.

You are bullsh*tting in anykind of strict and important claims. you only showed me one source, an arab or an arabized Persian, or whatever... Yes you critize me while quoting Grousset (half of that book is nonsense BTW, but that does not mean the other half is useless). Really, I am really curious, how can you manage to live in a fictionous life? Can the Aryan pride not manage to live with the long termed Arabic-Turkic Rules and Iranizing them?

You tell speaking Turkish will not make you Turk but you make every Turk speaking Persian, Iranian. Who told you a battle like Miriakefalon is excatly the same as Manzikert? Who is that idiot historian? Which idiot historian called Seljuk army (which smashed the proud Iran in decades just with 20000?) is far inferior than the Mongolian one? These are all coming from the same culture, same ancestoral background. They had never used their army as single bodied, they all the time divided the army into Tumens. Our army organization is still like this. That is why the foundation date of our ground forces is 28 June 209 BC. Mete Han founded it, and it is recognised as official.

Ohhh Ihsan, where are you...

I am leaving you with your empty comments about Turkik history, Hushyar. Leaving to discuss nonsense issues are not cowardice. I told you what I had to. I do not have time to waste with you, sorry...



Edited by HulaguHan
Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
  Quote ihsan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 03:29
Saladin is Salha'd-dn Al-Ayyb in Arabic. I wonder why our Arabic members don't know how to write Arabic names and words in the correct grammatical way.
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 05:01

Hulagu you are funny man , you have read all my previous posts in all other threads and then become angry and came here to answer all of them here .

Hushyar, Miriakefalon and Manzikert are way too much different battles
Miriakefalon was an ambush, while Manzikert was an open battle

Miriakefalon, Manzikert Dandanqan and even Qizilbashes wars against Othmans all have same strategy just tactics were different. In all of these battles light cavalary that was being faced with a more powerfull army tried to use landscape  : desert  mountains or hills ,  they used shower of arrows , usually tried to scatter enemy cavalay and then trapped enemy infantry,  encircled it or  made it to small peieces and then destroied it.
Trapping was the main tool of this kind of war. When enemy army was aware of this kind of war or if it had a powerful cavalry that always guarded its flanks, Hit and ran tactics were being replaced. 



Where did you learn Turkish (oh sorry Persian, Seljuk) history?

90% of Islamic Turkish history is being written in Persian and Arabic and you dont have access to them.(I mean original sources , like Beyhaqi like Gardizi ,like Ibn Asir like Rashiddin , like jowyni,.) but if you prefer to learn from nationalist sites is up to yours, If  you realy love them I can show you some of them that completely will satisfy your nationalistic feelings , but if you want the truth , Im sorry you must refer to origins.


I forgot, you learned our history from the sources where Seljuks, Safavids, Afsarids are thought as Persian/Iranian

Persian does not mean Iranian and vice versa, Iranian does not mean Iranic and vice versa. After so many description you still dont understand the difference between them.
Iran is basically a geographical name (more than 2000 years old) and all people who live in this region are called Iranian., they can be Persian Turk Arab Jew or Kurd or Lur, is it ok?
Iranic is an artificial name that linguistics in 19th century invented to name a group of Aryan languages.(Aryan was and still is  considered Taboo)
Persian is a language that is spoken in Iran Afghanistan and Tajikestan and for some centuries is used as a cultural language in Islamic countires. Those who live in iran and this language is their first language are called Persians.(In old time there were another meanings also)
So founders of Afsharids and safavids were Iranian and turk but they were not Persian nor Iranic.
Did you understand it Hulagu?        No I dont think so.


Early Seljuk army and Mongolian armies are very similar. And Mongols never actes as one body.

No they were not and they were used different methods.While early saljuq army used the traditional tactics of Steppe people, Mongols (in Temuchin Era ) had a special way of tactics. 

Mongols and every central asian Turkik tribes divided their armies into Tumens (Look at secret history of mongolia, It is also called Tubegen), which are 10000 people.

1)I think I have told you before that Mongols used decimal system, look at this:
2)And that book .I knew about it , but thank you for your remedy.
3) who hass said that all central asian Army divide their army into Tumans ? What is your source? Can you show me saljuqs used decimal sysem?

Mongolian archer cavalary never was a heavy cavalry.
There is nothing called semi-heavy cavalry BTW.

Are you sure ? so refer to this links:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3882& ;PN=1


for example I remember Grousset claims Mete Han had 100.000s of soldiers,

Who is Mete Han and it what age did he live and show me a source about him:
And please prove that the title Han or Khan has been used for him.
Which I know it is invention of some nationalist pseudo historian for this person.



the Hun cavalry tumens attacked many places and that is the main reason of these exaggarations

You mean Xiung_nu and who did say that they had Tuman or Min or Yuz system? Our knowledge about Xiung-Nues are Chinese sources and they have never pointed any thing about decimal systems of them.


Mongols have continued the exact tactics of their ancestors Tu-c'hueh and Huns.

gokturks military system was completely different from Mongols.Gokturks had a very elaborate military sysem. They had a heavy cavalry units that their body was covered with steel and Irons and even their horses and they even used lances. Check the picture of gokturks cavalry in the gokturk section of Allempire.
And about Xiung-nues , I think Chinese forumers have better knowledge but I cant find any reliable source about their military system .(So I dont know how you could compare their military system with gokturks monols)

 



you only showed me one source, an arab or an arabized Persian, or whatever... Yes you critize me while quoting Grousset (half of that book is nonsense BTW, but that does not mean the other half is useless).

1)comparing Ibn Asir with any modern history is ridiculous. Ibn  Asir History (an Arabic source) is written in 1230-1240 and up until now it is the most reliable source about Crusders Mongols and Ayyubids. Actually It is the main reference of every historian.

2)I told you that you didnt understand Grousset properly.



I am really curious, how can you manage to live in a fictionous life

It is exactly suited to you , I gave you source , you say they are lie, I gave another source you again say that dont believe me. What can I do for you.So go and learn Arabic and Persian (if you have time) and yourself come and show that all of these historian are big liars and enemy of big Turkish nation. But you must have knowledge for such a claim.



Which idiot historian called Seljuk army (which smashed the proud Iran in decades just with 20000?) is far inferior than the Mongolian one?

1)the above  number is reliable.
2)they smashed Ghaznavids
3)Actually Ghaznavid army was more powefull ,but they had a very terrible commandership .10 years after DandanQan a ghaznavid Army (which was weaker than Masoud Army) under command of a ghulam Tughrol kafir ne'mat defeated both Choghri beyk in Harat and AlpArsaln In Sistan .
4)It is interesting that considered Ghaznavid as Iranian , Btw I call it an Islamic state.
5)I dont remember that I have said Saljuq were weaker than Mongols, I said that Mongol army tactics was different in a specific period of time (first half of 13th century) later they adopted same methods of other steppe  people (except Uan dynasty that completely chinesed)


These are all coming from the same culture, same ancestoral background

Same culture yes , Same ancestoral background No, How many times I must repeat that Mongols were not turks.
And similarity in culture does not mean that they had same military system or power and that is why we had one Temuchin through all of these ages but Mongols were always present in Mongolia before and after Temuchin.


They had never used their army as single bodied, they all the time divided the army into Tumens.

Oh my god how genius you are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When I said they used their army as one body I mean that their army was completely in the hand of their commander and they showed a discipline as if they are same part of one body. (I mean hand foot .)Did you get it: and Mongols could never show that ability except that brief period and this shows that  Temuchin and his commanders (that were trained by him and had full knowledge of his tactics) had complete control over their army.



Our army organization is still like this. That is why the foundation date of our ground forces is 28 June 209 BC. Mete Han founded it, and it is recognised as official

I have answered this before:
I think by Mete Khan you mean Mao_Tun the ruler of Xiong-Nu dynasty who defeated yue_chi and conqured Tarim basin.So more questions:
1)In What source did you see that Xiong_Nu rulers have the title of Khan?
2)Up to waht I know,Not Xiong_Nu not Huns(which their relationship is also doubtfull) never had any written texts,(Atleast none has been found yet) So how do you found that the Xiong_Nues used the same military titles that your country use today.

Who recognised it official, he must have a very good sense of humour!

 


I am leaving you with your empty comments about Turkik history, Hushyar. Leaving to discuss nonsense issues are not cowardice. I told you what I had to. I do not have time to waste with you, sorry...

It just show your ignorance , and show that you think here is Box ring and when you can not prove anything simply leave it. See I dont want be arrogant or selfish but it is clear that you and many like you came here for fun or satisfying their nationalistic feeling.I try to show you and other members that History has a more serious face and you can not believe in some dogmas and then when every body came and questioned them you consider it as insult and attack him. And when He answered you simply ran away. History is not a holy thing for being prayed , you just must find facts and by discussing and presenting sources these facts could be found. So saying I leave this discussion or I dont wase my time didnt solve any problem from you. You dont know your history and may be I dont know either but I try to learn , you try to ran away, this is our difference.


 

 

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2005 at 22:12

Hushyar what is the special extensive cavalry warfare tactics of Mongols?

Tumen (Actually I do not have the ue keyword it is like tuemen in german writing) is the peak point of decimal system. however, the tumen general has some autonomy, For instance Cebe and Subotai had their own tumens. Every Turkik cavalry units used that. Even my daddy is a coming from a cavalry (Sipahi) training family. This is our way of life.

Divitcioglu, Kamuran Gurun (an interesting guy, I always say it) mentiones this. Seljuks (the earlier ones) had the same tactic.

No Manzikert was an open battle, but Miriakefalon was a total ambush. And in Miriakefalon Byzantine army was not destroyed like the one in Manzikert. Byzantine army were just stuck and sued for peace and returned home, leaving Anatolia in Turkish hands ever since.

Cavalry unit descriptions are military issues. Semi cavalry thing is out of the question first of all.

I do not have business with national sites or links. I visit my Secret history of Mongols, in the first place. We Turks, except Ghulams never had heavy cavalries because the way we managed to form the battle was depended on:

1) Mobility which was vital and helped us to conquer Iran, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Balkans on many occasions.

2) Ability to maneuvre in the battlefield, if possible an encirclement.

3) And off course most efficient way of using the archers, because wasting the performance of a guy who can throw 60 arrows per minute with a heavy armor is NONSENSE...

Please, I am waiting for your tactic difference issues, Herr General . But let me tell you about the differences in battle issues.

-Seljuks had almost no siege capabilities while Mongols had Chinese engineers.

In my opinion, the biggest factor why Mongols were more successful than Seljuks is (and it was investigated by our communications department of my ASELSAN which is our military electronics factory) COMMUNICATION, efficient way of communication.

Anybody here involved in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering would understand the importance of communication, and the problem of Byzantine Generals ( a problem semi-solved lets say by Mongols).

Mongols had a different type of communication, using archer cavalry, and managing to extend the effective operation field.

That aside, I do not think Cenghiz was a dominating military genious compared to Tughrul or Caghri, or Alparslan. For instance in the battle of Dorlyum, Mongols would finish the Crusaders, because while one wing was attacking to the gourp of Normandians, the other would drive the advancing Lotharingian wing (or was that Bohemund' s?) 

Seljuks lacked "effective" communication.

And that effective communication helped Mongols to extend their operations to 100s of kilometers instead of 10s. They never behaved like single body, infact Russia was conquered by 2 (tumens of Cebe and Subotay)/11 of the army.

BTW, decimal system does not belong to the Mongols or Cenghis Qahan. It is known to be implemented for the first time by Mete Han (He is described as Han by Gurun who is a little bit weird but that does not mean he is useless) . And that was implemented first (well Turkish Armed Forces have that date in their badge standard) on 28 June 209 BC.



Edited by HulaguHan
Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 10:31

 HulaguHan said:

 Every Turkik cavalry units used that. Even my daddy is a coming from a cavalry (Sipahi) training family.
Divitcioglu, Kamuran Gurun (an interesting guy, I always say it) mentiones this. Seljuks (the earlier ones) had the same tactic.

No there is no data that Saljuqs used that. Actually before mongol invasion this system was unknown in Islamic countries.
And that respected historian must show the source .

No Manzikert was an open battle, but Miriakefalon was a total ambush. And in Miriakefalon Byzantine army was not destroyed like the one in Manzikert. Byzantine army were just stuck and sued for peace and returned home, leaving Anatolia in Turkish hands ever since.
Cavalry unit descriptions are military issues. Semi cavalry thing is out of the question first of all.
I do not have business with national sites or links. I visit my Secret history of Mongols, in the first place.
Please, I am waiting for your tactic difference issues, Herr General  But let me tell you about the differences in battle issues.
-Seljuks had almost no siege capabilities while Mongols had Chinese engineers.
In my opinion, the biggest factor why Mongols were more successful than Seljuks is (and it was investigated by our communications department of my ASELSAN which is our military electronics factory) COMMUNICATION, efficient way of communication.
Anybody here involved in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering would understand the importance of communication, and the problem of Byzantine Generals (a problem semi-solved lets say by Mongols).
Mongols had a different type of communication, using archer cavalry, and managing to extend the effective operation field.
That aside, I do not think Cenghiz was a dominating military genious compared to Tughrul or Caghri, or Alparslan. For instance in the battle of Dorlyum, Mongols would finish the Crusaders, because while one wing was attacking to the gourp of Normandians, the other would drive the advancing Lotharingian wing (or was that Bohemund' s?)
Seljuks lacked "effective" communication.

1)In manzkrit Saljuqs trapped the cavalry of Byzanthian thats why when infantry turned back and strated to flee there was no cavalry to support them , ofcourse Alparsalan wanted to trap the whole enemy army and thats why he designed his army in crescent style. Just it was Romanus felt fear that its whole army didnt fell into trap ,and that is why the casualities of byzanthian was not too high although it was a complete defeat.
So the basic strategy of all saljuq wars in early periods  (and actually all of other light cavalry) was the same :Trapping and if not possible hit and run. And showering  enemy with arrows.

2)Mongol army and tactics were different form saljuqs in many respects ofcourse Mongols had light cavalry that used the old steppe tactics but their style of war was more complete, you mentioned communication but it was much more complicated, Mongols had a sort of heavy cavalry ,Mongols had a special style of Hunting that was actually a kind of maneuver , Mongols used people of captured city to capture another city, Mongols used allies if it was possible, they killed every body in their way, they always created terror in their way and  also siege systems.they were two different army and two different style.Mongols knew Hit and run tactics because every steppe people knew that but they had much more.

3)there is no doubt that Temuchin (and Timur) can not be compared not by saljuqs nor any other middle ages commander .The only big victory of Tughrol and Chaghri was against Ghaznavids and the main reason of their vctory was terrible commandership of Ghaznavids, later ghaznavids in  years 1045-1055(which were weaker) many times defeated saljuqs and keep them  away from their territory.

4)and Mongols were not turks that you always say WE WE


We Turks, except Ghulams never had heavy cavalries because the way we managed to form the battle was depended on:
1) Mobility which was vital and helped us to conquer Iran, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Balkans on many occasions.
2) Ability to maneuvre in the battlefield, if possible an encirclement.
3) And off course most efficient way of using the archers, because wasting the performance of a guy who can throw 60 arrows per minute with a heavy armor is NONSENSE...

I showed you links and we know from sasssanid sources that gokturks had heavy cavalary.
And there is no doubt that Mongols used semi heavy cavalary I show you links but like in the case of saljuq army you just make theory. You are not to design an army and then to judge what is good or bad. They used these systems bad or good they used it.
Warfare of saljuqs was different with Mongols and gokturks, some way similar and in most cases different.

 


And that effective communication helped Mongols to extend their operations to 100s of kilometers instead of 10s. They never behaved like single body, infact Russia was conquered by 2 (tumens of Cebe and Subotay)/11 of the army.

Jebeh and Subutay didnt conquere Russia, They sacked Azerbaijan, Aran , Georgia , They defeated Alans then they defeated Kumans and Russians sacked some cities and then they came back to Mongolia.
It was Batu and Subutay that conquered Russia.


BTW, decimal system does not belong to the Mongols or Cenghis Qahan. It is known to be implemented for the first time by Mete Han (He is described as Han by Gurun who is a little bit weird but that does not mean he is useless). And that was implemented first (well Turkish Armed Forces have that date in their badge standard) on 28 June 209 BC.

1)I dont know  How that respected historian could travel to 22 centtury before and see wether Xiung Nues used title Khan for themselves.(because up until now no recorded texts have been found from there)
2)No we dont know that Xiung Nues used decimal system , nobody refered to it .It just your speculation or wish that you think that or better said believed that they must use this system.
3)Xiung-nues existed before that time and surely at that time they had military sysem How did you or Military historian did find that exactly at that time they adopted that system.
4)28th june of 209 B.c. !!!!!!!!! there are too many Eziz Nesins in your airforce and army.
5)Your army is based on nezame e jaded that Salim III founded to replace the old-fashioned janissaries and to create a modern army. Their first war was to help Jazar Pasha (butcher) in defending Akka against Napoleon Army. This is your army history.Then Mahmud II  continued his works.


 

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 22:54

Timur said we, so I say we...

Trapping and ambushing are different.

In Miriakefalon, when they saw the Turkic soldiers, battle has already started.

BTW, that terrible commandship is everywhere. Someone always looses the battles with terrible either tactical or strategical commandships. (Operation Barbarossa (strategical failure), 2nd Siege of Vienne (tactical failure), Khwarizm Shahdom conquest of Cenghiz, etc...)

Islamic countries might not know it, but it is true, a plain truth, we use decimal systems, and it is an establishment of Mete Han. We still use it, and we have rankings of decimal systems...

Yes I overrated Jebe' s and Subotay' s invasion. But at least they kicked Russian ass.



Edited by HulaguHan
Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 01:14

HulaguHan said:


BTW, that terrible commandship is everywhere. Someone always looses the battles with terrible either tactical or strategical commandships. (Operation Barbarossa (strategical failure), 2nd Siege of Vienne (tactical failure), Khwarizm Shahdom conquest of Cenghiz, etc...)

I ask you a question, If Mahmud was alive or If saljuqs came Iran twenty years sooner , do you think that scenario repeated, I don't think so.(and I have proof for it)



we use decimal systems

yes othmans used it, there is a considerable litreature about it.



and it is an establishment of Mete Han.

Proof and source and why him why not befor him and why not after him ? and source?This is just imagination not more you have no data and not you, actually  nobody have .


We still use it

No you are using Nato system wich is a western system which is derived from middle age feudal europe and have some roots in Roman empire military system.
Divisions, regimens , Brigades, battelions,.....


we have rankings of decimal systems

you use the titles of those archaic system for your officers, like Subashy, Minbashy, yuzbashy.(but I don't know othmans used Subashy or not)

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 05:30

Originally posted by ihsan

Saladin is Salha'd-dn Al-Ayyb in Arabic. I wonder why our Arabic members don't know how to write Arabic names and words in the correct grammatical way.

who said we dont know?

as i said earlier it has more than one pronounciation depends where is the name in the sentence.

Back to Top
ramin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 16-Feb-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 921
  Quote ramin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 14:11
is it Ayubi or just Ayub?
"I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon"
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 22:40

 

Ayub is a Name

Ayubi is an Adjective

and since it is his last name then it would be "Bin Ayub" or  just "Al Ayubi"

And if Ayubi used as a last name without "Al" it would sounds like that person is more likly not an Arab.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.282 seconds.