Bedouin- Turkic relations
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Discription: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23746
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 15:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Bedouin- Turkic relations
Posted By: xi_tujue
Subject: Bedouin- Turkic relations
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 13:18
Since both are people of the Horse
when the Turks conquered the middle east and North Africa how where tey treated did they have more status than the rest, etc.....
thanks
-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
Replies:
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:57
|
Hello Xi
I dont think that calling bedouins "horse people" is 100% correct. The reason is that Arab lands were not suitable for mass breeding of horses. Horses were and to this day selectively bred by specific families and specific tribes. I for one know no one of my tribe nor of the other close tribes to us who breeds horses but know alot who breed camels which are much more usefull in Arabia. however, Syrian and Iraqi tribes do have a lot of horse breeding though not as much as Turkic tribes. when the Abbasids stopped using Bedouins in their army and created a professional army with mixed units rather than dividing them on tribal lines many Arabs refrained from joining the army and withdrew to the countryside or the desert. Some tribal leaders who were ambitious formed their own states like the Uqailis and the Hamdanis and their states were powerful. For example the Seljuqs never took control of southern Iraq and Khuzistan and accepted tribute. Hamdanis were small, most Arab hated them for their preference towards Kurds, and yet gave a tough resistance for the much powerfull Byzantines. the rest of the tribes lived on the border of civilization with no one really stopping them. the Seljuqs tried and failed several times to subdue Syrian tribes who helped the crusaders take over the holy lands and several of them allied themselves with them. They failed to stop mass migration towards the north of Iraq which was still mostly Kurdish-Christian. Large bedouin raides continued only to stop when Saladin approached them in a very systematic method. He gave them official titles, real power and made auxillaries from them. It was the Bedouin units of the army that cleared Syria from the first invasion of the Mongols, they also were responsible for the victories at Elbistan, Homs and helped strongly in Marj Al-Safr. In the end the Bedouin effect is all two powerfull, Turkmen tribes in Iraq and Syria have adopted to Bedouin life style, the language, the tradition and much of the culture though they still have distinct features that separate them from Arabs.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 16:02
I wonder how their relations were? the initial Turkic tribes to enter lands also populated by Arab tribes were nomadic or semi-nomadic. Was the relation of nomadic Arabs and Turks different to settled Arabs and Turks?
-------------
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 20:40
|
The bedouins were partially different from turkic nomads. Their millitary aspects were lower compared with the turks, though they were the inhabitants of the holy lands the turks were the major millitary power to confront europeans and mongols.
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 20:40
thats not relevant to the topic nor was it my question
-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 16:30
Originally posted by Al Jassas
Hello Xi
I dont think that calling bedouins "horse people" is 100% correct. The reason is that Arab lands were not suitable for mass breeding of horses. Horses were and to this day selectively bred by specific families and specific tribes. I for one know no one of my tribe nor of the other close tribes to us who breeds horses but know alot who breed camels which are much more usefull in Arabia. however, Syrian and Iraqi tribes do have a lot of horse breeding though not as much as Turkic tribes. when the Abbasids stopped using Bedouins in their army and created a professional army with mixed units rather than dividing them on tribal lines many Arabs refrained from joining the army and withdrew to the countryside or the desert. Some tribal leaders who were ambitious formed their own states like the Uqailis and the Hamdanis and their states were powerful. For example the Seljuqs never took control of southern Iraq and Khuzistan and accepted tribute. Hamdanis were small, most Arab hated them for their preference towards Kurds, and yet gave a tough resistance for the much powerfull Byzantines. the rest of the tribes lived on the border of civilization with no one really stopping them. the Seljuqs tried and failed several times to subdue Syrian tribes who helped the crusaders take over the holy lands and several of them allied themselves with them. They failed to stop mass migration towards the north of Iraq which was still mostly Kurdish-Christian. Large bedouin raides continued only to stop when Saladin approached them in a very systematic method. He gave them official titles, real power and made auxillaries from them. It was the Bedouin units of the army that cleared Syria from the first invasion of the Mongols, they also were responsible for the victories at Elbistan, Homs and helped strongly in Marj Al-Safr. In the end the Bedouin effect is all two powerfull, Turkmen tribes in Iraq and Syria have adopted to Bedouin life style, the language, the tradition and much of the culture though they still have distinct features that separate them from Arabs.
Al-Jassas |
The bedoin and turcomen nomads were driven off their pasture land by the mongols,the mongols were beaten by the mameluke turks and cirrcassians,not the bedouin,the bedouin were latter massacred and driven out of egypt and into the sudan by the mamelukes
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:20
|
I suggest you read more about Arab history because you obviously know nothing about the region's history.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:57
Originally posted by Al Jassas
I suggest you read more about Arab history because you obviously know nothing about the region's history.
Al-Jassas |
I know quite a bit about the regions history,and i'm not bias like you
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 05:37
|
Well here are news for you, it was the Bedouins who dicided the outcome of the battle of Hims in 1281 whn they crushed the center of the mongols and nearly killed their commander, if they did not reach in time the mamelukes who most of them fled the battle would have defeated for sure. Same goes to the battle of Ain Jalut. After the victory, mongols regrouped and a third Tumen joined them near Tiberias where they were defeated by the Bedouin vanguard of the army. Then when more mongols gathered near Aleppo, about 10 000 men late 1258 or early 1259, 1400 defeated them in a famous battle and by Spring there was not a single mongol in Syria. In the Battle of Marj Al-safr and others both Arab and Turkmen tribes helped win the victory their. you should also remember that the Turkmen tribes were essential in the fall of the Il-Khanids.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:17
|
Finally we can say that the turcomans were the primary fighting force of Islam for 1000 years against crusaders and mongols, but we cant simplify arabs role
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 20:18
Originally posted by Al Jassas
Well here are news for you, it was the Bedouins who dicided the outcome of the battle of Hims in 1281 whn they crushed the center of the mongols and nearly killed their commander, if they did not reach in time the mamelukes who most of them fled the battle would have defeated for sure. Same goes to the battle of Ain Jalut. After the victory, mongols regrouped and a third Tumen joined them near Tiberias where they were defeated by the Bedouin vanguard of the army. Then when more mongols gathered near Aleppo, about 10 000 men late 1258 or early 1259, 1400 defeated them in a famous battle and by Spring there was not a single mongol in Syria. In the Battle of Marj Al-safr and others both Arab and Turkmen tribes helped win the victory their. you should also remember that the Turkmen tribes were essential in the fall of the Il-Khanids.
Al-Jassas |
In reality arabs made up only a small amount of troops for the mameluke army and only as auxilaries,you are making stuff up in your posts like you always do to try to promote your own race as supermen.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 21:11
Originally posted by Al Jassas
Well here are news for you, it was the Bedouins who dicided the outcome of the battle of Hims in 1281 whn they crushed the center of the mongols and nearly killed their commander, if they did not reach in time the mamelukes who most of them fled the battle would have defeated for sure. Same goes to the battle of Ain Jalut. After the victory, mongols regrouped and a third Tumen joined them near Tiberias where they were defeated by the Bedouin vanguard of the army. Then when more mongols gathered near Aleppo, about 10 000 men late 1258 or early 1259, 1400 defeated them in a famous battle and by Spring there was not a single mongol in Syria. In the Battle of Marj Al-safr and others both Arab and Turkmen tribes helped win the victory their. you should also remember that the Turkmen tribes were essential in the fall of the Il-Khanids.
Al-Jassas |
The facts are that arabs played little to no part in the mamelukes versus mongol battles,as i posted earlier the brunt of the fighting was done by the turkic and circassian mameluke slave soldiers,none of whome were bedouin,ive also seen you post that the byzantines and pesians in the 600's were asking for it,well than i guess the islamic world was asking for it from the mongols,at the time the byzantines and persians were weak from fighting a long war where both sides lost about 200,000 soldiers each,historians think it would have taken at least a generation to recover from that loss,but the arabs invaded before they could recover and that is one reason for their success,let mr guess you have nothing but excuses for the arabs losses to charles martel too eh?
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 21:13
|
Well thanks for your complements
I suggest you read ibn Kathir's discription of the battles of Ain Jalut and Hims. Also you should read Abul-Fida's account, his father or grandfather was one of the wing leaders in the battle of Hims, the left wing of flank which stood the mongol onslaught with the Arab tribesmen under Isa ibn Muhanna. I did not say arabs were the greatest or they single handedly distroyed the mongols, I just said they were very effective in the battles against the mongols and the mongols never managed to subdue either southern Iraq or the Euphrates region in the Syrian desert. Arab tribes were defeated several times most notably in 1261 when they tried to take Baghdad but on a general scale, the final victory was theirs. Anyway here is a detailed article about the Mamelike-Ilkhan wars that I did but not yet finished:http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21471 I hope you enjoy it.
Al-Jassas
|
|