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 do you know about the Seljuks?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What do you know about the Seljuks?
    Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 12:46
Well guys i had todo something in here

Here is information about Seljuks on wiki:


Seljuk Turks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Seljuk Turks (also Seldjuk, Seldjuq, Seljuq; in modern Turkish Sel蓰klular; in Persian سلجوقيان Saljūqiyān; in Arabic سلجوق Saljūq, or السلاجقة al-Salājiqa) were a major branch of the Oghuz Turks and a dynasty that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries. The Seljuks migrated from Central Asia into mainland Iran formerly known as Persia. They are regarded as the ancestors of the Western Turks, the present-day inhabitants of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

Under Alp Arslan's successor Malik Shah I and his two Persian viziers Nizam al-Mulk and Taj ul-Milk, the Seljuk state expanded in various directions to former Iranian border before Arab invasion, so that it bordered China in the East and the Byzantine in the West. When Malik Shah died in 1092 the empire split, as his brother and four sons quarrelled over the apportioning of the empire among themselves. In 1118, the third son Ahmed Sanjar, unsatisfied by his portion of the inheritance, took over the empire. His brothers did not recognize his claim to the throne and Mahmud II proclaimed himself Sultan and established a capital in Baghdad. Ahmed Sanjar was captured and held captive by Turkish nomads from 1153 to 1156 and died the following year.

Despite several attempts to reunite the Seljuks in the centuries following Malik Shah's death, the Crusades prevented them from regaining their former empire. For a brief period, Toğrl III, was the Sultan of all Seljuk except for Anatolia. In 1194 Toğrl was defeated by Ala ad-Din Tekish, the Shah of Khwarezm, and the Seljuk finally collapsed. Of the former Seljuk Empire, only the Sultanate of Rm in Anatolia remained. As the dynasty declined in the middle of the 13th century, the Mongols invaded Anatolia in the 1260s and divided it into small emirates called the Anatolian beyliks, which in turn were later conquered by the Ottomans.

Contents

[hide]

< ="text/"> //

Rulers of Seljuk Dynasty 1037-1157

Seljuk Rulers of Kerman 1041-1187

Kerman was a nation in southern Persia. It fell in 1187, probably conquered by Toğrl III of Great Seljuk.

Seljuk Rulers in Syria 1076-1117

Sultans/Emirs of Damascus:

Atabegs of Aleppo:

Seljuk Sultans of Rm (Anatolia) 1077-1307


So what can you all add in here?

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 18:45

Battle of Manzikert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Battle of Manzikert, or The Battle of Malazgirt, was fought between the Byzantine Empire and Seljuk forces led by Alp Arslan on August 26, 1071 near Manzikert, Armenia (modern Malazgirt, Turkey). It resulted in the defeat of the Byzantine Empire and the capture of Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes.

Contents

[hide]

< ="text/"> //

Background

Battle of Manzikert
Part of the Byzantine-Seljuk wars
Date: August 26, 1071
Location: Manzikert, Armenia
Result: decisive Seljuk victory
Combatants
Byzantine Empire Seljuk Turks
Commanders
Romanus IV
Nicephorus Bryennius
Theodore Alyates
Andronicus Ducas
Alp Arslan
Strength
40,000-60,000 < 100,000
Casualties
About 10,000[citation needed] Unknown

During the 1060s the Seljuk sultan Alp Arslan allowed his Turkish allies to migrate towards Armenia and Asia Minor, where they sacked cities and plundered farmland. In 1064 they destroyed the Armenian capital at Ani. In 1068 Romanus IV led an expedition against them, but his slow-moving infantry could not catch the speedy Turkish cavalry, although he was able to capture the city of Hierapolis in Syria. In 1070 Romanus led a second expedition towards Malazgirt (then known as Manzikert) in the eastern end of Anatolia (in today's Muş Province), where a Byzantine fortress had been captured by the Seljuks, and offered a treaty with Alp Arslan; Romanus would give back Hierapolis if Arslan gave up the siege of Edessa (Urfa). Romanus threatened war if Alp Arslan did not comply, and prepared his troops anyway, expecting the sultan to decline his offer, which he did.

Preparations

Accompanying Romanus was Andronicus Ducas, the co-regent and a direct rival. The army consisted of about 5000 Byzantine troops from the western provinces, and probably about the same number from the eastern provinces; 500 Franks and Normans mercenaries under Roussel de Bailleul; some Turkish, Bulgarian, and Pecheneg mercenaries; infantry under the duke of Antioch; a contingent of Armenian troops; and some (but not all) of the Varangian Guard.

The march across Asia Minor was long and difficult, and Romanus did not endear himself to his troops by bringing a luxurious baggage train along with him; the Byzantine population also suffered some plundering by Romanus' Frankish mercenaries, whom he was forced to dismiss. The expedition first rested at Sebasteia on the Halys, and reached Theodosiopolis in June of 1071. There, some of his generals suggested continuing the march into Seljuk territory and catching Arslan before he was ready. Some of the other generals, including Nicephorus Bryennius, suggested they wait there and fortify their position. Eventually it was decided to continue the march.

Thinking that Alp Arslan was either further away or not coming at all, Romanus marched towards Lake Van expecting to retake Manzikert rather quickly, as well as the nearby fortress of Khliat if possible. However, Arslan was actually in Armenia, with 30,000 cavalry from Aleppo, Mosul, and his other allies. Arslan's spies knew exactly where Romanus was, while Romanus was completely unaware of his opponent's movements.

Romanus ordered his general John Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Byzantine troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and French to Khliat, while Romanus and the rest of the army marched to Manzikert. This probably split the forces in half, about 20,000 men each. Although it is unknown precisely what happened to Tarchaneiotes and his half of the army after this, they apparently caught sight of the Seljuks and fled, as they later appeared at Melitene and did not take part in the battle.

The battle

Romanus was unaware of the loss of Tarchaneiotes and continued to Manzikert, which he easily captured on August 23. The next day some foraging parties under Bryennius discovered the Seljuk force and were forced to retreat back to Manzikert. The Armenian general Basilaces was sent out with some cavalry, as Romanus did not believe this was Arslan's full army; the cavalry was destroyed and Basilaces taken prisoner. Romanus drew up his troops into formation and sent the left wing out under Bryennius, who was almost surrounded by the quickly approaching Turks and was forced to retreat once more. The Turks hid among the nearby hills for the night, making it nearly impossible for Romanus to send a counterattack.

On August 25, some of Romanus' Turkish mercenaries came into contact with their Seljuk relatives and deserted. Romanus then rejected a Seljuk embassy and attempted to recall Tarchaneiotes, who was of course no longer in the area. There were no engagements that day, but on August 26 the Byzantine army gathered itself into a proper battle formation and began to march on the Turkish positions, with the left wing under Bryennius, the right wing under Theodore Alyates, and the centre under the emperor. Andronicus Ducas led the reserve forces in the rear. The Seljuks were organized into a crescent formation about four kilometres away, with Arslan observing events from a safe distance. Seljuk archers attacked the Byzantines as they drew closer; the centre of their crescent continually moved backwards while the wings moved to surround the Byzantine troops.

The Byzantines held off the arrow attacks and captured Arslan's camp by the end of the afternoon. However, the right and left wings, where the arrows did most of their damage, almost broke up when individual units tried to force the Seljuks into a pitched battle; the Seljuk cavalry simply fled when challenged, the classic hit and run tactics of steppe warriors. With the Seljuks avoiding battle, Romanus was forced to order a withdrawal by the time night fell. However, the right wing misunderstood the order, and Ducas, as an enemy of Romanus, deliberately ignored the emperor and marched back to the camp outside Manzikert, rather than covering the emperor's retreat. Now that the Byzantines were thoroughly confused, the Seljuks seized the opportunity and attacked. The Byzantine right wing was routed; the left under Bryennius held out a little longer but was soon routed as well. Romanus was injured, and taken prisoner when the Seljuks discovered him.

When the Emperor Romanus IV was conducted into the presence of Alp Arslan, he was treated him with considerable kindess, and offered him the terms of peace which he had offered previous to the battle. He was also loaded with presents and Alp Arslan had him respectfully escorted by a military guard to his own forces. But prior to that, when he first was brought to the Sultan, this famous conversation is recorded to have taken place:

Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanus: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."

Shortly after his return to his subjects, Romanus was deposed, and then blinded and exiled in the island of Prote; soon after he died as a result of an infectioned caused by an injury during his brutal blinding.

Outcome

In line with the still ongoing discussions on the actual numbers of combattants in the confronting armies and their respective casualties, numerous sources relativize the Byzantine losses on the basis of many of their units having survived the battle intact and fighting elsewhere within a few months. Certainly, all commanders in the Byzantine side (Ducas, Tarchaneites, Bryennius, du Bailleul, and, above all, the Emperor) had survived and were going to be take parts in later events.

Despite the defeat, Byzantine casualties were apparently relatively low. Ducas had escaped with no casualties, and quickly marched back to Constantinople where he led the coup against Romanus. Bryennius also lost few men in the rout of his wing. The Seljuks did not pursue the fleeing Byzantines nor did they recapture Manzikert itself at this point. The Byzantine army regrouped and marched to Dokeia, where they were joined by Romanus when he was released a week later. The most serious loss materially seems to have been the emperor's extravagant baggage train.

The disaster the battle caused for the Empire was, in simplest terms, the loss of its Anatolian heartland. John Julius Norwich says in his trilogy on Byzantium that the loss was "its death blow, though centuries remained before the remnant fell. The themes in Anatolia were literally the heart of the empire, and within decades after Manzikert, they were gone.". Or, as Anna Comnena puts it a few decades after the actual battle, "the fortunes of the Roman Empire had sunk to their lowest ebb. For the armies of the East were dispersed in all directions, because the Turks had over-spread, and gained command of, countries between the Euxine Sea [Black Sea] and the Hellespont, and the Aegean and Syrian Seas [Mediterranean Sea], and the various bays, especially those which wash Pamphylia, Cilicia, and empty themselves into the Egyptian Sea [Mediterranean Sea]." [1]

Years and decades later, Manzikert came to be seen as a disaster for the Empire; later sources greatly exaggerate the numbers of troops and the numbers of casualties. Byzantine historians would often look back and lament the 'disaster' of that day, pinpointing it as the moment the decline of the Empire began. It was not, however, an immediate disaster; most units survived intact and were fighting in the Balkans or elsewhere in Asia Minor within a few months. On the other hand, the defeat showed the Seljuks that the Byzantines were not invincible - they were not the unconquerable, millennium-old Roman Empire (as both the Byzantines and Seljuks still called it). The usurpation of Andronicus Ducas also politically destabilized the empire, and it was difficult to organize a resistance to the Turkish migrations that followed the battle. Within the next few decades almost all of Asia Minor was overrun by the Seljuks. John Julius Norwich says in his great trilogy on Byzantium that the loss of the Anatolian heartland of the empire was "its death blow, through centuries remained before the remnant fell. The themes in Anatolia were literally the heart of the empire, and within decades after Manzikert, they were gone." Finally, while intrigue and deposing of Emperors had taken place before, the fate of Romanus was particularly horrific, and the destabilization caused by it also rippled through the centuries.

What followed the battle was a chain of events, of which the battle was the first ring, that were going to destabilize the Empire in the years after the battle. The intrigues for the throne, the horrific fate of Romanus, Roussel de Bailleul attempting to carve himself an independent kingdom in Galatia with his 3000 Frank/Norman/German mercenaries, defeating the Emperor's uncle John Dukas who had come to suppress him, advancing toward the capital to destroy Chrysopolis (鈤kdar) on the Asian coast of the Bosphorus, the Empire finally turning to the spreading Seljuks to conclude an agreement asking them to overcome de Bailleul (which they did, then delivering him over), all acted in interaction to create a vacuum which the Turks have filled. Their choice in establishing their capital in İznik (Nikaea) in 1077 could possibly be explained by a desire to see if the Empire's struggles could present new opportunities.

In hindsight, both Byzantine and contemporary historians are unanimous in dating the decline of Byzantine fortunes to this battle. It is interpreted as one of the root causes for the later Crusades, to the extent they could be qualified to possess purely religious motivations. In this perspective, the West saw Manzikert as a signal that Byzantium was no longer capable of being the protector of Eastern Christianity, or Christian prilgrims to the Holy Places in the Middle East.

Delbruck considers that the importance of the battle has been exaggerated; but it is clear from the evidence that as a result of it, the Empire was unable to put an effective army into the field for many years to come.


PS; are the numbers of the byzantines and the Seljuks soldiers correct? I allways knowd byzantines outnumbered the seljuks but above quoted from wiki they speak of 20 000 byzantine soldiers against 30 000 seljuki soldiers...?

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 18:48
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: 26-Apr-2006 at 05:35

nice article DayI

here is another map

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 12:23
THANKS FOR U'RE REPLY AZIMUTH!! i highly apreciated it 
Back to Top
Fizzil View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2004
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 197
  Quote Fizzil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:15

Aren't the Zengids also Seljuk Turks?

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:31
Fizzil i found something about Zhengids, here a quote from wiki;

Nur ad-Din
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

al-Malik al-Adil Nur ad-Din Abu al-Qasim Mahmud Ibn 'Imad ad-Din Zangi (February 1118 May 15, 1174), also known as Nur ed-Din, Nur al-Din, etc. (in Arabic: نور الدين Nūr ad-Dīn) was a member of the Zengid dynasty who ruled Syria from 1146 to 1174.


Contents [hide]
1 The war against the crusaders
2 Unification of the Muslim kingdom
2.1 The problem of Egypt
3 Death and succession
4 Legacy
5 Sources

[edit]

The war against the crusaders

See also: Jihad

Nur ad-Din was the second son of Imad ad-Din Zengi, the Turkish atabeg of Aleppo and Mosul, who was a devoted enemy of the crusader presence in Syria. After the assassination of his father, Nur ad-Din and his older brother Saif ad-Din Ghazi I divided the kingdom amongst themselves, with Nur ad-Din governing Aleppo and Saif ad-Din establishing himself in Mosul. The border between the two new kingdoms was formed by the Nahr al-Khabur river. Almost as soon as he began his rule, Nur ad-Din attacked the Principality of Antioch, seizing several castles in the north of Syria, while at the same time he defeated an attempt by Joscelin II to recover the County of Edessa, which had been conquered by Zengi in 1144. (See Siege of Edessa.) Nur ad-Din exiled the entire Christian population of the city, in punishment for assisting Joscelin.

Nur ad-Din sought to make alliances with his Muslim neighbours in northern Iraq and Syria in order to strengthen the Muslim front against their western enemies. In 1147 he signed a bilateral treaty with Mu'in ad-Din Unur, governor of Damascus; as part of this agreement, he also married Mu'in ad-Din's daughter. Together Mu'in ad-Din and Nur ad-Din besieged the cities of Bosra and Sarkhand, which had been captured by a rebellious vassal of Mu'in ad-Din named Altuntash, but Mu'in ad-Din was always suspicious of Nur ad-Din's intentions and did not want to offend his former crusader allies in Jerusalem, who had helped defend Damascus against Zengi. To reassure Mu'in ad-Din, Nur ad-Din curtailed his stay in Damascus and turned instead towards the Principality of Antioch, where he was able to seize Artah, Kafar Latha, Basarfut, and Balat.

In 1148, the Second Crusade arrived in Syria, led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. They decided to attack Damascus, despite the former alliance the city had made with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Mu'in ad-Din reluctantly called for help from Nur ad-Din; the crusader siege lasted only four days before Nur ad-Din arrived.

Nur ad-Din took advantage of the failure of the crusade to prepare another attack against Antioch. In 1149, he launched an offensive against the territories dominated by the castle of Harim, situated on the eastern bank of the Orontes, after which he besieged the castle of Inab. The Prince of Antioch, Raymond of Poitiers, quickly came to the aid of the besieged citadel. The Muslim army destroyed the crusader army at the Battle of Inab, during which Raymond was killed. Raymond's head was sent to Nur ad-Din, who sent it along to the caliph in Baghdad. Nur ad-Din marched all the way to the coast and expressed his dominance of Syria by symbolically bathing in the Mediterranean Sea. He did not, however, attack Antioch itself; he was content with capturing all Antiochene territory east of the Orontes and leaving a rump state around the city, which in any case soon fell under the suzerainty of the Byzantine Empire. In 1150, he defeated Joscelin II for a final time, after allying with the Seljuk Sultan of Rm, Mas'ud (whose daughter he also married). Joscelin was blinded and died in his prison in Aleppo in 1159. In 1152 Nur ad-Din briefly captured Tortosa after the assassination of Raymond II of Tripoli.
[edit]

Unification of the Muslim kingdom

It was Nur ad-Din's dream to unite the various Muslim forces between the Euphrates and the Nile to make a common front against the crusaders. In 1149 Saif ad-Din Ghazi died, and a younger brother, Qutb ad-Din, succeeded him. Qutb ad-Din recognized Nur ad-Din as overlord of Mosul, so that the major cities of Mosul and Aleppo were united under one man. Damascus was all that remained as an obstacle to the unification of Syria.

After the failure of the Second Crusade, Mu'in ad-Din had renewed his treaty with the crusaders, and after his death in 1149 his successor Mujir ad-Din followed the same policy. In 1150 and 1151 Nur ad-Din besieged the city, but retreated each time with no success, aside from empty recognition of his suzerainty. When Ascalon was captured by the crusaders in 1153, Mujir ad-Din forbade Nur ad-Din from travelling across his territory. Mujir ad-Din, however, was a weaker ruler than his predecessor, and he also agreed to pay an annual tribute to the crusaders in exchange for their protection. The growing weakness of Damascus under Mujir ad-Din allowed Nur ad-Din to overthrow him in 1154, with help from the population of the city. Damascus was annexed to Zengid territory, and all Syria was unified under the authority of Nur ad-Din, from Edessa in the north to the Hauran in the south. He was cautious not to attack Jerusalem right away, and even continued to send the yearly tribute established by Mujir ad-Din; meanwhile he briefly became involved in affairs to the north of Mosul, where a succession dispute in the Sultanate of Rm threatened Edessa and other cities.

In 1157 Nur ad-Din besieged the Knights Hospitaller in the crusader fortress of Banias and routed a relief army from Jerusalem, but he fell ill that year and the crusaders were given a brief respite from his attacks. In 1159 the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus arrived to assert his authority in Antioch, and the crusaders hoped he would send an expedition against Aleppo. However, Nur ad-Din sent ambassadors and negotiated an alliance with the emperor against the Seljuks, much to the crusaders' dismay. Nur ad-Din, along with the Danishmends of eastern Anatolia, attacked the Seljuk sultan Kilij Arslan II from the east the next year, while Manuel attacked from the west. Later in 1160, Nur ad-Din captured the Prince of Antioch, Raynald of Chatillon after a raid in the Anti-Taurus mountains; Raynald remained in captivity for the next sixteen years. By 1162, with Antioch under nominal Byzantine control and the crusader states further south powerless to make any further attacks on Syria, Nur ad-Din made a pilgrimage to Mecca. Soon after he returned, he learned of the death of King Baldwin III of Jerusalem, and out of respect for such a formidable opponent he refrained from attacking the crusader kingdom: William of Tyre reports that Nur ad-Din said We should sympathize with their grief and in pity spare them, because they have lost a prince such as the rest of the world does not possess today.
[edit]

The problem of Egypt

As there was now nothing the crusaders could do in Syria, they were forced to look to the south if they wanted to expand their territory. The capture of Ascalon had already succeeded in cutting off Egypt from Syria, and Egypt had been politically weakened by a series of very young Fatimid caliphs. By 1163, the caliph was the young al-Adid, but the country was ruled by the vizier Shawar. That year, Shawar was overthrown by Dirgham; soon afterwards, the King of Jerusalem, Amalric I, led an offensive against Egypt, on the pretext that the Fatimids were not paying the tribute they had promised to pay during the reign of Baldwin III. This campaign failed and he was forced to return to Jerusalem, but it provoked Nur ad-Din to lead a campaign of his own against the crusaders in Syria in order to turn their attention away from Egypt. His attack on Tripoli was unsuccessful, but he was soon visited by the exiled Shawar, who begged him to send an army and restore him to the vizierate. Nur ad-Din did not want to spare his own army for a defense of Egypt, but his Kurdish general Shirkuh convinced him to invade in 1164. In response, Dirgham allied with Amalric, but the king could not mobilize in time to save him. Dirgham was killed during Shirkuh's invasion and Shawar was restored as vizier.

Shawar immediately expelled Shirkuh and allied with Amalric, who arrived to besiege Shirkuh at Bilbeis. Shirkuh agreed to abandon Egypt when Amalric was forced to return home, after Nur ad-Din attacked Antioch and besieged the castle of Harenc. There, Nur ad-Din routed the combined armies of Antioch and Tripoli, but refused to attack Antioch itself, fearing reprisals from the Byzantines. Instead he besieged and captured Banias, and for the next two years continually raided the frontiers of the crusader states. In 1166 Shirkuh was sent again to Egypt. Amalric followed him at the beginning of 1167, and a formal treaty was established between Amalric and Shawar, with the nominal support of the caliph. The crusaders occupied Alexandria and Cairo and made Egypt a tributary state, but Amalric could not hold the country while Nur ad-Din still held Syria, and he was forced to return to Jerusalem.

In 1168 Amalric sought an alliance with Emperor Manuel and invaded Egypt once more. Shawar's son Khalil had had enough, and with support from Caliph al-Adil requested help from Nur ad-Din and Shirkuh. At the beginning of 1169 Shirkuh arrived and the crusaders once more were forced to retreat. This time Nur ad-Din gained full control of Egypt. Shawar was executed and Shirkuh's nephew Saladin was named vizier of the newly conquered territory. One last invasion of Egypt was launched by Amalric and Manuel, but it was disorganized and came to nothing.
[edit]

Death and succession

During this time Nur ad-Din was busy in the north, fighting the Ortoqids, and in 1170 he had to settle a dispute between his nephews when his brother Qutb ad-Din died. After conquering Egypt, Nur ad-Din believed that he had accomplished his goal of uniting the Muslim states, but Saladin did not wish to be subject to his authority. He did not participate in the invasions led by Nur ad-Din against Jerusalem in 1171 and 1173, hoping that the crusader kingdom would act as a buffer state between Egypt and Syria. Nur ad-Din realized that he had created a dangerous opponent in Saladin, and the two rulers assembled their armies for what seemed to be the inevitable war.

However, when Nur ad-Din was on the verge of invading Egypt in 1174, he was seized by a fever due to complications from a peritonsillar abscess, and died at the age of 59. His young son As-Salih Ismail al-Malik became his legitimate heir, and Saladin declared himself his vassal, although he really planned to unify Syria and Egypt under his own rule. He married Nur ad-Din's widow, defeated the other claimants to the throne and took power in Syria in 1185, finally realizing Nur ad-Din's dream.
[edit]

Legacy

According to William of Tyre, although Nur ad-Din was a mighty persecutor of the Christian name and faith, he was also a just prince, valiant and wise, and according to the traditions of his race, a religious man. Nur ad-Din was especially religious after his illness and his pilgrimage. He considered the crusaders foreigners in Muslim territory, who had come to Outremer to plunder the land and profane its sacred places. Nevertheless, he was tolerant of the Christians who lived under his authority, aside from the Armenians of Edessa. In contrast to Nur ad-Dins respectful reaction to the death of Baldwin III, Amalric I immediately besieged Banias upon learning of the emirs death, and extorted a vast amount of money from his widow.

Nur ad-Din also constructed universities and mosques in all the cities he controlled. These universities were principally concerned with teaching the Koran and Hadith. Nur ad-Din himself enjoyed to have specialists read to him from the Hadith, and his professors even awarded him a diploma in Hadith narration. He had free hospitals constructed in his cities as well, and built caravanserais on the roads for travellers and pilgrims. He held court several times a week so that people could seek justice from him against his generals, governors, or other employees who had committed some crime. In the Muslim world he remains a legendary figure of military courage, piety, and modesty.

The Damascene chronicler Ibn al-Qalanisi generally speaks of Nur ad-Din in majestic terms, although he himself died in 1160, and unfortunately did not witness the later events of Nur ad-Dins reign.
Back to Top
Fizzil View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2004
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 197
  Quote Fizzil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:47

The Zengis are pretty fascinating, I mean Imad al Din Zengi was called Sanguinus by his enemies for a reason

Thanks for the article DayI

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 11:57
Originally posted by Fizzil

The Zengis are pretty fascinating, I mean Imad al Din Zengi was called Sanguinus by his enemies for a reason

Thanks for the article DayI

Oh ok i found the meaning of sanguinus,


Edited by DayI
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

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 0.080 seconds.