...а ведь когда то это был великий Тюркский Эль. И по численности даже осколок его - казахи - насчитывали миллионов 10 в 15-16 веке, больше чем сейчас современных казахов.
То же самое и Крым, Ногаи, которых сейчас почти не осталось, по крайней мере на месте своего обитания и в первоначальном виде.
Надеюсь это временный период определенной постсовковой ''дикости''. Последствия тяжкого 300-летнего российского ''ига'', когда лучшие люди гибли первыми. Сейчас страна под властью потомков всяческой челяди, советской партийной элиты в кавычках. Они и пытаются лишить страну истории, чтобы быть ''первыми президентами'' и прочими, в истории ''молодого народа'' - казахов. Нац-я элита у казахов была даже при совке, хотя бы тонкая прослойка интеллектуалов и совести нации, но была. народ тоже был лучше
Султан Китбуга аль Адил ушел от власти, укрывшись в замке в городе Хама в Сирии. У многих тюркских народов есть род Кетбуга, возможно его потомки живут среди тюркских народов и не только. Интересно что в Казахстане потомок Китбуги профессор Аскер Бакаев тоже по матери то ли черкес то ли кабардинец (через маму украинку, черкесскую княжну по корням). А вот фильм с точки зрения исторической науки совсем неправильный. Странно что казахи и другие тюрки снимают такое кино. Даже после распада совка.
Имеется ввиду тот Китбуга который бы главнокомандующим армией Хулагу, был тюрком, найманом, его взяли в плен в Хомсе. Он стал эмиром и султаном (Китбуга аль Адил Зайнаддин). Позже при правлении бурджитов еще был черкес Китбуга, но это имя тюркское и назван он был в честь того Китбуги 1-го, может была родственная связь.
А общую победу мусульман под руководством тюрков над тюрками в целом(тюрко-монголами) он завысил в десятки если не сотни раз. Корпус Китбуки-нойона был небольшим - всего 30 тысяч против 300-тысячной армии мусульман. И самое главное ему нанесли удар в спину крестоносцы, сразу же сбежали, но их крепости были разрушены, ''рыцарей-псов'' много убито. Еще они позволили пройти мамлюкам через свои территории, дав тем использовать эффект неожиданности. Есть гипотеза что Китбуга стал султаном Египта.
Самое главное Семашко не просто занизил, а даже унизил тюрков в этом фильме. Жаль что казахи сняли по его невежественной книге фильм. Надо было взять за основу первоисточники.
Да так и есть, вспомнил точно, монгол например не мог быть рабом по Ясе, а султан Бейбарс (1-й, тюрк а не черкес) ввел Ясу как закон в своей империи. Так что учите историю а не виляйте когда вас прижмут к стене в споре.
В этом фильме Бейбарс спрашивает у визиря - ''кто я, откуда?''. Но это бред, все мамлюки знали откуда они, на этом и базировалось их деление - бахри, бурджи, африканцы, саклаба и всё по моему. Тем более то что он из кипчакских степей, из племени которое записали как бурджоглы, знали все а не какой -то всезнающий визирь как придумал Морис Семашко писатель. В книге и фильме много неправильно, в реальности Бейбарса продали в рабство не монголы а другие тюрки - печенеги.
why the vast majority always forget that Kipchaks only a small part of the Turks Barrens, were still Kimek and Oguz (Oriental Oguz, authentic, cleaner), and others, for sure.
@ganfaiteri бурджи значит башенные по арабски. (Из-за этого бахритского султана Бейбарса адыги путают с ними, т.к. он был из племени бурдж оглы, но это неправильно звучит скорее всего.) А в основном башенные мамлюки были адыгами, насколько я знаю. Возможно они других кавказцев не пускали на самый верх.
@mr239611 ia ne budu sporic a vas,no skaju shto:burji aznachaet vse severno kavkaskie jiteli, kak ia chital.(no ne znaiu shto znachit po arabski.) a maiom komntare "magushestvennie mamluki" ia imei vidu shto ani bili ludi dostoini uvajeniami.i znaiu shto ani nikagda ne bili sultanami. a to shto gruzini i vse kavkazci bili doroje vsex,eta ia ne dumaiu tak.v etom dele iest istoricheskie dokumenti.( vi doljen vidit i prochitat eto. )
@ganfaiteri Бурдж это башня, крепость, в европейских языках бург происходит от этого слова. 2. Грузины и др. кавказцы не были дороже всех. Наверное для своих они были дороже. Но ведь для тюрков свои были дороже. А так как они были правящей элитой во многих тогдашних государствах сверхдержавах, естественно тюрки стоили гораздо дороже всех перечисленных. Кажется даже было запрещено рабовладение тюрками.
@ganfaiteri Да так и есть, вспомнил точно, монгол например не мог быть рабом по Ясе, а султан Бейбарс (1-й, тюрк а не черкес) ввел Ясу как закон в своей империи. Так что учите историю а не виляйте когда вас прижмут к стене в споре. Успехов.
@ganfaiteri Не помню чтобы грузин-мамлюк стал султаном. Только тюрки сначала, потом гораздо позже черкесы. Вы написали что самые могущественные мамлюки были грузины - это не так, мягко говоря. Потом что они стоили дороже всех - но доверия ваше утверждение теперь не вызывает (мало ли на каком основании вам так кажется).
memlucks were 60/65% turkic, 30 % circassians (abaza cerkez and so) and 5% mix
and all 80% of the rulers was turk later egyptian was conquered by a another turkic dynasty the ottomens and so the rulers fromm egyptian was turks again.
Ahaha guys guys) mamluks are egyptian warriors whos' army consisted of slaves from different nationalities. Voini raznih nacionalnostei, to4nee rabi na myaso!
Mameluks are NOT turks they are CIRCASSIANS !!! u idiots first need to learn history and next to talk ! sure u musnt to check infos out from your own fake history books ! ;)
@Abazin89 All history books I have ever read says that the Mamluks were mostly kypchak turks, why would I assume that these books are fake history books?
funny , really funny , i've red many things about it and i know they were georgians, who were stolen from there country by turks . maybe there were turks too but most of them were georgians
Many seem to have wild ideas about what the mamluks were but all historians seem to agree on that the Mamluks were kipchak turks. But did they all lose their langauge and spoke arabic? After the mamluks took power, what was the language in the court`?
@Cilekeash09 No they were not turks, they were Cerkez and Chechen and other people from kavkaz. And don't try to tell me that these people are turks, can't listen to this nonsense any more...
@BosKrajina How would you explain then the fact that lingua franca of the Mamluk sultanate during both the Bahri (Qipchaq) and Burji(Circassian) periods was Qipchaq, a Turkish language?
The house-language of the Mamluk military corps, and its court, were Qipchaq Turkish. It is for this reason that the Arabophone natives of the Sultanate in Egypt and Greater Syria referred to the Mamluks as “Dawlat al-Atrak,” the regime of the Turks.
@BosKrajina, all of Desht-i Kypchak was set ablaze by Genghiz Khan's Turco-Mongols. As a consequence lots of Qipchaq Turks (of rival clans, those who went against Ghenghiz Khans will) were sold on the slave bazaars for decades, of whom the Bahri Dynasty has been consisted of. The backbone of Bahri's were the Qipchaqs. The presence of Turks in Egypt even has stimulated the compilation of Kipchak-Arabic dictionaries and grammars that are used in the study of several old Turkic languages.
Who cares what they were. The only thing that matters is that they were Muslims. Do not divide us. Nationality belongs to the enemy not us. We are brothers in faith.
Why the vast majority always forget that Kipchaks only a small part of the history of the Turks (steppe Turks), as has been Kimek and Oguz (Oghuz eastern, authentic, cleaner), only the Persians and the Arabs called them Kipchaks. Various other Turks among the Egyptian Mamluks. The mongols (and other people) too often moved to Egypt with the turkic groups from Ulus of Hulagu and Ulus of Berke.
@AZER1FIGHTER всех потомков кимаков, куманов и т.д. называли кипчаками. Исключая восточных огузов (в смысле потомков ядра Тюркских Каганатов, проще говоря собственно кёк-тюрков а не присоединенных тогуз-огузов, уйгуров, кыргызов и т. д.). Извиняюсь что перешел на русский, мне так проще.
From 1250 Egypt had been ruled by the Turkish Mamluk Bahri dynasty. In 1377 a revolt broke out in Syria which spread to Egypt, and the government was taken over by the Circassians Barakah and Barkuk; Barkuk was proclaimed sultan in 1382, ending the Bahri dynasty. He was expelled in 1389 but recaptured Cairo in 1390. Permanently in power he founded the Burji dynasty.
Al-Ashraf Sayf-ad-Din Barsbay was the ninth Burji Mamluk sultan of Egypt from A.D. 1422 to 1438. He was Circassian by birth and a former slave of the first Burji Sultan, Barquq. He was responsible for a number of administrative reforms in the Mamluk state, including the consolidation of the sultanate as a military magistrature and securing for Egypt exclusive rights over the Red Sea trade between Yemen and Europe.[1] His mausoleum, which included a madrasa and khanqah
That's not true. Mamluks were Turkic-Mongol Tribes slaves, now, whether they were white or not is a different scenario and depends upon how you define "white". The Ottomans were Turkic, yet white, so are the Tatars (white yet Turkic).
Only reason why they won is becuase the main Mongol force returned to Mongolia. Leaving behind a small deatchment of Mongol warriors. The Mameluk out number them 20 to 1, that is why they won. When the main mongol force was there rdy to invade Eqypt, they were about to cede over to the Mongols, a force at that time outnumbered 3 to 1 against the mameluk. Be thankful, that the Khan that died in Mongolia is what saved Egypt.
The Mamluks defeated a combined army of Mongols, Crusaders from Europe and Armenian Army, They were exceptional fighter. In terms of numbers, they were probably of equal strength. Plus, an important factor was that the Mamluks were supported by the Mongols of Golden Horde.
Berkhe Khan (Grandson of Ghengis Khan) who converted to Islam vowed to avenge the sack of Baghdad and hence he aided the Mamluks against the other Mongols.
@SunnivsShiite I really doubt any mongol army would fight with those odds, beeing outnumberd 20 to 1.
That was one of the great things with the mongols that they did not fight stupid battles. Or risked their generals like the europeans did. Probably outnumbers like they were in most battles but not that much. they would not have fought then.
The Mamluks were great warriors they were the first to actually defeat the mongols on the battlefield something that have never been done before, alot of mystery sorrounds the mameluks and the Fatimids. Im proud of Egypt`s Islamic History
historically no the majority of fighters in the army were not egyptians but turks, the famous historian ibn khaldun said- it `It was by the grace of God glory be to Him, that He came to rescue the true faith by reviving the its last breadth and restoring in egpyt the unity of muslims guarding his order and defending his ramparts. this he did by sending to them out of this turkish people and out of its mighty and numerous tribes guardian amirs and devoted defenders who are imported as slaves
you're saying the majority of the soldiers were egyptians besides turks and mamluks, then why do we hear that the battle of ayn jalut was between "mamluks and il khanid mongols?" it s obvious that the majority of the fighters were mamluks. Plus if egpytians were the majority then you would have heard that ayn jalut was between egyptians and mongols. if they (mamluks) were the minority then why did they stand out in the battle? it doesnt make sense my brother in islam?
Egyptians did not only defeat the mongol army in ain jalut but Egyptians also defeated the ottoman turk army in 1812 egyptian army took control of syria and invaded the southern parts of turkey (battle of konya) we were close on occupying constantinople but the english and the russians intervened and saved the mongolian turks
y'all need ta chill. the Mamluks in Misr were all of various backgrounds, but mostly NOT turkic-spaking by the time of Mehmet Ali. They were usually Cherkess, Albanian and Kartli speakers by birth, and their loyalties were to their elders of similar nationalities (yeah they may have spoke Turkish, but as an official Ottoman language, not a lingua franca). The Misri were ruled by them, and tey ony fought when absolutly needed. The Misri populace was too busy working and dealing with the badawin.
Egyptians wew always excluded from running their own country because mumlukes feared revolt by the Egyptians. When the Egyptians were recruited as army they defeated the Mogouls and later recruited by Mohammed Ali and they almost ran over the Ottoman empire invading kutahia.
u r 100% right well i just want to say to the studied others, just open the encyclopedia and find out who were the Borji mamlouk "Charkis" or Circassians ,and how they were killed in the Saladin castle by Ali Basha "Albanian" when they wanted to end the Mameluke ERA , any way Circassians not Turk !!!
Arabophone natives of the Sultanate in Egypt and Greater Syria referred to the Mamluks as Dawlat al-Atrak, the regime of the Turks.
As for the Qipchaqs, it is said that many of them had blue eyes and blond or brown hair. But it is wrong. Those blue eyed blondies were really captive Slav children, captured in raids or raised in slave-stockades, who were then taught Turkish and sold as valuable export commodities. Also called "Saqaliba".
Never lol They Were Bringing soliders From Caucasus Circassia lol
the funny Part how egypitons made a funny change in history and they removed what the Charkes or Jerkis did to Egypt and they talked about them as Bad People lol
The preponderance of the Qipchaq ethnicity during the late Ayyubid and Bahri Maluk periods may account for the choice of Qipchaq, one of many regional lingua francas, as the lingua franca of the Mamluk court throughout Mamluk rule, including the second period when the Circassian element was at the helm.
Before (1230-1382) a mamluk could anybody of non-arab as berbers, blacks and egyptians. But in aforementioned period mamluk army was consisted mainly of turks form Deshti-Kypchak. Who were sold by Venetian&Genoa merchants to Sultans of Egypt. Because of war with moghols, there's been occured a big market of slaves, mainly kypchaks, afterwards slavs&caucasians. Bahri's were mainly kypchak turks, Burji's of other origins. And kypchak's were converted to Islam in 1041-1050,what u mean nothing here?
also there was only around 5000 people called memluks in egypt plus not all of them were tatar/origin , some were egyptians and others mixed , so dont make a big fuss
mamluk means in arabic " owned " which is lake slave , so stop being stupid
why they did not call it kipchakistan or tatarstan you stupid
Native Egyptians were not allowed to serve in the army until the reign of Muhammed Ali...
Now I understand your obsession with egyptians surving in army. "The Mamluks disassociated themselves from the native Egyptians". That is the point- Ultimately, Mamluk rule rested on force. The chronicles of the period are replete with examples of Mamluk violence against the indigenous population of Egypt...From horseback, they simply terrorized those lesser breeds who crossed their paths.
The sudden and arbitrary use of force by the government and its dominant military elite; frequent resort to cruelty to make a point; ingenious methods of torture employed both for exemplary purpose and to extract wealth from others: all these measures were routine in the Mamluk era. Egypt under the Mamluks was not a very secure place to live. Yes no reminiscences of native Egyptians among Mamluks, "animal and dog fucker barbarians" were riding you bitch, slave people were riding ur ass bitch...
Mameluks weren't egyptian ethnically, slaves from distant areas were welcomed in Egypt to fear locals. They also were loyal to Sultan, and were less likely to be in conspiracy with local sheikhs. If you're egyptian, most probably you have some turkic blood, because mamluks were assimilated in egyptian society. Mongols of those times were the same people as egyptian mamluks were, just fought for different ideals.
In Israel, near Lod there is a Bridge called in the name of Baibars (Baibars Bridge), there are Quranic inscriptions on it, just above the arc, and two snow leopards are depicted on it. Snow Leopard is what Baybars'es name stands for, "Bars" means snow leopard, and Bay means "Lord" in kypchak language.
egyptians themselves were also taken as slaves by arabs dont forget .
they are egyptian and the army who fought the mongols was mostly egyptian , the imams went through out egyptian towns and cities calling for people to fight the mongols
simply bebars was egyptian , egyptians taught him how to fight , read and write .
No one tries to steal it, believe me, the battle of Ain-Jalut was in todays Palestine, but you can't claim that army consisted of Palestinians? I think not. Role of egyptian people may be great in Mamluk Sultanate, but you don't have to shadow other peoples role in it. It was huge, from Anatolia to Western Africa and Saudi Arabia. The Mamluk Sultanate was above the egyptian nation concept. Mamluk's ruled your lands and that is what really counts for me.
No you can't, but "Janissaries" did a great deal for Ottoman Empire, though they weren't turks ethnically. I don't say Turkey, I say Ottoman Empire, because even other nationalities as kurds would tear anybodies arse for Ottoman Empire, despite the fact many of them want to live separately from Turkey as a state. They weren't seljuk turks, that's the deal. With Bahri mamluks, it's much more strictly, they were kypchak turks.
ottmans were not that strong , egyptian army under muhammed ali owned them many times
i would not give any credit to the ottman empire ,they ruled egypt in a decisive way , anyway they did not manage to rule south egypt and many main cities in the north , just cairo and alexandria
Your Muhammed have appeared just in the 18th century, but I'm talking about 13-14 centuries, your Ali was fighting the state that was in agony already, it wasn't a big deal to defeat a sick man, just predating on a dead body doesn't make you a hero, Ottomans owned your arse when they were strong even circassian mamluks didn't help you, because they weren't of turkic origin, now all I have to say know your place bitch...
If there wouldn't be slave nomadic warriors from Deshti-Kypchak in Egypt, I suppose there wouldn't be any reminiscences of any resistence to moghols at all, egypt would probably fall, as Russia, China and Near East has been fallen by the time.
The one who speaks and sings in arab language, not always can be considered as egyptian. But the one who takes care of egyptian culture, it's territory and it's people can surely be called egyptian. But was Baybars an arab, ethnically not, ideologically may be.
no, it's a modern history, you just can't accept what I claim with your narrow mind. you are objected with nationalistic ideas. While in the times of mamluks in 13th century, no one cared about egyptian nation. Such a concept didn't even exist though.
No, they were called Eyubids. And I've seen tombs of those who fought in Anatolia, it is written on them that they are Eyubids, no mention they were Egyptians...
Yo man, whats with the blind nationalism? you are a Muslim thats what matters. Its good to like your country but dont be so obsessed with nationalism.
How dare you put your country before the religion of your creator. And what do you mean all Muslims betrayed you. The Turkish mamluks who were Muslims shed their blood many times to protect your country from the mongols. Dont be an ingrateful person.
You're totally wrong, sawanoovel, everybody can fall, the main point is to be able to stand and continue your ways. Russia was owned by moghols, so what, China was also owned by moghols, so what? Conquered, we conquer, if you know what I mean.
I think we as muslims failed because of the nationalistic ideas that the west invented to separate the muslim world I didn't matter where you came from as long as you were doing the job of defending Islam.
in most cases, the majority of the Misri population did NOT fight the wars for the Mamluks. THEY DIDN'T NEED TO! ( why would you employ untrained people to fight for you?) and for the Record, the battle of Ain Jaluit was won not because of local Misri recruits, but because the majority of the Mongol army left with Hulegu. If the Mongol strength was in full force, they probably would have had a tactical victory
prinznevsky idiot , turkic is not mongol. we are turk , turks are exist a.c. 500 [by gokturk khanet] but mongols exist a.c. 1200 by gahngis khan. actually our ancestor were hunnic people idiwich were spoken turkic language like gokturks,timurlenks,memluks ... ot dont mix us with mongols or arabs ...
Where did I say that "Turks" are "Mongols"? I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE MONGOL!!! RTF COMMENT!! Tue Ch'ieh, Xiongnu, Gokturk, whatever. I though the Turks were descendants of some she-wolf or something...
@elghazoli The muslims failed because when other people were working hard and inventing new things: You wer epraying and reading ink and paper, aka the Quran. lol
I hope you'll grow up a little bit, and won't say such things, because those mongols nowadays represent a lot of people, not just Mongolia, but all Central Asia, parts of Russia and even China. Mongol army mostly consisted of turkic power. Who were indeed were the same people of whom Bahri Dynasty consisted of, so by saying such a thing you accept, you were ruled by animal and dog fucker stupid barbarians, what a shame...
Islam transcends race, gender, culture, and nationality.
I hope that you along with all others who think the same way, come to reaize this. For the more we distance ourselves from each other, the weaker will our Ummah be.
Toolmool, when most people are told that Baybars was a Turk, they assume that he was a Turk as in from Turkey. I was clarifying that he was indeed a Turk, but not from Anatolia as most unknowledgable people assume. However, It doesnt matter if he was a Turk, Arab, or Persian. What matters is that he was a Muslim. Why do you put so much emphasis on race? No offence bro, but from the way you are so obsessed on race, you often give people(including me) the impression that you are a racist.
no its not. Islam is the opposite of racism. Islam says that all return equally to Allah. Piety is the measure of superiority not race. Its nationalists like you who breed racism. I personallyh think that its ok to be proud of your nationality but you should never let it come before Islam.
Mughals were turkic too. Turks and Pakistani = brothers.
"Turkish was the mother tongue of Mughals and earlierSultans of South Asia. The autobiography of Mughal emperor Babur, Tuzk Babari was also written in Turkish. The Turkish directly influenced Urdu. The word Urdu is of Turkish origin, as Urdu was originally called Zaban-e-Ordu or language of the Army, Ordu means army' in Turkish."
Mughals were Turkic in the sense they adopted Turkic culture, language, customs (which contained many Persian elements as well). But, they were ethnically Mongols. Babur himself was a descendant of Chinggis Khan. The word 'Mughal' is the Persian of 'Mongol', i.e. Mughal=Mongol.
egypt was not white people. check your facts and you'll see that it was the nubians. our art in egypt was way older then the damn arab.
alexander stole our history and gave it to the european cum buckets[arab] check it up and you'll see our art and genetics was there way before the arab was.
Guys, the mamluks were not Turkish, they were Turkic. There is a difference between the two. The mamluks were kipchak turks from the ukraine, southern russia, armenia, georgia and modern day Kazakhstan. The Seljuks are the ones who are from Turkmenistan
The Mamluks at the time of Baybers were mainly Kipchaks. However after the Mamluk Burji regime took control in 1389, it was then that mamluk officers became mostly circasian.
why the Arabic Egyptian side doesn't mention Georgians warier while all the Egyptian history talks about Turks and "Great Circassians" including the 13th Adiga Tribe The Abaza ?
First of all, please dont call me "boy". I am just as old as you are. Second of all, the period in which georgian mamluks ruled iraq was between 1747-1831. I am talking about the thirteenth century here.
Katbay ,Bersbay , Abaza , Bay Bars , are they Georgian or truck names?
dose it mean something in Turkish or Georgian? lol
I want to point out that the Caucasian Culture and tradition tells that the real worriers most go out of their country ,even if they are from a royal dynasty, and return with a big fortune and victory so you can't consider them as slaves according to their culture and traditions .
Even if you don't believe ,how come the slaves become Kings?
Beybarys was from a Kipchak (modern Kazakh)tribe Berish, who have always lived in Kazakhstan, near the City of Atyrau.
Mameluks of that time spoke Kipchak language which is in a family of turkik languages and similar to modern kazakh. In Turkmenistsn there was another confederation of turkik nations - tribes of Oguz, who had more in common with contemporary Turkish people.
i love it that i now can recognize it ... the 3 first seconds and i knew it was russian ... zajibiste ... i want to learn RUSSIAN !!!!
chabi3000 5 months ago
...а ведь когда то это был великий Тюркский Эль. И по численности даже осколок его - казахи - насчитывали миллионов 10 в 15-16 веке, больше чем сейчас современных казахов.
То же самое и Крым, Ногаи, которых сейчас почти не осталось, по крайней мере на месте своего обитания и в первоначальном виде.
mr239611 5 months ago
И гораздо лучше, здоровее. Проблема в том что слишком мало известно о них, страна огромная, людей мало.
mr239611 5 months ago
Надеюсь это временный период определенной постсовковой ''дикости''. Последствия тяжкого 300-летнего российского ''ига'', когда лучшие люди гибли первыми. Сейчас страна под властью потомков всяческой челяди, советской партийной элиты в кавычках. Они и пытаются лишить страну истории, чтобы быть ''первыми президентами'' и прочими, в истории ''молодого народа'' - казахов. Нац-я элита у казахов была даже при совке, хотя бы тонкая прослойка интеллектуалов и совести нации, но была. народ тоже был лучше
mr239611 5 months ago
Султан Китбуга аль Адил ушел от власти, укрывшись в замке в городе Хама в Сирии. У многих тюркских народов есть род Кетбуга, возможно его потомки живут среди тюркских народов и не только. Интересно что в Казахстане потомок Китбуги профессор Аскер Бакаев тоже по матери то ли черкес то ли кабардинец (через маму украинку, черкесскую княжну по корням). А вот фильм с точки зрения исторической науки совсем неправильный. Странно что казахи и другие тюрки снимают такое кино. Даже после распада совка.
mr239611 5 months ago
Имеется ввиду тот Китбуга который бы главнокомандующим армией Хулагу, был тюрком, найманом, его взяли в плен в Хомсе. Он стал эмиром и султаном (Китбуга аль Адил Зайнаддин). Позже при правлении бурджитов еще был черкес Китбуга, но это имя тюркское и назван он был в честь того Китбуги 1-го, может была родственная связь.
mr239611 5 months ago
А общую победу мусульман под руководством тюрков над тюрками в целом(тюрко-монголами) он завысил в десятки если не сотни раз. Корпус Китбуки-нойона был небольшим - всего 30 тысяч против 300-тысячной армии мусульман. И самое главное ему нанесли удар в спину крестоносцы, сразу же сбежали, но их крепости были разрушены, ''рыцарей-псов'' много убито. Еще они позволили пройти мамлюкам через свои территории, дав тем использовать эффект неожиданности. Есть гипотеза что Китбуга стал султаном Египта.
mr239611 5 months ago
Самое главное Семашко не просто занизил, а даже унизил тюрков в этом фильме. Жаль что казахи сняли по его невежественной книге фильм. Надо было взять за основу первоисточники.
mr239611 5 months ago
Да так и есть, вспомнил точно, монгол например не мог быть рабом по Ясе, а султан Бейбарс (1-й, тюрк а не черкес) ввел Ясу как закон в своей империи. Так что учите историю а не виляйте когда вас прижмут к стене в споре.
mr239611 5 months ago
В этом фильме Бейбарс спрашивает у визиря - ''кто я, откуда?''. Но это бред, все мамлюки знали откуда они, на этом и базировалось их деление - бахри, бурджи, африканцы, саклаба и всё по моему. Тем более то что он из кипчакских степей, из племени которое записали как бурджоглы, знали все а не какой -то всезнающий визирь как придумал Морис Семашко писатель. В книге и фильме много неправильно, в реальности Бейбарса продали в рабство не монголы а другие тюрки - печенеги.
mr239611 5 months ago
why the vast majority always forget that Kipchaks only a small part of the Turks Barrens, were still Kimek and Oguz (Oriental Oguz, authentic, cleaner), and others, for sure.
mr239611 5 months ago
Comment removed
amani1roru 6 months ago
sami mogushestvenni mamluki bili gruzini
ganfaiteri 6 months ago
@ganfaiteri Caucasian Mamluks were Burj. The Georgians were rare.
mr239611 5 months ago
@ganfaiteri Caucasian Mamluks were Adygs in the majority . The Georgians were rare.
mr239611 5 months ago
@mr239611 da gruzini bili redkie mamluki,no vse kavkaskie mamluki nazivali burji.(gruzini,checheni,ingushi,cherqezi i t.d.)
samie dorogostoiashchi ludi stambulskom rinke bili burji, osobenno gruzini.i eto realni fakt.
ganfaiteri 5 months ago
@ganfaiteri бурджи значит башенные по арабски. (Из-за этого бахритского султана Бейбарса адыги путают с ними, т.к. он был из племени бурдж оглы, но это неправильно звучит скорее всего.) А в основном башенные мамлюки были адыгами, насколько я знаю. Возможно они других кавказцев не пускали на самый верх.
mr239611 5 months ago
@mr239611 ia ne budu sporic a vas,no skaju shto:burji aznachaet vse severno kavkaskie jiteli, kak ia chital.(no ne znaiu shto znachit po arabski.) a maiom komntare "magushestvennie mamluki" ia imei vidu shto ani bili ludi dostoini uvajeniami.i znaiu shto ani nikagda ne bili sultanami. a to shto gruzini i vse kavkazci bili doroje vsex,eta ia ne dumaiu tak.v etom dele iest istoricheskie dokumenti.( vi doljen vidit i prochitat eto. )
ia akonchil. ( ia ploxo znaiu po ruski )
ganfaiteri 5 months ago
@ganfaiteri Бурдж это башня, крепость, в европейских языках бург происходит от этого слова. 2. Грузины и др. кавказцы не были дороже всех. Наверное для своих они были дороже. Но ведь для тюрков свои были дороже. А так как они были правящей элитой во многих тогдашних государствах сверхдержавах, естественно тюрки стоили гораздо дороже всех перечисленных. Кажется даже было запрещено рабовладение тюрками.
mr239611 5 months ago
@ganfaiteri Да так и есть, вспомнил точно, монгол например не мог быть рабом по Ясе, а султан Бейбарс (1-й, тюрк а не черкес) ввел Ясу как закон в своей империи. Так что учите историю а не виляйте когда вас прижмут к стене в споре. Успехов.
mr239611 5 months ago
@ganfaiteri Не помню чтобы грузин-мамлюк стал султаном. Только тюрки сначала, потом гораздо позже черкесы. Вы написали что самые могущественные мамлюки были грузины - это не так, мягко говоря. Потом что они стоили дороже всех - но доверия ваше утверждение теперь не вызывает (мало ли на каком основании вам так кажется).
mr239611 5 months ago
it doesnt matter what nationality they were, they were trained on islmaic warfare according to islmaic value and that is what matters.
ahmadov 6 months ago
memlucks were 60/65% turkic, 30 % circassians (abaza cerkez and so) and 5% mix
and all 80% of the rulers was turk later egyptian was conquered by a another turkic dynasty the ottomens and so the rulers fromm egyptian was turks again.
Yorukefe03 7 months ago
Ahaha guys guys) mamluks are egyptian warriors whos' army consisted of slaves from different nationalities. Voini raznih nacionalnostei, to4nee rabi na myaso!
tyma111 8 months ago
Mameluks are NOT turks they are CIRCASSIANS !!! u idiots first need to learn history and next to talk ! sure u musnt to check infos out from your own fake history books ! ;)
Abazin89 8 months ago
@Abazin89 All history books I have ever read says that the Mamluks were mostly kypchak turks, why would I assume that these books are fake history books?
Pohjanpoika13 7 months ago
funny , really funny , i've red many things about it and i know they were georgians, who were stolen from there country by turks . maybe there were turks too but most of them were georgians
rezobachi123 8 months ago
most of the mameluks were of adigha, georgian and albanian origins!
jabamelkadze1 9 months ago
@jabamelkadze1 turks kypchaks
RustLionofDesert 9 months ago
The Mamluks were Turkic warriors !!
DutchTurkish 9 months ago
not slave all turks soldier...
devletin askeri teşkilatı türklerin elindeydi...
burakkk55 9 months ago
egypt was the strongest country from 969 - 1517 in islamic civilization
and i dont care about this shit who talk about original of our our leaders
and if they arent egyptian thats mean
obama is Kenyan
or hetler was swedish
or stalin was Georgian
the warriors were from egypt
and taxes toooo
they die for egypt as they live
and they didnt die for other shit country try to steeling our history now
haithamsalah1 9 months ago
Haha told you turks are mongols! Kurds are Aryan living in Kurdistan for 6000 years, read history
kurdishleader 11 months ago
Many seem to have wild ideas about what the mamluks were but all historians seem to agree on that the Mamluks were kipchak turks. But did they all lose their langauge and spoke arabic? After the mamluks took power, what was the language in the court`?
Pohjanpoika13 1 year ago
the official name of memaluks=ed-Devleti't-Türkiye...(Turkish state)
ed-devleti't Türkiye...was founded by İzzeddin Aybek(1250)
Turkish states=tolunoğulları(875-905)-ıhşidoğlulları(akşitler)(935-969)-eyyübiler(1171-1252) and ed-devleti't Türkiye(memaluks)(1250-1517)
burakkk55 1 year ago
wait mamluks were asian turkic?
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1
Yes, Mamluks were Turkic!
Cilekeash09 1 year ago
@Cilekeash09 No they were not turks, they were Cerkez and Chechen and other people from kavkaz. And don't try to tell me that these people are turks, can't listen to this nonsense any more...
BosKrajina 11 months ago
@BosKrajina How would you explain then the fact that lingua franca of the Mamluk sultanate during both the Bahri (Qipchaq) and Burji(Circassian) periods was Qipchaq, a Turkish language?
The house-language of the Mamluk military corps, and its court, were Qipchaq Turkish. It is for this reason that the Arabophone natives of the Sultanate in Egypt and Greater Syria referred to the Mamluks as “Dawlat al-Atrak,” the regime of the Turks.
Regards.
debashir 10 months ago
@BosKrajina, all of Desht-i Kypchak was set ablaze by Genghiz Khan's Turco-Mongols. As a consequence lots of Qipchaq Turks (of rival clans, those who went against Ghenghiz Khans will) were sold on the slave bazaars for decades, of whom the Bahri Dynasty has been consisted of. The backbone of Bahri's were the Qipchaqs. The presence of Turks in Egypt even has stimulated the compilation of Kipchak-Arabic dictionaries and grammars that are used in the study of several old Turkic languages.
debashir 10 months ago
Mamluks, Egyptians are all Muslims, Alhamdulilah...May Allah reward the Muttaqeen...Ameen
saqib1989 1 year ago
@khanbaliq THE MAMLUKS SAVED THE ISLAMIC WORLD AGAINST HULAGU
saqib1989 1 year ago
@khanbaliq How many times? Twice? Thrice?
The Mamelukes saved the western world from the mongols.
That's enough.
sergegrone 1 year ago
@khanbaliq Well, the mongols had to defeat the mamelukes at least one time XDDDD
They never managed to overcome them and conquer their territories.
sergegrone 1 year ago
al sharakis hakamit masir 400 sana -- haji 3ad tniko mokh
81nart 1 year ago
most of the turks turkic orign türüks where mercenary warriors in the year 650 -1000 .c -----not slaves ---
samarkaaan 1 year ago
the old king mamluk where not from Turky
foxmindeye 2 years ago 2
Mamluks were slaves. In the beginning many of them were turks,
later causasians also became mamluks but the official language of the mamluks was Turkish.
They all spoke turkish and had turkish names, caucasian mamluks also spoke turkish. Till 1800 when mamluks were destroyed they were speaking turkish.
Nickname997 2 years ago
what language are they speaking?
aszkanfederation28 2 years ago
russian :)
evelinapaper2 1 year ago
@aszkanfederation28 Russian, 'cause it was a Soviet movie from 1982.
LeHuyAnh 10 months ago
mameluks were 100% TURK
AZER1FIGHTER 2 years ago
they were turks, kurds, persians, arminians and albanians
bodosiam 2 years ago
no they were actually pure TURKS
AZER1FIGHTER 2 years ago
I am Egyptian..I know better :)
bodosiam 2 years ago
i am a TURK and the mameluks were kypchak turks ;)
AZER1FIGHTER 2 years ago 14
Who cares what they were. The only thing that matters is that they were Muslims. Do not divide us. Nationality belongs to the enemy not us. We are brothers in faith.
illwise23 1 year ago
@AZER1FIGHTER Mamluks were Muslims first and the rest dont matter to me.
yonisfarah 1 year ago
@AZER1FIGHTER Mamluks was Georgians.
RezoVSKremlins 1 year ago
@AZER1FIGHTER
Why the vast majority always forget that Kipchaks only a small part of the history of the Turks (steppe Turks), as has been Kimek and Oguz (Oghuz eastern, authentic, cleaner), only the Persians and the Arabs called them Kipchaks. Various other Turks among the Egyptian Mamluks. The mongols (and other people) too often moved to Egypt with the turkic groups from Ulus of Hulagu and Ulus of Berke.
mr239611 5 months ago
@AZER1FIGHTER всех потомков кимаков, куманов и т.д. называли кипчаками. Исключая восточных огузов (в смысле потомков ядра Тюркских Каганатов, проще говоря собственно кёк-тюрков а не присоединенных тогуз-огузов, уйгуров, кыргызов и т. д.). Извиняюсь что перешел на русский, мне так проще.
mr239611 5 months ago
@bodosiam
Memluks or Kölemens were just Turks!
mrmotun 2 years ago 5
kipchaks, kazakhs
1jan87 1 year ago
what s the name of this movie?
mirgavno 2 years ago
Sultan Beibars
KhukhTolbo 2 years ago
Best Mamluks were children brought from Caucasia
zagtaga 2 years ago
Circassian Burji Dynasty Part 3
* 1453-1461 al-Ashraf Sayf-ad-Din Inal * 1461 al-Muayyad Shihab-ad-Din Ahmad * 1461-1467 az-Zahir Sayf-ad-Din Khushqadam * 1467 az-Zahir Sayf-ad-Din Bilbay * 1467-1468 az-Zahir Timurbugha 1468-1496 al-Ashraf Sayf-ad-Din Qait Bay 1496-1498 an-Nasir Muhammad 1498-1500 az-Zahir Qansuh 1500-1501 al-Ashraf Janbalat 1501 al-Adil Sayf-ad-Din Tuman bay I 1501-1516 al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghawri 1516 al-Ashraf Tuman bay II
Baislan 2 years ago
Circassian Burji Dynisty Part 2 * 1412-1421 al-Muayyad Sayf-ad-Din Tatar * 1421 al-Muzaffar Ahmad * 1421 az-Zahir Sayf-ad-Din Tatar * 1421-1422 as-Salih Nasir-ad-Din Muhammad * 1422-1437 al-Ashraf Sayf-ad-Din Barsbay * 1437-1438 al-Aziz Jamal-ad-Din Yusuf * 1438-1453 az-Zahir Sayf-ad-Din Jaqmaq * 1453 al-Mansur Fakhr-ad-Din Uthman
Baislan 2 years ago
Circassian Burji Dynisty Part 1 * 1382-1389 az-Zahir Sayf ad-Din Barquq first reign * 1389 Hajji II second reign (Bahri dynasty) * 1390-1399 az-Zahir Sayf ad-Din Barquq second reign * 1399-1405 an-Nasir Nasir-ad-Din Faraj first reign * 1405 al-Mansur Izz-ad-Din Abd-al-Aziz * 1405-1412 an-Nasir Nasir-ad-Din Faraj second reign * 1412 Al-Adil Al-Musta'in Billah (Abbasid Caliph in Cairo,took power briefly)
Baislan 2 years ago
From 1250 Egypt had been ruled by the Turkish Mamluk Bahri dynasty. In 1377 a revolt broke out in Syria which spread to Egypt, and the government was taken over by the Circassians Barakah and Barkuk; Barkuk was proclaimed sultan in 1382, ending the Bahri dynasty. He was expelled in 1389 but recaptured Cairo in 1390. Permanently in power he founded the Burji dynasty.
Baislan 2 years ago
Al-Ashraf Sayf-ad-Din Barsbay was the ninth Burji Mamluk sultan of Egypt from A.D. 1422 to 1438. He was Circassian by birth and a former slave of the first Burji Sultan, Barquq. He was responsible for a number of administrative reforms in the Mamluk state, including the consolidation of the sultanate as a military magistrature and securing for Egypt exclusive rights over the Red Sea trade between Yemen and Europe.[1] His mausoleum, which included a madrasa and khanqah
Baislan 2 years ago
Turks by the way are not Mamluks. Mamluks are white slaves sold into Eqypt to make as a personal army to protect the Caliph.
SunnivsShiite 2 years ago
That's not true. Mamluks were Turkic-Mongol Tribes slaves, now, whether they were white or not is a different scenario and depends upon how you define "white". The Ottomans were Turkic, yet white, so are the Tatars (white yet Turkic).
kalashPakistani 2 years ago
Only reason why they won is becuase the main Mongol force returned to Mongolia. Leaving behind a small deatchment of Mongol warriors. The Mameluk out number them 20 to 1, that is why they won. When the main mongol force was there rdy to invade Eqypt, they were about to cede over to the Mongols, a force at that time outnumbered 3 to 1 against the mameluk. Be thankful, that the Khan that died in Mongolia is what saved Egypt.
SunnivsShiite 2 years ago
The Mamluks defeated a combined army of Mongols, Crusaders from Europe and Armenian Army, They were exceptional fighter. In terms of numbers, they were probably of equal strength. Plus, an important factor was that the Mamluks were supported by the Mongols of Golden Horde.
Berkhe Khan (Grandson of Ghengis Khan) who converted to Islam vowed to avenge the sack of Baghdad and hence he aided the Mamluks against the other Mongols.
kalashPakistani 2 years ago
yeah true, while kublai kahn influence the mongols not to go into civil war, so mongols stop fighting
pokermaniac0978 2 years ago
@SunnivsShiite I really doubt any mongol army would fight with those odds, beeing outnumberd 20 to 1.
That was one of the great things with the mongols that they did not fight stupid battles. Or risked their generals like the europeans did. Probably outnumbers like they were in most battles but not that much. they would not have fought then.
Pohjanpoika13 1 year ago
Beibaris atamizdin aruagi, mangilikke ar Kazakhtin ruhani kushine ensin... Allahu Akbar
Yerkesh 2 years ago
The Mamluks were great warriors they were the first to actually defeat the mongols on the battlefield something that have never been done before, alot of mystery sorrounds the mameluks and the Fatimids. Im proud of Egypt`s Islamic History
pharaonicvs 2 years ago
No doubt about that mate!
tamertarek 2 years ago
it doesnt matter who they were. all that matters is that they were muslims !!!!
saifudeenkutuz 2 years ago
historically no the majority of fighters in the army were not egyptians but turks, the famous historian ibn khaldun said- it `It was by the grace of God glory be to Him, that He came to rescue the true faith by reviving the its last breadth and restoring in egpyt the unity of muslims guarding his order and defending his ramparts. this he did by sending to them out of this turkish people and out of its mighty and numerous tribes guardian amirs and devoted defenders who are imported as slaves
saifudeenkutuz 2 years ago
the majority of soldiers and many leaders were egyptians beside mamluks and turks but the rulers of egypt were the mamluks this is historical fact
egyptianstrider2000 2 years ago
assalamu alay kum
you're saying the majority of the soldiers were egyptians besides turks and mamluks, then why do we hear that the battle of ayn jalut was between "mamluks and il khanid mongols?" it s obvious that the majority of the fighters were mamluks. Plus if egpytians were the majority then you would have heard that ayn jalut was between egyptians and mongols. if they (mamluks) were the minority then why did they stand out in the battle? it doesnt make sense my brother in islam?
saifudeenkutuz 2 years ago
I understand the situate to slavery
SweeTRoLL350 2 years ago
historicaly speaking yes the egyptians were the majority of the army solidiers
even some generals were egyptians
monthes before the battle egyptian valanteers were trained in training camps by the mamelukes.
if you don't believe me you can refer to the writings of elmaqrisi the famous historian
fx100n 3 years ago
refer to their names and name of their generals
i can saya that they are mongols
lansanak 3 years ago
Egyptians did not only defeat the mongol army in ain jalut but Egyptians also defeated the ottoman turk army in 1812 egyptian army took control of syria and invaded the southern parts of turkey (battle of konya) we were close on occupying constantinople but the english and the russians intervened and saved the mongolian turks
pharaonicvs 3 years ago
y'all need ta chill. the Mamluks in Misr were all of various backgrounds, but mostly NOT turkic-spaking by the time of Mehmet Ali. They were usually Cherkess, Albanian and Kartli speakers by birth, and their loyalties were to their elders of similar nationalities (yeah they may have spoke Turkish, but as an official Ottoman language, not a lingua franca). The Misri were ruled by them, and tey ony fought when absolutly needed. The Misri populace was too busy working and dealing with the badawin.
prinznevsky 3 years ago
Wrong
Egyptians wew always excluded from running their own country because mumlukes feared revolt by the Egyptians. When the Egyptians were recruited as army they defeated the Mogouls and later recruited by Mohammed Ali and they almost ran over the Ottoman empire invading kutahia.
elghazoli 3 years ago
u r 100% right well i just want to say to the studied others, just open the encyclopedia and find out who were the Borji mamlouk "Charkis" or Circassians ,and how they were killed in the Saladin castle by Ali Basha "Albanian" when they wanted to end the Mameluke ERA , any way Circassians not Turk !!!
Baislan 2 years ago 2
Arabophone natives of the Sultanate in Egypt and Greater Syria referred to the Mamluks as Dawlat al-Atrak, the regime of the Turks.
As for the Qipchaqs, it is said that many of them had blue eyes and blond or brown hair. But it is wrong. Those blue eyed blondies were really captive Slav children, captured in raids or raised in slave-stockades, who were then taught Turkish and sold as valuable export commodities. Also called "Saqaliba".
debashir 3 years ago
there were only 5000 memluks in egypt with their relatives you fuck .
do you mean 2000 memluks defeated 100000 mongols , are you mad bitch
they used to send scholars through out mosques in egypt to call egyptian to fight you fuck
what a retard bitch , yes memluks were leaders but the soldiers were egyptian piece of rotten shit
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Never lol They Were Bringing soliders From Caucasus Circassia lol
the funny Part how egypitons made a funny change in history and they removed what the Charkes or Jerkis did to Egypt and they talked about them as Bad People lol
Circassian ADIGA FOR EVER !!!!!!!
Baislan 2 years ago
The preponderance of the Qipchaq ethnicity during the late Ayyubid and Bahri Maluk periods may account for the choice of Qipchaq, one of many regional lingua francas, as the lingua franca of the Mamluk court throughout Mamluk rule, including the second period when the Circassian element was at the helm.
debashir 3 years ago
Timur and babur are not Turk!They are descendant of Genghis khan
whitefacechina 3 years ago
genghiz khan and the mongols are Turks you bellend.
The turks who fill anatolia today are a mixture of indigenous greeks, byzantines and turks.
WizardFM 3 years ago 4
turks are mongols , from mongolia
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Timur was a spiritual descendant, not a direct one, it was made so to have a right to claim the throne of his Empire by right
debashir 3 years ago
Stfu Temur's Wife was from Genghis Khans Family
ruladrise 3 years ago
they fought those fucking mongols
they are egyptians fucker
they talked arabic and lived in egypt
plus the army was already mostly egyptian
mongols are fucking barbarians
sawanoovel 3 years ago
yeah and black people speak english and live in england son!!! they are anglo saxans homeboy!
you tell em!
WizardFM 3 years ago
Indians and Pakistani's in England either, fought for England and spoke English. Who they are? You decide..
debashir 3 years ago
plus something else , those soldiers who fought were egyptian , thats the most important thing .
without the egyptians memluks would have never had a dynasty .
everyone used egyptian soldiers for their own cause
like our mehmet ali used the egyptian army to take over syria , palastine and anatolia , he also reached estanbul itself till he removed the sultan .
i am 100% egyptian , i come from south egypt and we never marry non egyptians even if they are arabs .
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Why then Sultanate was called as Mamluk Sultanate, not a Egyptian Sultanate?
debashir 3 years ago
it was called te egyptian mamluk sultanate .
mamluk were slaves taken by arab leaders from non arab
it included also egyptians , berbers , not only caucasians .
plus it was islamic empire before anything else
you have nothing here buddy sorry
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Before (1230-1382) a mamluk could anybody of non-arab as berbers, blacks and egyptians. But in aforementioned period mamluk army was consisted mainly of turks form Deshti-Kypchak. Who were sold by Venetian&Genoa merchants to Sultans of Egypt. Because of war with moghols, there's been occured a big market of slaves, mainly kypchaks, afterwards slavs&caucasians. Bahri's were mainly kypchak turks, Burji's of other origins. And kypchak's were converted to Islam in 1041-1050,what u mean nothing here?
debashir 3 years ago
there were only 5000 memluks in egypt you piece of shit , all egyptians were taken into the army
you expect me to allow steal our history you mongol shit
my ancestors raped your mongol shit ancestors fucker
sawanoovel 3 years ago
also there was only around 5000 people called memluks in egypt plus not all of them were tatar/origin , some were egyptians and others mixed , so dont make a big fuss
mamluk means in arabic " owned " which is lake slave , so stop being stupid
why they did not call it kipchakistan or tatarstan you stupid
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Native Egyptians were not allowed to serve in the army until the reign of Muhammed Ali...
Now I understand your obsession with egyptians surving in army. "The Mamluks disassociated themselves from the native Egyptians". That is the point- Ultimately, Mamluk rule rested on force. The chronicles of the period are replete with examples of Mamluk violence against the indigenous population of Egypt...From horseback, they simply terrorized those lesser breeds who crossed their paths.
debashir 3 years ago
The sudden and arbitrary use of force by the government and its dominant military elite; frequent resort to cruelty to make a point; ingenious methods of torture employed both for exemplary purpose and to extract wealth from others: all these measures were routine in the Mamluk era. Egypt under the Mamluks was not a very secure place to live. Yes no reminiscences of native Egyptians among Mamluks, "animal and dog fucker barbarians" were riding you bitch, slave people were riding ur ass bitch...
debashir 3 years ago
hahahahahaha
what kind of weed are you taking bitch
tell me please , the whole army was egyptian , fucker
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Mameluks weren't egyptian ethnically, slaves from distant areas were welcomed in Egypt to fear locals. They also were loyal to Sultan, and were less likely to be in conspiracy with local sheikhs. If you're egyptian, most probably you have some turkic blood, because mamluks were assimilated in egyptian society. Mongols of those times were the same people as egyptian mamluks were, just fought for different ideals.
debashir 3 years ago
In Israel, near Lod there is a Bridge called in the name of Baibars (Baibars Bridge), there are Quranic inscriptions on it, just above the arc, and two snow leopards are depicted on it. Snow Leopard is what Baybars'es name stands for, "Bars" means snow leopard, and Bay means "Lord" in kypchak language.
debashir 3 years ago
egyptians themselves were also taken as slaves by arabs dont forget .
they are egyptian and the army who fought the mongols was mostly egyptian , the imams went through out egyptian towns and cities calling for people to fight the mongols
simply bebars was egyptian , egyptians taught him how to fight , read and write .
plus most of the army was ethnically egyptian
no one will steal our histroy
sawanoovel 3 years ago
No one tries to steal it, believe me, the battle of Ain-Jalut was in todays Palestine, but you can't claim that army consisted of Palestinians? I think not. Role of egyptian people may be great in Mamluk Sultanate, but you don't have to shadow other peoples role in it. It was huge, from Anatolia to Western Africa and Saudi Arabia. The Mamluk Sultanate was above the egyptian nation concept. Mamluk's ruled your lands and that is what really counts for me.
debashir 3 years ago
no it does not , since those people though they were egyptian such as babirs
he hardly spoke your language which is really funny .
could i call ataturk for example bulgarian which is really is and give all of his accomplishments for making turkey modern to the bulgarian people ?
sawanoovel 3 years ago
No you can't, but "Janissaries" did a great deal for Ottoman Empire, though they weren't turks ethnically. I don't say Turkey, I say Ottoman Empire, because even other nationalities as kurds would tear anybodies arse for Ottoman Empire, despite the fact many of them want to live separately from Turkey as a state. They weren't seljuk turks, that's the deal. With Bahri mamluks, it's much more strictly, they were kypchak turks.
debashir 3 years ago
ottmans were not that strong , egyptian army under muhammed ali owned them many times
i would not give any credit to the ottman empire ,they ruled egypt in a decisive way , anyway they did not manage to rule south egypt and many main cities in the north , just cairo and alexandria
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Your Muhammed have appeared just in the 18th century, but I'm talking about 13-14 centuries, your Ali was fighting the state that was in agony already, it wasn't a big deal to defeat a sick man, just predating on a dead body doesn't make you a hero, Ottomans owned your arse when they were strong even circassian mamluks didn't help you, because they weren't of turkic origin, now all I have to say know your place bitch...
debashir 3 years ago
Both Mamluk Dynasties (Bahri, Burji) spoke in Kypchak Turkic language. It was a military language by the time. Did Turkey's army speak in bulgarian?
debashir 3 years ago
they spoke arabic only you piece of shit
liar pig
sawanoovel 3 years ago
If there wouldn't be slave nomadic warriors from Deshti-Kypchak in Egypt, I suppose there wouldn't be any reminiscences of any resistence to moghols at all, egypt would probably fall, as Russia, China and Near East has been fallen by the time.
debashir 3 years ago
The one who speaks and sings in arab language, not always can be considered as egyptian. But the one who takes care of egyptian culture, it's territory and it's people can surely be called egyptian. But was Baybars an arab, ethnically not, ideologically may be.
debashir 3 years ago
To understand what they are speaking about, better refer to the top of the comments, I've interpreted their speach to English.
debashir 3 years ago
well series made by history stealers does not work with me lol
sawanoovel 3 years ago
no, it's a modern history, you just can't accept what I claim with your narrow mind. you are objected with nationalistic ideas. While in the times of mamluks in 13th century, no one cared about egyptian nation. Such a concept didn't even exist though.
debashir 3 years ago
no it existed , this is why peopel fought for this country
egyptian nationalism is very old since 7000 years , people who came into this nation blended in the egyptian culture and became egyptians
this is why all of them spoke arabic only to integrate in the society
your the narrow minded not me , if he really called for his tatar origins then why he fought the mongols and raped them with the egyptian army
sawanoovel 3 years ago
Tell me then why the Sultanate wasn't called "Egyptian", if egyptians were majority everywhere as you claim?
debashir 3 years ago
they were called egyptian and they said they are egyptian .
sawanoovel 3 years ago
No, they were called Eyubids. And I've seen tombs of those who fought in Anatolia, it is written on them that they are Eyubids, no mention they were Egyptians...
debashir 3 years ago
Yo man, whats with the blind nationalism? you are a Muslim thats what matters. Its good to like your country but dont be so obsessed with nationalism.
amadeus987 3 years ago
well all muslims betrayed us so no egypt above any religion .
all traitors from arabs with palastinians till the turks .
sawanoovel 3 years ago
How dare you put your country before the religion of your creator. And what do you mean all Muslims betrayed you. The Turkish mamluks who were Muslims shed their blood many times to protect your country from the mongols. Dont be an ingrateful person.
amadeus987 2 years ago
??.....Then you're not a Muslim...
1FUNDAMENTALIST1 2 years ago
anything on the land of egypt is for the struggle of the egyptian people to fight and win
this is our history and no one will take it from us .
You are already owned by russia , this is because your people were always subject to be owned .
ughur fucked in china
tatars fucked in russia
central turkic nations now suck russian balls after the soviet rule
beshviks also russians now
no one survived out of the turks except those of turkey and the azeris .
sawanoovel 3 years ago
You're totally wrong, sawanoovel, everybody can fall, the main point is to be able to stand and continue your ways. Russia was owned by moghols, so what, China was also owned by moghols, so what? Conquered, we conquer, if you know what I mean.
debashir 3 years ago
I think we as muslims failed because of the nationalistic ideas that the west invented to separate the muslim world I didn't matter where you came from as long as you were doing the job of defending Islam.
elghazoli 3 years ago 11
in most cases, the majority of the Misri population did NOT fight the wars for the Mamluks. THEY DIDN'T NEED TO! ( why would you employ untrained people to fight for you?) and for the Record, the battle of Ain Jaluit was won not because of local Misri recruits, but because the majority of the Mongol army left with Hulegu. If the Mongol strength was in full force, they probably would have had a tactical victory
prinznevsky 3 years ago
prinznevsky idiot , turkic is not mongol. we are turk , turks are exist a.c. 500 [by gokturk khanet] but mongols exist a.c. 1200 by gahngis khan. actually our ancestor were hunnic people idiwich were spoken turkic language like gokturks,timurlenks,memluks ... ot dont mix us with mongols or arabs ...
balkanturkic 3 years ago
Where did I say that "Turks" are "Mongols"? I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE MONGOL!!! RTF COMMENT!! Tue Ch'ieh, Xiongnu, Gokturk, whatever. I though the Turks were descendants of some she-wolf or something...
prinznevsky 3 years ago
@elghazoli Right on brother. The nationalistic view point is a weapon of weakness. It separates us like seasons.
yonisfarah 1 year ago
@elghazoli The muslims failed because when other people were working hard and inventing new things: You wer epraying and reading ink and paper, aka the Quran. lol
u mad?
ViruzNoob14 7 months ago
plus memluk leaders despised the mongols since they were stupid barbarians with no morals and slept with animals and dogs
sawanoovel 3 years ago
I hope you'll grow up a little bit, and won't say such things, because those mongols nowadays represent a lot of people, not just Mongolia, but all Central Asia, parts of Russia and even China. Mongol army mostly consisted of turkic power. Who were indeed were the same people of whom Bahri Dynasty consisted of, so by saying such a thing you accept, you were ruled by animal and dog fucker stupid barbarians, what a shame...
debashir 3 years ago
Got to Mno3at channel on youtube, he has the series about Baybars, so far he uploaded the first 27 episodes. Its in Arabic though.
amadeus987 3 years ago
jeah where's Kaladosos?
ZORZHYON 3 years ago
You havent answered my question. Why are you so obssessed with race?
Salam
amadeus987 3 years ago
Islam transcends race, gender, culture, and nationality.
I hope that you along with all others who think the same way, come to reaize this. For the more we distance ourselves from each other, the weaker will our Ummah be.
Asalamu Aleikom
amadeus987 3 years ago
Toolmool, when most people are told that Baybars was a Turk, they assume that he was a Turk as in from Turkey. I was clarifying that he was indeed a Turk, but not from Anatolia as most unknowledgable people assume. However, It doesnt matter if he was a Turk, Arab, or Persian. What matters is that he was a Muslim. Why do you put so much emphasis on race? No offence bro, but from the way you are so obsessed on race, you often give people(including me) the impression that you are a racist.
amadeus987 3 years ago
That only islam matters is racist too.
Greker 3 years ago
no its not. Islam is the opposite of racism. Islam says that all return equally to Allah. Piety is the measure of superiority not race. Its nationalists like you who breed racism. I personallyh think that its ok to be proud of your nationality but you should never let it come before Islam.
amadeus987 3 years ago
Wtf? Im no muslim so off course i put my country before Islam. Why do you assume everyone is a muslim? I'm glad there are many other religions.
Greker 3 years ago
I consider him my hero, and i'm from pakistan.
desiny 3 years ago
Mughals were turkic too. Turks and Pakistani = brothers.
"Turkish was the mother tongue of Mughals and earlierSultans of South Asia. The autobiography of Mughal emperor Babur, Tuzk Babari was also written in Turkish. The Turkish directly influenced Urdu. The word Urdu is of Turkish origin, as Urdu was originally called Zaban-e-Ordu or language of the Army, Ordu means army' in Turkish."
Greker 3 years ago
Mughals were Turkic in the sense they adopted Turkic culture, language, customs (which contained many Persian elements as well). But, they were ethnically Mongols. Babur himself was a descendant of Chinggis Khan. The word 'Mughal' is the Persian of 'Mongol', i.e. Mughal=Mongol.
alifbah0 3 years ago
sebasir daha boyle klipler varsa elinde upload etsene , cok guzel oluyor .
ridvanco 3 years ago
egypt was not white people. check your facts and you'll see that it was the nubians. our art in egypt was way older then the damn arab.
alexander stole our history and gave it to the european cum buckets[arab] check it up and you'll see our art and genetics was there way before the arab was.
DivinePoetry 4 years ago
Guys, the mamluks were not Turkish, they were Turkic. There is a difference between the two. The mamluks were kipchak turks from the ukraine, southern russia, armenia, georgia and modern day Kazakhstan. The Seljuks are the ones who are from Turkmenistan
amadeus987 4 years ago
mamluks where noth kipchaks, thats bullshit man. mamluks where just a nother turkic tribe, and kipchak is another turkic tribe.
Candaraga 4 years ago
just a lil tip for both of u, they r not turks, they r circassians (from caucasus) with some turks... thanks...
hatiqway 4 years ago
The Mamluks at the time of Baybers were mainly Kipchaks. However after the Mamluk Burji regime took control in 1389, it was then that mamluk officers became mostly circasian.
amadeus987 3 years ago
The mamluk regiment at the time of Baybars did in fact consist heavily of Kipchack turks. But not Anatolian Turks
amadeus987 3 years ago 4
just a lil tip for both of u, they r not turks, they r circassians (from caucasus) with some turks... thanks...
hatiqway 4 years ago
What brings crusader rapists in the tale of the mamlukes??
moha13881 4 years ago
Actually Idon't understand anything . The movie is in russian with many time shifts according to tale.
moha13881 4 years ago
why the mamluks doesn't ware Turkish custom ?
why the Arabic Egyptian side doesn't mention Georgians warier while all the Egyptian history talks about Turks and "Great Circassians" including the 13th Adiga Tribe The Abaza ?
ivanBakij 4 years ago
dont be confused boy...georgian mamluks rulled iraq for 200 years
ultrasinter 4 years ago
First of all, please dont call me "boy". I am just as old as you are. Second of all, the period in which georgian mamluks ruled iraq was between 1747-1831. I am talking about the thirteenth century here.
amadeus987 3 years ago
Katbay ,Bersbay , Abaza , Bay Bars , are they Georgian or truck names?
dose it mean something in Turkish or Georgian? lol
I want to point out that the Caucasian Culture and tradition tells that the real worriers most go out of their country ,even if they are from a royal dynasty, and return with a big fortune and victory so you can't consider them as slaves according to their culture and traditions .
Even if you don't believe ,how come the slaves become Kings?
ivanBakij 4 years ago
Rahmet, dostym! RUHty koteretin film eken! Birneshe ret osy filmdi korgem, birak kundylyktary tausylmaidy eken. Can't wait for another clip, bro! :)
chingiz88 4 years ago
many Mameluks was turkish prisonors =C
Norguy77 4 years ago
yes many Mameluks were from Georgia, circassians and the such but Baybars was from Kipchak, which is in modern day Turkmenistan
455oldsTARoadHun 4 years ago
Beybarys was from a Kipchak (modern Kazakh)tribe Berish, who have always lived in Kazakhstan, near the City of Atyrau.
Mameluks of that time spoke Kipchak language which is in a family of turkik languages and similar to modern kazakh. In Turkmenistsn there was another confederation of turkik nations - tribes of Oguz, who had more in common with contemporary Turkish people.
Samuella133 4 years ago
Thanks for the clearification