The Battle of Ain Jalut, 1260

Feb 2011
201
Cairo
#21
I don't believe that moslems could defeat Mongols without Mamluks. Except for the Mohemad era , Arabs were the weakest and worst warrior of the known world ( no offense here , they were good at something else). Mamluks were mostly Turkic people and followed by Circassian people which both were/are fierce warriors i
How old are you ?
.....12
 
Jun 2013
41
California
#22
I don't believe that moslems could defeat Mongols without Mamluks. Except for the Mohemad era , Arabs were the weakest and worst warrior of the known world ( no offense here , they were good at something else). Mamluks were mostly Turkic people and followed by Circassian people which both were/are fierce warriors i
Well guess what? Moslemsss (Muslims) did defeat Mongols eventually (What make you think that Mamluks weren't Muslims? Or the majority of army fighting at Ain Julat wasn't Muslim?).

Arabs were weakest warriors? I guess 7th graders should not be allowed on this forum.

After the rise of Islam, Arabs were the most dominant/viscous force on the planet for five to six centuries! Byzantine, Egyptians, Indians, Europeans, Christians, Persians etc just got butchered by the invading Arabs. Arabs cut through these people like a sharp knife cut through semi-melted butter.

Mongols, Turks, Arabs, Europeans, Persians etc were all viscous warriors/fighters.

Stop acting like a kid.
 

funakison

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,381
Between a rock and a hard place
#23
This is not my period of history so I have very little to offer in this discussion. The Mongols did seem to have a problem with the Mamluks, was this in any way connected to the superiority of the Arabian horses over the steppe pony.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,453
#24
This is not my period of history so I have very little to offer in this discussion. The Mongols did seem to have a problem with the Mamluks, was this in any way connected to the superiority of the Arabian horses over the steppe pony.
Doubtful- Mongols by Ain Jalut were very few and majority of their armies were subject peoples without the extreme discipline of the earlier Mongol armies. For their era it was still strong army but not the equal of earlier armies. Also the supply lines were stretched and much of the Mongol army turned away due to death of the Great Khan before the battle which was still long and Mameluks hard pressed to win. Only a Mongol rearguard was left to keep gains of the Mongol invasion which had sacked Baghdad and Mameluks invaded once they knew they faced smaller force. The actual battle was very fierce but Mongols lost, another Mongol invasion was planned but feuding broke out between Mongol khanates which basically meant the end of the greater Mongol Empire though the various hordes remained powerful for another century they had other concerns and Mameluks were able to exploit that as well gain great prestige in Islamic world by finally kicking out remaining Crusaders after having defeated Mongols which was a first. In fact Mameluks had few challengers militarily for awhile due to their victories until Ottomans finally tested them and found easier than expected victories.
 
Mar 2012
1,170
Magdeburg
#25
Well guess what? Moslemsss (Muslims) did defeat Mongols eventually (What make you think that Mamluks weren't Muslims? Or the majority of army fighting at Ain Julat wasn't Muslim?).

Arabs were weakest warriors? I guess 7th graders should not be allowed on this forum.

After the rise of Islam, Arabs were the most dominant/viscous force on the planet for five to six centuries! Byzantine, Egyptians, Indians, Europeans, Christians, Persians etc just got butchered by the invading Arabs. Arabs cut through these people like a sharp knife cut through semi-melted butter.

Mongols, Turks, Arabs, Europeans, Persians etc were all viscous warriors/fighters.

Stop acting like a kid.
No they were not. They were good for a few centuires when they were burning with zealotry of islam , suppose that everyone could be a fierce warrior in that way. They were almost annihilated at caucasians by Khazars and Central Asia by Turgeshes. After a few centuries Arabs only stood as a symbolic power over religion , domunantly Persians , Turks and Berbers ruled the Islamic world
 

antocya

Ad Honorem
May 2012
5,688
Iraq
#26
The Arabs managed to conquer a huge amount of territory on three continents in an extremely short period of time. The fact that they were later dominated by Mamluks has more to do with them adopting the habit of taking slave soldiers who would be loyal only to them and putting them in military positions.
 
Jun 2013
41
California
#27
No they were not. They were good for a few centuires when they were burning with zealotry of islam , suppose that everyone could be a fierce warrior in that way. They were almost annihilated at caucasians by Khazars and Central Asia by Turgeshes. After a few centuries Arabs only stood as a symbolic power over religion , domunantly Persians , Turks and Berbers ruled the Islamic world
No, they were.

Five to six centuries aren't just 'few centuries'....Every people eventually face demise...so did Arabs. Did you expect Arabs to keep on expanding/ruling others forever? They did it for centuries..and then other powers rose. Simple..

Same goes for almost everyone...French, British, Germans etc...They had their time..and then went down and others took over and so on...

Islamic World was/is too vast to rule by one entity. Yes, Ottoman Turks were central power in Islamic World but don't forget Mughal Empire of India, Timurid Empire in Persia (Timur was one of the must brutal Islamic warrior ever lived), and other such powers...
 
Jun 2013
41
California
#29
Yeah and all those 3 you mentioned were Turkic dynasties. Sorry, Arabs were subjects of all of them
Yes..b/c after the sack of Baghdad by Mongols, Arabs were finished and Turks rose up and held the flag of Islam...continuing the Islamic Domination/expansion for centuries.

Turks only arrived at scene in 13th/14th century..right after the Arab went down to Mongols.

The fact that Turks were very viscous warriors does not negate the fact that Arabs were great warriors too...
 
Jul 2012
1,942
Bahrain
#30
No they were not. They were good for a few centuires when they were burning with zealotry of islam , suppose that everyone could be a fierce warrior in that way. They were almost annihilated at caucasians by Khazars and Central Asia by Turgeshes. After a few centuries Arabs only stood as a symbolic power over religion , domunantly Persians , Turks and Berbers ruled the Islamic world
Annihilated by Khazars !! :lol:.....maybe you haven't heard of "Barjik's" rolled head and the parade of the Khazar king in Atil....maybe you haven't heard of Qutaiba, Maslama bin Abdul Malik, Yazid Ibn Al-Muhallab, or Nsir Ibn Sayyar.....

Its needless for me to say more on this other than the line above.....Out of respect to my Turkish friends here.....But you should be mature enough to know that "every dog has its time"....and recognize others so that they recognize you...
 

Similar History Discussions