The Battle of Ain Jalut, 1260

Jul 2012
1,942
Bahrain
#31
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.
This is actually doubtable....Mongol incursions were swift and brutal, this is enough reason not to have "subjects" within their armies instead of their regular army....
 
Last edited:
Jul 2012
1,942
Bahrain
#32
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.
I don't think it had much to do with horsee differences....The Arabian horse and the Steppe horse share many key traits in speed and stamina. I've read once that both are considered from the same "Oriental" breed, but both develop some features to accomodate its environment.....

The Arabian had bigger hoofs than the Steppe, to suit the desert terrain while the Steppe's hoofs had to become small to suit the rocky terrain. Steppe horses are narrower, suiting their style of horse arching, while the Arabian is a bit wider and would be suitable for lancers or swordsmen...The Arabian's endurance is expected to be somehow better since it adjusted to a harsher desert climate...

Its only their utilization that would make a difference, and at the end its always a close enounter when Arabs faced Turkic tribes because of similarities in warfare....
 
Mar 2012
1,170
Magdeburg
#33
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...
Khazars lost when they invaded deep into Arabic lands(initially won but afterwards lost) same as Arabs, they went as far as Atil ( Khazar capital) but lost there aswell. But Khazars' aim were to defend the Caucasians and stop the spreading of Islam further into Caucasia then Steppes , which they succesfully did .
 
Mar 2012
1,170
Magdeburg
#34
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...
Seljuqs were before the Mongols and they reduced the caliph to only a symbolic power. Caliph buttered up Seljuq Khan so hard to keep him passive .
 
Jul 2012
1,942
Bahrain
#35
Khazars lost when they invaded deep into Arabic lands(initially won but afterwards lost) same as Arabs, they went as far as Atil ( Khazar capital) but lost there aswell. But Khazars' aim were to defend the Caucasians and stop the spreading of Islam further into Caucasia then Steppes , which they succesfully did .
What did they had to defend after the fall of their capital ??!!.....Umayyads would've stayed there for long if it were not to other domestic issues persisting in other places in the region....
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,508
#36
This is actually doubtable....Mongol incursions were swift and brutal, this is enough reason not to have "subjects" within their armies instead of their regular army....
What was swift about campaign that led to and followed sack of Baghdad? It was years... Mongols had a small population in Mongolia but effectively took other tribes into confederation in initial expansions but that also drained population and dispersed the descendents all over Asia. 1260 armies were composed much differently than the 1220 armies and its written in numerous sources that the army Mameluks defeated at Ain Jalut had many contingents of non-Mongol and non-Turkic origin. To many outsiders Mongols/Turks/Tartars were the same but that isn't accurate yet even with observers possibly confused about that the records talk about people besides Mongols and much of the actual Mongol tribes went to support their Khan to become Great Khan while the rear guard was composed mostly of other peoples.
 
Jul 2012
1,942
Bahrain
#37
What was swift about campaign that led to and followed sack of Baghdad? It was years... Mongols had a small population in Mongolia but effectively took other tribes into confederation in initial expansions but that also drained population and dispersed the descendents all over Asia. 1260 armies were composed much differently than the 1220 armies and its written in numerous sources that the army Mameluks defeated at Ain Jalut had many contingents of non-Mongol and non-Turkic origin. To many outsiders Mongols/Turks/Tartars were the same but that isn't accurate yet even with observers possibly confused about that the records talk about people besides Mongols and much of the actual Mongol tribes went to support their Khan to become Great Khan while the rear guard was composed mostly of other peoples.
Yeah, I meant that the Mongol conquests happened too fast for them to assimilate people with their armies....and its unlikely that they had subjects from Persia/Mesopotamia/The Levant (Muslim lands) fighting their fellow Muslims in Egypt....

I'm not totally dismissing your theory, but what we've know about Mongols makes it doubtful that non-Turkic groups were assimilated into their armies....please provide me with sources whenever you find the time...
 
Jun 2012
7,099
Malaysia
#38
Were the Egyptian camels a factor at Ain Jalut? This line of reasoning is what I've come across over a few sites.

It was said, by some writers, that the Mongol horses were scared stiff of the Egyptian camels, their odd look, their strong smell, their bite, their drool, their spit, their fart etc. Besides their enormous size as well.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#40
You must be talking about BC Arabs, coz Arabs after Islam is a whole different story !
I agree, Mohamed himself was a great warrior and conqueror.
Mamelukes were Turkic boys raised on chivalry and warfare....trained under the Caliphate and other subsequent kingdoms and adopting an Arab heritage....many of the Mamelukes chose to be identified with their Arab masters or identified with being "Musta'arib" (i.e. Arabized)...they remained a small force in the kingdoms they ruled and their armies had to be fed from those regions......Turks (or Turkic tribes) are excellent fighters, there is nothing to take from them, but credit should be put where it should...
Of course, the Arabs had their own moments in history and have their contribution in the development of human civilization. I think the feared Saracens that invaded the Iberian peninsula were Arabs, correct me folks if i am wrong on this aspect.