Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Were the Mamluks?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#101

Post by BookmarkSaver »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #77
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also known as an empire. That still doesn't make them devoted to peace, though.

It makes them as devoted to peace as other's in similar positions. Sometimes they advocated peace, other times they engaged in war. Trying to paint them as uniquely expansionist is the problem.

They may not have been "uniquely" expansionist, but they were easily one of the most expansionist civilizations/empires to ever exist.

I take big issue with calling them "devoted to peace". The same as I'd take issue with calling Mongols, Romans, or Alexander's Greeks/Macedonians being called "devoted to peace". They very obviously were not. For selfish reasons, they provoked a staggering level of warfare, on a totally different scale as the typical kingdoms that existed throughout the world.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#102

Post by mcguire »

beat wrote: post #16

If you're interested in this kind of history stuff, I recommend reading The Silk Roads , by Peter Frankopan. It's a recent (2015) epic-scope history book, from the beginning of written history to the present day, based on the idea that the Middle East, rather than Europe, is the true center of civilization - that the area stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to western India has been foremost, and remains foremo…

Why the West Rules—For Now, by Ian Morris, focuses similarly on the Middle East throughout most of history, as the "Western" center of civilization, until roughly the industrial revolution.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#103

Post by evol262 »

ng12 wrote: post #98
evol262 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Byzantines" WERE Roman and always called themselves such. They were the "Rum" to the Turks because they called themselves Roman. I'm not sure how a state which can trace a direct lineage of law and rulers back to Romulus is "carrying the torch".

We're falling into pedantry here. I'm very well aware of that fact, which is why I referenced it in the original post.

I guess we agree to disagree. I just don't like calling them the "other" Romans, or even referring to them as the Byzantines who were carrying on the torch, when they never considered any such thing, and would never have referred to themselves as such.

Then again, despite being an engineer by trade, I'm a historian specializing in Late Roman Antiquity (specifically, the Eastern Empire from Leo the Isaurian to Alexios I, so I'm probably a little pedantic about it.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#104

Post by narag »

enraged_camel wrote: post #62
ivanhoe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's exactly the distinction between swords and sabres in English? In my native language we'd call this a sabre (sablja), as word sword (mač) is used only for straight double-edged blades.

A saber is a type of sword. It’s pretty heavy and was meant for use on horseback (i.e. cavalry).

Nothing about a sword being straight and sabre curved?

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#105

Post by hnzix »

evol262 wrote: post #84
madeuptempacct wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Potato/potato. Do you consider the Pax Romana to be peaceful? Arguably, if your neighbors are "barbarians" or "infidels", the most peaceful thing you can do is conquer them to put an end to their incessant warring and impose civilization. If you asked me if Rome was peaceful, I would tell you no. But no one is claiming that Rome is peaceful. Once again, there is nothing peaceful about conquering your neighbors, esp…

> If you asked me if Rome was peaceful, I would tell you no. But no one is claiming that Rome is peaceful. Once again, there is nothing peaceful about conquering your neighbors, especially ones that didn't attack you first. Well, some would claim that Rome was peaceful, in the same way that historians may later claim that the US was peaceful. To be honest, it's virtually impossible to stay peaceful when it's kill or…

>To a denizen of southern Gaul living in 200AD, you'd have a hard time arguing that it was anything but peaceful, and that Rome imposing her dominion on a bunch of barbarians was the best thing that ever happened.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#106

Post by boomboomsubban »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #89
boomboomsubban wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes them as devoted to peace as other's in similar positions. Sometimes they advocated peace, other times they engaged in war. Trying to paint them as uniquely expansionist is the problem.

I wasn't trying to paint them as uniquely expansionist. I was (rather clearly, I thought) questioning that they were devoted to peace. They weren't.

Then why bring up that seemingly incredibly biased comparison you saw? That's what's unclear about your post.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#107

Post by abrowne »

ivanhoe wrote: post #60
dfsegoat wrote: post #8

Tying things back to today: A Mameluke Sword is what you see US Marine Corps. officers carry on specific formal occasions (or in recruiting commercials!): "Marine Corps history states that a sword of this type was presented to Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon by the Ottoman Empire viceroy, Prince Hamet, on December 8, 1805, during the First Barbary War, in Libya, as a gesture of respect and praise for the Mar…

what's exactly the distinction between swords and sabres in English? In my native language we'd call this a sabre (sablja), as word sword (mač) is used only for straight double-edged blades.

It's the opposite in English. Sword is the generic, while sabre is a specific type.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#108

Post by flukus »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #106
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't trying to paint them as uniquely expansionist. I was (rather clearly, I thought) questioning that they were devoted to peace. They weren't.

Then why bring up that seemingly incredibly biased comparison you saw? That's what's unclear about your post.

> Then why bring up that seemingly incredibly biased comparison you saw?

To compare it to a baseline of something universally regarded as "not peaceful". Assuming you agree that the crusades weren't peaceful then you can't really claim that islamic expansion was peaceful can you?

> Without seeing the details, it seems to be comparing the battles sanctioned by the Pope during a few centuries against any expansion battle by any Islamic state over a period greater than a millennium.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I assume they're referring to the early islamic expansion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests), it's comparing the centuries of the crusade to just ~150 years.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#109

Post by flukus »

sgslo wrote: post #33
Symmetry wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those games have taught me so much about history and geography. On a game map you have to fill in every bit of territory with whatever state was there at the time, not just ignore it the way the history you're taught in school can.

Games like EU4 often make me think about the role that video games have in education. It seems as though all educational games are created with a primary goal of "education" and a secondary goal of "fun game". The result is always an unfun game. What if the ordering were reversed? Create a fun game, then try to tack on some educational elements after the fact. Perhaps some games like this already exist. I'm sure you…

Games often have the opposite problem of trying to be balanced that can harm the educational aspects, think Civ and Total War. EU4 and most paradox games have asymmetric starts that make it both more realistic and offer some great a-historical challenges.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#110

Post by AnimalMuppet »

flukus wrote: post #108
boomboomsubban wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why bring up that seemingly incredibly biased comparison you saw? That's what's unclear about your post.

> Then why bring up that seemingly incredibly biased comparison you saw? To compare it to a baseline of something universally regarded as "not peaceful". Assuming you agree that the crusades weren't peaceful then you can't really claim that islamic expansion was peaceful can you? > Without seeing the details, it seems to be comparing the battles sanctioned by the Pope during a few centuries against any expansion batt…

Thanks for articulating that better than I would have (or did, apparently).
Post reply on HN