If you're go do it, do it fast and for good:
https://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/mamelukes-are...
>>By 1811 Muhammad Ali was strong enough to deal with the Mamelukes. He organised a grand ceremonial procession in Cairo to which he invited some 500 Mameluke notables. Assembled in the citadel, they were warmly welcomed and treated to coffee, sweetmeats and polite conversation, but when the time came for the procession they had to go down a narrow, winding passageway between high walls in single file. Suddenly the gates at each end were slammed shut and the Wali’s soldiers appeared on top of the walls and opened a murderous fire with muskets. All or possibly all but one of the Mamelukes were killed. More Mamelukes were swiftly hunted down and killed in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt, to a total of perhaps 3,000.
Who Were the Mamluks?
111–120 of 121 posts
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#112It is actually interesting as 'Mamluki' is Swahili term for mercenary
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#113Do they have R1a?
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#114Earlier 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…
>o 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?
Though I agree that the Crusades were not peaceful, I disagree that they are universally regarded as such. Many people view them as some righteous expulsion of the terrible Muslims, which is why this comparison is an issue.
>I don't know if this is true or not, but I assume they're referring to the early islamic expansion
Still assuming that the video linked elsewhere is the document, as it matches the description, this is not the case. It may be some other source, but given the difficulty in making anything resembling a fair comparison between the expansions of an empire and pilgrimage invasions, I would guess that source is also pushing a narrative. Why else would you compare all expansion by the Muslims in the 7th century against only a small subset of wars in the 11th?
It's entirely possible that you and the poster are unaware of how loaded that argument is, but it's still used to say Islam is necessarily violent and must be removed.
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>o 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? Though I agree that the Crusades were not peaceful, I disagree that they are universally regarded as such. Many people view them as some righteous expulsion of the terrible Muslims, which is why this comparison i…
> Many people view them as some righteous expulsion of the terrible Muslims, which is why this comparison is an issue.
Many people would consider it righteous, but no-one can seriously claim it was peaceful. The allied side of WW2 was/is considered righteous but no one claims it was peaceful.
> It's entirely possible that you and the poster are unaware of how loaded that argument is, but it's still used to say Islam is necessarily violent and must be removed.
It seems more like you're making all sorts of mental contortions to take the polar opposite position, that they were "devoted to peace". At this point you're arguing against a strawman without even having the decency to tell us what the strawman is.
If you don't like the crusades comparison would you prefer the nazi Germany conquests in WW2? Would you say they were "devoted to peace"?
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
>o 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? Though I agree that the Crusades were not peaceful, I disagree that they are universally regarded as such. Many people view them as some righteous expulsion of the terrible Muslims, which is why this comparison i…
> Many people view them as some righteous expulsion of the terrible Muslims, which is why this comparison is an issue. Many people would consider it righteous, but no-one can seriously claim it was peaceful. The allied side of WW2 was/is considered righteous but no one claims it was peaceful. > It's entirely possible that you and the poster are unaware of how loaded that argument is, but it's still used to say Islam…
>Many people would consider it righteous, but no-one can seriously claim it was peaceful. The allied side of WW2 was/is considered righteous but no one claims it was peaceful
People often consider a state committing a righteous act peaceful. People say the US was forcibly dragged into both world wars and describe the goal of "spreading peace."
>It seems more like you're making all sorts of mental contortions to take the polar opposite position, that they were "devoted to peace". At this point you're arguing against a strawman without even having the decency to tell us what the strawman is.
I've never stated that the religion is devoted to peace. I called the behavior normal for an empire and then described how I saw the comparison with the Crusades strange and misleading. The "strawman" I'm arguing against is a vague recollection of what seems to be anti-Islamic propaganda that was in the first post I responded to. Speculating that I'm mistaken about the time period used in the comparison doesn't make it less strange or misleading.
>If you don't like the crusades comparison would you prefer the nazi Germany conquests in WW2? Would you say they were "devoted to peace"?
Their wars alone are enough to show they weren't devoted to peace. Comparing it to some other thing is only useful to show how it's better or worse than some other thing. What other reason is there to say "Islam fought maybe ten times more battles to expand than the Crusades fought against Islam. (And much of the Islamic expansion was against civilizations that were already christian - all of north Africa, for example.)"
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I can see that. Certainly, the Celts and Germans had plenty of contact with the Romans, and Roman bureaucracy and aristocracy (not to mention Roman-distributed Christianity) directly informed their institutions. But in a lot of ways, it's not so much an inheritance as a cargo cult, but it's still a valid connection. But Greek culture... yeah, that's a retcon.
Of course Roman culture was itself a retread of Greek culture with a few mods thrown in, they even pulled an asset flip with the Greek pantheon.
Republican Romans would have lynched you for calling them "Greek". Romans were well aware of their Archaic history and there was very much a sense of Greeks being overly pompous, fanciful, dissolute foreigners, albeit somewhat related.
The spurts of Greek (and later Persian and Egyptian) fashion in Rome existed precisely because they found it exotic. Otherwise Roman and Greek myths link at several levels purely and simply because they shared the same root. Romans didn't really "snatch" Gods from Greece, they were already theirs. And they "enriched" their existing archetypes with new attributes from outside as the Empire grew to pacify the subjugated peoples.
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I question the "devoted to peace" part. They were devoted to expanding Islam by force, and peace after they had conquered you. I once saw a comparison of the battles fought against Islam in the Crusades, and the battles fought by Islam in expanding. Islam fought maybe ten times more battles to expand than the Crusades fought against Islam. (And much of the Islamic expansion was against civilizations that were already…
North Africa was christian? The amazigh were animists, and Islam was present before any large scale invasion, and was mostly spread by amazigh tribes themselves. (at least in the case of Morocco)
Morocco was really peripheral to Roman Africa. But the coastal band of Eastern Algeria and more importantly the entire Tunisian plain was urban, Roman, had a large number of Latin-speaking urban center, was one of the richest area of the Roman empire because it was an agricultural powerhouse and was one of the epicenters of Early Christianity.
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#119If 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.
I wish I could be around to see the world in a hundred years or so. Since reading Factfulness, I've really gotten into a natural-progression mindset for nations/regions. Once modern economics sets in, certain things start changing very rapidly. Many countries today are going through what Europe and America went through in the 19th century through WWII - massive improvements in education and wealth and public health, massive decline in birthrate. And it's happening far faster in some places than it happened in Europe. For example, it took England 95 years to drop its birthrate from above 6 to below 3. Iran did it in 10 years. (Iran's birthrate today is lower than Europe.) China has increased its per capita GDP about 15,000% since 1952. That's just mind-boggling.
As Hans Rosling points out, Sweden in the 19th century was worse off than most of Africa today - birth rate above 5, 90% illiteracy, 20% of the population actually fled to the US to escape famine. And a century and a half later... they're Sweden, the most civilized country in the world.
It's just a matter of time before this catches up to the Middle East. There's no reason they can't be as wealthy and stable as Europe, it's just going to take a few generations. After all, the Levant was once the center of civilization - more than once.
Re: Who Were the Mamluks?
#120Every time I read something like this, I'm reminded of how much I know my grounding in history to Age of Empires 2 . Sure, it got a lot of things wrong and it took liberty with a lot of historical facts, but it also gave me a basis for, and appreciation of history. I knew about the Mamluks because they were an elite unit in the game, and I happened to one day just Google their name and read the wiki page.
If you want to accidentally learn about history, I highly recommend Europa Universalis IV.