Middle Eastern Millitary/General discussion post Islam.

[John7755 يوحنا]

The all encompassing thread for Mid Eastern military and military generals discussion for the medieval to Renaissance era.

Rules: Try to keep to mid Eastern generals. I accept crusader generals if they have a relation to the Mid East and gauge comparison between such generals (Richard of Lionheart vs Saladin).

Byzantium is accepted within reason. I would not like to see Byzantine discussion in terms of campaigns against the Rurikids or Bulgaria or in Italy. So, Heraclus and other Byzantine generals which waged wars against Mid Eastern generals are accepted.

Late Sassanid generals and military is fine by me, however, only those after Islam arose. So no discussion on Sassanid empire in the 250s.

Hindu generals or Indian ones, are good in their relation to Mid Easteen ones. So, the various rulers who fought Mahmoud Ghazni.

Central Asia stops at Sogdia or modern day China. So Mongol discussion is only in regards to when they make contact with the Mid East or in their case, the Kwarezmshahs.

Khazars, Pechengs, etc... is acceptable in their relation to the Mid East or Mid East invasions into.

Discussion of North Africa is an exception, as is Iberia, however it is more like the Byzantine situation.

Anyway, excited for the thread. Also, I am still working on my tl, In case you felt I had stopped it.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

It's still mostly wrong : the actual conception of Saladin isn't due to some racist shenanigan from "Christians", but directly tied up to the XVIIIth enlightement and XIXth secular historians, using up most of late medieval narrative.

If something, it's not due to "Christians", but to secular writers in opposition to the late modern era monarchy and religious influence. Not everything is litteraly racist, and this has to be, sorry to point it, one of the laziest approach on historiography when made systematically (as, of course, you have questions of race and racism in western historiography. It's just that it doesn't pop out of nowhere).

I agree to this rational. It was certainly secular scholars who wrote intensively on Saladin building the persona which is exemplify in some cases honor and Islamic retribution. Muchof these secular writers of these days are the main cause of woes in Islamic history in the public opinion. By taking controversial opinions that counter previous Christian dogma historical analysis, these scholars and orientalists gained fame and readings and imprinted their opinions on public culture, which is not correlated conversely in academic research of Islam or of its history. It is the same issue with the overly optimistic image of al-Andalus in the Qurtubah period or the Abbasid period where the public perception is not whole as they only perceive Islamic history as it relates to the west, but forget to immerse in it and build it as a complete experience as they do with Europe or as Chinese historians do.

We are both right, just walking past each other in this instance.

@Achaemenid Rome @darthfanta as you two where part of this discussion.

 

[LSCatilina]

I'd be interested on the mameluk dynasty of Delhi, and its military rulership. Have you any insight on it?

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

What are your opinions on the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

In regards to the Mamluk and sometimes called the Slave Dynasty of Delhi, their military early on was built upon the same system of the Ghaznavid and later their patrons the Ghurids.

The Mamluk state at its military height in the sacking of Hindustan was not essentially independent in name but miltaey independent as was common place in Islamic invasions of India previously. This invasion was built from the previous wars between Shihab ad-Din al-Ghori (Muhammad al-Ghor), who famously fought the first battle of Tarrain against Prithviraij Chauhan, a Rajput warrior who had previously conquered much of Rajasthan or at least brought the areas together in a proto coalition of sorts as was common in the Gujarat and Rajasthan in the 1000s-1500s.

The victory by the Ghurids opened the area to further conquest. However, the Rajputs remained unconquered, just defeated for now. Then, as is common in Indian-Islamic history, trouble arose in Iran as the Kwarezmshahs began pushing into the Ghurids on their northern frontier in and around Herat. Thus, Mu'Izz al-Ghor sent Qutb al-Din Aibaq to prosecute further wars into the Indian subcontinent with a number of Mamluk Warriors, which would form the skeleton of the new state or more precisely, Ghurid vassal state.

Qutb Aibaq then set about with his son, Shams ud-Din Iltumush in raiding the former lands led by the Chauhan. Where the resistance was relatively light due to the previous defeat at Tarrain.

The greatest general overall in this state however was the subservient general, Muhammad bin Bhaqtiyar al-Khilji, who would conquer Bengal and defeat thus ending the Sena dynasty and with it, Buddhist rule in India. His career however was short lived as he was assassinated out of jealousy. Likely, had he survived, Bhaqtiyar had great promise to be one of the better generals of the era and likely would've prosecuted war against either the ascendant Kwarezmshahs or the Mongols.

Thus, the at least in its early state had a lot of potential, which could've been used to build and even stronger base or taken a more active role in fighting the Mongols, but much of that talent was lost early on, such as Qutb Aibaq who fell off his horse and died or Bhaqtiyar who was assassinated for his military successes.

It is also worth noting, that had Bhaqtiyar not died, there was a possibility of the state not solidifying under a particular rule and could have gone been more unstable as Bhaqtiyar battles the also talented Iltumush. Iltumush for instance was famed for continueing previous Ghurid incursions into the Multan against the Shi'i statelets there, which remained as remnants of the previous Fatimid and Qarmatian Dawi states.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

What are your opinions on the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids?

Well, Ibn Tulun was extremely intelligent and talented, especially in terms of political maneuvering. I typically class Mamluks of the Abbasid period in four categories:

1. Subservient: These are Mamluks who are essentially the personification of what the Mu'Tazila factions of the Abbasid idealized a Mamluk to be, one who is an accomplished General or warrior and with utmost loyalty and gratitude to the Abbasid throne.

2. Workhorses: Mamluks who served many different roles, but their main distinction was subservience to other Mamluks, as opposed to the Abbasid throne.

3. Conspirators: Mamluks who lived mainly in the royal court and attempted to rule the Abbasid state.

4. Strongmen: Mamluks who attempted to create their own statelets using political saviness.

Ibn Tulun is an incredible example of a Mamluk who eximified the strongman trop. He prudently made decisions to set his base in Egypt away from the chaos of Iraq and away from the rising Saffarid and Khawarij threats and made his initial moves in the periods of greatest upheaval in the Abbasid period. Ibn Tulun however, was more of a strongman and political force as opposed to a fearsome military general.

Despite this, Ibn Tulun had great experience in terms of the frontier wars in Tarsus and Adana. As well, he of course is known for personally engaging a Bedouin brigand (which likely had khawarij origins) and defended a caravan and leading it to its destination. This gained him the favor of Musta'in who would use him as his personal guard.

Ibn Tulun, further, exhibited great loyalty, by keeping his word to his master, Musta'in and refusing bribes. Ultimately, his loyalty, is what led to his rebellion. Seeing the excesses of the Abbasid, he began collecting power for himself in Egypt.

His son, Khumarawayh al-Tulun was again an effective politician, especially in terms of outmanuevering the Abbasids and playing upon their infighting and jealousy. He however, was noted as fleeing battles such as at Tawrah where his army far outnumbered his opponets.

In this period, (880s) a struggle ensued between Ishaq bin Qundaj and Khumarawayh. Ishaq bin Qundaj was a noted general, having captured Ninewah from the Khawarij and fought the Zanj in 880, he had nothing but hardened experience and was known throughout the caliphate as Ishaq of the two swords (Dhul al-Sayfayeen). However, playing upon internal rivalries amongst the generals of the Abbasid throne, he acquired the also famous Bin Abu l'Saj, a former warrior under Ya'qub bin Layth al-Saffarid and general who fought against the Zanj in Ahvaz and Susana.

Abu l'Saj's défection to the Tulunids and his victory over Ishaq bin Qundaj was the primary factor in the survival of another few decades of Tulunids Egypt. Had Abu l'Saj not with Khuramawayh not defeated and expelled Ishaq bin Qundaj, Qundaj would've likely conquered all the way to Sinai in a battle following Tawrah and in the 890s, likely Egypt would be retaken by the Abbasid throne.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

I'd be curious of opinions on the Artuqids in particular Ilghazi.

Ilghazi defeated the Crusaders decisively at Battle of the Field of Blood. This is largely due to the poor generalship of Roger of Salerno who seems to have charged out before waiting for King Baldwin II and reinforcements. Afterwards Antioch seems like it was going to fall but the Crusaders were able to regroup, Ilghazi might have been drunk. Baldwin then outmaneuvers Ilghazi, beats him at Hab and peace is established. Ilghazi follows this by invading Georgia to total disaster at the Battle of Didgori. I'm not sure what actual numbers are at Didgori but the army was reportedly massive 100,000-600,000(exaggerated?).

Opinions of Ilghazi as a commander? Could Ilghazi have captured Antioch? Why did the Artuqid's lose so decisively to the Georgians? Was the invasion a strategic mistake? What if they had of instead continued to concentrate on the Crusaders states?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I'd be curious of opinions on the Artuqids in particular Ilghazi.

Ilghazi defeated the Crusaders decisively at Battle of the Field of Blood. This is largely due to the poor generalship of Roger of Salerno who seems to have charged out before waiting for King Baldwin II and reinforcements. Afterwards Antioch seems like it was going to fall but the Crusaders were able to regroup, Ilghazi might have been drunk. Baldwin then outmaneuvers Ilghazi, beats him at Hab and peace is established. Ilghazi follows this by invading Georgia to total disaster at the Battle of Didgori. I'm not sure what actual numbers are at Didgori but the army was reportedly massive 100,000-600,000(exaggerated?).

Opinions of Ilghazi as a commander? Could Ilghazi have captured Antioch? Why did the Artuqid's lose so decisively to the Georgians? Was the invasion a strategic mistake? What if they had of instead continued to concentrate on the Crusaders states?

Ilghazi was noted as a very talented general by all accounts, however, he was also noted to be lazy and a drunk which stymied his ability. Had he lived in a different time, he would have a better perception as opposed to the general who failed to capture Antioch.

By, this, I refer to how Islamic generals in the Abbasid period did not need to constantly be on their toes as in the crusading period as in almost all cases, the Arab armies where on the offensive or just dealing with rebels.

Those numbers are certainly conflated. Abbasid armies which consisted of Turkish Mamluks and Arabs from across the Islamic world never surpassed 150,000.



The defeat of the Saljuq army at Didgori was a vivid look into the failure of Islamic armies under their Mamluk masters. An excessive use of horse archers and neglect of heavy and medium infantry which was a hallmark of the Abbasid forces in the Zanj wars. As well, the Saljuq were notably disorganized and less equipped than the well organized Georgian army under David IV. This was the same issue the Saljuq often experienced against the crusader forces.

Overall, my view on Ilghazi is that he was while a competent general, was not prepared nor skilled enough to capture Antioch against often superior crusader forces.

 

[Tanc49]

I found myself very interested in the Declan sultanate and their fight against Vijayanagar.
I saw those people had access to European artillery and the Portuguese found some Dutch in Calicut by the 3rd armada.

So, was the whole "Gama discovers India" that ground-breaking or did he "just" find a sea route?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I found myself very interested in the Declan sultanate and their fight against Vijayanagar.
I saw those people had access to European artillery and the Portuguese found some Dutch in Calicut by the 3rd armada.

So, was the whole "Gama discovers India" that ground-breaking or did he "just" find a sea route?

I am not sure on this question. Perhaps another has an answer or I will find one.

 

[starwarsfan]

This is a good thread idea, I've been trying to find information on the military structure of the Abassids caliphate

 

[LSCatilina]

So, was the whole "Gama discovers India" that ground-breaking or did he "just" find a sea route?

Portuguese litterally searched for more than a century navigating around western Africa (which itself was a main focus due to gold trade, for exemple), in the Atlantic (expension of plantation economy in the archipelagos) and reaching Asia : they had to devellop new instruments, new techniques, new ships, new economical structures to get it working.
Knowing where India was (and the Genoese carthographer may have searched as far as chinese-inspired maps to have the best approximaxion possible) doesn't mean they had the faintest idea on how to circumnavigate Africa (nobody did) and how to navigate on Indian Ocean (Arabo-African trade was much more coastal).

How Vasco de Gama had to resort to gunboat diplomacy on steroids in India points how much Portuguese didn't much knew local realities.

If it's "just" find a road that was there, it's probably the best hoaxes of all time, one that would have cost as much time and money than the real deal.

While a bit surprising to find Dutch in the early XVIth century in India, it's far from astonishing (could you give me the source please? I'm afraid I forgot about that) : everyone knew about the Egyptian/Indian trade road. The whole point for Portuguese was to avoid it.

 

[Tanc49]

Portuguese litterally searched for more than a century navigating around western Africa (which itself was a main focus due to gold trade, for exemple), in the Atlantic (expension of plantation economy in the archipelagos) and reaching Asia : they had to devellop new instruments, new techniques, new ships, new economical structures to get it working.
Knowing where India was (and the Genoese carthographer may have searched as far as chinese-inspired maps to have the best approximaxion possible) doesn't mean they had the faintest idea on how to circumnavigate Africa (nobody did) and how to navigate on Indian Ocean (Arabo-African trade was much more coastal).

How Vasco de Gama had to resort to gunboat diplomacy on steroids in India points how much Portuguese didn't much knew local realities.

If it's "just" find a road that was there, it's probably the best hoaxes of all time, one that would have cost as much time and money than the real deal.

Oh I know the struggle (I would love your feedback about the podcast I'm recording on this very subject, link in Sig )

My question is more about the penetration of Europeans and European techs in the Orient prior to Gama.

 

[LSCatilina]

My question is more about the penetration of Europeans and European techs in the Orient prior to Gama.

As said in the edit above : Europeans did knew about India, we have Europeans travellers in India as far as the XIVth century. The problem of Portugueses wasn't to reach Indias, it was to reach Indias bypassing the old road by circumnavigating Africa.

I checked very quickly (so it can be wrong), and apparently you did have a Flemish sailor in the Portuguese Armada in 1503 (posibly in 1502 as well). Is that what you were talking? Because it points less at a dutch presence in Indias than Portuguese sailors being a rag-tag ensemble of whtever people could stand a long and perillous journey.

 

[Tanc49]

As said in the edit above : Europeans did knew about India, we have Europeans travellers in India as far as the XIVth century. The problem of Portugueses wasn't to reach Indias, it was to reach Indias bypassing the old road by circumnavigating Africa.

I checked very quickly (so it can be wrong), and apparently you did have a Flemish sailor in the Portuguese Armada in 1503 (posibly in 1502 as well). Is that what you were talking? Because it points less at a dutch presence in Indias than Portuguese sailors being a rag-tag ensemble of whtever people could stand a long and perillous journey.

Well in the chronicle of that Flemish sailor, he notices Dutch merchants. He might be making stuff up though.

I don't have the source right there as I'm away from home but it's on gallica

 

[Karolus Rex]

As said in the edit above : Europeans did knew about India, we have Europeans travellers in India as far as the XIVth century. The problem of Portugueses wasn't to reach Indias, it was to reach Indias bypassing the old road by circumnavigating Africa.

I checked very quickly (so it can be wrong), and apparently you did have a Flemish sailor in the Portuguese Armada in 1503 (posibly in 1502 as well). Is that what you were talking? Because it points less at a dutch presence in Indias than Portuguese sailors being a rag-tag ensemble of whtever people could stand a long and perillous journey.

There is also a report that the first merchants that the Portuguese contacted in India were from Morocco and that a person that Gama kinda of kidnapped in India, that would later be known as Gaspar da Gama, was a Polish Jew.

 

[Samm]

I would be interested to know if there any famous Islamic Admirals. How exactly was the navy run in the early Islamic states. Was it considered as desirable and Honourable as the land forces?

 

[hasdrubal barca]

I would be interested to know if there any famous Islamic Admirals.

For a later period example Hayreddin Barbarossa comes to mind.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well in the chronicle of that Flemish sailor, he notices Dutch merchants. He might be making stuff up though.

It can be true, tough. Again, European presence in Indias coming along the Egyptian road isn't really astonishing itself, even if it must have been relatively reduced : Arab traders were quite wary about their monopoly. That said, they beneficied from good relations with Italian traders (and their continental network) so...

I would be interested to know if there any famous Islamic Admirals. How exactly was the navy run in the early Islamic states. Was it considered as desirable and Honourable as the land forces?

Abul A'wal is probably the first Arabo-Islamic admiral of notice, crushing byzantine navy at the Battle of the Mastes.

Seafare in early Arabic states wasn't that much omnipresent tough : I'm under the impression it's essentially a southern Arabic thing (it's interesting to see that Southern Arabian-issued nobles were in charge of Ifriqiya and Levantine coasts at first), while other Arabic cultures have a more cautionary take on it.

In fact, for western Arabo-Islamic world, it definitely goes down to seafare being badly considered : Abul' Arab Mus'ab, an Arabo-Sicilian, outright refused to undergo a naval journey because sailing was what Christians did, not Arabs.
Of course, there's a certain part of rationalisation there that only grew with tume, but it points to a cultural trend on seafare : even the Arabo-Andalusian fleet was more of a coast guard, pumped up because of the Viking threat.

Of course you did have an early Arabic seafare, mostly due to the relative inclusiveness of the Arabo-Islamic entities : where existed a strong naval tradition, it was maintained and developed. But it wasn't from scratch : the famous Battle of the Mastes involved an essentially Coptic and Syrian-issued navy rather than Arabic.
It doesn't mean that Abul A'wal was clueless on seafare, of course, and his previous raids in eastern Mediterranean proove that caliphates could perfectly well use naval warfare.

It was more or less ponctual efforts, tough, and the failed sieges of Constantinoples are partially explained by the lack of a strong fleet able to break the supply lines and byzantine fleet.

Now I expect @John7755 يوحنا to correct me, or at the latest to provide more informations on eastern Mediterranean and Indian Ocean seafare, I'm more on western and atlantic parts myself, and it's clearly outside the OP.

 

[ben0628]

I would be interested to know if there any famous Islamic Admirals. How exactly was the navy run in the early Islamic states. Was it considered as desirable and Honourable as the land forces?

Technically off topic but wasn't that famous Chinese admiral during the Mind dynasty Muslim?

Also, as pointed out, Barbarossa was a good one. The Barbary states andhad some pretty competent pirates and before Lepanto the Ottoman navy was fairly strong, probably because it's size rather than skill though.

As to the second question in your post, seafaring Muslims tended to be more of a think in the Indian Ocean than the Mediterranean Sea, I'd assume because of more trade and less Christians to deal with.