View Full Version : What happened to the Egyptians?
I am a little vague on the distinction between the Turk and Egyptian factions in MTW. I was watching the Lionheart Crusade documentary on TV last night and it showed a map of the land of Saladdin (who I would view as "Egyptian" in MTW terms) stretching very far, covering most of what I would regard as the Turk's land in MTW. Anyone care to sketch a potted history of these two "factions" in this period? I am a little vague on who the Crusaders were fighting - Turks or Egyptians, or both? What was the relation between the Turks and the Egyptians?
I gather the Turks fortunes changed markedly for the better in the "late" period with the rise of the Ottomans, ultimately overrunning both the Byzantines and the Egyptians?
Was there much difference in the armies of the Egyptians and Turks before the late period?
Thanks for any information. Sorry for being so ignorant.
Pablo Sanchez
03-09-2003, 07:03
Saladin, I think, was the successor to the Atabeg of Mosul (a city in Kurdistan), who had gained control of pretty much the same area that's depicted as Egyptian in MTW, minus the crusader states, of course.
Muneyoshi
03-09-2003, 07:23
al Aziz (Imad ad Din) was the successor of Saladdin if im not mistaken (Small detail)
Pablo Sanchez
03-09-2003, 19:00
I looked it up in my favorite history book, the Cartoon History of the Universe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Around 1150, this fellow Nur ad'Din was Atabeg of Mosul (basically baron of Kurdistan, with control of most of the land east of the Crusader states). He controls a fairly large area, and he hates Crusaders and Fatimids, so he makes a strategy. He grabs Egypt... then dies. His lieutenant ibn Ayyub, or Saladin, siezes control, and incidentally controls Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Kurdistan. (basically the area of Egyptian control in MTW).
The Fatimids, in point of fact, never really controlled much more than egypt and the North African cost, which was siezed by the Almoravids by the time MTW starts.
Heraclius
03-10-2003, 02:32
Quote[/b] (Pablo Sanchez @ Mar. 09 2003,12:00)]I looked it up in my favorite history book, the Cartoon History of the Universe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Wow. I know that series. They're definitely some of the best history books I've ever read and I mean that.
ShadesWolf
03-17-2003, 14:46
The fragmentation of the Abbasid empire led to the emergence of two new Muslim Empires,
- The Seljuk Turks (Sunni) initially in Anatolia
- The Shiite Fatimid Caliphate of Cairo.
The Fatimid established a very strong empire until the appearance of the crusades, which initiated their fall. The Fatimid forces were based upon a classical army model provided by the 9th century Abbasid Caliphate. Infantry regiments consisted of black African slave soldiers, many Christian Armenians and some Iranians.
The cavalry included Syrian Arabs, Turkish ghulams, European slaves and mercenaries.
The Ayoubids were formed after the fall of the Fatamids and their first and last sultan was Saladin. He was famous for winning the Battle of the Horns. He used to fight side by side with his troops, but after the battle he fell ill and died. Later his wife, Shajarat al Dur, took control of the Empire, but after 80 days she handed it over to the Mamelukes.
Under Saladin, the invasion of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem resulted in an overwhelming victory. Thereafter he held onto the Holy City despite Western efforts in the Third Crusade.
The Mamelukes were the last Saracen empire. They were first created by the Abbasids as white slaves (mostly made of Turks, Mongols and Circassian) and trained to be the bodyguards of the sultan. They were the special shock troopers of the Islamic army and served as Islamic Cavalry Force. When they went into battle they were equipped with a spear and a sword, usually the spear was thrown directly or indirectly at the enemy to ensure maximum damage, they then turned to their swords to charge at the enemy. Their empire started a "purification" process to cleanse the crusaders from the holy lands and they also repelled the last major Mongol invasion of Syria in 1303.
The Ottomans defeated them at the battle of Egypt in 1517 and so the last Saracen Empire finally fell
## The seljuks ##
http://www.shadesmtw.com/seljuk.gif
Extending from Central Asia to the Byzantine marches in Asia Minor, the Seljuk state under its first three established a highly cohesive, well-administered Sunni state under the nominal authority of the Abbasid caliphs at Baghdad. The empire grew quickly consuming the land of the Abbasid Empire after its fragmentation. After 1055 the empire centered in Baghdad and including Iran, Iraq, and Syria. They helped to prevent the Fatimids of Egypt from making Shiite Islam dominant throughout the Middle East. In the 12th century, they blocked inland expansion by the crusader states on the Syrian Coast
In 1071, Alp Arslan (1063-1072) fought the battle of Malazgirt and defeated the Byzantine Emperor's forces. This opened the doors of Anatolia to the Moslem Turk. The year 1071 is considered to be the beginning of the Turks and that of Islam in Anatolia. It is following this date that the Turks fully conquered the whole of Anatolia and established the Anatolian Seljuk state there as a part of the Great Seljuk Empire.
Seljuk power was at its zenith during the period of 1063-92. The Vizier Nizam Al-Mulk, revived Sunnite Islamic administrative and religious institutions. They developed armies of slaves (mamelukes) to replace the Nomad warriors, as well as an elaborate bureaucratic hierarchy that provided the foundation for governmental administration in the Middle East until modern times.
The Seljuks revived and reinvigorated the classical Islamic educational system, developing universities (madrasahs) to train Bureaucrats and religious officials. However, after this period there was a decline in the quality of dynastic leadership and division of their rule among military commanders and regents weakened the power of the great Seljuks. The last of their line died in battle against the Khwakizm-Shahs in 1194. A branch of the Seljuks established its own state in Rum, which survived until it was conquered by the Mongols in 1243
Interesting post, Shadeswolf. So in terms of who the game considers to be Egyptians and who Turks. Is it crudely:
Egyptians: Fatimids => Ayoubids (Ayyubids) => Mamelukes?
Turks: Seljuq Turks => Ottomans?
If so, I wonder if the "early" map gives too much land to the Egyptians - given the map you posted and Pablo Sanchez's comment about the Fatimids?
ShadesWolf
03-17-2003, 20:42
Historically egypt would have beeen one province, two at max....
So for balancing they get more
ShadesWolf
03-17-2003, 21:02
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs143/sultan.jpg
another picture
Pablo Sanchez
03-19-2003, 01:39
Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Mar. 17 2003,07:46)]The last of their line died in battle against the Khwakizm-Shahs in 1194.
This is one big part of the Middle Eastern saga that I don't know. How did the Eastern area of Seljuk control fall under the Khwarizm Empire? I know all about the Mongl invasion and the disintegration of the Shahs, but I don't know where they came from.
chilliwilli
03-19-2003, 04:50
Brief history of Khwarazm Before Genghis Khan's arrival:
The original inhabitants were of Turkish and Uzbek decent and came from the Khwarazm region of Central Asia which is directly west of Transoxiana(where city of Samarkand is). Khwarazm is roughly what The Khiva Khanate controlled after becoming an independent Uzbek state. Originally subdued by Cyrus The Great in the 6th century BC, they became independent in the 4th century BC. It was then inhabited by Indians and Zoroastrianism was adopted. Khwarazm was then conquered by The Arabs and converted to Islam in the 7th century AD. In the late 10th century AD it won its independence yet again, but this time the region was united for the first time by the Emirs of north Khwarazm. Their unification didn't last long as The Seljuks conquered them in the 11th century making them one of the first additions to their empire after arriving from Transoxiana. In the late 12th century they won their independence from the Seljuk Turks and were united under a Shah. They immdiately expanded their rule at the expense of The Turks and at the height of its power in the 13th century The empire stretched from The Caspian Sea to Samarkand also controlling Afghanistan and eastern sections of modern day Iraq. Pretty much the extent of most Iranian empires in history.
Heraclius
03-19-2003, 05:05
I believe that Genghis Khan executed a Khwarazmi official who slighted him by pouring MOLTEN SILVER down his ear that's not a good way to go.
Pablo Sanchez
03-19-2003, 05:17
Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 18 2003,22:05)]I believe that Genghis Khan executed a Khwarazmi official who slighted him by pouring MOLTEN SILVER down his ear that's not a good way to go.
That's nothing. According to most sources, the Khwarizmian invasion was the most costly war in terms of per capita and destruction on the country in question--period. By the same token, that is per capita worldwide chaos, Genghis Khan is the most terrible person that ever lived. He's also the most successful in Darwinian terms, with 18 million or so direct descendents.
Ah, the Steppe peoples. The scourge of God http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Quote[/b] ]He's also the most successful in Darwinian terms, with 18 million or so direct descendents.
What a depressing thought; thank God I'm a nurture, rather than nature, man.
chilliwilli
03-20-2003, 03:25
Quote[/b] (Pablo Sanchez @ Mar. 18 2003,22:17)]
Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 18 2003,22:05)]I believe that Genghis Khan executed a Khwarazmi official who slighted him by pouring MOLTEN SILVER down his ear that's not a good way to go.
That's nothing. According to most sources, the Khwarizmian invasion was the most costly war in terms of per capita and destruction on the country in question--period. By the same token, that is per capita worldwide chaos, Genghis Khan is the most terrible person that ever lived. He's also the most successful in Darwinian terms, with 18 million or so direct descendents.
Ah, the Steppe peoples. The scourge of God http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Actually Iran floursihed under Genghis Khan's rule and the caravan trade was very prosperous. If it was so devastated than how come it prospered more before than ever under his rule? The figures that you see about him executing 8 million people per city are totally inaccurate, there were not that many people in Iran back then. The only cities that came close to any figure like that was Samarkand and Bukhara and they didn't even boast a population close to that. I also believe they were spared of mass execution too. The only region that was devastated was Afghanistan because he destroyed it's irrigation system which was thousands of years old. The country still hasn't recovered from his invasion today. The areas that he conquered(excluding Russia)recovered from his invasion and were actually more prosperous and secure under Mongol rule than they ever were. Oh and he also contributed to opening up trade between the Western world and The East. The only per capita damage that he caused was due to heavy taxation of his own people, but that all helped expand the empire. Doesn't sound to bad does it?
As for him being the worst person in history, I don't think thats true. Eventhough he was brutal and killed many people, he gave cities a chance to surrender, and only after it was obvious that they would not surrender he executed people. He asked questions first. He was also very tolerant of all religions and never once tried to force his faith upon anyone who didn't wish to adhere to it.
Oh by the way the reason he executed that official was because that same guy(Governer of Otrar) executed his emmisaries which he sent on a peaceful mission, so he was justified. He didn't just do it for the hell of it.
Pablo Sanchez
03-20-2003, 03:59
Quote[/b] (chilliwilli @ Mar. 19 2003,20:25)]
Quote[/b] (Pablo Sanchez @ Mar. 18 2003,22:17)]
Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 18 2003,22:05)]I believe that Genghis Khan executed a Khwarazmi official who slighted him by pouring MOLTEN SILVER down his ear that's not a good way to go.
That's nothing. According to most sources, the Khwarizmian invasion was the most costly war in terms of per capita and destruction on the country in question--period. By the same token, that is per capita worldwide chaos, Genghis Khan is the most terrible person that ever lived. He's also the most successful in Darwinian terms, with 18 million or so direct descendents.
Ah, the Steppe peoples. The scourge of God http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Actually Iran floursihed under Genghis Khan's rule and the caravan trade was very prosperous. If it was so devastated than how come it prospered more before than ever under his rule? The figures that you see about him executing 8 million people per city are totally inaccurate, there were not that many people in Iran back then. The only cities that came close to any figure like that was Samarkand and Bukhara and they didn't even boast a population close to that. I also believe they were spared of mass too. The only region that was devastated was Afghanistan because he destroyed it's irrigation system which was thousands of years old. The country still hasn't recovered from his invasion today. The areas that he conquered(excluding Russia)recovered from his invasion and were actually more prosperous and secure under Mongol rule than they ever were. Oh and he also contributed to opening up trade between the Western world and The East. The only per capita damage that he caused was due to heavy taxation of his own people, but that all helped expand the empire. Doesn't sound to bad does it?
As for him being the worst person in history, I don't think thats true. Eventhough he was brutal and killed many people, he gave cities a chance to surrender, and only after it was obvious that they would not surrender he executed people. He asked questions first. He was also very tolerant of all religions and never once tried to force his faith upon anyone who didn't wish to adhere to it.
Oh by the way the reason he executed that official was because that same guy(Governer of Otrar) executed his emmisaries which he sent on a peaceful mission, so he was justified. He didn't just do it for the hell of it.
A few points:
The mere fact that Genghis didn't finish 8 million per city doesn't mean that he didn't kill the vast majority of their population. When you say that 8 million is too big, you must not only reduce this figure, but also the total population of Khwarism.
Some Iranians did benefit from his control. Trade was safer and more efficient. But does this erase the fact of heavy-handed Mongol taxation? Of the loss of Persian culture that resulted? Or the millions of people that certainly did die, a large portion of the population. All the sources I have read say that Genghis exterminated a large proportion of the population of Khwarism, yet you gloss over this.
The fact that Genghis gave cities a chance to surrender does not impress me. It is worth remembering that Steppe people had an intrinsic hatred of all cities, and many people were aware of this. Perhaps you remember a little story of Genghis. You see, he decided that cities were a blight on his vast realm, and he suspected them of withohlding tribute from him. His solution to this problem was to excise them, liquidating most of the inhabitants and leaving the rest to live as subsistence farmers and nomads. He was only dissuaded when an Uighur relating to him the concept of taxation.
Another thing which doesn't impress me is his religious tolerance. He was a pagan, a worshipper of the sky and animism. Such people are naturally tolerant, because they consider outside gods as just an addition to their pantheon.
The fact is that in his era, Genghis killed a greater percentage of the world population than any man before or since (unless you want to count Cain's little operation on Abel).
A.Saturnus
04-01-2003, 16:04
As I mentioned before, 18 million descendants aren`t much after so many centuries.
Genghis may have killed a larger portion of the world population than anyone else, but that was because he waged some many wars in so many parts of the world. He did not see other gods as addition to the pantheon, the Mongol religion had a certain cosmogony which excluded other gods and weren`t just animism. In fact, he saw himself as decendant of the godly Grey Wolf and rightfull ruler of the world. The tolerance in Mongol Ulus was extraordinary. Any man from any race and from any religion could have the highest rank if he only was loyal and qualified. Unlike others, the Mongols made the conquered lands part of their homeland. Everyone who swore alleagiance to the Khan became a Mongol.
Pablo Sanchez
04-02-2003, 01:45
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ April 01 2003,09:04)]As I mentioned before, 18 million descendants aren`t much after so many centuries.
It's significantly more than anyone else.
A.Saturnus
04-02-2003, 17:34
Quote[/b] ]
Quote (A.Saturnus @ April 01 2003,09:04)
As I mentioned before, 18 million descendants aren`t much after so many centuries.
It's significantly more than anyone else.
How do you know?
There`s a guy in the neolithic age who`s the ancestor of every living human on earth.
Heraclius
04-02-2003, 23:41
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ April 02 2003,10:34)]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote (A.Saturnus @ April 01 2003,09:04)
As I mentioned before, 18 million descendants aren`t much after so many centuries.
It's significantly more than anyone else.
How do you know?
There`s a guy in the neolithic age who`s the ancestor of every living human on earth.
Actually I think its a woman who lived in the Rift Valley in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Not completely sure but I think so.
Pablo Sanchez
04-04-2003, 03:12
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ April 02 2003,10:34)]How do you know?
There`s a guy in the neolithic age who`s the ancestor of every living human on earth.
So, what's your point?
What's impressive is the ratio of Genghis Khan's success to the average man of his age. What is this ratio, precisely, you ask?
800,000:1.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
A convenient source (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/8/214236/6651)
Knight_Yellow
04-04-2003, 05:29
"what happened to the egyptians"
well they decided to conquer isreal, isreal decided otherwise and won in 6 days.
ever since then the egyptians have consentrated on "conquering pyramids"
(just wondering how a once powerful nation has lessened in importance so mutch in so little time)
Hakonarson
04-04-2003, 06:15
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ April 03 2003,22:29)]"what happened to the egyptians"
(just wondering how a once powerful nation has lessened in importance so mutch in so little time)
Huh? Egypt hasn't been a world pwer since the days of het Mamelukes - say 1300-1400-ish.
But if you want a modern example ask the Brits - from Super Power to client kingdom in 100 yrs.
Knight_Yellow
04-04-2003, 06:30
ahem common wealth 1.2 billion people in it
im not saying we tell them what to do but hey im not seeing any1 else with a common wealth
A.Saturnus
04-04-2003, 14:24
Quote[/b] ]
So, what's your point?
What's impressive is the ratio of Genghis Khan's success to the average man of his age. What is this ratio, precisely, you ask?
800,000:1.
Come on, this statistic is rather pointless. It`s not obvious what they actually mean. Does that mean the average man in the 13th century has only 20 living decendants? That wouldn`t be surprising, since most people from back then probably don`t have any living decendants. What`s a "average man" BTW? Are children that never grew up counted? What about eunuchs?
As I have shown before, to get 16000000 decendants after so much time, you don`t need to have more than 2 children yourself. Other factors can have made him so much on top of most others. If his genes were of a good quality, they will spread thoughout the gen-pool, that`s evolution.
Pablo Sanchez
04-05-2003, 21:20
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ April 04 2003,07:24)]As I have shown before, to get 16000000 decendants after so much time, you don`t need to have more than 2 children yourself. Other factors can have made him so much on top of most others. If his genes were of a good quality, they will spread thoughout the gen-pool, that`s evolution.
Partially conceeded, but I will point out that you have to assume an unbelievable survival rate for your '2 kids become 16 million kids' concept, particularly in light of the period and region in which the Mongols lived. If every single child of Genghis had performed up to such standards, then he would probably have several times as many descendents.
A.Saturnus
04-07-2003, 14:47
The survival rate doesn`t have to be unrealistic high. With two children per generation, 16 megadecendants (if I may introduce that term) leave much room for dead family tree ends. Consider also that Genghis Khan was a ruler and so his children had a pretty high living standard. And the Chinese Medicine the Mongols could rely on, was far above the European butchery of the medieval times.
lonewolf371
04-08-2003, 23:57
Off topic discussion, don't-cha just love it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
As for a doubt earlier expressed on this thread, yes the Fatimids later evolved into a Mameluk dynasty and yes the Ottomans became the dominant clan of the Turks after their devestation by the Mongols.
Thanks, Lonewolf - since posting, I've picked up a bit more about the Egyptians and Turks. I already gathered the Ottomans became an impressive military force, but apparently the Mamelukes had their moment too, defeating the Mongols.
lonewolf371
04-10-2003, 06:23
The Ottomans were impressive, having early on seen the uses of gunpowder. Alas for them, they failed to continue its development and tactics until once again France and Germany (namely Prussia) once again retained land dominance and England continued to be the most powerful sea power. Mind you, before Napolean came marching along Prussia had the best trained and equipped army in the world, the Russians the largest, and Austria in between. A huge war was expected, but then Napolean walked out of Revolutionary France and beat the **** out of all of them. France had a good military, but at the time of the Revolution (the French one) it had declined from the rule of Louis XVIII I believe, who was its single greatest king during the Renaissance-Industrial era.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.