Pathetic Historical Characters

[dominique]

That guy was certainly a loser, but a bigger loser (and almost his contemporary) was Caliph Al-Musta'sim Billah of the Abbasid dynasty of Caliphs at Baghdad.
Lame.

It seems to me that all the muslim rulers living between 1080 and 1260 (with the exception of Saladin) were dumb bastards... In Spain, in Turkey, in Egypt, in the Khwarezm, in India the leaders were all pathetic.



They should have a honorary award just for them.

[phonicsmonkey]

It seems to me that all the muslim rulers living between 1080 and 1260 (with the exception of Saladin) were dumb bastards... In Spain, in Turkey, in Egypt, in the Khwarezm, in India the leaders were all pathetic.



They should have a honorary award just for them.

Going a bit far perhaps - Nur ad-Din was no slouch, neither was his general Shirkuh.

Certainly the various Caliphs, Sultans and Atabegs were divided, insular in some cases and somewhat complacent, which contributed to the fall of the Caliphate, the success of the First Crusade and the later Mongol invasion.

But to write them all off at the stroke of a pen is more than a little harsh, particularly if you're extending your point all the way to India. Over there, Muhammad of Ghor and Qutbuddin Aybak were successful in conquering large swathes of the Punjab and holding them for centuries (the Delhi Sultanate).

You could probably argue they were lucky to avoid invasion by the Mongols though..