Rise of the Mamluks - Animated Medieval History DOCUMENTARY 

'well trained and well provided for' kidnapped Balkan and Turkic children, never molested, ever. The necessity for then to have beauty was just... A coincidence.

Yes

Delhi Sultanate didn’t follow that elective system. They were just of Mamluk background. The Mamluk of Delhi are a summation of the Shamsid & Balbanid dynastial rule. The Khaljis of Lakhnauti Sultanate in North Bengal however did follow the elective system. Although Khaljis were never Mamluks.

@@naimishtiakahmed9221 Individually they did not but there were 5 ruling dynasties in total which goes to show the Mamluk dynamics of common administration change, typically multi-dynastic kingdoms are close to non-existent in Muslim Asia

K&G has a video dedicated to him check it out

they will never do it , you can guess why😂😂😂😂 but they will dedicate a high budget to salahafddin ayyubi , guess why 😂😂😂😂😂

@@billie6399why?

💯

We can't even guess why you're laughing like a Looney Tunes character Billie boy.

They were never a nation but a class of elites.

@@abduljabaryousef8527isn’t that what most “nations” were before the 19th century?

They were never a people Just a elite military class of diverse origins

Just like Praetorian guards

they were like a class of slave soldiers who were well fed and educated by the best. they were elite by enslaved turkic origins

Not bad for a slave boy who lost his family to the Mongol invasions and was forced into harsh training regime and life.

​@@grimgoreironhide9985 He was also described as a handsome, tall dude. Bro was the real life medieval gigachad

GermanicDutchEnjoyer, it's very misleading and misrepresention to call baybars only foe as "ilkhanate" since the whole division of the Mongol empire was still in process and did not really get divided until later on in the ongoing war. The ilkhanate was a part physically in land to other khanates. Yuan dynasty, as well as Christian powers and kingdoms, were all in soppurt and aid of the ilkhanate. Giving a huge disadvantage for the mamelukes. Despite that. The mamelukes won the war in military terms. The ilkhanate was not just the ilkhanate, involved much more than just the Mongol empire, yuan dynasty, etc.

Not known much in the west, but considered a Hero in the Muslim world.

When the Mamluks fought against the Mongols in the Battle of Ainjalut, the Mamluks were led by Saifutdin Kutuz from the Khorezmshah family, the son of the sister of Sultan Jalal ad Dina. after the death of Sultan Jalal ad Din, the boy Sayfutdin Kutuz falls into slavery and is bought by a Turk named Aibek who served in the Mamluk army and the boy Sayfutdin Kutuz grows up in the Mamluk army and makes a career in the army who from slavery rises to the head of the Mamluk state and headsthe Mamluk army against the Mongols and Baybars was subordinate in the hands of Saifutdin Kutuz

She was also a slave Her relationship with the new man was not good and they left each other, and she wanted to assassinate him, and he might have been assassinated by her

Netori

Her first husband was already dead, and she later assassinated the second. However she did play a crucial role in the victory of the battle of Mansurah.

Yeah white slaves were turks

I love comments like these that add something to the material presented👍

@@seedo201The early Mameluke Dynasties were Turkic and the late Mameluke Dynasties were Circassian. The first people to be used as Mamelukes/Ghulams were Black Africans. The Arabs learnt how to implement and refine the Ghulam/Mamelukes system when they mass enslaved Black Africans and forced them to fight for them. After the Zanj Rebellion there was mistrust towards Black African slave soldiers. The Turkic Mamelukes also killed off the remaining class of Black African slave soldiers elite because they were in competition with each other. This is how Mamelukes and Ghulams are associated with Turks and Circassians.

But weren’t those Mamluks non-turks like Georgians and Circassians?

and from where you read this? it was known as Sultanat al-Mamalik and "dawla" means "dynasty" - in Mamluk State was different "dynasties" - mainly Bahri and Burji, so within Mamluk state there were dynasty of Bahriya rarely named "dynasty of Turks" and after was dynasty of Burjia rarely named "dynasty of Chircassians" (dawla as-Sharakis)

Happens more often than not. One elite replaces another, and the wheel keeps turning.

Completed circle

The Mamluks in turn were overthrown by the Ottomans, who lasted right up until WW1.

It's coups all the way down

I suppose the difference is the type of slave. Haiti being the only successful slave revolt by labouring slave workers, while the Mamluks were technically slaves but occupied a prestigious warrior caste, essentially being a professional army as opposed to feudal levies, but instead of recruiting they were bought. In some states court Eunuchs were considered the property of the monarch and they sometimes seized power, but as with the mamluks this was a powerful part of the state performing a coup against the state entire, as opposed to a revolt from a bottom rung of society completely upending the social order:

Entirely justified

Funny how the empire ended right after the janissaries were destroyed……

​@@burhanlimani818 the empire ended because it was its time. And jannissaries were pretty much asses with how they commited assassinations and revolts. They had to go.

@@burhanlimani818The Empire ended because it could not compete with the industrialised West.

​@@grimgoreironhide9985the empire fell because Columbus discovered America 🌝

Aksumite should be top. Most underrated empire

Yes Absolutely

Oyo Empire 😂😂

​@@bhabak.2oot What's funny about that?

Sokoto Caliphate

Turkic, not "Turks".

@@zack2804 Turk also includes Turkic GökTürk empire included all of the Turkic people today. It's the general term used and also used by Turks despite Turkic, the term Turkic have no meaning in Turks so if you want to be really specific wise guy call them by their names like Oghuz, Kazakh etc. lol Americans please never change

@@tatarcavalry2342 Turk = Anatolian of mixed heritage, Turkic = Asiatic. You wrote 5 paragraphs of gibberish.

@@zack2804 source is simply your arse keep yapping

@@zack2804 Turkish is the thing you trying to say not the Turk and and an ameri.mutt calling people mixed heritage lol

Sunqur = Eagle Qalawun = Duck Qoyunlu = Sheep the Turkic love the animal names....LMAO 😂😂😂😂.

They were successors of their previous ayyubid rulers. They did not only ruled Egypt. They ruled more than Egypt and did more than just "rule" they achieved historical greatness. In terms of militarily as well included.

Already, many holes are found in your claims. First off, the last descendants of the abbassids. We were under the rule and dominance of mamelukes only to be seen as religious preachers with no real power. The manpower consisted mostly of pure mamelukes who consisted of non Arab descent. Turkic, central Asia. Caucasasian and circasassian, Georgian, etc.

Christians in Egypt were not forced to convert to Islam. If we assumed this happened, Muslims would oppose this force because the Qur’an says there is no compulsion in religion. Also, after the end of the Mamluk rule, Christians made up half of the population of Egypt. The other half had pagan ancestors who converted to Islam.

@@AhmedHussein-zc2te Things pretty much went to Hell in a handbasket for the Christians and Shi’as after Saladin assumed the sultanate in 1174. He set the foundations for a Sunnite state that would last 350 years under the Kurdish, (1171-1250), Turkish (1250-1382), and Circassian (1382-1517) dynasties, until its conquest by the Ottomans. In Saladin’s time, Egypt, Syria, and Nubia (=Sudan) were all majority Christian, with the latter two ruled by Christian kings. The Maghreb was consolidated into the impressive Almohade Caliphate, which the declining Mashriq both feared and imitated. Egypt, the Yemen, and the Holy Cities were all ruled by Shi’as. The historical movements set in motion by Saladin, (i) refreshed the legal penalties, including the ban on public office, on Christians, and began founding a network of medresses (legal schools) throughout his lands. His successors were far less shy about using violence to the same effect. About a century and a half after his time, both Egypt and Syria had been turned to solid Sunni majorities, with the Coptic population falling to about the same (10-15%) level it holds today. (ii) Removed the Christian (Frankish, African, Armenian) kingdoms of the region and solidified them as Egyptian dependencies. His war on the Arabs of Upper Egypt (who were loyalists to the old regime) began the snowball effect that over the following century deluged the Sudan in Bedouin nomads, destroying the Christians and resulting in its Arabization. (iii) Sent a Turkish general westward to seize the Maghreb, fuelling a decades-long war in Ifriqiya that was arguably the greatest factor in the Almohades’ collapse. The Ottomans would more easily conquer a Maghreb divided into the four or so kingdoms of ‘Barbary’. (iv) Saw Mecca and Medina pass under Sunni control, although this would not become complete until the 16th century. This makes an interesting story in itself, since people are rarely aware of their historic Shi’ite character (Have Mecca and Medina ever come under Shi'ite rule?). This history of the Egyptian sultanate should be seen in context: just as Saladin’s heirs were finishing the mopping-up of the Christian kingdom in the Levant, the Ilkhanate happened - the largely Christian Turks (nominal “Mongols”) who conquered Persia, professing friendship to the remaining Romans and Franks, proceeded to march as far as Sinai. The further century of Christian-Islamic conflict, which made the Crusades seem like a border skirmish, pushed the rulers of Egypt and the ‘ulema into a mentality of total war. The Copts in Egypt were a fifth column for foreign Christian princes. This fear is quite explicitly enunciated in the grant documents to the Coptic Pope which reinforce the contract (ahd) established between caliph ‘Umar and the tributary nation (ahl al-dhimma) at the time of the conquest of Egypt. Apart from being instructed to have his people “raising their voices continuously in grateful prayer to the all-conquering Muslim state, which has vouchsafed to them such benevolence”, he was to “avoid the ocean, and let him take care not to rush blindly into it, for he will be drowned” [for the sea was the way to the Roman lands], and was to “guard against what may come to him secretly from the direction of Ethiopia, to the point that, if he can possibly manage it, let him not even smell the breezes from the south.” [1] …the early Mamluk period [in the 13th century, saw] recurring episodes of anti-dhimmi legislation and anti-Christian rioting that punctuated it. Both the Coptic sacred geography [of churches] and sacred calendar… suffered as churches were destroyed and festivals curtailed. Conversion to Islam… had become commonplace. By the late Mamluk period things were especially bad for the Christians, but it was merely the conclusion of their policy in historical context: It should be pointed out that the Christians were not especially singled out by Mamluk revenue collectors (often experts in pillage and torture) any more than they were singled out by the effects of insufficient Nile flooding (as occurred in 1403) or outbreaks of plague (as in 1405 and, on average, every eight years thereafter). They were, along with the Jewish community, singled out for periodic renewals of anti-dhimmi regulations (e.g. in 1417, 1419, 1422, 1442, 1463), including the expulsion of Christians and Jews from the government financial bureaus and rules concerning dress… while [their constant renewal] is a clear indication that they seldom stayed in force for long, but the constant pressure on the Coptic elite meant ongoing conversion to Islam and, for the Coptic community as a whole, the loss of prominent members and their wealth.[2] We can see the reaction of a student of fiqh at a medresseh and muhtasib (enforcer of moral law in public places) to the employment of Christian clerks by the government offices - a practical measure that was customarily castigated by Egyptian rulers going back to the early Kurdish sultans, but resorted to out of necessity: “The Copts declare that this country still belongs to them, and that the Muslims evicted them from it unlawfully. Then they [if given administrative posts] steal as much as they can from the state treasury in the belief that they are not doing wrong. As to the possibility of confiscation and punishment [for their crime], torture, they hold that the chances of these happening to them are about equal to that of falling sick… that is, it is not likely to be frequent. […] For as (activity against the Christians) is one of the greatest things to the glory of God, [so] the employment of these Christians in the bureaux of the Egyptian state is one of the greater calamities.[3] For the memorialist here, the frontier against the Other extends from the distant places where jihad is waged against Christians right back to the Coptic quarter in Cairo: the Copt is a foreigner. Assuming - and justifiedly, given that old-school bureaucracies of this sort were hardly impartial or impersonal - that a Moslem petitioner would have to humble himself before a Christian clerk, this is tantamount to defeating your enemy abroad but surrendering at home. Junior ‘ulema like the author above could easily turn into organisers of lynch mobs: Demonstrations against Christians, probably led by lesser ‘ulema and leaders of popular [Sufi] orders, created considerable disturbance. In AD 1320 a number of churches were destroyed, [accompanied by] extensive incendiarism of buildings in both the city and the Citadel [of Cairo]… When demonstrators clashed with the police, a qadi [judge] who was defending the Christians was stoned. The sultan an-Nasir, who favored them also, decided to let the persecutors have their way until feeling died down, rather than antagonize the masses. Other rulers had less sympathy with the minorities who held the purse strings. On learning of the [extent of Christian Church properties], Sarghitmish flew into a rage and decreed that the land be taken from them and bestowed upon his mamluks… Steps were taken to humiliate them and their churches destroyed. It is small wonder that a large number of Christians became Muslim during the Mamluk period… As one writer [Bosworth] put it: [In the 14th c.] Conversions to Islam, always a steady trickle, became a flood, and even regions like Upper Egypt, which adjoined the Christian region of Nubia and had always been a Coptic stronghold, became in majority Muslim. But let us note that conversion did not erase the stigma of Coptic descent or membership in Coptic society… after all, the animosities toward them did not spring from religious feeling per se but from political-economic motives. If the same families remained in authority, the feeling against them was not diminished. In the words of al-Maqrizi: The unbelievers are turned Muslim at the point of the sword If left alone they are transgressors They saved their skin and goods, they are safe (sālimūn), but no true Muslims (Mūslimūn)[4]

​@@gabrielkobari2267Not really true. The Mamluk army was ethnically diverse. During the first dynasty, the elite soldiers and commanders were mostly Turks, but that doesn't change the fact that Arabic was the official language with Turkish as the language of the elite

@nicholascage7546 Turkic ethnic groups were the first suppliers of slave youths transported for military training as units to form the armies of Egypt, etc. Later on, more diverse ethnic groups would follow. Central Asian. Caucasian, Georgian, or circassian, etc. New languages would be established. For example of history. Check out the burji dynasty of the mameluke empire. Which established circassian as one of its main languages. Arabic being for theological or religious purposes, Islamic of course. So already you're wrong on 2 cliams.

Delhi was ruled by Hindu kings like Hemu after Chauhan man.

I heard that Louis IX was captured by the Mamluks during the Seventh Crusade against Egypt 1249-1250.

@@user-jv6ip6fe8m He was captured until his wife paid a large ransom to Sultana Shajar al-Durr

"never conquered?" The mamluks were defeated by the ottomans in the 16th century.

@@femtoservants And by Napoleon in the 19th century.

​@@user-jv6ip6fe8mthere is a huge consensus of historical and academic sources and evidence which agree on this historical event of capture. Most of which are agreed and concede by historians and scholars etc.

B.s for most of it's history egypt was a partially theological state run by priests

All states were military states duginr History. If they weren't they wouldn't exist today

Well,the current military dictator,Sisi, is said to be the first native Egyptian to rule Egypt after 2000+ years, ye started good,but now his people hate him

Iltamish and balban too

Placeholder title, ignore

​@@KingsandGeneralsWill do guys! Love your work 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

​​@@KingsandGenerals Hi , I absolutely love your content and narrator as well as your mapping . I just want to ask one thing: does the membership/ patreons get to watch videos that will never be available for the public or will every video be released much later eventually ?

@@user-ff2nk1po8g we don't know. There are no concrete plans right now.

Very underrated. Especially the face to face military confrontations of their forces against the mongols. Mind you, these were the same mongols who destroyed some of the most powerful Islamic empires in the east. And forced the Christian kingdoms into submission as well as dictate them to come in their aid. As well as the seljuicks being submitted as well. The mamelukes were one of the very few Muslim empires to exist during that time. And it was very convenient that they won militarily.

That's a misconception A lot of the Bahry Sultans were Circassians including Sultan Bibars

@@tcherkess9695 Source? I don't believe that for a second.

@@umayyadball4126 Read Leon L'Africain about Mamluks Weather you believe it or not, it's your problem

@@umayyadball4126 Read Leon L'Africain, "Historiale description de l'Afrique, tierce partie du monde" Pages 358, 389. Weather you believe it or not, it doesn't really make a difference.

@@tcherkess9695 Luckily I found a PDF online and I also read French. The claims on those pages are weak. The book was written almost half a century after the Burji Mamluks fell, so I doubt Europeans at that time would have enough knowledge about the Bahri Mamluks. This Frenchman probably heard from Egyptians about the Circassian Mamluks that ruled them and thought the previous dynasty was also Circassian. There is so much evidence to the Kypchak origins of the Bahri that this one weak source isn't enough to seriously discredit it.

yep

@@KingsandGenerals oh thank god! That’s so exciting.

Bay Bars = Noble / Prince of Leopards / Panther أبو الفهود The sigil of Sultan BayBars was the leopard/panther.

I’ve wanted to know this for ages too

We actually have a famous drama around it called wa islamah it's probably a part of mamluke propaganda but cool story telling the life of seif al dean qutuz from his childhood in the khawaresm empire during the attack of the Mongols all the way to egypt and his upbringing as a soldier and his rise to power along with his female cousin called jihad

@@h3egypt I know, I'm from Egypt but the actual events is more dramatic than the movie.

Yeah Bahri Mamluks are Kipchak Turks

In fact, in the ranks of the "circassian" Burji Mamluks were many Turks also, even sultans. It wasn't departed in strict racial corps. The turkic tradition in the Mamluk Sultanate was preserved as you can see in the names of many Burji Sultans. The Circassians themselves were highly turkisized in their homeland as well and adopted many turkic traits, since they were ruled by Turkic peoples for hundreds of years, like the Huns, Gokturks, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Kipchaks, Tatars and later Ottomans.

@@denizucar3947 If there is war, there are probably Turks in it xD

​@@denizucar3947circassian culture as well as language was still significant, and circassians themselves acknowledged their ethnicity.

There is no confirmation of its origin. Some said it was Turkish, and others said it was Khwarezmian or Caucasian

? Mamelukes ruled by mongols? Need clarification and source. Making up claims with no evidence shows that you have no proof to stand on.

He was a good Kurdish muslim ruler. Obviously, however his ruling dynasty, will be overrun by others. Sooner or later. Which happened.

the mamluks were raised as soldiers

European knights also were raised as soldiers , but the Mamluk had a better military training combining mounted archery and shock cavalry , @@HarbdakramKardo

​@@akramkarim3780these knights temple, and crusaders in general. We're more consistently of nobles, rich households who had the capability and wealth to raise professional training. However, the mamelukes, they were raised since in their earliest youths, from young boys to well equipped trained lancers and horse archers. Their long term experience and hardship is what payed off in the end.

Weren't the assassins already finished by the mongols before the rise of baybars?

@@gabrielkobari2267 Yeah, But some of them still exist and their bases were in Alamut Mountain near Tehran (The capital City of Iran)