Listen to this episode on the go on your favorite music streaming services: bit.ly/KhansDenPodcast I fell ill a few days ago and therefore had to rely on automatic subtitles. Sorry for any mistakes.
Mamlūk authors almost always refer to their Sultanate as " the state of the Turks " ( dawlat al - atrāk dawlat al - turk/ al - dawla al - turkiyya ) . They usually seem to be aware of the fact that the reign of the “ Turks "
@@najibullahnazari2213 wow i'm Kazakh from Kazakhstan. Are they feel native Kazakhstan or Kazakhs? Are they remember that they are were a part of the Kazakh nation?
In the social hierarchy there were clear distinctions of status and power between “ Turks ” ( atrak ) , the term usually applied by native Egyptian writers to both Ottomans and Mamluks , and the Arabic - speaking indigenous population whom those in power often lumped together as " peasants " ( fallahin ) regardless of occu- pation or residence . Egypt: A Short History James P. Jankowski · 2000 · p.60
..though much earlier than Mamluk reign another Turkic leader named Ahmed Tolun ruled Egypt and his reign was called Al Dawlah Al Turkia (The Turkish State)
The great state of the Mamluk Sultanate is one of the important countries in Turkish history. Sultan al-Muizz Aybak al-Turkmani is considered the first ruler of the Mamluks. As for Sultan Baybars the Kipchak, he is the true founder of the Mamluk state, who established laws, traditions, the army, and so on. Where the leaders, princes, soldiers and others were from the Turks. Mamluk history books mention the origins of the Mamluk Turkish sultans and to which tribe and clan of the Kipchaks people. All ancient historians as well as contemporaries agree that the Mamluk state is a Turkish state in the era of the Bahri Mamluks without dispute, which represents the culmination of victories and achievements and in the Mamluk era in general. Where the Turkish language was commonly used throughout the Mamluk era by the sultans, princes, and soldiers, and was used in the work of the court, and the use of Turkish terminology increased, and even the sultans used the Turkish language in poetry and translation, and therefore dozens of books appeared on the Turkish language in the Mamluk era. . The historian Ibn Taghri Bardi, criticizing some historians of his time, says: "He is excused for what was reported, due to his distance from knowing the Turkish language and cohabiting with the Turks." Turkish traditions were common in aspects of the Mamluk state. We find many books bearing the titles of the Turkish state, such as: "Al-Durrah al-Zakiyah in the news of the Turkish state." and "The Royal Masterpiece in the Turkish State." and others... We find this title in the stomachs of hundreds of historical books that appeared in the Mamluk era. In the book “Nuzha al-Malik al-Mamluk fi Mukhtasar Birah of the King of Egypt,” he puts an entire chapter entitled: “The Turkic Mamluk State,” and wrote under the title: Then the Turks and their state, and mentioned the Turkic state and their conquests. Ibn Khaldun says in his introduction to the state of the Mamluks: "Two hundred years ago in the state of the Turks.... and that is because the princes of the Turks were in their state...". In the Mamluk era, a new architectural style appeared, and endowments, schools, encyclopedia books, and others spread. Intellectuals of Mamluk origin played a pivotal role in shaping the general feature of culture and knowledge production in the Mamluk era. The Qalawun of Kipchak dynasty is the longest ruling dynasty of the Mamluk period. The historian Al-Aini mentioned the name of the Kapchak tribe from which the Qalawun family descends, which is the Burčoğlı tribe. As for the transition that occurred in the Mamluk era from the Bahri Mamluk dynasty to the Burji Mamluk dynasty, it was only a change in the dynasty. Where the customs and traditions of the Mamluk state continued as they were from the era of Sultan Baybars to its end, and also the Turkish language was the original language of the Burji Mamluks and was commonly used in names, terms, and others. We also note that all historians of the Mamluk era described it as the Turkish state as well, and this is what we find, for example, in the book of the historian Ibn Ayas, who is from the Burjiyya.
Dear Khan's Den! Could you please correct subtitles, I could not understand some details. This topic was very interesting to listen, thanks for all your efforts.
history is written objectively many Arab historians were not objective and He was talking about the Turks with an epic narration. We could not be objective due to a national understanding of history, we generally exaggerated our heroism and this is something from the past. Today, Turks take their source from the objective Chinese, who wrote down their defeat and victory to the finest detail, in order to learn about their past in more detail, and they generally learn Chinese because our real history is not in the epic histories of the Arabs hidden in the tablets there.
Many sources exaggerate events. None of belligerents of medeival era wrote objective data. However we tend to use these sources as clues to reach reality. Just like ernest renan said, history is an art. Also, from the west of uygurs, chinese sources become irrelevant/not enough as it becomes way too far for them to observe.
Still, we cannot dismiss arabian sources as the chinese were far away from western asia while arabs lived in it. The source may be exagerrated but it gives us a perspective on events and battles happened during that time period.
Despite the westernized understanding of history that blends Turkish history and Turkish religion with the psychology of inferiority, we have begun to realize that thanks to the strategic genius and world politics of the Turk, he was able to enter many cultures, not to assimilate, but to gain more power. Thank you for introducing yourself to the peoples of the world with your expressions as a Turk. Atatürk understood this and saw that the dominance of the world was to raise the Turks in Anatolia. Not by conquering the whole world and leaving the folk song down.
To make accurate. Kutuz was cousin of sultan Jalal ad Din Manguberdi last Xorazmshah of Anushtegin dynasty. Which means he was not kipchak but oghuz karluk. Baybars him self was kipchak.
dna on cuman kipchak graves says they were more eastern looking then western n its common for tribes to be named after the color of thier horses especially the cream/yellow color kipchak horses.
@@teovu5557 trolling wont work here since there are abondant historical references approving the Kipchaks to had been completely white. Go back to your original homeland in Hindustan or Nubia. By the way, do you even now what does dna analysis mean and what could be refered of its results?
The first incorrect point of this podcast is salahuddin was a title bestowed by the fatimid caliph upon him, his name was Yusuf bin najm ad deen ayub, of kurdish descent, secondly, the slaves were not captured, you forgot to mention the political scene at that time, which coincides with the emergence of the mongols, displacing many turkic tribes in proximity with many escaping and some not so lucky and ended up being enslaved and sold in slave markets with many ending up in the court of the ayyubid sultans in the levant, where they were prepared for position of command and statecraft in the future. I know the owner of this channel is probably a patriotic turk which i dont see any problem with and probably wants to portray the turks as great and all that which is okay, i have listened to many of the podcasts with regards to the early origins of the turks and their empire and what is said is exactly as i have read in my quest to know more about the nomadic empires that were so crucial in shaping history in both asia and europe in medieval time but i think its a good thing to be objective with regards to history as it regards people whom we do not see and in many cases there were no written records of what was taking place and some sources might have been from contemporary empires like the chinese or byzantines who always looked at the nomads as barbarians, Keep up the good work.
Very interesting, I wouldn’t even consider it a Turkic empire. Alltough it was ruled by Turkic people. I mean Türkiye is the land of the Turks Alltough the president is Georgian
Was the British empire a German empire ? by your logic it would be Same for Russian empire or for the French empire, this is a dangerous game that u are playing I hope u are aware of it
You are making a big fallacy. The Mamluk Sultanate is a Turkish state, while the current Republic of Egypt is not Turkish. The Kingdom of the Franks in Gaul in the Middle Ages is a Germanic state, while the current Republic of France is not Germanic. As for the Kingdom of England in the Middle Ages, it is a Germanic state, and the current state of Britain is definitely Germanic, because it is based on the migrations of large Germanic tribes and the continuous Germanic heritage from the Middle Ages to the present era. Such as the current Republic of Turkey, which is built on the great Turkish migrations and the Turkish heritage, and that the current situation of the Kingdom of Britain is similar to the current situation of the Republic of Turkey.
U are reaching out with ur propaganda, here are some facts about the „Turk state“ The mamluk empire was never connected to any Turkic state of Central Asia. The population of the mamluk empire was never Turkic by any means. The ruling dynasty was mostly by heritage Turkic but that does not make it a turk state, same is for the British empire who mostly were Germans( ruling dynasty) and still were not a German state. Do u get my point ?
By any means I’m not trying to dismantle any achievements of Turk culture cause it’s one of the great cultures in the history of our planet who had till today huge huge influence in world history. But trying to rewrite history is by any means BS
