Are the Arabs, Arab?

Fontpagemagazine ^ | 22-04 | David Yeagley

[camle]

the mongols made it as far as egypt. they were never defeated militarily.

[stuartcr]

What is it now that we are in the 21st century?

[jveritas]

You are correct. The Mongols did not mix with the population of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria or Jordan.

[sphinx]

Mongols also invaded parts of Eastern Europe but they were never so numerous as to pass down their genes in any large quantities

The Mongolian blue spot is an interesting marker. It shows up bottoms of lots of little Hungarian babies who otherwise look quite European.

[sphinx]

The spot shows up ON the bottoms, that is ....

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

With DNA, the person could be typed as to ancestry.

[robowombat]

Actually the Mongols while intent on reaching Egypt did not get there. The Mongol expeditionary force was defeated at the Batlle of Ain Jalut now located in the Sate of Israel.
This account gives a fairly short but authoritative coverage.





Near the Middle Eastern city of Nazareth lies a fresh-water well not unlike hundreds of others located throughout that region of the world. Yet this unassuming place has a special place in world history; it has been the scene of actions that, had they occurred otherwise, would have had an inexorable effect on not just the region, but on the fate of much of the earth, both directly and indirectly. Its name? The English-language version of the Arabic name is Wadi Ain Jalut, the 'Spring Of Goliath', and it was here that, in the 13th century AD, both Arab and European civilization were spared from the most perilous threat to face either one…..EVER.


Ain Jalut has been, as far back as biblical times, a place known more for the blood shed there than for anything else. The very name 'Spring Of Goliath' comes from the belief that it was the site of the famous battle between the Jewish shepherd David and the Philistine warrior Goliath- a story that, it should be noted, is as renowned in Islam as it is in Christianity and Judaism. Because of its location near some of the region's most revered cities (Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem) and its geographic layout (the vast plain that dominates the region narrows to just five kilometers in width at Ain Jalut, with Mount Gilboa to the south and the hills of Galilee to the north), it saw more than its fair share of combat, including several battles between Arab and Crusader armies during the 11th and 12th centuries. However, the confrontation for which Ain Jalut became famous occurred on September 3rd, 1260 AD, during the holy month of Ramadan. It was then that the Muslims of the Middle East, a fractured lot of autonomous city-states that had barely been able to show enough unity to stem the incursions of the 'Franj' (Crusaders) from Europe, found themselves face-to-face with a foe infinitely more dangerous, a foe whose very name evoked terror: the Mongols.


If ever there was an unlikely group of would-be world conquerors, it was the Mongols. Originating from the lands in north-central Asia that are now called Mongolia, they were little more than a loose collection of ethnically-related nomadic tribes, more inclined to fight amongst themselves than join forces for any common cause. But a young warlord named Temujin- known to posterity as Genghis Khan- united them by a combination of guile and force in the early 13th century, setting in motion what would become the most efficient- and most successful- war machine the world has ever seen. Virtually born in the saddle, trained in the use of the compound bow from childhood, possessed of great stamina and physical courage, the Mongols were unparallelled cavalrymen, and Genghis Khan & his generals molded them into a military force without peer. In an age when the typical European army consisted of heavily-armored, immobile knights and ill-trained masses of peasant footsoldiers, the tremendous speed- they could travel ten times faster than their European counterparts- discipline, and innovative tactics of the Mongol cavalry allowed them to utterly destroy opposing armies several times their size. And destroy they did: in pursuit of Genghis Khan's goal of making the world into one vast steppe, where 'Mongol mothers can once again suckle free & happy children', the Mongol armies conquered a total land area vastly greater than the Roman Empire- and in one-fifth the amount of time. They reduced Imperial China to nothing more than a vassal state, then advanced westward, razing some of the world's most renowned cities- Bukhara, Herad, Samarkand - to the ground, leaving little but pyramids of human skulls in their wake; even domestic animals were sometimes killed, so as to leave nothing of value for what few survivors might remain. Such tactics were- and still are- seen as unchecked blodlust, but the pragmatic Mongols viewed it as the only means by which they could control populations by which they were outnumbered 100-to-1 or more, and used such terror tactics in a very calculating way. For the most part, cities and nations that willingly accepted Mongol suzeirenty were left largely untouched, and often found themselves surprised by their conquerors' level of tolerance in terms of internal government and religious freedom. But woe to those that dared their wrath…..

In the 13th century, Baghdad was the 'jewel of the world', a metropolis of over 100,000 that served as the seat of the Abassid Caliphate, the religious leader for the majority of the world's Muslims. So, when Hulega, one of Genghis Khan's grandsons, demanded that the Abassid caliph, al-Musta'sim, accept Mongol sovreignity, the caliph haughtily refused, and threatened to organize a 'jihad' against the Mongols. Hulega was not impressed. Organizing a massive army of 300,000- the largest field force ever mobilized by the Mongol Empire, Hulega advanced westward in 1258 and utterly destroyed Baghdad, levelling the city to the ground and massacring the entire population, save the Christian faction, which was saved by the entreaties of one of Hulega's wives. The Mongols then turned their attention on Syria and the rest of the Middle East, and the various city-states of the region- which were so prone to quarrel among themselves that they had even allied themselves with the infidel 'Franj' on occasion to fight one another- had no choice to capitulate. With a Mongol expeditionary force of just 20,000 running rampant through Russia, Poland, and Hungary, and with most of the European monarchs divided among themselves as to whether they should fight the Mongols or ally with them against Islam, it appeared that they would soon control the 'civilized world' (as they knew it during the 13th century) from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Only one obstacle stood in the Mongols' path: the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt.


Even just two years before, the idea that Egypt could pose an obstacle to anyone, much less the most powerful war machine in existence, was laughable. Centuries of caliphal lethargy had reduced the country to whipping-boy status: it was successively invaded by the Franj and by its Syrian neighbors, who took control in 1174. The rulers of Egypt had become completely dependent on foreign-born slave-soldiers from Central Asia- Mamluks, from the word meaning 'owned'. This would be their undoing as the Mamluks ultimately overthrew them and took control of the country for themselves, with one of their own, Qutuz, as the new sultan (a temporal ruler equivalent to 'king'). The Mamluks were a far cry from the likes of Saladin and Nur al-Din, Arab rulers renowned for their refinement and sense of honor; in fact, in terms of their utter lack of scruples, they were far more like the Mongols themselves, willing to do whatever it took to ensure success. But that the Mamluks also possessed courage was not in doubt: when Hulega sent emissaries to Cairo with demands for Egypt's surrender, Qutuz heard them out, then had them beheaded- the greatest possible insult to the Mongols. Qutuz took this action not out of a misguided belief that his army could match the Mongols- he fully realized that they had little chance of survival- but because the Mamluks had been slaves all their lives, and were determined to hold onto their newly-found power until the bitter end. An enraged Hulega began preparations to advance on Egypt, only to have fate intervene: Mongke Khan, Genghis' successor, died, and all of his heirs were called back to the Mongol capital of Karakoram to elect a successor. Hulega withdrew the bulk of the Mongol army to Iran, leaving only a small force of 15,000 Mongol cavalry & 10,000 allies from Armenia behind. It was just the opportunity that Qutuz needed. The Mamluks gathered their entire army- about 120,000 men total- and advanced into Syria; the Mongols, under the general Kitbuqa, rode out to meet them, and the two forces met at Ain Jalut.


Having arrived first, Qutuz and the Mamluks had time to lay a trap: they hid the bulk of their forces in the hills to either side of the narrow plain, then baited the trap with a vanguard under the command of his lieutenant, Baybars. When the Mongols attacked, the vanguard slowly gave ground, drawing the Mongols in with a feigned retreat- a tactic the Mamluks actually learned from the Mongols themselves. And it worked. By the time Kitbuqa realized his mistake, the 25,000 Mongols were surrounded by the entire Mamluk army. Even so, the Mongols nearly carried the day, launching a furious attack on the Mamluk left wing that actually caused it to collapse, and the day was only saved by the appearance of Qutuz himself, who rallied his forces. In the end, the Mongols fought and died to a man, and the Mamluks carried the field. The results of the Battle of Ain Jalut had consequences far greater than the destruction of a Mongol expeditionary force. Though the Mongols had acquitted themselves admirably in the face of overwhelming odds, they had still lost, and the Mongol myth of invincibility was shattered forever. Due to power struggles within the Mongol royal family that ultimately divided it, they never returned in sufficient force to seriously threaten the Middle East, and, while the Mongols retained power from Russia to China for several hundred more years, they would no longer pose a threat to Europe. As for the Mamluks, they would rule over Egypt until 1798, when they were defeated by another would-be world conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte. And so, in a time when anti-Muslim sentiment is rampant throughout Western civilization, it is ironic to think that Western civilization might have been inexorably altered if not for the actions of a Muslim power more than two hundred years before Columbus came to the New World.

[Valin]

A better question might be, "Are the Arabs human???"

What an incredibly stupid, hateful thing to say. You know better than that, or at least you should.

[RightWhale]

the mongols made it as far as egypt. they were never defeated militarily.

The mongols were defeated by the Turks in a decisive battle as the mongols were about to move north to invade Europe. The remnants of the mongol army stayed in the region and intermarried.

[gobucks]

I can't understand why people are so hung up on beliefs.

Just curious here ... is this comment a question, or a mild reproof in code to those who hold fast to the "wrong" beliefs? FWIW, I hold very strong beliefs - and am willing to subject myself to rhetoric which affirms those beliefs or points other beliefs that better conform to the reality I have experienced over the years.

Our beliefs are pretty much impossible to avoid, for a typical person can't stand the insecurity and/or dissatisfaction of not knowing the end of the story. And guess what? I hold beliefs about what Muslims think the end of the story will look like. I don't like their version of the end of the story, as described in the Koran, an ending not denied by their immans. (There are other books, with other stories I don't the endings to either, but we're talking about Islamized Arabized folks in this thread).

So, am I thus guilty of being an evil sterotypist who is contributing to a strife-filled world? Not wanting to start a flmae war w/ you btw, but like you, "I can't understand why ....". And, to be fair, you did start off with a "If we...".

Usually, folks who write like this are somewhat left of center in their outlook, in my experience. But I can't truely believe you are a leftist.

[stuartcr]

A question, as I don't believe there are any right or wrong beliefs with reference to religion....one's religious beliefs are just that, beliefs, none of which can be proven or unproven. I question why beliefs in something that cannot be proven, are defended so zealously, sometimes to the point of violence.

[Happy2BMe]

" Killing the customers was bad for business. Who would have thought of that?"

Colin Powell and George Bush come to mind . .

[gobucks]

Well in short, I think the Koran does provide a good bit of motivation and legitimization to kill.


But, near universal access to satellite TV's provide a kind of forecast into the future. And I'm suspecting identity loss is the forcast of the muslim way of life. To them, mass identity theft is on the way, for lack of a better way to put it. This is what I think is going a long way to catalyzing the impulse to kill.

[lainde]

Bump for later!

[Cronos]

What is it now that we are in the 21st century?

Yeah, left that out ;-)
The poitn is that using the term Middle East for Arabia-Iraq-Persia-Cyprus-Greece raises two issues:
1. Where is the Near East??
2. If Persia is the eastern part of the Middle east and China is the Western part of the Far East, where do the countries of the Indian continent and of south-east asia fit in??

[Cronos]

The Mongolian blue spot is an interesting marker. It shows up bottoms of lots of little Hungarian babies who otherwise look quite European.

But wouldn't that be because of hte Huns? Huns = HUN garia?

Of course, there is no real difference between Huns, Mongols and Turks -- they're all of the sam ethnicity. I think I've read somewhere that they all orinignated from the steppes of Central Asia. The Turks were hte first to head south west, moving into Irani areas in Central Asia (current Turkmenistant, Uzbekistan etc.) and then the Huns came (they were of course pushed due to the completion of the great wall of CHina). THe Huns moved into Europe. They also tried to get into Persia but the Parthian Empire prevented that and into India but the Rajasthani princes prevented that in 300 AD.

Finally came the Mongols who invaded their Turkic cousins first and then combined with them to form the Golden Horde. Their descendents included Timur e Lang who conquered most of Central Asia, northern Persia and north western India and the Moghuls who conquered the northern portions of India and the Seljuk Turks who conquered Anatolia and ARabia and Egypt and the Cyrene. The people of south eastern Europe will have more than a little Turkic-Mongol blood while those in the West will have a few traces.

[stuartcr]

You are right, so why do people obey the directives in books so zealously? I feel the violence resulting from over-zealous beliefs is/has been the root of much evil....it is not confined to Islam either.

[Cronos]

Western civilization might have been inexorably altered if not for the actions of a Muslim power more than two hundred years before Columbus came to the New World.

History does throw up strange stories. That's why when some nut says that Arabs are nothign but barbarians or some ARab nut says Westerners are nothign but barbarisn , they're WRONG. Both cultures have something of value. Both also have a lot of c***. I would rate the ARab conquest of south Eurasia as astouonding, more than the Mongols. The Mongols conquered flat steppes, the Arabs conquered developed nations -- Parthia and the Eastern Roman Empire, moving into Iberia. Some of their generals like Suleiman the Magnificent who invaded Hungary or his grandfather who conquered Constantinople were far greater warriors than Caesar or even Alexander.

[stuartcr]

What would be a better description og this area to describe the indigenous peoples, one easily recognised?

[Cronos]

What an incredibly stupid, hateful thing to say. You know better than that, or at least you should.

Quite correct. REducing the enemy to being nothing more than barbarians means descending to ttheir level. I'm no fan of slam, but Wahabbism is the most despicable version of it. The milder forms like Sufism (a blend of Islam and Hinduism) are tolerable and have created great art. Wahabbism, on the other hand is despicable. It's credo of destroying all art (in a misplaced zeal of destroying graven images) means that statues, tombs (even the tombs of the prophets family were destroyed by the grandfather of hte present Saudi Emir), the Bamiyan Buddhas etc must be destroyed.

This is barbarism, similar to the Barbarism of Mahmud Ghazni or Muhammaed of Ghor who razed 2000 year old temples in India that held high art. The Europeans were comparatively lucky -- they got the more cultured slamics, like the Moors who built the Alhambra or the Turks who did NOT raise the Hagia Sophia (though they DID make it a mosque, they didn't destroy all the frescoes inside it, the 1400 year old frescoes) or the Greek churchs.