Comments by "PAPAZA TAKLA ATTIRAN İMAM" (@papazataklaattiranimam) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
172
-
48
-
31
-
26
-
25
-
12
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@aol8166 Khedivate of Egypt was Turkic empire just like Ottoman Empire not Coptic or Arabic
Muhammed Ali Pasha did not libareted Egyptians from Turkic rule
In his kingdom,Turks were sole elite of state and local egyptians were subject of Turks
Muhammed Ali said this to French visitor Baron de Boislecomte :
'‘I have not done in Egypt except what the British are doing in India; they have an army composed of Indians and ruled by British officers, and I have an army composed of Arabs ruled by Turkish officers [...] The Turk makes a better officer, since he knows that he is entitled to rule, while the Arab feels that the Turk is better than him in that respect''
Georges Douin (ed.), La mission du Baron de Boislecomte, L’E´gypte et la Syrie en 1833 (Cairo, 1927), pp. 110–111
Finally, having lost his own son in the campaign, and failed to raise the men required for his new army, Muhammad 'AH realized that the Sudan campaign had been a complete failure.
When he was informed that a large number of Turkish-speaking officers were about to desert the campaign and return en masse to Egypt he wrote to the governor of one of the Sa'idi provinces: "Since the Turks are members of our race and since they must be spared the trouble of being sent to remote and dangerous areas, it has become necessary to conscript around 4,000 men from Upper Egypt [to replace them]."
Fahmy, K. (1998). The era of Muhammad ’Ali Pasha, 1805–1848. In M. Daly (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Egypt (The Cambridge History of Egypt, pp. 154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521472111.007
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
The ancestors of the Indo-Turkic people migrated to South Asia at the time of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. The Delhi Sultanate is a term used to cover five short-lived, Delhi-based kingdoms three of which were of Turkic origin in medieval India. These Turkic dynasties were the White Huns, Ghaznavids, Delhi Sultanate, Mamluk dynasty (Delhi), Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Bengal Sultanate, Adil Shahi dynasty, Bidar Sultanate, Qutb Shahi dynasty, Timurids, Deccan sultanates, Mughal Empire, Oudh State, Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad, Hyderabad State, Khanate of Kalat, Makran (princely state), Banganapalle State, Amb (princely state), Chitral (princely state), Phulra, Hunza (princely state), Nagar (princely state), Carnatic Sultanate. Southern India also saw many Turkic origin dynasties like the Bahmani Sultanate, the Adil Shahi dynasty, the Bidar Sultanate, and the Qutb Shahi dynasty, collectively known as the Deccan sultanates. The Mughal Empire was a Turkic-founded Indian empire that, at its greatest territorial extent, ruled most of the South Asia, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and parts of Uzbekistan from the early 16th to the early 18th centuries. The Mughal dynasty was founded by a Chagatai Turkic prince named Babur (reigned 1526–30), who was descended from the Turkic conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) on his father's side and from Chagatai, second son of the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan, on his mother's side.Mughals who have Turkic ancestry live in the Indian subcontinent in significant numbers. Karlugh Turks are also found in the Haraza region and in smaller number in Azad Kashmir region of Pakistan. Small number of Uyghurs are also present in India. Many Turks also live in Hyderabad known as Deccani Muslims they have Arab, Afghan, Persian, and Turkic ancestries in addition to having the local dravidian heritage. There is also a significant population an Warriors Status used by Turkic descendants known as Rowther, who are mostly found in Southern India.[1]
3
-
Arab dominance did not, however, continue in the political sphere, and one may describe the premodern history of Islam as falling into three periods of political regime. Until the tenth cen- tury, most regions of Islamdom were under the rule of Arabs; in the 10th and 11th centuries, many regions came under the rule of Persians; and from the 11th until the 19th century, almost all areas of the Muslim world were ruled by ethnic Turks or Mongols, whose dominance continued in the Middle East until World War I and the abolishment of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. For nearly a millennium in the Persianate world, the upper echelons of society were seen as divided along ethnic lines into Turks, who constituted the military and ruling class, and Tajiks, Persians, or non-Turks, who were the administrators, accountants, tax-collectors, and land owners. The division was viewed as natural and not unfair because Turks and Mongols were considered ethnically suited to military exploits because of their sturdiness, fierce nature, ability to endure hardship, and superior skills in horsemanship and archery. Even in contexts where Turks did not make up the bulk of the military, rul- ers often used troops belonging to foreign ethnic groups because of their military skills, internal solidarity, lack of attachment to the local populace, and direct allegiance to the ruler. The Fatimids in Egypt (969-1171) employed both troops who belonged to the Berber Kutama tribal confederation from North Africa and "Suda- nese" troops from sub-Saharan Africa. The 14th-century historian Ibn Khaldun argued, reflecting primarily on the Berber dynasties of North Africa, that there was a strong relationship between the life of political regimes and ethnic groups. Tribal groups from outside settled regions have much stronger ethnic solidarity than settled peoples, and this enabled them to work as efficient military units, conquering territories and establishing new dynasties. The settled life of the conquerors, however, corrupted them and made them lose their ethnic solidarity in just a few generations, and this made them vulnerable to new tribal invaders.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
This may have been so when the slaves were originally trained and appointed. But the effect in the long term was to create communities of Turks at a high level who, enjoying the borrowed authority of the sovereign, could usurp power for themselves. This was the origin of the group known as the Ghaznavids (after Ghazni, the city in Afghanistan, which, after the Samanids had seized it for themselves, was assigned as the center of their province). In the early centuries of the second millennium, these various Turkic groups, whether slave or free, usurped control of various parts of Iranian territory, sometimes passing through it to establish dominions even beyond the sphere of the Caliphate. So in 999 the Qarakhanids took control of Transoxiana from the Samanids, which they then held for two centuries. This brought the region firmly within the domain of Turkic mother tongue, as it has been ever since, and by the same token gave Persian the status of lingua-franca At the same time as this Qarakhanid action, the Ghaznavids took over the center and south of the Samanids' territory. A little later, the Oghuz (also known as Turcomans), and above all a leading group of them called the Seljuqs, hitherto widely used as mercenaries by the Samanids and the Ghaznavids, infiltrated northern Khorasan. At Dandanagan in 1040, they definitively defeated the Ghaznavids. Khorasan became theirs alone, and the Ghaznavids were compelled henceforth to look south, for new conquests in India. The Seljuqs went on to destroy Buyid control of the east of the Caliphate, taking Baghdad in 1055 (and receiving the caliph's blessing as his liberators), and in 1071, for good measure, defeating the Byzantine Empire at Manzikert, so opening up Anatolia to Turkic colonization over the next few centuries. In 1089, they defeated the Qarakhanids too, but did not dispossess them, holding them rather as their vassals (muqta') for the next fifty years.
It might have been expected that these different ruling dynasties, Ghaznavid, Qarakhanid, and Seljuq, would have brought a new lingua-franca to the Middle East in the eleventh century. They did, after all, speak mutually intelligible forms of Turkic; and this was the beginning of what would turn into almost a millennium of Turkish rule, as witness the Arabic proverb cited by the North African analytic historian Ibn Khaldun of the fourteenth century:
dawlah 'ind al-turk, din 'ind al-'arab wa adab 'ind al-furs
Power (rests) with the Turk, religion with the Arab, and culture with the Persian.
2
-
The arrival of the Turks in the Muslim world pushed Muslim power further into India. Of particular note is Mahmud of Ghazni (r. 997-1030), a Turkic sultan who was the first to lead military expeditions deep into India. By establishing himself as the leader of an autonomous state based in Ghazni in the Afghan highlands, he was close enough to India to focus much of his attention on the subcontinent. His seventeen military campaigns into northern India served as the basis of his rule, bringing wealth and power to him and his empire. While his raids were no doubt detrimental to local power and rule in India, he also established major cultural centers and helped spread Persian culture throughout his reign. The legendary Persian poet Firdawsi, who perhaps did more to revive ancient Persian culture than any other person after the country's conversion to Islam, and al-Biruni, a scientist, historian, geologist and physicist, were both mainstays of Mahmud's court. Because of his status as a patron of the arts coupled with his ruthless raids into India, Mahmud of Ghazni's legacy in India today is colored by modern politics as much as anyone else.
Regardless of his legacy, Mahmud and the Ghaznavid Dynasty he founded laid the foundation for Muslim conquest in India. The succeeding dynasty, the Ghurids, also ruled out of Afghanistan, and managed to push their borders even further into India, capturing Delhi in 1192. The Ghurids relied on slave soldiers of Turkic origin who formed the core of their army, much like the contemporary Ayyubids further west in the Muslim world. Like their counterparts in Egypt, who established the Mamluk Sultanate, the slave soldiers in India eventually overthrew their masters and inaugurated their own dynasty: the Delhi Sultanate.
2
-
2
-
2