Marj Dabiq (1516) - How one battle turned the Ottoman Empire into a global superpower
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 02. 2024
- 🚀Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/HistoryMarche and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: / historymarche
🚩 The conquest of the Mamluks by Selim I was the largest military venture any Ottoman Sultan had ever attempted. Egypt proved extremely profitable for the empire as it produced more tax revenue than any other Ottoman territory and supplied about 25% of all food consumed. Meanwhile, Mecca and Medina officially made Selim and his descendants the Caliphs of the entire Muslim world until the early 20th century.
📢 Narrated by David McCallion
🎼 Music:
Epidemic Sounds
Filmstro
📚 Sources:
God’s Shadow: the Ottoman Sultan Who Shaped the Modern World (2020), Mikhail, Alan. ISBN: 978-0-571-33192-5.
The Knights of Islam: The Wars of the Mamluks (2021), Waterson, James. ISBN: 9781784387624.
The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age 1300-1600 (2013), Inalcik, Halil. ISBN: 978 1 7802 2699 6.
#ottoman #history #documentary
🚀Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/HistoryMarche and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
AMAZING work as always! Please do the ottoman sieges of Vienna! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
BREAKING NEWS
The Malaysia court today has now announced that the Sharia laws (Islamic laws) in Kelantan state to be "unconstitutional". Please pray for Malaysia guys, we failed to help Palestine and now we failed to defend Sharia laws
Battle of vienna 1683 famous 20000 polish hussars charge.
Pls make a video on battle of vienna 1683 20000 polish winged hussars charge🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊😊😊😊😊🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊
Do video about Iranic warrior king Sher Shah Suri the tiger killer he did way more than Selim in less time and also founded is own Empire
Sultan Selim I was a beast. He became Sultan in his early 40s & reigned for only 8 years but he trippled the empire's territory. Conquered the entirety of Mamluk Sultanate, Annexed Eastern Anatolia & ravaged safavid capital, also filled the ottoman treasury to its full. In my opinion, He's the best ottoman sultan as his success rate is 100%.
He paved the way for his son Suleiman
Who did he conquered???? 😂😂😂
He defeated states who hasn't gunpowder weapons and also never fought against enemy with gunpowder weapons. He also outnumbered his enemies 2-3 times. He is most overrated Sultan in Turkey. Also lands he conquered are large but sparsely populated. Population of Ottomans was 2-3 times of Mamluk Sultanate and Safavid Empire.
@@Asterix958 this video cleary lack some pivotal detail ,safavid are in winning streak and before of ridanya selim choose to cross sinai desert which only alexander the great dare to cross it and tuman bay bought some cannon from venetian for ridanya
@@rakadean39 He didn't buy guns from Venetians. I read Egyptian sources, it says that news arrived that Venetians will bring cannons but no cannon came to Egypt. Instead, Tuman bay II produced 200 handguns but he can't use because army of Selim encircled Tumanbay's army and Tumanbay forced to give pitched battle and these handguns remained in fortified positiion, not being used.
Journey of Sinai Desert is overrated. Ottomans in 1914 and 1915 crossed Sinai Desert 2 times, losing couple of soldiers from 30k soldiers. We know that Army of Selim I took huge casualties i this journey while Ottomans in 1914 easily crossed thanks to German consultants.
Correction, there is no "Sunni Qur'an" as opposed to a "Shia Qur'an" There is just the Qur'an
Also the same when it comes to the word "infidel ",,its a christian word used by the crusaders for muslims and jews of the holy place..this narrator is trying to ride on the islamaphobe winds..might even get funds from the zionists..
Can be fishing for their millions zionists have deposed for it.
Nearly All the terrorist organisations are Shias especially ISIS Iraq shias joined the ISIS Thats why ı will never accept shias They glorify Alı too much
Shias dont pray according to Islam they put Paganic things on the praying
Surah Al Nurayn and Al Walaya
dont care dog
Within 8 years, one would topple his father after a civil war, annihilate the Safavids, conquer the Mamluk Sultanate and rip off the title caliph, this was none other than the baddest man of the 16th century, Selim I.
Humiliated Safavids (which were Turkic like the ottomans) and conquered the strong Mamluks. Just in 8 years is very crazy, undoubtedly he was a military genius.
It is not like he took the caliphate completely. He took the holy relics of Islam. All the powerful Islamic sultans considered themselves caliphs, but when the Mamluks were destroyed, the only strong caliph candidate was the Ottomans.
@@GermanicDutchEnjoyer Due to his hunger for conquest Selim 8 up a lot in 8 years, aight
Mashallah ottoman caliphate hazrat Selim R.H he saved the Muslims,great muslim and caliph
Selim 1 his a strong sultan but sad he doesn't make Azerbaijan convert to the sunni Islam like his empire religion : (
Fun fact. Mamelukes were Turkic governed state. Even the states name was "Et Devlet-üt Türkiyye" Which literally translates to the "The State of the Turkiye"...
At the time Ottoman-Mameluke War, the rulers of Mamelukes were Circassians(Burji Dynasty), not Turks.
While that is true they were at least turkic speaking Circassians. For Example the last Mamluk Sultans name was Turkic.@@apaliuna
@@apaliunathey were turkmen , at least look at their commanders name in the video lol . many mameluk governor-commanders have turkic-turkmen origin.
They were Turks after the ottomans conquered Egypt, before that they weren’t Turks
@@Khattab511 Mamelukes were literally Kipchak Turks.
It's kinda weird to think of this being just 5 years before the fall of Tenochtitlan, and that the Ottoman rise was contemporary to Spanish expansion.
It kinda makes sense when you think of Ottoman takeover of Eastern Mediterranean resulted in Western Europeans explore alternate ways to India and East Asia.
They would come to a head at the battle of Lepanto
@@SplendidFactor the battle of preveza 1538
I Think portugal put the egypt economy on their knees in his indian trade expansion.
What exactly is weird about it?
By learning history i understand more and more that Selim 1. was unfortunately right. Enemies of the Sultanate understand only the language of sword
In Turkish we have a saying that reads: "Yavuz'a vezir olasın." It literally translates to "I hope you'll be a vizier to [Sultan Yavuz] Selim", a phrase used for people who you want to perish lol. This is because Selim was kinda notorious for having his pashas/viziers executed if they ever failed or crossed him.
It is said that he brought back so much gold following the conquest of the Mamluks that new chambers had to be built in the imperial palace in Istanbul. This gold was one of the driving forces that fed the Ottoman war machine back then and helped Suleiman continue his pressure in the Balkans.
In my opinion, Selim does not get the recognition he deserves, compared to Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent. His story is truly impressive and unique in the Ottoman history, he forced his father to abdicate the throne (then allegedly poisoned him to death), marched against another Muslim powerhouse a.k.a the Safavids and conquered all the way into the Mamluks while crossing the notorious Sinai Dessert within two weeks.
Many of Turkish historians refer to Selim as Turkish version of the Alexander the Great, due to the similarities in their effective eastern expansion. Although he was sultan for a brief period of eight years, the legacy he left behind echoed in the region for centuries to come.
Except as he fought his cousins, the Mamluks, the Spaniards were colonizing the Americas
It took only 3 Europeanbalkan countries to destroy the Ottoman Empire.including Greece,Bulgaria, and Serbia.
Imagine what would've happened if all major European countries were united militarily against the Ottomans in the Balkan wars.
Turkey would've been History!
That's an insult comparing him to Alexander!
There will be always one of a kind Alexander in the history of mankind!
@@AKRITAS365 hahahahahahaah hahahahah thats was 1914 not the prime ottoman teenager eu boy
@@AKRITAS365Well, I was just stating the fact that Turkish historians refer to him as Alexander of the Ottomans due to the similarities between expansion towards the East. I suggest that you take a look at the history btw, the Balkans and the European countries joined in forces against the Ottomans on numerous occasions, also known as the Crusaders, just sayin :D
As a Turk who enjoys reading history since a very young age, I would like to say Sultan Selim the Resolute is widely accepted as the greatest Ottoman to ever walk on the earth. Rest of the Sultans are not even compariable with Selim, only with the exception of Mehmed II. That famous Suleiman's success is actually solely based on Selim's hardwork.
He did 80 years of work only in 8 years, riding horse nonstop in the melting deserts of Arabia and harsh terrains of Caucasus, showing a unseen sheerwill, always staying diciplined all of which resulted in the 400 years of conquest of what is 3/1 of greatest territorial extent of the empire , which even included holiest cities of three biggest religions: Jerusalem, Mecca & Medina, Constantinapole.
He was the first Turkish origin caliph of Islam, second Caesar of the Romans and the Khagan of Two Seas, Selim was one of the very few man that only come in half a millenia.
Nicely written brother.
I was always amazed by ignorance of people seeing Suleyman as the best sultan, even the so called historians. There is a tendency triggered by ignorance and ideological nonsense to underrate Selim.
Let alone there are great marshall sultans like Mehmed Fatih and Murad II to be accounted as best Sultans, in 46 years, Suleyman could not even accomplish what his father did in 8 years. Compared to other sultans, Suleyman had a huge time advantage but he wasted so much of it. Considering the conditions and advantages, I think Suleyman is a disappointment, let alone a great sultan.
Even if you would open wikipedia you would see his father left him the best opportunity one prince could ever find, in the entire history of ottoman empire, a well organized gunpowder army and huge treasury fulfilled to fullest, an empire ready to conquer the world but Suleyman ruined every inch of that. Stopped at the walls of weak vienna and couldn't cross the crotia. Imagine if Selim ruled for 46 years or Mehmed. We would live in a very different world.
@@userx47191Okay first of all Suleyman didn't stop because he wanted to but he was stopped by bad weather conditions and what do you mean? Suleyman achieved more than Selim. Suleyman is known as Qanuni because of his contributions to the Ottoman legal codex,the economy flourished during his reign. Mesopotamia,North Africa and Hungary were conquered which is more area than Egypt and Levant 😂 Selim is a great sultan but don't try to downplay Suleyman
@@userx47191 Selim's methods are still debated in Turkey today. Declaring Shiites as heretics caused numerous problems. His relocation of Kurds to Anatolia and expulsion of Alevi Turkmen from Anatolia contributed to the Kurdish issue we face today.
Beside that Suleiman the Magnificent ruled the Ottoman Empire for 46 years, facing numerous enemies during his reign. He spread Islam to Indonesia and its surrounding regions and formed an alliance with France, allowing the Ottomans to engage in European politics. His naval forces operated in many seas. The era of Suleiman is considered the peak of the Ottoman Empire's golden age.
I'm a non-Muslim Turk, and I believe both rulers were great in their own right. However, Suleiman displayed a bit more diplomatic finesse compared to his father. If we can overlook his decision to kill his son, Mustafa, which ultimately doomed the empire, Suleiman's achievements still stand out.
@@IamnotracistlmaoHe aynen kötü hava koşullarından durdu kanka. İki katı orduyla gidip zigetvar yarısını ben telef ettim öldüm zaten. Pargalının başarılarını kanuniye yazmaya devam
@@pandaren_brewmasterBoşşş. Selim'i bugünün kafasıyla eleştirmek tarih bilmemezliktir. Bir yanda akp stili ihvancı kafa osmanlıyla alakası yok bir yanda tarihten cahil içine kapanık bir kesim. Madem selim alevileri sürdü kesti biçti neden tr'de bir ton alevi Türkmen yaşıyor? Bu adam 50 yaşına kadar yaşamış. 29 yıl vali 8 sene padişah. İstese herkesin soyunu kırardı. Yüz tane ayaklanma olmuş Anadolu'da. Git Şahkulu Kalender isyanlarını araştır. Alevi Türkmenle Farsi kızılbaşı birbirinden ayırt et. Bu çaldıran seferini öyle bir abartıyorsunuz ki sanki herif Hitler gibi birşey yaptı. Alakası yok. Ona bakarsan sünni araplarıda kesip biçti. Gürcistan seferlerini bir araştır. Kendini Sünni ve Türk zanneden karadeniz'i maraştan getirdiği hakiki türkmenlerle nasıl seve seve Türk ve Müslümanlaştırmış bak. Karadenizli devşirilmesine rağmen senin gibi sövmüyor ama. Osmanoğulları bir imparatorluk hanedanı. Adam Anadolu'daki tüm beylikleri kendine bağlamış bir daha bırakır mı? Bugün ankara hakkariyi bile bırakmıyor. Zira osmanoğulları da Türkmen kökenlidir. Evet Selimle bu sünnileşme artmış ama adamın annesi bozkurt beyin kızı halis türkmen. Selime yabız demişler psikopat bir karakteri var ama burada ırkı bir düşmanlık yok kendi isteği öyle. Akpli sünnilere bakma sen. Onlar ihvancı olduğu için Sünni milliyetçisi, Türk milliyetçisi değil. O nispette Osmanlıcı da değiller. Osmanlıcılık cahil iç anadolu milletini kandırmak için giydikleri maske.
Selim the 1st deserves more respect than Sulieman the Magnificent. Not only he made the Ottoman global power but he left the empire stronger than before him.
dont forget that suleiman the magnificent is basically also selim legacy , solidify why he is very underapreciated and main target of western propaganda
Absolutely
@sairadha u r absolutely correct.
It is solely due to Selim that Ottomans survived and became a global superpower. Suleiman would not have survived a foe like Ismail and enemies from all the sides. The credit goes to the warlike sultan Selim.
He is the true successor of Osman and Mehmet the conqueror.
@@pranavsubramaniyan6667 I dont know why everyone say Suleyman the best ottoman sultan.Suleyman was a good sultan for his code of law,but Selim, Mehmed 2 and Murad 2 deserve more.
In 8 years,Selim doubled the size of empire,crushing both safavids and mamelukes and capture the holiest place of Islam. No other ottoman sultan had that feats.
Mehmed 2 was another marshal sultan.Capturing Constantinople, subduing most of the balkans and fought numerous battle against legendary figures like hyunadi,sigismund, skandarbeg,vlad and uzun hassan.
Murad 2 is the most underrated ottoman sultan.winning crushing victory against superior latin crusader force time after time.
Compare to these three,Suleyman's achievement is nothing significant. Yes he won key battle in rhoades,mohacs and preveza,but during his reign ottoman forces was best in world.If Mehmed or Selim had that army anf reign 46 years,they would reach paris or samarkand
@@blackgoku2023 u r absolutely right and u have given excellent information 🙌
Suleiman was more of an afterglow and shadow of his father sultan Selim.
If it were not for sultan Murad 2, Mehmet fatih and Selim the grim Ottomans would have been gobled up by their formidable foes.
Suleiman was neither an astute, clever and determined general like his father Selim han nor a charismatic leader like his great grandfather Sultan Mehmet han.
So the “new Roman Empire” went through the same civil strife as the original Roman Empire….. interesting.
There's nothing new under the sun!
The ottomans went through succession crisis before they made the meaningless claim of “new Roman Empire” most notably after the capture of Baiazid I by Tamerlane
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@BlaBla-pf8mfHistory of said claim is older tho-bayezid himself were named as “Ruler of romans” (sultan ı iklimi rum) by abbasid caliph. Its even older if we count that orhan himself married with byzantine nobility-even osman did. Its *even older* if we count that same claim rooted from the seljuks.
For those who don't know, Selim I is the father of Suleiman the Magnificent.
The whole Dynasty took on a really bad downwards spiral after Suleiman's death, unfortunately
@@iramkazim5038Except for Murad IV...
@@iramkazim5038because of the junk ukranian genes of hurrem. Suleiman's son Selim the blonde was half ukranian and he was as stupid as zelinsky.
Really? Among the Turks who could tell who was the father 😂😂
Selim, resolute and cunning, is the type of enemy you would absolutely not want to face.
Courage leads to victory, indecision leads to danger, and cowardice leads to death.
-Yavuz Selim(Best Ottoman Sultan)
This reminds me of the last time I played as the mamaluks in eu4. Ended pretty similarly too.
Everything change when Ottoman masses army at your border
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@lukaswilhelm9290 I couldn't stop the tide, my bending was inferiour
@@theyellowjestersAhh, finally. Fellow EU4 players. I'm a new guy needing some advice.
Basically, I'm playing as France, and fought a war with England seven years ago. Very easy it was to steamroll Normandy (I took Labourd and Bordeaux in a prior war). But England, along with Portugal, blockaded my ports, really messing up the war score. I had to give a minor province to England to end the whole thing. What now? I need Normandy, but can't because of the English and Portuguese navies. I have allied with Denmark and Castile, but neither will help yet, the latter because they are no longer rivals of England and have allied Portugal, the former because I've not done them any favours yet. Denmark are the only power that seem to be strong enough to face England on the high seas, as per the ledger, but 8 carracks vs 19 galleys doesn't appear to be a good sign. I have been throwing money towards my navy (8 carracks and a bunch of galleys on the way) but England has absurdly powerful admirals.
What do I do?
@@iramkazim5038 I'm not very good at the game. but Galleys as far as i'm aware are good for the Baltic, Mediterranean, and black seas. If you're on the atlantic in most places, you want carricks and the heavier ships. Try and focus on those.
Do some favours for your ally that is willing to fight England and try to up your Diplomatic Tech, that'll help strengthen your navy. Others may have other and better Ideas but that's what I would do.
Hope it helps!
Just goes to show how powerful the Royal Mamluk charge was that they straight up drove the middle line behind their cannons instantly. A less experienced commander might have lost control of his men and poorly retreated to safety and cost the Ottomans the battle. Heavy cavalry charges are still scary, even with guns and cannons on the field.
Its only a trap
Although Mamluks proved the superiority of their cavalry many times, in this case, this is the result of Ottoman tactics, similar events also happened at Nicopolis, mohac, etc. The Ottoman center was made up of Azab troops, who were lightly armored and their main purpose was to draw the enemy troops in. Directly quoting from Wikipedia,
Azabs constituted the majority of the foot soldiers of the Ottoman Army in Anatolia and performed duties such as ensuring the security of settlements and defending castles. Azabs were a constant part of Ottoman campaigns during the rise. Their duty in field battles was to stand at the front of the army center, ahead of the janissaries . The lightly equipped azab soldiers would make the enemy army think that the Ottoman center was weak, and this could lead to an attack towards the center where the sultan's brigade was located. If this expected attack took place, the azabs would shoot arrows at the enemy troops, trying to cause casualties during the advance and especially to disrupt the pure order of the enemy cavalry .
It's noteworthy that Selim's father Bayezid possessed the same logistics and armies that Selim did yet failed to annex the Levant region from the Mamluks forget the entirety of the sultanate
It was because Bayezid was more inclined towards conquering Eastern Europe rather than middle east and in the striking contrast, Salim was not much interested into europe.
@@ahzamrasheed1208 He was actually interested in Europe too. But his time wasn't enough. He died while preparing for a campaign against Europe, probably Hungary. And there is anecdote that he said to the great cartoghrapher and admiral Piri Pasha: "I wish to enter from Andalus to turn back to Constantinople."
@@ahzamrasheed1208Selim was very much interested in Europe but when he took throne, the rebellions were brewing in eastern Anatolia & Safavids were quickly expanding in persia which was a clear threatening sign to the existence of Ottoman Empire. It was important to pacify the eastern lands as Ottomans had not forgotten the disaster at Battle of Ankara (1402). After winning it, Selim was forced to act against mamluks as mamluks openly supported Safavid invasion in Ottoman territory.
That doesn't mean circunstances were the same
Bayezid didn't even send his main army, he used mostly provincial troops close to border of Mamluk Sultanate. Also Mamluks under Qaitbay was in their golden age, having better trained, equipped and larger army.
Video is almost same as the books i read, how amazing you guys making this great job!
Excellent work - As always
Great overview. Thanks for sharing.
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Amazing video as usual
Thank you so much for the Arabic caption/translation
Fantastic video enjoyed it
I wished to see the battle of Reydaniyya detailed as well :( And how Selim I passed the Sinai desert is also worthy of explaining..
Thank you so much History Marche for this vid!!!!
Loving the new map style - it's fantastic! Your content keeps getting richer, and I thoroughly enjoyed the latest episode. Keep up the great work, looking forward to more!😆
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
"Yoink!" is particularly informative. I also condone the new map style.
@@KoroushRP cope harder. Turks did the most work in the name of allah for a millennium.
King's Generals channel teaching in 1500 1538 ottoman Portuguese war ❤❤❤❤ thanks for teaching my muslim our empires horn of Africa Somalis sultanates Ajuran and Adal and ottoman sultan selim ❤
There is a reason why Selim I was called Selim 'the grim'.
Hhhh😅
Acımasız değil büyük insan. Batılı küfrü ortadan kaldırdı
good job. ı love your videos
Some incident happend safavid shah sent a gift with beautiful box when sultan selim open is a human poop and the sultan sent him back with the best turkish delight and wrote in the box "people sent a gift what they eat" 😂😂😂😂
Thanks for finally using Turkish sources🎉
Halil İnalcık is the most well known man in the world for his Ottoman sources.
Also you can look it up his student İlber Ortaylı, globally well known man whose descendents are Crimean Tatar aristocrat and Russian Empire aristocracy.
Also Murat Bardakçı, for his large sources and Yusuf Halaçoğlu.
An awesome video as usual thanks
beautiful video
dont watch their videos, they just copy and steal from Kings and generals
@@guzelataroach4450How is it stealing?
@@guzelataroach4450shut up lmao
how to stop the video to say this is crazy keep going let's go
Uzun Hasan was not kizilbaş he was sunni
He never said he was kizilbash
I'm already locked in watching this masterpiece...
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
Historymarche and knowledgia each produced a video about the same battle on the same day, that's impressive
رحمه الله. ازال حكم المماليك الظلمه . حمي مطه والمدينه.اعاد ليبيا من تختلال الاوربيبن.حمي تونس والجزائر من غزو الاسبان.
انه الغازي السلطان سليم
When ruling for just 8 years so not caring about aggressive expansion penalty, everyone can conquer as much as territory anyway.
Hadi lan oradan gereksiz
Selim was a great commander because I studied, Selim 1 really loved Temurlane and Gengis Khan that's why he did some brutal things to his enemies.
thanks
Selim was brutally efficent, despite his short reign of only 8 years he still quite possibly was the Ottoman sultan who achieved the most. Although one also can't ignore how he frequently implemented very bloody policies to get what he wants
What bloody policies?
@@kalajari1749 Shortly before his battle with Shah Ismail at Chaldiran, as punishment for the earlier Shiite revolts Selim ordered many Shiite men within his domain killed. Now the estimate of 40k men massacred is usually seen as inflated by modern historians, who state that the contemporary tax records from the region don't record a significant drop in tax revenue that would have been caused by such a high death toll (amongst other arguments for the claimed deathtoll being inflated), however even if the numbers are exaggerated the fact that the massacre still happened remains. This wasn't the only case of Selim killing Shiites in his realm, as after his conquest of Syria he similarly killed some Shiite men in the region, many of them civilians
@@zgramzhnisk3036 there was also his anger and use of violence against family members and state bureaucrats as well as the kapıkulu there is reason why he was nicknamed the grim
There was even a saying goes like "May you be a vizier to Selim" as in cursing the guy you are talking about
I mean no offence but conquest of such vastness wasn't possible without the bloodbath . Many great conqueror's were extremely confident and violent to ensure victory .
The word Yavuz had a bad meaning, but because it was the nickname of Sultan Selim and the love for him, it gained a good meaning. Children started to be given the name Yavuz a man changed the meaning of a wordThis is what's truly legendary
"1512, actually..."
Selim I
20:50
very good
There are great story,very nice story about great warrior named Budhi Darma expert in martial art from Himalaya,India journey to Nusantara to find place named Batu karu that famous in martial art.This story recorded in Seruling Dewata martial art college 🙏,
Thanks.
Amazing video
👍👍👍See you!
Fun Fact: Selim used mods to win > slow down Time > Infinite Strength > Max will & moral for troops + teleportation.
Mamaluke 1: "Not what I signed up for"
Mamaluke 2: "You signed up?" ...lol...
i would be more satisfied if you mentioned war of ridaniye from top to bottom. because there is some bloody street fights for a 6 month period and this is very important thing for mamluks fall.
Awesome!
Another amazing video! I knew you'd cover Selim's video since he's your fav Sultan.
come on 1M subs !
Chapeau!
Nice
perfect video as always
Famous battle
We call it "Mercidabık" in Turkish sources. Thanks Yavuz Sultan Selim❤🇹🇷
its token from arabic (مرج دابق)
@@Khaled-jz8ln Lol Selim is Turk. Also Mamluks too
mamluks are mixed @@barskama309
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@barskama309 there is no ethnic "Turk" in Ottoman times. mustafa kemal just grouped all the muslim muhacir (refugees) coming from ottoman lands into anatolia into one single "Turk" identity.
also another fact that selim actually wanted spare his brother korkud through a test by order his grand vizier to fake a message that he will support korkud as sultan which he accepted and forced selim to strangle him
Good video and unbiased
This video gives a good amount of context in the Ottoman-Safavid-Mamluk rivalry but completely ignores one of the major causes of the state of the Mamluks. There is a reason why the Mamluks held on in the 1490s war but were wiped out in one go in the 1510s. The major change between those dates was what happening in the south borders of the Mamluks.
Portugal had arrived in the Indian Ocean and blockaded the Red Sea, depriving the Mamluk Sultanate of its major source of wealth: the indian ocean trade. Then at the battle of Diu in 1509 the Mamluks saw Portugal shattering an alliance of the major naval powers in the western indian ocean and got free to continue their blockade of the red sea and instead launching attacks on cities there. In this hour of financial collapse the Mamluks were forced to ignore the defence of the northern territories and to funnel money and expertise to make up some defenses in the until-then peaceful red sea coast.They had to resort to ottoman advisors which gave them a big intel on the military functioning and organisation of the Mamluk defenses. And again, this was done at the cost of the northern borders.
Selim I was actually horrified how close Portugal was to the holy cities and the portuguese attack of Jeddah in the 1500s failed only because of adverse weather conditions. The danger of Portugal conquering Jeddah and then raiding Mecca or Medina from there was very real. So when the Ottomans went to war with the Mamluks in the 1510s the Mamluks were a shadow of their former power, and had been focused in a dire naval-economical fight in the south. When the ottoman forces arrived at Hejaz Jeddah was under siege by Portugal and the Mamluk forces in the region, officially being at war with the Ottomans, instead asked the Ottomans for help and helped make Portugal abandon the siege.
Interestingly Portugal would be a useful pseudo-ally for the Safavids, especially after the Ottomans took Mesopotamia, as although they were enemies as Portugal had taken Hormuz the Safavids needed Portugal to deny the Ottomans a foothold in the indian ocean hegemony and with it creating a possible outflanking and economical strangling of the Safavid realm. It's fascinating how interconnected the world was already at that time with so many chess pieces being influential for so many others.
I very like you HistoryMarche! Never stop making theese videoes, like this one!! 🎉
Ottomans and Saffavids continued the Roman-Persian wars.
Selim the stern was truly one of the greatest ottoman sultans. It really speaks to Suleimans greatness that he surpassed him. 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Yup. But it was Selim I who laid the groundwork on which Suleiman the Magnificent built his legacy. Without Selim I, perhaps the history of Suleiman would have been quite different.
@@shadabkhan-sy3sp yes that is so true
fantastic!!!
Salim 1:I'm gonna fight 'em off
A seven nation army couldn't hold me back
They're gonna rip it off
Takin' their time right behind my back
And I'm talkin' to myself at night
Because I can't forget
Back and forth through my mind
Behind a cup of milk
And the message comin' from my eyes
Says, "let's invade them all"
You're the Best! Love your content 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Selim the Grim💪🏼
Hi there, thank you for your great channel.
Uzun Hasan and Aqquyunlu were Sunnis also, in 1473 Qizilbashs didn't have any kingdom yet, grand father, father and brother of Ismail 1 Safavi rebelled unsuccessfully ons after another against Aqquyunlus and three of them were killed by Uzun hasans successors, after them Ismail rebelled successfully in 1501 and founded Safavi dynasty with the help of Qizilbashs
9:21 - “I don’t like your stupid face!” 😂 I love the little captions. Anyway, Ismail’s attack seemed like incompetence of the highest order. “Shia later” said Selim. I don’t play Simon says. I play Selimon says.
Great video, thanks
So good history channel
Both Mamluks and Safavids dynasties were originally Turkic people but not the people they rule.
this was excellent with good details
Great video!!! I can sleep better ever since you confirmed the next Hannibal video lol
As always, another perfect episode!
Useful information: The name of the Mamluk state declared in its official documents: الدولة التركية "ed-devletü't-türkiyye" means the state of Turkey and Devletü'l-Etrâk: means the state of the Turks. Its army generally consists of mostly Turks and a minority of Circassians who were freed from slavery. In other words, its rulers and army are almost entirely Turkish. At the same time, the Safavid dynasty is the predecessor of today's Azeri Turks. Their difference from the Ottomans is that they are from the Shi sect.
All 3 rulers in the Middle East were in the hands of the Turks.
Mamluks: Turks who were founded in Egypt, escaped from slavery, became rulers and soldiers, and ruled the Arabs.
Ottomans: A Turkish state based on Sunni sects, spreading in Anatolia and the Balkans, recruiting soldiers from all races and religions with a policy of tolerance in the view of the Empire.
Safavids: An ultra-conservative, Turkish nationalist state from the Shiite sect founded in Iran.
Let me guess you as an anotolian think you are related to them?
@@NoName-fv5oo I am a descendant of the Karamanids dynasty. My ancestors fought with the Ottomans for a long time and lost their country and were exiled to the Balkans. The army members captured in the war were sold as slaves to the Arabs. After a while, they gained their freedom and established another independent Karamanids state in Libya. However, the Ottoman Empire destroyed this state and took Libya under its control. Mamluks mostly consist of Central Asian Turks who were taken as slaves by the Mongols. The most famous sultan is Baybars. In fact, its name is Turkish and it itself is Uzbekistan Turk. He was captured by the Mongols in Bukhara. Later, he became the ruler of the Mamluk state and took his revenge on the Moguls.
Şah İsmail, Hayır bey (khayr Bey), Tuman Bey and Kansu Gavri (Al-ghawri) are also Turk. The meaning of "Bey" is something like "lord". Today, the word "bey" is used to mean "mister" in Turkish.
Love your videos. I might suggest hiring a writer or editor at some point, the syntax can sometimes feel awkward or overdone.
Yerevan next to Artvin?!
The most power full empire
Hard to believe that these events still feel like mid-Middle ages, barely two hundred years post-Mongol and post-Crusade time, yet just over 2 decades ago America had already been discovered and Portugal and Spain were conquering the world while the Renaissance was just around the corner.
In a study revealed by Alexander Lyon Mcfie in his book The End of the Ottoman Empire (2014), on the economic and social history of the Ottoman Turks, it unstoppable military was found that throughout force
Explain once more
What?
@@arnstoff3212 that is how you throat sing in text
@@tetrusadima Unstoppable military against Timurids? Very convincing hypothesis !!! I see this paper isn't even peer-reviewed 🤣
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
Sekiz yılda seksen yıllık iş yapan ulu atamız Yavuz Sultan Selim Han'ı minnetle anıyorum.🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
He fight his father, and his brothers
Another great history documentary! I always learn.
Please do battle of al qadisiyah 🙏
For the people don't know, at 2016, after 500 years from Marj dabık war, Turks turned back to Syrian territory with Fırat Shield operation,after the failed coup attempt, which they left after the WW1. History comes back
Amazing work! Knew youd cover Selim since he's your favorite sultan! He's my second favorite! Behind only Suleiman! Hearth please❤❤❤❤
Excellent video.
Excellent 👌🏾 The Gunpowder Empires are very underrated
Was this the Selim the west called Selim the grim?
Yes
For all their martial prowess, the Mamluks sat on their laurels for too long and never expanded. Their lack of "ambition?" made them eventually fall behind the gunpowder muslim empires.
Shahkulus men plundered a Safavif caravan while retreating into Iran, and Ismail received them near Tehran, had their headmen exequted, but others joined his ranks and became Tekkelu tribe of Qizilbash one of the most infulential tribes of Safavid first century
Selim I was obviously the second Alexander, beating the Turkic Safavids many times and conquered Mamluk dynasty which Essentially stopped the Mongol expansion doing it in just 8 years.
Not go discredit him any bit but Achemenids tho in a difficult period of instability were far more stronger than the Mameluks even at their peak. Alexandar's achievements were definitely bigger, though what Selim did wasn't done in the Islamic world since the time of Timur, a century earlier
What an idiotic comparison! The longest travel Salim ever did was from Constantinople to Cairo (which had been just a tiny phase of a teenage Alexander's campaign)
Who remember Sahkulu from Assassin's Creed Revelations ? 😂
masterpiece.... objective and educational...
It has never been measured but 20% of the population living in modern Turkey is Alevite or Kizilbash (Red heads) who are descendants of the tribes uprising against Bayezid and Mehmet, and sympathised Ismail the Safevid Sultan.