The Battle of Ayn Jalut, 1260 - Mongols vs. Mamluks

At times in Asian history, circumstances have conspired to bring seemingly unlikely combatants into conflict with one another. One example is the Battle of Talas River (751 A.D.), which pitted the armies of Tang China against the Abbasid Arabs in what is now Kyrgyzstan. Another is the Battle of Ayn Jalut, where in 1260 the seemingly unstoppable Mongol hordes ran up against the Mamluk warrior-slave army of Egypt. In This Corner: The Mongol Empire In 1206, the young Mongol leader Temujin was declared the ruler of all the Mongols; he took the name Genghis Khan (or Chinguz Khan). By the time he died in 1227, Genghis Khan controlled Central Asia from the Pacific coast of Siberia to the Caspian Sea in the west. After Genghis Khans death, his descendants divided the Empire into four separate khanates: the Mongolian homeland, ruled by Tolui Khan; the Empire of the Great Khan (later Yuan China), ruled by Ogedei Khan; the Ilkhanate Khanate of Central Asia and Persia, ruled by Chagatai Khan; and the Khanate of the Golden Horde, which would later include not just Russia but also Hungary and Poland. Each Khan sought to expand his own portion of the empire through further conquests. After all, a prophecy predicted that Genghis Khan and his offspring would one day rule all the people of the felt tents. Of course, they sometimes exceeded this mandate - nobody in Hungary or Poland actually lived a nomadic herding lifestyle. Nominally, at least, the other khans all answered to the Great Khan. In 1251, Ogedei died and his nephew Mongke, Genghiss grandson, became the Great Khan. Mongke Khan appointed his brother Hulagu to head the southwestern horde, the Ilkhanate. He charged Hulagu with the task of conquering the remaining Islamic empires of the Middle East and North Africa. In the Other Corner: The Mamluk Dynasty of Egypt While the Mongols were busy with their ever-expanding empire, the Islamic world was fighting off Christian Crusaders from Europe. The great Muslim general Saladin (Salah al-Din) conquered Egypt in 1169, founding the Ayyubid Dynasty. His descendants used increasing numbers of Mamluk soldiers in their internecine struggles for power. The Mamluks were an elite corps of warrior-slaves, mostly from Turkic or Kurdish Central Asia, but also including some Christians from the Caucasus region of south-eastern Europe. Captured and sold as young boys, they were carefully groomed for life as military men. Being a Mamluk became such an honor that some free-born Egyptians reportedly sold their sons into slavery so that they too could become Mamluks. In the tumultuous times surrounding the Seventh Crusade (which led to the capture of King Louis IX of France by the Egyptians), the Mamluks steadily gained power over their civilian rulers. In 1250, the widow of Ayyubid sultan as-Salih Ayyub married a Mamluk, Emir Aybak, who then became sultan. This was the beginning of the Bahri Mamluk Dynasty, which ruled Egypt until 1517. By 1260, when the Mongols began to threaten Egypt, the Bahri Dynasty was on its third Mamluk sultan, Saif ad-Din Qutuz. Ironically, Qutuz was Turkic (probably a Turkmen), and had become a Mamluk after he was captured and sold into slavery by the Ilkhanate Mongols. Prelude to the Show-down Hulagus campaign to subdue the Islamic lands began with an assault on the infamous Assassins or Hashshashin of Persia. A splinter group of the Ismaili Shia sect, the Hashshashin were based out of a cliff-side fortress called the Alamut, or Eagles Nest. On December 15, 1256, the Mongols captured Alamut and destroyed the power of the Hashshashin. Next, Hulagu Khan and the Ilkhanate army launched their assault on the Islamic heartlands proper with a siege on Baghdad, lasting from January 29 to February 10, 1258. At that time, Baghdad was the capital of the Abbasid caliphate (the same dynasty that had battled the Chinese at Talas River in 751), and the center of the Muslim world. The caliph relied on his belief that the other Islamic powers would come to his aid rather than see Baghdad destroyed. Unfortunately for him, that did not happen. When the city fell, the Mongols sacked and destroyed it, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians and burning down the Grand Library of Baghdad. The victors rolled the caliph inside a rug and trampled him to death with their horses. Baghdad, the flower of Islam, was wrecked. This was the fate of any city that resisted the Mongols, according to Genghis Khans own battle plans. In 1260, the Mongols turned their attention to Syria. After only a seven-day siege, Aleppo fell, and some of the population was massacred. Having seen the destruction of Baghdad and Aleppo, Damascus surrendered to the Mongols without a fight. The center of the Islamic world now drifted south to Cairo. Interestingly enough, during this time the Crusaders controlled several small coastal principalities in the Holy Land. The Mongols approached them, offering an alliance against the Muslims. The Crusaders erstwhile enemies, the Mamluks, also sent emissaries to the Christians offering an alliance against the Mongols. Discerning that the Mongols were a more immediate threat, the Crusader states opted to remain nominally neutral, but agreed to allow the Mamluk armies to pass unhindered through Christian-occupied lands. Hulagu Khan Throws Down the Gauntlet In 1260, Hulagu sent two envoys to Cairo with a threatening letter for the Mamluk sultan. It said, in part: To Qutuz the Mamluk, who fled to escape our swords. You should think of what happened to other countries and submit to us. You have heard how we have conquered a vast empire and have purified the earth of the disorders that tainted it. We have conquered vast areas, massacring all the people. Whither can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. In response, Qutuz had the two ambassadors sliced in half, and set their heads up on the gates of Cairo for all to see. He likely knew that this was the gravest possible insult to the Mongols, who practiced an early form of diplomatic immunity. Fate Intervenes Even as the Mongol emissaries were delivering Hulagus message to Qutuz, Hulagu himself received word that his brother Mongke, the Great Khan, had died. This untimely death set off a succession struggle within the Mongolian royal family. Hulagu had no interest in the Great Khanship himself, but he wanted to see his younger brother  Kublai  installed as the next Great Khan. However, the leader of the Mongol homeland, Toluis son Arik-Boke, called for a quick council (kuriltai) and had himself named Great Khan. As civil strife broke out between the claimants, Hulagu took the bulk of his army north to Azerbaijan, ready to join in the succession fight if necessary. The Mongolian leader left just 20,000 troops under the command of one of his generals, Ketbuqa, to hold the line in Syria and Palestine. Sensing that this was an opportunity not to be lost, Qutuz immediately gathered an army of roughly equal size and marched for Palestine, intent on crushing the Mongol threat. The Battle of Ayn Jalut On September 3, 1260, the two armies met at the  oasis  of Ayn Jalut (meaning The Eye of Goliath or Goliaths Well), in the Jezreel Valley of Palestine. The Mongols had the advantages of self-confidence and hardier horses, but the Mamluks knew the terrain better and had larger (thus faster) steeds. The Mamluks also deployed an early form of firearm, a sort of hand-held cannon, which frightened the Mongol horses. (This tactic cannot have surprised the Mongol riders themselves too greatly, however, since the Chinese had been using  gunpowder weapons  against them for centuries.) Qutuz used a classic Mongol tactic against Ketbuqas troops, and they fell for it. The Mamluks sent out a small portion of their force, which then feigned retreat, drawing the Mongols into an ambush. From the hills, Mamluk warriors poured down on three sides, pinning the Mongols in a withering cross-fire. The Mongols fought back throughout the morning hours, but finally the survivors began to retreat in disorder. Ketbuqa refused to flee in disgrace, and fought on until his horse either stumbled or was shot out from under him. The Mamluks captured the Mongol commander, who warned that they could kill him if they liked, but Be not deceived by this event for one moment, for when the news of my death reaches Hulagu Khan, the ocean of his wrath will boil over, and from Azerbaijan to the gates of Egypt will quake with the hooves of Mongol horses. Qutuz then ordered Ketbuqa beheaded. Sultan Qutuz himself did not survive to return to Cairo in triumph. On the way home, he was assassinated by a group of conspirators led by one of his generals, Baybars. Aftermath of the Battle of Ayn Jalut The Mamluks suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Ayn Jalut, but nearly the entire Mongol contingent was destroyed. This battle was a severe blow to the confidence and reputation of the hordes, which had never suffered such a defeat. Suddenly, they did not seem invincible. Despite the loss, however, the Mongols did not simply fold their tents and go home. Hulagu returned to Syria in 1262, intent on avenging Ketbuqa. However, Berke Khan of the Golden Horde had converted to Islam, and formed an alliance against his uncle Hulagu. He attacked Hulagus forces, promising revenge for the sacking of Baghdad. Although this war among the khanates drew off much of Hulagus strength, he continued to attack the Mamluks, as did his successors. The Ilkhanate Mongols drove towards Cairo in 1281, 1299, 1300, 1303 and 1312. Their only victory was in 1300, but it proved short-lived. Between each attack, the adversaries engaged in espionage, psychological warfare and alliance-building against one another. Finally, in 1323, as the fractious Mongol Empire began to disintegrate, the Khan of the Ilkhanids sued for a peace agreement with the Mamluks. A Turning-Point in History Why were the Mongols never able to defeat the Mamluks, after mowing through most of the known world? Scholars have suggested a number of answers to this puzzle. It may be simply that the internal strife among different branches of the Mongolian Empire prevented them from ever throwing enough riders against the Egyptians. Possibly, the greater professionalism and more advanced weapons of the Mamluks gave them an edge. (However, the Mongols had defeated other well-organized forces, such as the Song Chinese.) The most likely explanation may be that the environment of the Middle East defeated the Mongols. In order to have fresh horses to ride throughout a day-long battle, and also to have horse milk, meat and blood for sustenance, each Mongol fighter had a string of at least six or eight small horses. Multiplied by even the 20,000 troops that Hulagu left behind as a rear guard before Ayn Jalut, that is well over 100,000 horses. Syria and Palestine are famously parched. In order to provide water and fodder for so many horses, the Mongols had to press attacks only in the fall or spring, when the rains brought new grass for their animals to graze on. Even at that, they must have used a lot of energy and time finding grass and water for their ponies. With the bounty of the Nile at their disposal, and much shorter supply-lines, the Mamluks would have been able to bring grain and hay to supplement the sparse pastures of the Holy Land. In the end, it may have been grass, or the lack thereof, combined with internal Mongolian dissension, that saved the last remaining Islamic power from the Mongol hordes. Sources Reuven Amitai-Preiss.  Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Charles J. Halperin. The Kipchack Connection: The Ilkhans, the Mamluks and Ayn Jalut,  Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 63, No. 2 (2000), 229-245. John Joseph Saunders.  The History of the Mongol Conquests, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Kenneth M. Setton, Robert Lee Wolff, et al.  A History of the Crusades: The Later Crusades, 1189-1311, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005). John Masson Smith, Jr. Ayn Jalut: Mamluk Success or Mongol Failure?,  Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Dec., 1984), 307-345.

Analysis of Black Reconstruction Essay - 2741 Words

Analysis of Black Reconstruction Prior to the Civil War and Reconstruction, the main goal of the African American population was to be granted freedom. African Americans had been enslaved since 1619 in America, when the first slaves were sold on the auction block. However, their concepts of freedom were extremely romanticized and highly unrealistic as a direct result of the atrocities they witnessed and endured in the institution of slavery. They visualized the abolition of slavery to be comparable with the coming of Jesus Christ. Yet when politics made that day become reality on January 1, 1863, the newly freed men and women were utterly disappointed and in disarray. After living their lives under the institution of slavery,†¦show more content†¦Survival was a key element for the lives of African Americans during slavery. Its guiding principle was the ability to endure the oppression to secure the continuation of the race. Slaves recognized that adaptation to the new environment and culture in the New World would be the main factor for their ability to stay alive. They began this adaptation process, called survival faith, by creating a sub-culture which merged traditional African practices with those the slaves were forced to adopt from their masters. The African slaves brought with them all of their African traditions but were suppressed from utilizing them in their original fashion. Therefore, they merged remnants of African cultures including  ¡Ã‚ §the great Bantu tribes from Sierra Leone to South Africa; the Sudanese, straight across the center of the continent, from the Atlantic to the Valley of the Nile; the Nilotic Negroes and the black and brown Hamites, allied with Egypt; the tribes of the great lakes; the Pygmies and the Hottentots; and in addition to these, distinct traces of both Berber and Arab ¡Ã‚ ¨ (DuBois, 3) with those remnants of European and Native American cultures. This new culture was comprised of dance, rhythmic music, folk traditions and value s, religious beliefs,Show MoreRelated Three Plans For Reconstruction Essay1043 Words   |  5 Pages Analysis of the Three Plans for Reconstruction The American Civil War, lasting from 1861-1865, was the most severe military conflict the country had seen; it involved the United States of America (the Union), and eleven secessionist Southern states (the Confederate States of America). The war was the upshot of decades worth of political, social, and economic conflict between the agricultural South, which produced mainly cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and sugarcane, and the industrialRead MoreReconstruction Document Analysis1256 Words   |  6 Pages2012 Document Analysis: â€Å"Reconstruction: Clashing Dreams and Realities, 1865-1868† The Civil War brought with it destruction in the South, over 600,000 fatalities, economic devastation, and a nation hanging together by the thread of the hopes of those who believed that the nation of Washington would not â€Å"perish from the earth.† Those living in the losing side had to face the harsh realities that their lives would never be the same, both for the white slave owners and for the black, newly-liberatedRead MoreThe End Of The Civil War1577 Words   |  7 Pagesdebated and crucial topic in this time period was the rights of the free black men to vote. â€Å"The goal of Reconstruction was to readmit the South on terms that were acceptable to the North –full political and civil equality for blacks and a denial of the political rights of whites who were the leaders of the secession movement† (â€Å"Reconstruction†). The Republican party was segregated due to different opinions regarding black civil rights into the anti-slavery Congressmen, known as Radicals; and PresidentRead MoreKilling Reconstruction : American Exceptionalism And The North s Rise1094 Words   |  5 PagesKilling Reconstruction; American Exceptionalism and The North’s Rise to Power Pulitzer Prize holding biographer of president Woodrow Wilson’s biography, Scott Berg, described the future foreign policy of southern diplomats and federalists such as Wilson, to have been formed by the trauma experienced during the course of The Civil War. The Confederate south was left in a state of constant ruin, with infrastructure and the economy in recession, morale and dignity torn, and in a racial transgressionRead More C. Vann Woodwards The Strange Career of Jim Crow Essay1719 Words   |  7 Pagesspecifically the Jim Crow laws he equates with the segregation of races. Woodward argues that segregation itself was a fairly new development within the South, and did not begin until after Reconstruction ended. He further argues that since the South has seen so much change, citing the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the development of the Jim Crow laws, it is possible for more changes to occur in a movement away from segregation. Though to a modern reader this seems li ke a logical argument followingRead MoreThe Glory Field By Walter Dean Myers1265 Words   |  6 Pagestimeline can be split into three distinct sections, Emancipation, forming segregation, and life post-Civil War, pre-civil rights. The beginning of Emancipation starts with the Civil War ending when the Confederate army surrendered in spring of 1865 (Reconstruction of the Formerly Enslaved). This meant that the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect in the south. The proclamation was made by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and stated â€Å"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves withinRead More Failure of Democracy Essay870 Words   |  4 PagesAccording to David Herbert Donald in the article Why They Impeached Andrew Johnson, â€Å"Rarely has democratic government so completely failed as during the Reconstruction decade.† As voiced by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, the nation is a â€Å"government of the people, by the people, and for the people.† However, during the period of reconstruction, the government was far from this philosophy. Public opinion was all but ignored, and all matters were decided by either President or Congress. SouthernRead MoreReconstructi on Of The Civil War1541 Words   |  7 Pagesabout Reconstruction what comes to their minds first is the rebuilding of the Union. For all intents and purposes, the years between 1865 and 1877 following the Civil War were about the reunification of the Northern and the Southern states and the government’s attempt to return everything back to normalcy. This time was about letting the southern states join the United States again. However the issue that was also happening at the time was the issue of emancipation. After the Civil War, black slavesRead MoreAnalysis Of Nicholas Lemann s The Battle Of The Civil War 1567 Words   |  7 PagesNicholas Lemann’s aim of writing this book is to look at the brutal campaign of fraud and violence during the mid-1870s that ultimately led to the restoration of conservative, white governments in some southern states. The author focuses on the reconstruction of Mississippi. He stirs memories of the murderous Southern resistance and to civil rights movements 90 years later. Lemann writes at an era when neo-Confederate sympathies have cropped up again in southern politics, and amid several reports ofRead MoreBlack Leadership, Politics, and Culture in Uplifting the Race by Kevin Gaines1225 Words   |  5 PagesBlack Leadership, Politics, and Culture in Uplifting the Race by Kevin Gaines Uplifting the Race is a rather confusing yet stimulating study that goes over the rising idea and interests in the evolution of racial uplift ideology from the turn and through the twentieth century. In the first part of the book, Gaines analyzes the black elite obsession with racial uplift ideology and the tensions it produced among black intellectuals. Gaines argues for the most part that during the nineteenth-century

NCMMOD4CA Free Essays

The Far East business communication differs from European and American styles. Culture, religious traditions and unique Eastern values have a great impact on the personal style of negotiators and their behavior patterns. Different nations stress different aspects of the negotiations. We will write a custom essay sample on NCMMOD4CA or any similar topic only for you Order Now Some of them underline substantive issues directly related to the agreement while others stress relationships. Martin et al (1999) identify four main stages of negotiation process: â€Å"relationship building;  Ã‚   exchange of information, persuasion and compromise, and concessions and agreement†. At the beginning stage of negotiations, the unique issues of the Far East business communication are importance of detailed information about business partners, asking probing questions, importance of socializing and exchange of information. Asians prefer to spend time asking questions about financial, market, manufacturing, and personal issues relevant to the negotiation. Before the meeting, Asians spend time searching for infomation about the business partner and his business relations. â€Å"The Japanese admire people who are well informed, sincere, honest, and serious about their work† (Paik, Tung 1999). Socialization involves development of personal relations with business partner. In contrast to American businessmen, Asians logic is based on spiral or non-linear bases, holistic and cyclical approaches. â€Å"Asian managers tend to analyze issues in a more systemic, circular, and interactive way as compared with American managers who often examine issues based on linear causality† (Paik, Tung 1999). In contrast to Europeans and Americans, Asians do not use argumentation and persuasive reason during negotiations.   For Asians, time is â€Å"nonlinear, repetitive and associated with events†. For Americans, time is â€Å"monochronic, sequential, absolute and prompt† (Paik, Tung 1999). For Asian businessmen, working to a common goal is the most important feature of the negotiations. This means the development of a long-term relationship. Japanese conduct negotiation in a nonlinear manner and in a distinctive style. The difference is found in motivation and the purpose of negotiations. For Americans, signing of a contrast means the final stage of negotiations while for Asians signing of a contrast implies â€Å"the beginning of a long and productive relationship† (Paik, Tung 1999). At the final stage, Japanese businessmen are concerned with the end-results and relations rather than the length of negotiations. These variables shape the values and the behavior of Asian employees and enable researchers to explain differences in the way different countries conduct their business affairs. Also, â€Å"Asian managers find the constant rotation of people involved in the negotiation process as disruptive and confusing† (Paik, Tung 1999). In spite of great differences between American and the Far East styles, researchers prove that the personal style of Asian businessmen is a mixture of Europeans business norms and practices based on unique Eastern values and religion, psychological characteristics and cultural traditions. The Far East negotiator is patient and silent, introvert and tolerant, well-informed and friendly. He follows â€Å"an indirect and harmonious style†, oriented on the end results. Sometimes, his reasoning and argumentation seems illogic to Americans. They reflect emphasis on personal relations and strategic goals, importance of seniority and organizational hierarchy. For Asians, ‘listening’ attributes are the most important. â€Å"The primary persuasive tactics in the Japanese business negotiations appear to consist of volunteering of more information and the use of silence† (Martin et al 1999). Verbal communication is on the second place. Asians use both oral and written communication during negotiations. They can involve annual reports or press releases, provide a great deal of information about the type of project they want to launch. Oral communication helps to enhance task accomplishments; second, to make sense out of content; and third, to supply the bridge between parties. The first level involves cognitive meaning, which focuses on either/or choices. â€Å"Listening’ attributes take about 45 % of negotiations time while Verbal communication takes about 20%. Non-verbal communication involves handshaking and expression of emotions. During negotiations, many Asian businessmen use â€Å"extensive non-verbal means†. Europeans and Americans rely on empirical information, logical reasoning and argumentation (verbal communication) while Asians rely on sensitivity and intuition, non-verbal signs and facial expressions. For instance, â€Å"Nunchi refers to an ability to silently understand what the other party is thinking by reading non-verbal cues, a process similar to that used in a game of poker† (Paik, Tung 1999). The vast majority of nonverbal behaviors is intuitive and is based on normative rules. Except for behaviors such as good manners or etiquette, little formal training is provided for nonverbal communication. In Asian meetings, verbal communication is highly structured and is reinforced through an extensive formal and informal learning process. There is no clear-cut linguistic structure for nonverbal communication even though researchers have found some consistencies in how Asian people interpret nonverbal behaviors. It is possible to say that for Asians the process of negotiations is ceremony which helps to establish long-term relations and business partnership. In sum, national culture and culture of business relations have an influence on communication styles, interaction and behavior patterns of the Far East businessmen. The fundamental value is the dualistic existence innate within the Asian culture and a short-term view in many interventions. While mental representations certainly are not identical, particularly in cross-cultural interactions, message producers and receivers both add meaning to communicative exchanges. Spoken words of friendly greeting in another’s language might well be translated properly by interpreters, yet cross-cultural communicators will still need to know the cognitive meaning of a friendly smile in contrast to a lascivious one. An understanding of how representations are formed is first required in order to acquire the necessary cognitive tools to make sense of cross-cultural communicative exchanges in Asia. Works Cited 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Martin, D., Herbig, P. Howard, C., Borstorff, P. At the table: Observations on Japanese Negotiation style. American Business Review. West Haven: Jan 1999, 17 (1): 65-71. 2.  Ã‚   Paik, Y., Tung, R.L. Negotiating with East Asians: How to attain â€Å"win-win† outcomes. Management International review. Wiesbaden: Second Quarter 1999, 39 (2): 103-122. How to cite NCMMOD4CA, Essay examples