Show notes! 1. "That made the war inevitable" t-shirts: bit.ly/2S9bxMX 2. The beyliks in Anatolia are a big, fat, never-going-away problem. Multiple sources describe their history and diplomatic relations with the Ottomans, Mamluks, and Safavids differently, so I am happy we don't need to deal with them anymore. 3. In general, sources for this period are a mess. For instance, Iranian and Azerbaijani sources claim that Qara xan won a battle against the Ottomans in the Eastern Anatolia, the Turkish sources claim that the Ottomans won it, while the Arab sources assert that Ismail didn't send anyone to help the Mamluks. One of the sources even claims that the Ottomans and the Safavids signed a peace treaty in 1515, while others vehemently reject that idea and assert that the war continued until 1555. 4. The same goes for the battles of the Ottoman-Mamluk War. They are a mess - numbers, tactics, details. 5. I wonder if there is an interest for an episode on the Safavid-Portuguese war, which was happening simultaneously.
TTT135 Seriously, whenever I play as the Ottomans, even with cheats it’s too difficult to expand as much as the Ottoman Empire expanded in real life. The Ottomans were the first hackers in history and I love it.
I normally annexed the entire Mameluks around 1570. Releasing Syria and use its reconquest CB against Mameluks facilitates this process. However, I can't engulf the entire Mameluks in a single war.
@@MrMukmuk25 Before the age of absolutism, the real Ottomans Empire expanded faster than me. Starting from the age of absolutism, I expand faster than the Ottomans in reality, at least for any patch before 1.26. Starting from 1.26 corruption has become a big problem thus I probably have to halt my expansion, not due to combat skills but extra costs from too many territories.
@@TurquazCannabiz there is no empire that didnt think that way, it is just a joke because the turks were literally everywhere from china, central asia, persia, caucassus, anatolia, and the levant. You can find many empire and kingdom ruled by them in that area.
@@yanelabdelkader8186 if i speak about the british, america, and china, i think my comment will be out of context from the video. The video were talking about the ottoman which is a turkish dinasty. I doesnt have any intention to bring a hate comment.
@@cakapcakep241 @ilker G: Rizki comment is neither complimentary nor demonizing. It's an objective truth during that time. Look at the battles bw. the political powers controlling Iranian lands (i.e. Persia), Arab lands Iraq, Syra and Hicaz and Egypt all three dynasties (Safavids, Mamluks and Ottomans) are Turks. Although in this video, current Mamluk dynasty is called a Circassian one toppled the Turkic previous dynasty, the last sultan Tomanbay has definitely a Turkic name.
8:20 this is one of those times in history where gunpowder clearly makes old tactics undeniable @Kings and Generals - please do a video on the Portuguese - Malmuk war! Lots of people overlook these early wars that set the stage for the colonial period.
Turkic Memluk Sultans such as Qutuz, Baibars, Qalavun etc. built this Sultanate from scratch, destroyed crusader states, defeated Mongol empire. While Circassian Memluks built architectural monuments and introduced administrative reforms but failed to defend the Sultanate properly against Timur, Safevids, the Portuguese and ultimately Ottomans.
This war still amazes me personally, because the Mamelukes up to this point were a notable power. They were fighting European states for control of trade routes in the seas. Hell, prior the war the Mamelukes had sent an expedition to conquer Yemen. In what was probably a very odd set of circumstances, it succeeded but was greeted with news that the Ottomans had conquered Egypt. The expedition leader offered loyalty to Selim, but he was killed as the Ottomans took over Yemen. This would've been like England conquering France in a span of a year. But then again, I guess they do not call him Selim the Grim for nothing.
That's not true. The Mamelukes actually did have cannons and arquebusiers and they fully understood how powerful they were as they had used them many times prior to this war, even against the Ottomans. Hell they were probably one of the earliest states after China to employ firearms. They didn't have as many as they would want because they were at a material disadvantage. For one, they would need copper, which was primarily available in Ottoman controlled Anatolia. They also didn't have as many casters as Europe did (guns were often made in a similar process to bell casting). So they had a shortage of materials and experitise, but regardless they still used them. In fact the Mameluke Sultan Ghawri was very much interested in firearm technology.There were reasons as to why they weren't deployed in this war however. Most of the cannons were stationed at coastal fortresses like Alexandria because of the fear of a naval invasion. As for the Arquebusiers, they had a trained a large number of therm, but they were mostly in Yemen and indeed the Mameluke use of firearms was critical in their conquest of Yemen (it reminds me of the later Egyptian invasion of North Yemen, during which Israel had attacked Egypt). Hell, even in the naval department they did well. They managed to put together a fleet and sail to India to fight the Portuguese. They lost, but regardless the fact that they were able to put up a fight means they had gunpowder weapons and knew how powerful they were. Which is the point, at this time they were a maritime power as well. Basically, the Mamelukes had gunpowder and used it alot, but didn't have as many as their enemies and they had most of their gunpowder units elsewhere. Now you are also right in that the Mamelukes themselves didn't like it and preferred cavalry charges, but that's not due to them not valuing gunpowder. Still, disadvantage or not, the Mamelukes were still powerful. Selims easy conquest is an impressive military feat.
@artoru vidal2 Yes, the elite Mamelukes didn't like firearms, but this was in contrast to the policy of the Mameluke Sultans who consistently pushed the development of firearms within the Mameluke military. "The Mameluke Sultunate made significant use of handguns in the late 15th century onwards and it was ahead of the Safavid and Ottomans in doing so .... The musketeers received extra pay and were equipped with camels and went off to fight the Ottomans in 1490. It was a remarkably successful campaign.....It has been suggested that the Ottoman defeats in this war persuaded Bayezid II to reform his army and equip it with firearms" P. 124 The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society So not only were the Mamelukes the innovators in the Middle East for fire arms, they also forced the Ottomans/Persians to modernize their military in line with fire arms as well. Remember, guns were not the weapon of the elite and the musket was still behind the bow in terms of effectiveness. Guns were much better for the low rate militia troops who the Mamelukes had equipped them with. "but [Al Ghawri] was also enthusiastic about guns. Had had guns cast in Egypt. He had guns brought in from abroad. he raised an arquebus regiment to go fight the Portuguese in the Red Sea" So clearly, they had a strong interest in guns. The thing was that the elites were not given guns because at the time bows were still more effective. Instead they were given to militias and the lower rungs of the military, "It would have been wasteful to issue arcquebuses to the highly effective Mameluke Horse archers, guns were customarily issued instead to halqa troopers...." Again the core issue was materials and logistics for the Mamelukes. They would have to import those materials from either hostile Europeans or hostile Ottomans, and their manufacturing base just wasn't as strong. As to why they didn't use gunpowder troops here , well it's simple, they were campaigning in Yemen. "...many of the agribusiness raised in Egypt were actually campaigning in Hejaz and Yemen where they were deployed against the Portuguese..."
When the Ottoman’s entered Egypt, the Egyptians pulled out a play from the time of Julius Caesar when he arrived in Egypt two thousand years earlier: Urban warfare. But in each case, Egypt lost.
*Ottomans double their territory and gain access to valuable trade routes through Egypt and Syria, large urban centres, a larger tax base as well as the fertile valley of the Nile* Hungary: fuk
Götz von Berlichingen U known Only Hussars 😂 Why ur hussars not arrived in Battle Of Nicopolis? Fall Of Constantinople? Hacova ? 1 and 2 Kosova War ? Belgard , Budin , Vidin , Gallipoli , Szigetwar , Estergom and More ... - Hussar’s keep dream , Second Wien war is your success in our mistakes...
@@Vitalis94 It usually wasn't smart though. Killing envoys just meant you'd get less information from the battlefield. Hardly serves much purpose other than to send a message.
i wonder how much of history we are told are facts. As one would generally get different versions of any eye witnessed incident(small or large) by different people. Also humans being biased sometimes even without realizing is very common.
I think human bias is unavoidable. Even attempting to understanding bias has not helped us reducing them as we are all emotional and cling to the side that we believe are right. In some of K&G videos alone, we already saw so much disagreements and rages over events of thousand years ago, one cannot imagine how hard it is to be objective and fair-judged for all sides as a contemporary. But that's exactly why we need conflicting sources. Because from the sea of conflicts, we see both contradictions and overlaps. And through these conflicts, we see what makes sense and what isn't. Maybe even through careful examination, some of the stories are still lies. But these lies will be slowly filtered and filtered out through further examination, real-life application and the power of common sense. Even the best lie can't stand the test of thousand years and of thousand historians. So I am not really worried about whether the history we are taught is fact (Even if it isn't, there is no one who can claim so anyway). As long as conflicting sources emerge itself and went through careful examination of tens of generations, the truth will emerge.
Honestly, this one felt borderline absurd. Missing (or inventing) entire Persian army? In XVI century? During a major war, resulting in, allegedly, a battle? Someone really dropped the ball at the time.
When Selim The Stern died Pope said “The Lion is dead The Sheep is on the throne” but there was a bigger problem because “Sheep” was Suleiman The Magnificent
lol reminds me of the Greek world celebrating the death of Philip II thinking they'd be able to regain their independence with a young king on the throne.
Suleiman is the starter of fall of the empire with Hurrem leading the way. Mustapha should be the next leader to conquer Vienna and that would be the end of Holy Roman empire which leads the way for a new red apple like Paris or London. But instead sari selim came to power who is a total disrespect to his grandfather Selim the first. Hurrem was a great agent of crusaders i always believe. She managed to stop ottomans and made the empire decline putting many christian descendants into governmental positions. May Allah put Selim the first and other conqueror sultans into eternal heaven.
The Persians lost many battles, but when the Persians started to avoid battle, the Turks wound up losing 30,000 men from starvation and thirst. Even when Suleiman tried to get Tamasp's brother Alqas Mirza to lead a rebellion, no Persian joined him and Alqas was imprisoned.
@@Tareltonlives oh really!? Tahmaseb defeated Suleiman and his commanders Ebrahim Pasha, Eskandar Pasha, and Sinan Pasha for four times.Please read the history without intent. In any case, why should the Iranian people have helped Alghas Mirza, who had taken refuge in the Ottoman Empire!? He was a traitor and deserved to die. Like what Soleiman did with his son and his children in Iran
Actually this proverb is from Persian poet; Saadi Shirazi (1210-1292), which those days his books (Gulistan and Bustan) were kids formal educational books, from India to Anatolia.
Can you make a video about "Barbarossa" Hayreddin Pasha? He started as a pirate with his brothers, took almost all North Africa and gifted to the sultan and became the governor and Admiral of Ottoman Navy (which was the only time Ottomans were actually powerful at sea) Or better yet make a video about him and his biggest rival Italian Andrea Doria. They were the greatest sailors and admirals of their times and their rivalry literally shaped history
You should really make a video about Barbarossa's great rivaly with the famed English sailor "Jack Sparrow". Their great rivalry is definitely worth a video! Jokes aside, Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha is really a man to admire. Imagine starting out as a low level pirateer, rising to the rank to command a fleet of pirates, conquering most of North Africa and then rising to hold one of the 5 most powerful ranks in the Ottoman Empire during its prime. Now that's definitely worth a video...
@HT No I didn't just mean Battle of Preveza. I meant his whole life, his years as pirate, how he took North Africa and everything. He is a very interesting historical figure and I think Kings and Generals Channel can make a series about him and his counterpart Andrea Doria. Would be super fun to watch
@737PilotDocSportelloLovesShastaFay Do u know how mameluks called themselves in arabic ? Ed-Devletü Türkiyye which means Türkiye Devleti in english State of Turkey.
When Selim I conquered the Mamluk Sultanate he acquired the title _The_ _Ruler_ _of_ _The_ _Two_ _Holy_ _Cities_ (Mecca and Medina; Islam's holy cities) but he humbly changed it into _The_ _Servant_ _of_ _The_ _Two_ _Holy_ _Cities_ .
Main reason behind the fall of Ottomans was inconsistent and unskilled sultans who took the throne in 18-19th centuries. Mehmed II the Conqueror, Selim I the Grim and his son Suleiman I the Magnificent were ahead of their times. They were great rulers with a high battlefield control. It was unlucky that Ottomans couldn't have a sultan as skilled as these ones. Sad.
Because Suleiman killed the strong Prince Mustafa so the empire was left to be ruled by the other son, Selim II the drunkard, who produced even weaker offspring as well who were influenced by the women around them. So during these times the Ottomans stopped evolving and eventually the Europeans surpassed them.
dont forget murad 4 he arguably has same potential as them by cleansing ottoman from corruption,threachery,rebellion, and bribes also reconquering baghdad under age of 30
Ottomans formed armies of 100k people against small kingdoms of europe . But the Ottomans build a army of 50-60k people against very powerful Mamelukes.numbers in wars in Europe could be exaggerated in sources
@@artoruvidal2793 They just did in the video. Let me rephrase it. Effective use of artillery and gunpowder units, excellent tactician Turkish Rulers who were field marshalls unlike their neighboring equivalents.
@@fatihsaidduran Yes. Hungarians had cannons, gunpowder units, heavy cavalry, and they were defeated. ( I note, however I think they underestimated the Ottomans.)
@@Trap4DaysOfficial again the weapons played a role in the battle but a much smaller one than the commanders role. If a less competent commander with more advanced weaponry/army went against an less advanced army with a more competent commander. The less competent one would lose because if he can't use his army or weapons the right way they're useless against a more experienced army.
Mamluk Sultanate was the first country that call itself Turkey (They didn't call themselves mamluk, which means slave). The official name was "ed-Devletü't-Türkiyye" meaning "The country Turkey". Unlike Ottomans, they were also using Turkic names, such as Tuman bay.
Wait... So the Ottomans defeated the first Turkey in history? Now I'm really confused! Is that treachery, or a civil war, or what? It sounds like madness! What side are modern Turks on, then? The side of the first Turkey, or on the side of the Ottomans? How confusing! Conflicting loyalties, much?
@@luciusartoriuscastus8327 that's so cool! I thought China was the only place with a three kingdoms period, but it seems to be more general! I guess Chinese history is not so isolated as I thought! That's awesome!
Could you do a video on how the Shia vs Sunni split arose (or at least the conflicts it created and why)? I don't know if it fits the mood of the channel but it seems like a very significant part of Islamic history, that frankly, I don't understand and know all too little about. I thought it would be interesting to learn about it. If I recall well, it was about choosing one caliphate over another right? Anyway, great video as usual K&G!
Boqoreh just little correction the ummayid dynasty was at that time ruled by yazid the first son of Mouawya and not him as the latter died before already. Also it is most important that shiite faith become more of an ideological symbol because the persians who were under harsh and corrupt rule throughout most of the era of the ummayads saw shiism as the antagonist to the ummayyads who were sunnis and arabs that is why the hardline factions and figures of shias are persians whereas those of the sunnis are arabs and some neo nationalists in the middle east mainly in the gulf and iraq are actually siding with these hardline figures and mouvements as they began to consider that the conflict between sunnis and shias is not just for hegemony in the middle east but also for cultural supremacy and historical pride.
Sources on that conflict are messy as hell and K&G would just bring a flame war on themselves since it involves very holy people in Islam (Ali, Aisha, and other Sahaba) Talk about opening a big hornet's nest
@@BoqPrecision Thank you for the great information. I've learned a lot from it. I am now even more convinced it would be a fascinating, although "dangerous", topic to cover.
@@totalwartimelapses6359 I definitely agree with that and I understand why they wouldn't want to risk it. I just think it would be interesting and that people should treat as history as anything else. Plus, they have discussed "problematic" topics in the past (anything including the Turks really...).
3 Turkic (or Turkic Dynasty Controlled) States fought against each other. It’s interesting how influential Turkic Dynasties were back then due to their military skills
@پیر الکساندر خان eehh so stupid.. the very word Tumen Bey is Turkish, Kutuz, Baybars, All Turks.. countless leaders generals commanders all Turks it was a Turkic Empire because they were the ruling class ... in the British empire there were more indians too but still its a British empire. educate yourself please..
How the bloody hell do the Ottomans expand so much when I can barely sweep the Balkans without everyone going against me on EUIV? Great vid guys! I'm glad you guys are still focusing on less well-known eras in history!
@@gabrieltheredlion6613 yeah they were of Christian origins When they were brought or Captured by Ottomans they were very young so it was easy to make them convert to Islam
Selim was unusual character in Ottoman History. He act like his ancestors who ruled steppes many years ago. He captured the throne when his father Bayazid alive and he destroyed two powerful dynasty in 2 years. But in his reign too much rebellion appeared. In my opinion he was great commander but not a good politician like his ancestors. It is possible the say that if his reign continue he could capture Vienna. But Empire would be collapsed after his reign like in Attila’s or Alexander’s empire. Suleiman took the throne exactly right time. After his death, his son Suleiman ruled 46 years. He stabilized territories which are taken by Selim and Ottoman Empire ruled these lands till 1914 thanks to Suleiman the Magnificent. Father and son they completed each other. This harmony between Suleiman and Selim, was also unusual in world history.
But he massacred the Turkic steppe tribes who recently came to Anatolia, just because of their views on Islam was different because of their steppe (Tengrism) way of life. Bektashis and Alevis were the ones who preserving the Turkic steppe tradition and culture and beliefs within the Bektashi belief. Ahiler who helped the establishment of the Ottomans were Bektashi, founders of the Ottomans were Bektashi, even they made the foreign devşirmes, the Janissaries Bektashi. Mehmed the Conqueror was loving to listen all *Sufi* philosophical views and respected them, including Bektashis and Alevis. Sufism is the Turkic or Turkish Islam and views like Nakshbendi, Bektashi were also Turkic beliefs which preserved the old Tengrist way of life and mixed it with Sufist Islam. Ahmed Yesevi, Hoja Dehhani, Haji Bektash Veli, Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi were some of those Turkic sufis. My tribe Varsak was one of them, Karacaoğlan's tribe, Karacaoğlan was also Sufi, Yunus Emre was Sufi, all Anatolian Turkic tribes were believers of various Sufi views. Mehmed the Conqueror chose a heir but that heir couldn't make it, his name was Cem Sultan, his other son Bayezid II was radical pious Orthodox Muslim who couldn't tolerate the Turkic views in Islam (and he was criticizing his father because his father loved Sufism) and Selim I was his son, although they didn't like each other and Selim I (the Grim) dethroned his father (because he was criticizing his father because he thought that his father was too soft to Cem Sultan crisis and was too soft to Turkic Sufi views and he thought the Safevid Islam, the Shia Islam was one of those Turkic Sufi views but it was not), both father Bayezid and son Selim were admirers of Arabic Islam which was/is not very tolerated and not very Turkic (merciful), the Turkic tribes massacres are unfortunately true and even the Ottomanist Prof. Dr. İlber Ortaylı doesn't deny it.
Karaus But we can say that Safavid Sultanete especially in Ismael term, support Bektashis and Alevis for battering Ottomans after that as you say The Grim deserved his name with no doubt. I think we should not evaluate past with today’s conditions. There were two great empire one of them is Shia other one is Sunni. Both of them supported minorities of their enemies, both of them massacred people because they wanted to close their gap against enemy. My point which in my comment is Selim’s character more than religious or believes. Another point was Mehmed the Conqueror and his sons, Cem was too passionate even more than his father because his father was a logical man also. His passions threw him to mistake series, but I can not comment on tolerancy because I don t know his opinions about Bektashis or Sufis or Alevis. I wanted to add that Bayazid saved Jews from Spain, I think his opinions about Bektashis and Alevis were just political because these two situations for a radical pious orthodox Muslim definiton do not fit each other. May be he was inconsistent one. Mehmed the Conqueror generally tolerated all religions in the empire. He was open-minded guy for his age. People called him “Infidel Sultan” because of his statues and pictures. He knew 7 languages and he was too curious to read new things.
@@KarausTheReTeller Why don't you tell both sides stories? Instead of telling a one sided story. Selim didn't kill the Alevi tribes for no reason like you say so. They were rebellious and would've definitely side with the Safavids in case of war(don't forget that they also tried to assassinate sultan Beyazid II) because of the similarities between shia and alevi islam. Selim was a smart general and preemptively stopped it from happening. You also keep talking on about the Turkic lifestyle and culture but the reality of the situation is that it would've been impossible to keep it alive because of two major reasons: -Cultures grow by influencing each other, otherwise a culture will stagnate. -The Turkic culture/lifestyle wasn't going to survive because it was nomadic and when more and more Turks settled down. They learned from the local peoples and the opposite happend to. Turkic culture began to mix with Persian, Anatolian and Greek culture and molded by Ataturk became the modern Turkish culture today. Also how was Sultan Beyazid II "a radical pious Orthodox Muslim" when he saved the Jews from being killed off in Iberia.
Sultan Selim is probably my favorite of the Ottoman Sultans. By conquering the Mamluks, he managed to turn the Ottomans from a great power to a super power. Its also of note that, 4 centuries after his conquest, a ship would be named after him which would change middle east and world politics forever: The German battle-cruiser Goeben, escaping allied patrols in the Mediterranean, was given over to the Ottomans and renamed the Yavuz Sultan Selim; this would lead to the Ottomans joining the central powers in ww1, leading to the death knell of the empire and the redrawing of the map of the middle east.
though its important to note that bad actors used the ship in the ottoman name despite the sultan and other important figures wanting no part in the great war.
though its important to note that bad actors used the ship in the ottoman name despite the sultan and other important figures wanting no part in the great war.
@Kayserili38ification Mamluks were Ghulam. Do you know the meaning of Ghulam? They were just like Khasrazmian Turks, Ghulam of Sammanids. It means slave soldiers or servants.
Educated at what? They were unable to make gunpowder weapons themselves. They were 300 years behind rest of the world. Little Venice was more advanced. Italians were the most educated followed by Germans, Spanish, Ottomans and French. Mamluks in this time period used tactics Ottomans stopped using 200 years earlier. Mamluks were more educated than eastern europeans so pretty close.
If they had existed in 700 AD yes. Not the case any more once you reach the High Middle Ages though. That's from about 1000 AD and onwards btw. And no, that would absolutely not be the case after the Renaissance...
Suleiman was somewhat incompetent as after Ibrahim pasha who led Hungarian victories & capture of Iraq, he couldn't conquer anything & his Italian campaign of 1537-38 was a disaster which forced him to not lead a major war again & he was satisfied with laying siege of Hungarian cities who were rebellious. Conquests after 1536 were led by capable naval commanders & on land by capable Sokullu Mehmed Pasha.
you mean "Dawlet Al-Turkiyye" the ul you wrote means "the" in English and it belong to the name Türkiyye not Devlet or Dewlet, also Dewlet means country. so over all it means Country of The Turks, also can be, The Country of the Turks will be written in Arabic like this " Al-Dewlet Al-Turkiyye" the T in the End of the word Dewle means "of" ((country of = dewlet))
Everybody knows they were Turks. Shah İsmail was Turk. Turks managed arabs. Turks managed persians. you can not manage a country. Puppets of America. Treators. Go and celebrate to be slaves of money. One day your precious fuel oil will finish. Then we will see you will die for food. And you will run to us again. Lets guest what will we do? We will accept our fool brothers.
@@burakyagci3315 sir you mix history with politics sir you are not 100 % turk your country of anadalou consists of Greek Persian Arab Roman hitties and Turks and second mamluks where just a part of the army just like jasinsire
@@burakyagci3315 weren't u the first muslim country to have an Israeli Embassy? Wut treators r u talking about? weren't ur country a shithole before Erdogan? Wut country managing u fucking loser? Mameluke is a word means "Property" ... They were slaves brought children and grow up in Egypt And trained to defend The sultanate of Egypt.. They have nothing to do with turkish but their origin other wise they neither knew turkish nor lived in their society
While watching this series I have gained so much respect for the Ottomans, God damn they had enemies, left, right, center, above and below and they still managed to do so much.
Ottomans were a super state! From a tent to an empire! Ottomans will revive in another form! They are alive!! Not dead! Theur grandchildren ruling Turkey today!
@@alihanyalcn7073 They were near-dead at that point because they lost support of the Muslim world (for various reasons and not always justifiably) and were forced into an alliance with the weaker Christian faction.
@@bilalbadar1438 with or without support of muslims Ottomans were weak in 1800 or 1900 because empire lost the technologicial war. You can not win a war against battleships or tanks with caliphate flag
@@alihanyalcn7073 That had more to do with the Western powers colonizing various parts of the world, rather than any perceived technological weakness on the part of the Ottomans. After all, there would be no industrialization without slave labour and the influx of stolen raw materials.
It's astonishing how quickly the Mamluks fell to the Ottomans. Almost comparable to the fall of the Aztec and Incas to the Spanish during this similar time period where gunpowder changed history.
The achievements of Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan in 8 years. 1-)The Ottoman Empire increased its borders 2.5 times. 2-)The Portuguese Empire, which threatened Islam, was afraid to face Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan and was forced to retreat. 3-)The great Alevi-Shiite rebellion, which even the Ottoman capital Bursa was occupied, was easily repressed during the reign of Yavuz Selim I. 4-)Even when the Ottoman rebels and Safavid Turks and fought against Mamluks, Europe could not open a war against Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan.Yavuz was so powerful that he fought against two great empires and a great internal uprising, even European states did not even think of attacking.because, although the lion was wounded, he was a lion and could not be threatened ! 5-)Napoleon and Alexander the Great could not pass the Sinai Desert had passed 13 days.Although Napoleon lived 300 years after Yavuz, he did not cross this desert for 25 days. 6-)The 270-year-old Mamelukes destroyed in 13 days.Safavi Turks, who did not lose even a single war, were officially defeated against Yavuz.Safavid Turks Shah Ishmael was an undefeated commander and he defeated 70 thousand people with 12 thousand people.He could not stand 3 hours against Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan ! It was really like the Genghis Khan, Timur of his time, Alexander and even Modu Chanyu.
Yasin ....... what of corse I know what aggressive expansion is. Question is do you even play eu4 because apparently you don’t know what overextension is
In reality, Ottoman's AE was not insane since Mameluks were not Christian thus no European coalition formed as a direct result of this war. Even among Muslims, do you think any country to the east of Safavids really became mad due to the fall of the Mameluksr? Annexing Hungary gave Ottomans more AE in Europe though.
Great video as always but Kings and Generals you didn't mentioned that Hadim Sinan Pasha was killed in the Battle of Ridanieh 1517, while Selim was in the battlefield Sinan Pasha was in the Ottoman Headquarters and the Mamluks thought that he was Selim so they killed him. After the battle Selim expressed his grief: "We have won the battle but we have lost Sinan".
Too bad that the Ottomans, Mamluks and Safavids were believing more in power of the throne then there religion. Combined they could have crushed the West(Europe) and the East easily.
Wiping out perhaps the greatest cavalry unit in the world at the time using superior technology and clever maneuvering is something only a young Ottoman Empire could've pulled off. Too bad they declined a few centuries down the line by being beaten at their own game
@Cenk Tüneygök The death of the prince Mustafa was bad But Mustafa III during the Russo-turkish wars was a man who deeply understood that a reform needed to take place within the ottoman military His son Selim III tried to spearhead these reforms but was imprisoned and assasinate by the Jannisaries who wanted to keep their power They held back the empire by assassinating and placing puppet sultans on the throne for years By the time they were deposed reforming the empire was too late Europe was on the brink of industrialisation and was far ahead of the ottoman empire
@Вхламинго It's not Islam that was to blame, though. Islamic nations promoted and positively contributed to Science too. It was the Janissaries who hated to lose power and resisted any reforms in fear of losing it. It's like blaming the Crisis of the Third Century on Greco-Roman Mythology instead of the corrupt Praetorian Guard that ruined it
So the governor of Aleppo literally just left mid-army and took the rest of the infantry with him, only to leave the remaining cavalry to their fate? Kind of a dick move.
Memluk rule in Egypt did not end complately though , Otoman Empire ruled Egypt as a semi autonomous state and kept Memluk Beys and nobility (the ones they did not kill after death of Tuman Bey) in power to rule administration of Egypt. When Napoleons French Army invaded Egypt in 1798 Memluks as proxy of Ottoman Empire was still ruling there.
*Mamluk* *Sultanate* was *(1)* *Protector* of Abbasid caliphate *(2)* *Defender* of Muslim holy places(Makkah,Madina,Al-Quds) *(3)* *Defeater* to mongols and crusaders They kicked mongols out of Syria and kicked Crusaders out of Palestine
the Mamluks knew about guns 60 years before the ottomans but they never used them cause it will require a complete change to the armies and would turn the army to all-infantry army and they thought that using guns is something that cowards would do. look how that turned out for them and nice video btw keep up the good work
Yeh, conservatism is not always protective, even sometimes path to the destruction. "that is what cowards would do" argument is void, the problem was extreme conservatism and still is for some cases today. Think about it, let assume guns for cowards then bows and arrows, ballistas are for cowards as well, hadn't memluks use them ever? Didn't they wear armor and used shield(which are not clothes of bravery for sure).
yeah agree with all of you in the comment section of this very video i can see some saying that the ottomans empire was a gun powder empire, even im not a fan of the ottomans i see they did whats best-served their goals and what about current great power countries? can we call them Napalm empires? everyone uses what is best for him, we cant deny that thing for the ottomans and be happy when our countries do the same
Welcome to modern warfare. Frontal Calvary charge to guns got what you deserved. It appeared that the Mamluks spent too much time on the beach and did not study warfare development. So Ottoman's success was not a fluke, they mastered combined armed tactics with disciplined troops.
@Soundwave 47 They didn't use guns because the Mamluks were heavier, more armed and they barricaded themselves from enemy arrows. They also fought and demolished many armies which used guns and cannons. The chest plates and helmets worn by the Mamluks were also intense that it was almost impossible for a bullet to penetrate through them.
I don't even learn anything about it. My country's curriculum is so bad that the only thing that I learn about Napoleon was that he puppeted Nederlands ( our colonizer) and the Colonial regime they brought was awfully cruel.
Mariano Sanchez well actually about the ottomans that is not true because they introduced many changes in many countries like the caucasus the arabic world bosnia albania etc but their rule in many balkan states was ineffective and usually back fired due to corrupt officials also the ottoman ego was a main cause for the disasters that were caused to all of their provinces and unfortunately it still exists even today within some of the anatolian turks but they had some astonishing figures like mehmet the conquerer and selim the first and suleiman the magnificiant who revolutionized the political and administrative systems of the empire. In any case if we are to just continue to insult others just because they are culturally different we will end up more ignorent than we already are. For example the mongols did provide humanity with almost nothing but destruction but if u look deep you will find that they contributed to reforming the military and logistics of the middle ages so yes everyone contributed to our civilization and just because they are not white or christians does not mean that they are barbaric and ignorant.
@@mariano98ify yep Indonesia. My high school's history lesson were mostly about WW2. But at least we learned about some local kingdom from about the same era though. But this was about 5 years ago before they change the curriculum. So maybe the history class had changed a bit but I'm not so sure.
On the other hand all we learn about is Turkish history. Nothing about Rome, Napoleon or the colonizers and their conflicts between 15th and 19th centuries which shaped up the whole world.
One of the biggest reasons for this campaign of Yavuz(Resolute) Sultan Selim, the growing activity of the Portugal Navy in the Red Sea and the consequent danger of the Hejaz (Mecca, Medina) territory, the most sacred area of the Muslims. Because Mamluk sultans could no longer protect these lands. It was also one of the reasons for this campaign to control the changing world trade routes. in any case Selim was a great ruler. His reign was only 8 years but doubled the territory of the state.
Napoleon I Bonaparte i didn’t give a shit about the Mamlukes just so I could conquer Vienna and finally realize the Ottoman dream of conquering Europe. Made Tunis my biggest ally and made them fight the Mamlukes. Mamlukes are my vassal now :D
No, Ottomans would rival Mameluks and attack them in most of my games. Selim in real history just did better than most of the AI and player-controlled Ottomans.
Excellent work as usual Sir! Can you make a video about the Göktürk Khaganate? We gained a lot of knowledge about the Ottomans and the Seljuks, thanks to you guys, but we know very little about the ancestors of those turkish tribes. It would be very interesting to see how the first Gökturk Khaganate was established and how they clashed with the Sassanids and the Tang Dynasty.
Gökturk Khaganate the forefathers of today's Turks Their conversion of Islam was one of the key factor in History as it made Islam one of the most powerful and influential religion in the world
@Leo Jansen No. It is quite well known the ancestors of the Turkic groups. Anatolian+Azerbaijan+Iranian turks are Oghuz (Oğuz) turks. Their earliest name was Töles. They were the most numberous group of all turkic groups. Then they reorganized into 8 Oghuz. Then at last re-organized into 9 Oghuz and they moved to west. Kyrgyz, Tatar, Kazakh are Kıpchak group. Sakha, Tuva and Bashkorts are Sibir group.
What I find most mind boggling in this series and alike is the number of casualties per battle. When he states these numbers, I have to remind myself that these were men/people/human beings lost in a span of a day/ two. When the winning-side lost over 10,000 men and yet consider the battle a victory is just hard to wrap my mind around.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Show notes!
1. "That made the war inevitable" t-shirts: bit.ly/2S9bxMX
2. The beyliks in Anatolia are a big, fat, never-going-away problem. Multiple sources describe their history and diplomatic relations with the Ottomans, Mamluks, and Safavids differently, so I am happy we don't need to deal with them anymore.
3. In general, sources for this period are a mess. For instance, Iranian and Azerbaijani sources claim that Qara xan won a battle against the Ottomans in the Eastern Anatolia, the Turkish sources claim that the Ottomans won it, while the Arab sources assert that Ismail didn't send anyone to help the Mamluks. One of the sources even claims that the Ottomans and the Safavids signed a peace treaty in 1515, while others vehemently reject that idea and assert that the war continued until 1555.
4. The same goes for the battles of the Ottoman-Mamluk War. They are a mess - numbers, tactics, details.
5. I wonder if there is an interest for an episode on the Safavid-Portuguese war, which was happening simultaneously.
Rae hatt
India ka baana
I’m sure there is interest, just make a video and everyone will watch
Im sure everyone will be interested in any content you guys came up with :D
Will there soon be videos about Napoleonic wars? I mean, I ask because that series is going veeery slowly.
The Ottoman Sultan must've been hacking.. you can't annex the Mamluks instantly because it costs too much warscore!
TTT135 Seriously, whenever I play as the Ottomans, even with cheats it’s too difficult to expand as much as the Ottoman Empire expanded in real life.
The Ottomans were the first hackers in history and I love it.
Ilker G so is that how they beat the Byzantines? Then did they DDOS Hungary?
It might make sense
They just made peace and instantly broke truce and declared war again, everyone was too afraid to form a coalition against them until later on.
xxAnaconta it all makes sense now
TTT135 *Memeluks
After beating the Crusaders and the Mongols, the Mamluks were finally defeated by the Ottomans.
I wish we can do it in eu4. I can't annex all mamluks before 1650.
Then you are bad at EU 4 if you can't annex the mamlucks by 1650 as the ottomans
@@Panda-ss3zh Maybe, but you definitely can't do it in just a single 3 year war
@@Panda-ss3zh it is impossible to grow as fast as the real ottoman Empirie did in eu4
I normally annexed the entire Mameluks around 1570. Releasing Syria and use its reconquest CB against Mameluks facilitates this process. However, I can't engulf the entire Mameluks in a single war.
@@MrMukmuk25 Before the age of absolutism, the real Ottomans Empire expanded faster than me. Starting from the age of absolutism, I expand faster than the Ottomans in reality, at least for any patch before 1.26. Starting from 1.26 corruption has become a big problem thus I probably have to halt my expansion, not due to combat skills but extra costs from too many territories.
The turks moto : Your land is my land!!!
Rizki Anggoro name 1 empire that didn’t think that way
@@TurquazCannabiz there is no empire that didnt think that way, it is just a joke because the turks were literally everywhere from china, central asia, persia, caucassus, anatolia, and the levant. You can find many empire and kingdom ruled by them in that area.
@@yanelabdelkader8186 if i speak about the british, america, and china, i think my comment will be out of context from the video. The video were talking about the ottoman which is a turkish dinasty. I doesnt have any intention to bring a hate comment.
Russia 1922: * Looks at caucasus and central asia * - "'Your land?' hm? It is *o u r* land now comrade!"
*Earrape soviet anthem starts playing*
@@cakapcakep241 @ilker G: Rizki comment is neither complimentary nor demonizing. It's an objective truth during that time. Look at the battles bw. the political powers controlling Iranian lands (i.e. Persia), Arab lands Iraq, Syra and Hicaz and Egypt all three dynasties (Safavids, Mamluks and Ottomans) are Turks. Although in this video, current Mamluk dynasty is called a Circassian one toppled the Turkic previous dynasty, the last sultan Tomanbay has definitely a Turkic name.
Battles of The Turks , Everytime I watch or read relationship of this two great states , it gives tears..
@Вхламинго they're
Quality Ottoman and Middle Eastern content from you gets a
Thank you for watching!
Yes the Ottoman wars!!!
Edit: Sulaiman the magnificent almost here :)
yes since selim 1 died after 8 years of been a sultan at year of 1520
Now we will see Ottomans at the peak of their power and land controlled under them
Very close!
Sen ne diyon bre kafir
This is watched like a medieval army is fighting against a modern army.
@@artoruvidal2793 'like' does not mean 'it is'
Love these, please continue, it makes history come alive.
More on the way!
AS ALWAYS! Magnificent work! i can see the siege of Rhodes & the battle of Mohacs coming * TRIGGERED *
Thank you!
8:20 this is one of those times in history where gunpowder clearly makes old tactics undeniable
@Kings and Generals - please do a video on the Portuguese - Malmuk war! Lots of people overlook these early wars that set the stage for the colonial period.
We'll see, thanks :-)
Always wondered when this video was coming. Great job guys!
It is all planned :)
I am a simple man. When I see “Ottoman” History, I click
Me too.
@SMM Productions lol. Nice one.
@@ahbabmuttaki1856 nice two
@@Fesded nice three.
@@ahbabmuttaki1856 nice four
Well, this was just awesome! No time yesterday to watch and now I feel like, "Good things come to those who wait!"
Thanks for being with for so long :-)
Kings and Generals You's keep making em and Ill keep watching! Oh and thanks for making such great videos worth my time!
Greatest Sultan ever.We never forget you Selim The Brave!!
May Allah bless all the Son’s of Othman! And Rest the Soul of Islam Caliphate Sultan Selim in Heaven
To be honest Ottoman kill alot of muslim too
@@ihsanulfikri9812 no
@Вхламинго yes
Awesome videos, awesome narrator, awesome voice. Perfect.
Thank you!
Thank you very much for share the great video. Respects.
Thank you!
TY so much again
I heavily support you with open heart.
Thank you!
Turkic Memluk Sultans such as Qutuz, Baibars, Qalavun etc. built this Sultanate from scratch, destroyed crusader states, defeated Mongol empire.
While Circassian Memluks built architectural monuments and introduced administrative reforms but failed to defend the Sultanate properly against Timur, Safevids, the Portuguese and ultimately Ottomans.
I like your video I see daily.
Thanks for Sharing.
This war still amazes me personally, because the Mamelukes up to this point were a notable power. They were fighting European states for control of trade routes in the seas. Hell, prior the war the Mamelukes had sent an expedition to conquer Yemen. In what was probably a very odd set of circumstances, it succeeded but was greeted with news that the Ottomans had conquered Egypt. The expedition leader offered loyalty to Selim, but he was killed as the Ottomans took over Yemen. This would've been like England conquering France in a span of a year. But then again, I guess they do not call him Selim the Grim for nothing.
That's not true. The Mamelukes actually did have cannons and arquebusiers and they fully understood how powerful they were as they had used them many times prior to this war, even against the Ottomans. Hell they were probably one of the earliest states after China to employ firearms. They didn't have as many as they would want because they were at a material disadvantage. For one, they would need copper, which was primarily available in Ottoman controlled Anatolia. They also didn't have as many casters as Europe did (guns were often made in a similar process to bell casting). So they had a shortage of materials and experitise, but regardless they still used them. In fact the Mameluke Sultan Ghawri was very much interested in firearm technology.There were reasons as to why they weren't deployed in this war however. Most of the cannons were stationed at coastal fortresses like Alexandria because of the fear of a naval invasion. As for the Arquebusiers, they had a trained a large number of therm, but they were mostly in Yemen and indeed the Mameluke use of firearms was critical in their conquest of Yemen (it reminds me of the later Egyptian invasion of North Yemen, during which Israel had attacked Egypt). Hell, even in the naval department they did well. They managed to put together a fleet and sail to India to fight the Portuguese. They lost, but regardless the fact that they were able to put up a fight means they had gunpowder weapons and knew how powerful they were. Which is the point, at this time they were a maritime power as well.
Basically, the Mamelukes had gunpowder and used it alot, but didn't have as many as their enemies and they had most of their gunpowder units elsewhere. Now you are also right in that the Mamelukes themselves didn't like it and preferred cavalry charges, but that's not due to them not valuing gunpowder.
Still, disadvantage or not, the Mamelukes were still powerful. Selims easy conquest is an impressive military feat.
@artoru vidal2 Yes, the elite Mamelukes didn't like firearms, but this was in contrast to the policy of the Mameluke Sultans who consistently pushed the development of firearms within the Mameluke military.
"The Mameluke Sultunate made significant use of handguns in the late 15th century onwards and it was ahead of the Safavid and Ottomans in doing so .... The musketeers received extra pay and were equipped with camels and went off to fight the Ottomans in 1490. It was a remarkably successful campaign.....It has been suggested that the Ottoman defeats in this war persuaded Bayezid II to reform his army and equip it with firearms" P. 124 The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society
So not only were the Mamelukes the innovators in the Middle East for fire arms, they also forced the Ottomans/Persians to modernize their military in line with fire arms as well. Remember, guns were not the weapon of the elite and the musket was still behind the bow in terms of effectiveness. Guns were much better for the low rate militia troops who the Mamelukes had equipped them with.
"but [Al Ghawri] was also enthusiastic about guns. Had had guns cast in Egypt. He had guns brought in from abroad. he raised an arquebus regiment to go fight the Portuguese in the Red Sea"
So clearly, they had a strong interest in guns. The thing was that the elites were not given guns because at the time bows were still more effective. Instead they were given to militias and the lower rungs of the military,
"It would have been wasteful to issue arcquebuses to the highly effective Mameluke Horse archers, guns were customarily issued instead to halqa troopers...."
Again the core issue was materials and logistics for the Mamelukes. They would have to import those materials from either hostile Europeans or hostile Ottomans, and their manufacturing base just wasn't as strong. As to why they didn't use gunpowder troops here , well it's simple, they were campaigning in Yemen.
"...many of the agribusiness raised in Egypt were actually campaigning in Hejaz and Yemen where they were deployed against the Portuguese..."
Great job
Thank you!
I love it keep on doing videos on the ottoman empire 👍👍😀😀🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Thanks!
Selim be like never should’ve come here:)))
"Lol AE means you're doing it right" -Selim I
Pretty much :-)
@@KingsandGenerals EU4 best game ever. Change my mind.
That Mount and Blade Warband Sarranid Mameluke in the thumbnail.
The Battle of Mu'tah was fought in September 629 AD. Please make video about this battle.
Selim I, the most underrated sultan i think..
When the Ottoman’s entered Egypt, the Egyptians pulled out a play from the time of Julius Caesar when he arrived in Egypt two thousand years earlier: Urban warfare. But in each case, Egypt lost.
Mamluks? More like Mam-LOSE am I right?
Remember what they did to Crusades and Mongols
Their elite horsemen slaughtered the Ottomans until guns fired
Ottomans ❤️
*Ottomans double their territory and gain access to valuable trade routes through Egypt and Syria, large urban centres, a larger tax base as well as the fertile valley of the Nile*
Hungary: fuk
Yes, Hungary is the next...
James Tang 😂😂😂😂😂
wallachia : Oh shet
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Egypt was the heart of the Muslim world
European "BEST ARMOR"
Mamluk "BEST HORSEMEN"
OTTOMAN "The cannon Goes Skrrrrrra papakaka, Skidikipappap and the gun Bumbumbum"
Götz von Berlichingen U known Only Hussars 😂
Why ur hussars not arrived in Battle Of Nicopolis?
Fall Of Constantinople?
Hacova ?
1 and 2 Kosova War ?
Belgard , Budin , Vidin , Gallipoli , Szigetwar , Estergom and More ...
- Hussar’s keep dream , Second Wien war is your success in our mistakes...
You mean peace treaty little scared kids
@Jojo Momo we all know that ottamans made the treat with is Egyptians then broke it
hiya hiya hiya..,
Cyka byat
Selim must be the first guy to kill an envoy and survive in this channel
Who is the historical character in your profile picture ?
@@benjad92 Charlemagne
It's mostly because he covered Mongols before that, most times the envoys were killed, no repercussions followed.
@@Vitalis94 It usually wasn't smart though. Killing envoys just meant you'd get less information from the battlefield. Hardly serves much purpose other than to send a message.
I guess Mamluks killed Mongol Envoys before battle of Ain Jalut but still won
400% O V E R E X T E N S I O N
Laughs in Rebel
Not necessarily since dip power can go minus
It's not even possible in the first place. You cant annex mamluks with 100 war score
-100% AE :)
you were ruled by ottomons .one cant deny historical fact
We need a "The sources are conflicting" t-shirt as well.
i wonder how much of history we are told are facts. As one would generally get different versions of any eye witnessed incident(small or large) by different people. Also humans being biased sometimes even without realizing is very common.
I think human bias is unavoidable. Even attempting to understanding bias has not helped us reducing them as we are all emotional and cling to the side that we believe are right. In some of K&G videos alone, we already saw so much disagreements and rages over events of thousand years ago, one cannot imagine how hard it is to be objective and fair-judged for all sides as a contemporary.
But that's exactly why we need conflicting sources. Because from the sea of conflicts, we see both contradictions and overlaps. And through these conflicts, we see what makes sense and what isn't. Maybe even through careful examination, some of the stories are still lies. But these lies will be slowly filtered and filtered out through further examination, real-life application and the power of common sense. Even the best lie can't stand the test of thousand years and of thousand historians.
So I am not really worried about whether the history we are taught is fact (Even if it isn't, there is no one who can claim so anyway). As long as conflicting sources emerge itself and went through careful examination of tens of generations, the truth will emerge.
And another one, "STOP. KILLING. THE ENVOYS!"
Honestly, this one felt borderline absurd. Missing (or inventing) entire Persian army? In XVI century? During a major war, resulting in, allegedly, a battle?
Someone really dropped the ball at the time.
When Selim The Stern died Pope said “The Lion is dead The Sheep is on the throne” but there was a bigger problem because “Sheep” was Suleiman The Magnificent
Başar Ercan The pope was hoping that an incompetent ruler would finaly lead the Ottomans but he had no idea.
Sike thats the wrong sultan
The Lion was dead but new Sultan was A Tiger
lol reminds me of the Greek world celebrating the death of Philip II thinking they'd be able to regain their independence with a young king on the throne.
Suleiman is the starter of fall of the empire with Hurrem leading the way. Mustapha should be the next leader to conquer Vienna and that would be the end of Holy Roman empire which leads the way for a new red apple like Paris or London. But instead sari selim came to power who is a total disrespect to his grandfather Selim the first. Hurrem was a great agent of crusaders i always believe. She managed to stop ottomans and made the empire decline putting many christian descendants into governmental positions. May Allah put Selim the first and other conqueror sultans into eternal heaven.
Everyone knows about Suleiman the Magnificent but his father Selim the Grim is the real BADASS !!!
Totally agree
indeed he did
Yavuz Sultan Selim Han💪
Europe and Iran: "Oh thank god Selim's gone"
Suleiman: Oh you poor sweet summer children
In fact, Suleiman could not win a war against Iran, and we drove them out of our lands.
True; he DID take Iraq from Shah Tamasp, but simply couldn't take Iran itself;once again a Persian Fabian strategy paid off after initial defeats.
The Persians lost many battles, but when the Persians started to avoid battle, the Turks wound up losing 30,000 men from starvation and thirst. Even when Suleiman tried to get Tamasp's brother Alqas Mirza to lead a rebellion, no Persian joined him and Alqas was imprisoned.
@@Tareltonlives oh really!?
Tahmaseb defeated Suleiman and his commanders Ebrahim Pasha, Eskandar Pasha, and Sinan Pasha for four times.Please read the history without intent.
In any case, why should the Iranian people have helped Alghas Mirza, who had taken refuge in the Ottoman Empire!?
He was a traitor and deserved to die.
Like what Soleiman did with his son
and his children in Iran
@@alborz2887 Don't worry, I will do more research
*A carpet is large enough to accommodate two Sufis, but the world is not large enough for two kings.*
_Sultan Selim_
Selim'e ait değil, İran atasözü
I wish he made alternative history videos like instead of going to east going to West like Italy like Fatih the MEhmed ;Fatih Sultan Mehmed planned..
@@sentiny selim ne lan itherif. Yavuz Sultan Selim Han
@@haciahmetozturk8140 Heard he was planning to but he died before he could
Actually this proverb is from Persian poet; Saadi Shirazi (1210-1292), which those days his books (Gulistan and Bustan) were kids formal educational books, from India to Anatolia.
Selim lived only 8 years for Ottoman Sultane. He died at 50 years old. 42 to 50 a lot of victories
42 to 50*
I wish he made alternative history videos like instead of going to east going to West like Italy like Fatih the MEhmed 1 planned
A bit like Alexander!
@@haciahmetozturk8140 that wouldve been alot more difficult, even the typically friendly france would be enraged that muslim troops be outside Rome.
Kind of the ottoman aurelian, short busy reigns.
Can you make a video about "Barbarossa" Hayreddin Pasha? He started as a pirate with his brothers, took almost all North Africa and gifted to the sultan and became the governor and Admiral of Ottoman Navy (which was the only time Ottomans were actually powerful at sea)
Or better yet make a video about him and his biggest rival Italian Andrea Doria. They were the greatest sailors and admirals of their times and their rivalry literally shaped history
Barbarossa was one of the best naval commanders of history for sure
You should really make a video about Barbarossa's great rivaly with the famed English sailor "Jack Sparrow". Their great rivalry is definitely worth a video!
Jokes aside, Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha is really a man to admire. Imagine starting out as a low level pirateer, rising to the rank to command a fleet of pirates, conquering most of North Africa and then rising to hold one of the 5 most powerful ranks in the Ottoman Empire during its prime. Now that's definitely worth a video...
I think, we will do!
@@KingsandGenerals Can't wait!
@HT No I didn't just mean Battle of Preveza. I meant his whole life, his years as pirate, how he took North Africa and everything. He is a very interesting historical figure and I think Kings and Generals Channel can make a series about him and his counterpart Andrea Doria. Would be super fun to watch
Sultan Selim I really underrated. He is genius military war machine.
Master firearms commander
yes. I wanna see a turkish netflix serie about sultan selim i
@@xavierrealmadrid7420keşke olsa
"We gained Egypt but we lost Sinan" - Sultan Selim after Sinan Pasha's death at Battle of Ridaniyyah
sizden ironik duyulur)
And Sinan is your given name too? ;)
@@ennui9745 indeed
@@CrimeanHorseArcher Nice.
Mamluks: Ok our horsemen are strong, we should be able to defeat the Ottomans
Ottoman artillery: Hold on mate
Ottoman artillery: Hold my sherbet.
Janissaries: Hold my ayran
@Djack bcz both of are Turkic
@737PilotDocSportelloLovesShastaFay have u ever heard arabic or persian names like Baibars?
@737PilotDocSportelloLovesShastaFay Do u know how mameluks called themselves in arabic ? Ed-Devletü Türkiyye which means Türkiye Devleti in english State of Turkey.
Suleiman the Magnificient owes his success to his father Selim.
Partly!
@@muhammadonaiz6176 I agree, partly. He was a brilliant sultan too.
No.He was better than him.But yes,the huge land and resources conquered by selim helped him expand more easily.
yep
@@gamingthisera6339 true
When Selim I conquered the Mamluk Sultanate he acquired the title _The_ _Ruler_ _of_ _The_ _Two_ _Holy_ _Cities_ (Mecca and Medina; Islam's holy cities) but he humbly changed it into _The_ _Servant_ _of_ _The_ _Two_ _Holy_ _Cities_ .
excellent propaganda
Yea💓
"Humble" is not how one describes Selim. It was all propaganda
And now this title (khadim ul haramain sharifain) is used by the king of Saudi Arabia.
@@Navak_ he actually was very humble he only eat once a day. Refusing to partake in opulance and luxury.
Main reason behind the fall of Ottomans was inconsistent and unskilled sultans who took the throne in 18-19th centuries. Mehmed II the Conqueror, Selim I the Grim and his son Suleiman I the Magnificent were ahead of their times. They were great rulers with a high battlefield control. It was unlucky that Ottomans couldn't have a sultan as skilled as these ones. Sad.
Because Suleiman killed the strong Prince Mustafa so the empire was left to be ruled by the other son, Selim II the drunkard, who produced even weaker offspring as well who were influenced by the women around them. So during these times the Ottomans stopped evolving and eventually the Europeans surpassed them.
Grace Kelly exactly!
Suleiman The Magnificent 🗿🗿🗿🍷🍷
thought it was more so the inability to adapt to modern weapons making them lag behind, mainly due to corruption.
dont forget murad 4 he arguably has same potential as them by cleansing ottoman from corruption,threachery,rebellion, and bribes also reconquering baghdad under age of 30
Ottomans formed armies of 100k people against small kingdoms of europe . But the Ottomans build a army of 50-60k people against very powerful Mamelukes.numbers in wars in Europe could be exaggerated in sources
Mamlukes were not weak
@@artoruvidal2793 They just did in the video. Let me rephrase it. Effective use of artillery and gunpowder units, excellent tactician Turkish Rulers who were field marshalls unlike their neighboring equivalents.
@@artoruvidal2793 Just wait for what's gonna happen for Hungary mate
@@selimgehayev8766 by the time the ottoman mamluk wars arrived, the mamluks were close to collapse.
@@fatihsaidduran Yes. Hungarians had cannons, gunpowder units, heavy cavalry, and they were defeated. ( I note, however I think they underestimated the Ottomans.)
Ottomans too op pls nerf.....
5% discipline too op lol
Trap 4 Days It the Ottomans didn’t have guns they would have had their signature horse archers which eat heavy cav alive.
@@Trap4DaysOfficial selim isnot a dumb he wanted them to come closer to use his cannons he allow them to win early on as it was a bait
@@Trap4DaysOfficial again the weapons played a role in the battle but a much smaller one than the commanders role.
If a less competent commander with more advanced weaponry/army went against an less advanced army with a more competent commander. The less competent one would lose because if he can't use his army or weapons the right way they're useless against a more experienced army.
@@Trap4DaysOfficial it isn't as easy as "t'was the gunz lol"
Selim I only ruled for 8 years but in Turkey we say "he had done the work of 80 years in 8 years"
by attacking own brothers 😥.
@@jawadshafi2747 ?
@@jawadshafi2747 Brotherly infighting was totally normal in that time, especially in Ottoman era
Mamluk Sultanate was the first country that call itself Turkey (They didn't call themselves mamluk, which means slave). The official name was "ed-Devletü't-Türkiyye" meaning "The country Turkey". Unlike Ottomans, they were also using Turkic names, such as Tuman bay.
Up
Baybars is kıpchak Turks yes true
Wait... So the Ottomans defeated the first Turkey in history? Now I'm really confused! Is that treachery, or a civil war, or what? It sounds like madness! What side are modern Turks on, then? The side of the first Turkey, or on the side of the Ottomans? How confusing! Conflicting loyalties, much?
@@zhouwu It's like three kingdom wars in china
@@luciusartoriuscastus8327 that's so cool! I thought China was the only place with a three kingdoms period, but it seems to be more general! I guess Chinese history is not so isolated as I thought! That's awesome!
Could you do a video on how the Shia vs Sunni split arose (or at least the conflicts it created and why)? I don't know if it fits the mood of the channel but it seems like a very significant part of Islamic history, that frankly, I don't understand and know all too little about. I thought it would be interesting to learn about it.
If I recall well, it was about choosing one caliphate over another right?
Anyway, great video as usual K&G!
Boqoreh just little correction the ummayid dynasty was at that time ruled by yazid the first son of Mouawya and not him as the latter died before already. Also it is most important that shiite faith become more of an ideological symbol because the persians who were under harsh and corrupt rule throughout most of the era of the ummayads saw shiism as the antagonist to the ummayyads who were sunnis and arabs that is why the hardline factions and figures of shias are persians whereas those of the sunnis are arabs and some neo nationalists in the middle east mainly in the gulf and iraq are actually siding with these hardline figures and mouvements as they began to consider that the conflict between sunnis and shias is not just for hegemony in the middle east but also for cultural supremacy and historical pride.
Sources on that conflict are messy as hell and K&G would just bring a flame war on themselves since it involves very holy people in Islam (Ali, Aisha, and other Sahaba)
Talk about opening a big hornet's nest
Shia is not Islam. They have strayed so far from Islam's foundation and teaching, that they are not anymore.
@@BoqPrecision Thank you for the great information. I've learned a lot from it. I am now even more convinced it would be a fascinating, although "dangerous", topic to cover.
@@totalwartimelapses6359 I definitely agree with that and I understand why they wouldn't want to risk it. I just think it would be interesting and that people should treat as history as anything else. Plus, they have discussed "problematic" topics in the past (anything including the Turks really...).
3 Turkic (or Turkic Dynasty Controlled) States fought against each other. It’s interesting how influential Turkic Dynasties were back then due to their military skills
@پیر الکساندر خان eehh so stupid.. the very word Tumen Bey is Turkish, Kutuz, Baybars, All Turks.. countless leaders generals commanders all Turks it was a Turkic Empire because they were the ruling class ... in the British empire there were more indians too but still its a British empire. educate yourself please..
The Safavid Shah must have been in shock, as his most powerful potential ally was devoured in a single conquest
How the bloody hell do the Ottomans expand so much when I can barely sweep the Balkans without everyone going against me on EUIV?
Great vid guys! I'm glad you guys are still focusing on less well-known eras in history!
Thank you :-)
Euiv is pcor Mobile game?
@@blackgoku2023 Europa Universalis IV, a grand strategy game on PC - made by Paradox.
It is easy to expand when you win every coalition war and they stop trying.
I just bought the game and keep getting rekt lmao
How many times we have seen Jannisaries have saved the day for Ottomans in battles
Definetly one of the most elite unit in History
They were slaves from Eastern Europe, they were always send in the front line and because of that they had alot of experience and battle prowess.
@@gabrieltheredlion6613 yeah they were of Christian origins
When they were brought or Captured by Ottomans they were very young so it was easy to make them convert to Islam
@@umaransari9765 Yeah, exactly.
Janniseries had %150 discipline.
Later on they were the most incompetent
Selim was unusual character in Ottoman History. He act like his ancestors who ruled steppes many years ago. He captured the throne when his father Bayazid alive and he destroyed two powerful dynasty in 2 years. But in his reign too much rebellion appeared. In my opinion he was great commander but not a good politician like his ancestors. It is possible the say that if his reign continue he could capture Vienna. But Empire would be collapsed after his reign like in Attila’s or Alexander’s empire. Suleiman took the throne exactly right time. After his death, his son Suleiman ruled 46 years. He stabilized territories which are taken by Selim and Ottoman Empire ruled these lands till 1914 thanks to Suleiman the Magnificent. Father and son they completed each other. This harmony between Suleiman and Selim, was also unusual in world history.
But he massacred the Turkic steppe tribes who recently came to Anatolia, just because of their views on Islam was different because of their steppe (Tengrism) way of life. Bektashis and Alevis were the ones who preserving the Turkic steppe tradition and culture and beliefs within the Bektashi belief. Ahiler who helped the establishment of the Ottomans were Bektashi, founders of the Ottomans were Bektashi, even they made the foreign devşirmes, the Janissaries Bektashi. Mehmed the Conqueror was loving to listen all *Sufi* philosophical views and respected them, including Bektashis and Alevis. Sufism is the Turkic or Turkish Islam and views like Nakshbendi, Bektashi were also Turkic beliefs which preserved the old Tengrist way of life and mixed it with Sufist Islam. Ahmed Yesevi, Hoja Dehhani, Haji Bektash Veli, Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi were some of those Turkic sufis. My tribe Varsak was one of them, Karacaoğlan's tribe, Karacaoğlan was also Sufi, Yunus Emre was Sufi, all Anatolian Turkic tribes were believers of various Sufi views. Mehmed the Conqueror chose a heir but that heir couldn't make it, his name was Cem Sultan, his other son Bayezid II was radical pious Orthodox Muslim who couldn't tolerate the Turkic views in Islam (and he was criticizing his father because his father loved Sufism) and Selim I was his son, although they didn't like each other and Selim I (the Grim) dethroned his father (because he was criticizing his father because he thought that his father was too soft to Cem Sultan crisis and was too soft to Turkic Sufi views and he thought the Safevid Islam, the Shia Islam was one of those Turkic Sufi views but it was not), both father Bayezid and son Selim were admirers of Arabic Islam which was/is not very tolerated and not very Turkic (merciful), the Turkic tribes massacres are unfortunately true and even the Ottomanist Prof. Dr. İlber Ortaylı doesn't deny it.
Karaus But we can say that Safavid Sultanete especially in Ismael term, support Bektashis and Alevis for battering Ottomans after that as you say The Grim deserved his name with no doubt. I think we should not evaluate past with today’s conditions. There were two great empire one of them is Shia other one is Sunni. Both of them supported minorities of their enemies, both of them massacred people because they wanted to close their gap against enemy. My point which in my comment is Selim’s character more than religious or believes.
Another point was Mehmed the Conqueror and his sons, Cem was too passionate even more than his father because his father was a logical man also. His passions threw him to mistake series, but I can not comment on tolerancy because I don t know his opinions about Bektashis or Sufis or Alevis.
I wanted to add that Bayazid saved Jews from Spain, I think his opinions about Bektashis and Alevis were just political because these two situations for a radical pious orthodox Muslim definiton do not fit each other. May be he was inconsistent one.
Mehmed the Conqueror generally tolerated all religions in the empire. He was open-minded guy for his age. People called him “Infidel Sultan” because of his statues and pictures. He knew 7 languages and he was too curious to read new things.
The overextension penalty was about to kick in my Suleiman cored the lands just in time.
@@KarausTheReTeller Why don't you tell both sides stories? Instead of telling a one sided story.
Selim didn't kill the Alevi tribes for no reason like you say so. They were rebellious and would've definitely side with the Safavids in case of war(don't forget that they also tried to assassinate sultan Beyazid II) because of the similarities between shia and alevi islam. Selim was a smart general and preemptively stopped it from happening.
You also keep talking on about the Turkic lifestyle and culture but the reality of the situation is that it would've been impossible to keep it alive because of two major reasons:
-Cultures grow by influencing each other, otherwise a culture will stagnate.
-The Turkic culture/lifestyle wasn't going to survive because it was nomadic and when more and more Turks settled down. They learned from the local peoples and the opposite happend to. Turkic culture began to mix with Persian, Anatolian and Greek culture and molded by Ataturk became the modern Turkish culture today.
Also how was Sultan Beyazid II "a radical pious Orthodox Muslim" when he saved the Jews from being killed off in Iberia.
@@kadudeduder5103 Well said.
Sultan Selim is probably my favorite of the Ottoman Sultans. By conquering the Mamluks, he managed to turn the Ottomans from a great power to a super power.
Its also of note that, 4 centuries after his conquest, a ship would be named after him which would change middle east and world politics forever: The German battle-cruiser Goeben, escaping allied patrols in the Mediterranean, was given over to the Ottomans and renamed the Yavuz Sultan Selim; this would lead to the Ottomans joining the central powers in ww1, leading to the death knell of the empire and the redrawing of the map of the middle east.
though its important to note that bad actors used the ship in the ottoman name despite the sultan and other important figures wanting no part in the great war.
though its important to note that bad actors used the ship in the ottoman name despite the sultan and other important figures wanting no part in the great war.
Ottomans were never a superpower.
so basically, the Mamluk slaves were more educated than Europe elites.
Hard to say.
VarietyGamer or peter the reader who burned a library lol
@Kayserili38ification Mamluks were Ghulam. Do you know the meaning of Ghulam? They were just like Khasrazmian Turks, Ghulam of Sammanids. It means slave soldiers or servants.
Educated at what? They were unable to make gunpowder weapons themselves. They were 300 years behind rest of the world. Little Venice was more advanced. Italians were the most educated followed by Germans, Spanish, Ottomans and French. Mamluks in this time period used tactics Ottomans stopped using 200 years earlier. Mamluks were more educated than eastern europeans so pretty close.
If they had existed in 700 AD yes. Not the case any more once you reach the High Middle Ages though. That's from about 1000 AD and onwards btw.
And no, that would absolutely not be the case after the Renaissance...
Sultan Mehmet II The Conquerer
Sultan Selim The Grim
Sultan Suleiman The Magnificent
All lived in a century and destroyed enemies in every direction.
Selim is the one with highest win rate for sure.
Suleiman was somewhat incompetent as after Ibrahim pasha who led Hungarian victories & capture of Iraq, he couldn't conquer anything & his Italian campaign of 1537-38 was a disaster which forced him to not lead a major war again & he was satisfied with laying siege of Hungarian cities who were rebellious. Conquests after 1536 were led by capable naval commanders & on land by capable Sokullu Mehmed Pasha.
Now just waiting for Suleiman's era.
We'll get there!
@@jerrykeranen813 thats not a Kings and Generals video -__-.
Just realised how lovely it actually is, that you use same colours for countries as EU4 in all your videos.
It is not always possible, but we try to do that, as the audience knows these colours. :-)
@@KingsandGenerals haha yeah it is familiar so it gives a better experience. Love the connection with the community btw
Ainsley Lambert is our lord and saviour. :-)
One of the official names of Mamluk Sultanate was "Devlet'ul Türkiyye" which is the official name of Turkey in turkish "Türkiye"
you mean "Dawlet Al-Turkiyye" the ul you wrote means "the" in English and it belong to the name Türkiyye not Devlet or Dewlet, also Dewlet means country. so over all it means Country of The Turks, also can be, The Country of the Turks will be written in Arabic like this " Al-Dewlet Al-Turkiyye" the T in the End of the word Dewle means "of" ((country of = dewlet))
This is not true this is no thing but Turkish media this country is Egyptian
Everybody knows they were Turks. Shah İsmail was Turk. Turks managed arabs. Turks managed persians. you can not manage a country. Puppets of America. Treators. Go and celebrate to be slaves of money. One day your precious fuel oil will finish. Then we will see you will die for food. And you will run to us again. Lets guest what will we do? We will accept our fool brothers.
@@burakyagci3315 sir you mix history with politics sir you are not 100 % turk your country of anadalou consists of Greek Persian Arab Roman hitties and Turks and second mamluks where just a part of the army just like jasinsire
@@burakyagci3315
weren't u the first muslim country to have an Israeli Embassy? Wut treators r u talking about?
weren't ur country a shithole before Erdogan? Wut country managing u fucking loser?
Mameluke is a word means "Property" ... They were slaves brought children and grow up in Egypt And trained to defend The sultanate of Egypt.. They have nothing to do with turkish but their origin other wise they neither knew turkish nor lived in their society
While watching this series I have gained so much respect for the Ottomans, God damn they had enemies, left, right, center, above and below and they still managed to do so much.
@@AntonNb lol in 1900 ottoman was dead empire if you still think like that you can look at the 1923 turks
Ottomans were a super state! From a tent to an empire! Ottomans will revive in another form! They are alive!! Not dead! Theur grandchildren ruling Turkey today!
@@alihanyalcn7073 They were near-dead at that point because they lost support of the Muslim world (for various reasons and not always justifiably) and were forced into an alliance with the weaker Christian faction.
@@bilalbadar1438 with or without support of muslims Ottomans were weak in 1800 or 1900 because empire lost the technologicial war. You can not win a war against battleships or tanks with caliphate flag
@@alihanyalcn7073 That had more to do with the Western powers colonizing various parts of the world, rather than any perceived technological weakness on the part of the Ottomans. After all, there would be no industrialization without slave labour and the influx of stolen raw materials.
6:49 Genghis turns in his grave...
Caliph of islam
Amir'al mukminin
Sultan of the ottoman empire
Custodian of the macca and medina
Yavus Sultan Selim 🕋🇹🇷🇹🇷
Benjamin Franklin did he wow and he can ride pegasus
Another awesome Ottoman serie video as everyone agrees Napoleon and Ottoman series are the best!
Thanks!
It's astonishing how quickly the Mamluks fell to the Ottomans. Almost comparable to the fall of the Aztec and Incas to the Spanish during this similar time period where gunpowder changed history.
no it is very diffrent
Early ottomans shows why technology is a one of the most important thing in army.
The achievements of Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan in 8 years.
1-)The Ottoman Empire increased its borders 2.5 times.
2-)The Portuguese Empire, which threatened Islam, was afraid to face Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan and was forced to retreat.
3-)The great Alevi-Shiite rebellion, which even the Ottoman capital Bursa was occupied, was easily repressed during the reign of Yavuz Selim I.
4-)Even when the Ottoman rebels and Safavid Turks and fought against Mamluks, Europe could not open a war against Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan.Yavuz was so powerful that he fought against two great empires and a great internal uprising, even European states did not even think of attacking.because, although the lion was wounded, he was a lion and could not be threatened !
5-)Napoleon and Alexander the Great could not pass the Sinai Desert had passed 13 days.Although Napoleon lived 300 years after Yavuz, he did not cross this desert for 25 days.
6-)The 270-year-old Mamelukes destroyed in 13 days.Safavi Turks, who did not lose even a single war, were officially defeated against Yavuz.Safavid Turks Shah Ishmael was an undefeated commander and he defeated 70 thousand people with 12 thousand people.He could not stand 3 hours against Yavuz Sultan Selim Khan !
It was really like the Genghis Khan, Timur of his time, Alexander and even Modu Chanyu.
Exactly that's why he's my favourite Ottoman sultan but alas the best people die young. Think of how much more he could've done if he lived longer.
Well at point 5 napoleon and Alexander didn't have naval dominance
I like his son and his grandfather more
You should edit your comment to mention who Yavuz is (he is Selim I himself) as most people here are not accustomed to the history of Turks.
who is yavuz?
So much territory annexed the AE must be insane.
he's prob hacking the game to get more than 100% diplo cost for taking province in the peace treaty
forget AE what about the 500% overextension
@@explosiongames11 LOL. Do you know what AE stands for?
Yasin ....... what of corse I know what aggressive expansion is. Question is do you even play eu4 because apparently you don’t know what overextension is
In reality, Ottoman's AE was not insane since Mameluks were not Christian thus no European coalition formed as a direct result of this war. Even among Muslims, do you think any country to the east of Safavids really became mad due to the fall of the Mameluksr? Annexing Hungary gave Ottomans more AE in Europe though.
Great video as always but Kings and Generals you didn't mentioned that Hadim Sinan Pasha was killed in the Battle of Ridanieh 1517, while Selim was in the battlefield Sinan Pasha was in the Ottoman Headquarters and the Mamluks thought that he was Selim so they killed him. After the battle Selim expressed his grief:
"We have won the battle but we have lost Sinan".
Selim was a very capable leader man...
Love to Ottomans from Persia
You know the ottomans don't exist anymore right? Neither does persia
@@kaas352 Mamluks not exits anymore top but u still watching?
i stopped watching Darksider 3 gameplay just 2 watch this documentary because its about the ottomans wars
Thanks :-) I am kinda excited for that game :-)
Kinda funny how the ottoman empire in its peak almost became the eastern roman empire it succeded 100 years ago
Infact bigger
Too bad that the Ottomans, Mamluks and Safavids were believing more in power of the throne then there religion. Combined they could have crushed the West(Europe) and the East easily.
@Абдульзефир you are the idiot if you thing like that
Wiping out perhaps the greatest cavalry unit in the world at the time using superior technology and clever maneuvering is something only a young Ottoman Empire could've pulled off.
Too bad they declined a few centuries down the line by being beaten at their own game
@Cenk Tüneygök
The death of the prince Mustafa was bad
But Mustafa III during the Russo-turkish wars was a man who deeply understood that a reform needed to take place within the ottoman military
His son Selim III tried to spearhead these reforms but was imprisoned and assasinate by the Jannisaries who wanted to keep their power
They held back the empire by assassinating and placing puppet sultans on the throne for years
By the time they were deposed reforming the empire was too late
Europe was on the brink of industrialisation and was far ahead of the ottoman empire
@Вхламинго
It's not Islam that was to blame, though. Islamic nations promoted and positively contributed to Science too.
It was the Janissaries who hated to lose power and resisted any reforms in fear of losing it.
It's like blaming the Crisis of the Third Century on Greco-Roman Mythology instead of the corrupt Praetorian Guard that ruined it
So the governor of Aleppo literally just left mid-army and took the rest of the infantry with him, only to leave the remaining cavalry to their fate? Kind of a dick move.
Can we have armies and tactics video for Ottomans?
You will, eventually
@@KingsandGenerals After 2 year still waiting..
Memlük Turksh (kıpçak) Ottoman Turksh(Oğuz) Safevi Turksh(Oğuz) 🇹🇷🇦🇿🇰🇿🇺🇿🇰🇬🇰🇿🇹🇲
Mamluks was have two dynasty. Safevids too. First ones is Turk. Safevids was Azerbaijani Turks.
@Hassan Abdulsalam yalanla dolanla ağlaya ağlaya dünyada yer edinmeye çalışanlarsınız
@عبدهُبل العتيبي Arab history is a betrayal
Memluk rule in Egypt did not end complately though , Otoman Empire ruled Egypt as a semi autonomous state and kept Memluk Beys and nobility (the ones they did not kill after death of Tuman Bey) in power to rule administration of Egypt. When Napoleons French Army invaded Egypt in 1798 Memluks as proxy of Ottoman Empire was still ruling there.
merdiolu well the army effectively died.
*Mamluk* *Sultanate* was
*(1)* *Protector* of Abbasid caliphate
*(2)* *Defender* of Muslim holy places(Makkah,Madina,Al-Quds)
*(3)* *Defeater* to mongols and crusaders
They kicked mongols out of Syria
and kicked Crusaders out of Palestine
the Mamluks knew about guns 60 years before the ottomans but they never used them cause it will require a complete change to the armies and would turn the army to all-infantry army and they thought that using guns is something that cowards would do. look how that turned out for them
and nice video btw
keep up the good work
Yeh, conservatism is not always protective, even sometimes path to the destruction. "that is what cowards would do" argument is void, the problem was extreme conservatism and still is for some cases today. Think about it, let assume guns for cowards then bows and arrows, ballistas are for cowards as well, hadn't memluks use them ever? Didn't they wear armor and used shield(which are not clothes of bravery for sure).
yeah agree with all of you
in the comment section of this very video i can see some saying that the ottomans empire was a gun powder empire, even im not a fan of the ottomans i see they did whats best-served their goals
and what about current great power countries? can we call them Napalm empires? everyone uses what is best for him, we cant deny that thing for the ottomans and be happy when our countries do the same
Welcome to modern warfare. Frontal Calvary charge to guns got what you deserved. It appeared that the Mamluks spent too much time on the beach and did not study warfare development. So Ottoman's success was not a fluke, they mastered combined armed tactics with disciplined troops.
@Soundwave 47 They didn't use guns because the Mamluks were heavier, more armed and they barricaded themselves from enemy arrows. They also fought and demolished many armies which used guns and cannons. The chest plates and helmets worn by the Mamluks were also intense that it was almost impossible for a bullet to penetrate through them.
I wish he made alternative history videos like instead of going to east going to West like Italy like Fatih the MEhmed 1 planned...
Only Ottomans were allowed to kill envoys and survive. Also they always come back again.
LOL
Who else didn't learn anything big in their history class from fall of Rome to napoleon?
I don't even learn anything about it. My country's curriculum is so bad that the only thing that I learn about Napoleon was that he puppeted Nederlands ( our colonizer) and the Colonial regime they brought was awfully cruel.
@@mariano98ify I think from Indonesia
Mariano Sanchez well actually about the ottomans that is not true because they introduced many changes in many countries like the caucasus the arabic world bosnia albania etc but their rule in many balkan states was ineffective and usually back fired due to corrupt officials also the ottoman ego was a main cause for the disasters that were caused to all of their provinces and unfortunately it still exists even today within some of the anatolian turks but they had some astonishing figures like mehmet the conquerer and selim the first and suleiman the magnificiant who revolutionized the political and administrative systems of the empire. In any case if we are to just continue to insult others just because they are culturally different we will end up more ignorent than we already are. For example the mongols did provide humanity with almost nothing but destruction but if u look deep you will find that they contributed to reforming the military and logistics of the middle ages so yes everyone contributed to our civilization and just because they are not white or christians does not mean that they are barbaric and ignorant.
@@mariano98ify yep Indonesia. My high school's history lesson were mostly about WW2. But at least we learned about some local kingdom from about the same era though.
But this was about 5 years ago before they change the curriculum. So maybe the history class had changed a bit but I'm not so sure.
On the other hand all we learn about is Turkish history. Nothing about Rome, Napoleon or the colonizers and their conflicts between 15th and 19th centuries which shaped up the whole world.
One of the biggest reasons for this campaign of Yavuz(Resolute) Sultan Selim, the growing activity of the Portugal Navy in the Red Sea and the consequent danger of the Hejaz (Mecca, Medina) territory, the most sacred area of the Muslims. Because Mamluk sultans could no longer protect these lands. It was also one of the reasons for this campaign to control the changing world trade routes.
in any case Selim was a great ruler. His reign was only 8 years but doubled the territory of the state.
Never seem to see these two fight amongst themselves in EU4 at all...
Napoleon I Bonaparte i didn’t give a shit about the Mamlukes just so I could conquer Vienna and finally realize the Ottoman dream of conquering Europe. Made Tunis my biggest ally and made them fight the Mamlukes. Mamlukes are my vassal now :D
What? In almost every game, the Ottomans end up attacking the Mamluks multiple times, annexing at least Egypt
No, Ottomans would rival Mameluks and attack them in most of my games. Selim in real history just did better than most of the AI and player-controlled Ottomans.
guys he is joking, dont take it seriously. They are 200 years old rivals in eu4 always fighting always ottoman winning.
More Ottomans Wars
There will be more
Being a diplomat and envoy in these times must've been terrifying.
Sultan Selim is a Master General. Let’s go Ottomans
Excellent work as usual Sir!
Can you make a video about the Göktürk Khaganate?
We gained a lot of knowledge about the Ottomans and the Seljuks, thanks to you guys, but we know very little about the ancestors of those turkish tribes.
It would be very interesting to see how the first Gökturk Khaganate was established and how they clashed with the Sassanids and the Tang Dynasty.
Gökturk Khaganate the forefathers of today's Turks
Their conversion of Islam was one of the key factor in History as it made Islam one of the most powerful and influential religion in the world
I agree with M 46 ! I want to see that ! And the Huns (Xiongnu) too !
Great suggestion! Very obscure topic tho its like finding sources on the white huns and the samaritians lol
@Leo Jansen No. It is quite well known the ancestors of the Turkic groups.
Anatolian+Azerbaijan+Iranian turks are Oghuz (Oğuz) turks. Their earliest name was Töles. They were the most numberous group of all turkic groups. Then they reorganized into 8 Oghuz. Then at last re-organized into 9 Oghuz and they moved to west.
Kyrgyz, Tatar, Kazakh are Kıpchak group.
Sakha, Tuva and Bashkorts are Sibir group.
The greatest of all time
Ottoman caliphate..
So quickly and effectively they brought down the Mamluks, they had no rival in their day. Despite at one time being surrounded by enemies.
Love Ottoman from Pakistan ❤
Pakistani biy ❤️ love from Turkey brother
@@futuregohan2398 🇵🇰❤🇹🇷
Love Ottoman's from Saudia Arabia, Specially my sultan Selim 1 ❤ , who protected us from Safavid shia expansion.
@@Abdulmalik1990 shut up you bedouin , Turks conquered your ass, not protecting you.
we will take revenge for Jamal Kashoci
🇹🇷🇵🇰
What I find most mind boggling in this series and alike is the number of casualties per battle. When he states these numbers, I have to remind myself that these were men/people/human beings lost in a span of a day/ two. When the winning-side lost over 10,000 men and yet consider the battle a victory is just hard to wrap my mind around.
The Ottomans should have had a lot of aggressive expansion from this conquest
Reality is way more complicated