posted
Continuing a conversation from another thread:
Originally posted by ackee: @ Altkruri,I know you were making fun of abc123lie about Turkic slaves,but I wonder about the Turkish muskeetmen in Bornu,were they slaves soldiers or mercenaries.This was during the time of Mai Idris Alooma.
Altkruri responds: As far as I know all Turks south of the Sahara were outright bought and paid for slaves. Will look into it.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This maybe difficult to know, but what happened to the Roman soldiers captured by the Kandake,when she sacked parts of upper Kemet were they released or were they kept as slaves?
And what about Axum's wars with Persia did they transport slaves along with war booty back to Axum?and if so what became of them.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like you cannot fathom that whites or other non-Africans were slaves, yet alone slaves to Africans.
Use your own common sense and stop waiting on racist scholars to spoon feed everything to you. The racialist white historians are going to present history that is of benefit to Europeans. They will (1. lie, (2. omit, (3. distort, (4. miscontrue, (5. ignore anything that threatens white supremacy.
Learn to think for yourself for once.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argyle,It's not a matter of waiting on racist scholors to spoon feed anything,It's about the knowing not guessing.The question about the Roman soldiers stands on It's own remember after the cesssation of hostilies there was a peace deal where the Queen got all of the tribute the Romans tried to Imposed on her nation rescinded. What did the Romans got in return,if i was to strike a deal with my enemy the first thing i would want is my people back.As far as the Axumites thing goes,there is a hidden part to that question,did whatever Eurasian genes showed up in that part of the world came from slaves.
Plus there are records/books laying about in Ethiopia,Mali, and Kush maybe harder to come by and understand,but someone out there knows something and maybe that someone is an African.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
AAhhh Djheuti, please don't do that,Iam hoping that people with info can contribute to the above I ans-him correctly without starting a flame war. The^is a glaring distraction.
If you or others with more knowlage than I do have the information that sought please post,iam here to learn stuff.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see you're having fun Mary. But all play and no work will make Mary a Eurocentric whore. So please let us know when you are ready to defend your anti-Prof. James dribble.
posted
LOL, is it me or are the Akoben-Djhuti fights hilarious...?
Anyway I came upon some research in a book(I will have to find and quote) where it said that the Ghana or Malians used Malmuk(White Slave) Armies as a professional body guard. Now remember that the Islamic Slavery was different than Western Atlantic form. Egypt was controlled by a Malmuk sultanate and alot of Islamic Sultanates were of slave origin...so I doubt the Malmuks were treated like American blacks..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Egypt was controlled by a Malmuk sultanate and alot of Islamic Sultanates were of slave origin...so I doubt the Malmuks were treated like American blacks..
And Mali was controlled by ancestors of Black Americans so I doubt that the ancestors of Black Americans were treated like Mamluks. Do you see how flawed your logic is or no?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Egypt was controlled by a Malmuk sultanate and alot of Islamic Sultanates were of slave origin...so I doubt the Malmuks were treated like American blacks..
And Mali was controlled by ancestors of Black Americans so I doubt that the ancestors of Black Americans were treated like Mamluks. Do you see how flawed your logic is or no?
I read in a book the Mali I think might have used Malmuk(slave) body guards.....I used Egypt being controlled by the Malmuks to show that slaves could obtain power in Islamic society...Like slave armies...
If Im wrong just say so...and explain. I don't understand the attack? Im not an expert nor do I claim to be, but Im not a boy nor am I a bully. I have been respectful to everyone on here so I don't understand why very little is ever shown?
What is your opinion...?? Where was I wrong..??? Was it no Malmuk bodyguards..???
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Ibn Bhutta, who lived in West Africa for some years during the Mid-14th century, reported that the Mansa of Mali had an elite bodyguard of 300 slave recruited soldiers. These MAMLUKS are believed to have included Turks and other Northerners, perhaps even some Europeans"....
From Historical Atlas of the Islamic World, by David Nicolle...
Slave armies in Islam... Even a cursory glance at the history of Muslim peoples reveals the extraordinary role played by men of slave origins in the armed forces. They served both as soldiers and as officers, then often acquired preeminent roles in administration, politics, and all aspects of public affairs.
As this conference makes clear, slaves have been used as soldiers in many places around the world; but I shall argue that there was something unique about their use in the Muslim countries. Among Muslims, this use of slaves acquired a systematic quality that permitted slaves to take on central military functions and to rise in the hierarchy of the state, sometimes even taking it over. I believe that the systematic use of slaves as soldiers constituted the single most distinctive feature of Muslim public life in premodern times.
Umayyads (661-750). The Umayyad government, headquartered in Damascus, relied on mawlas, unfree men who resembled military slaves; the institution of military slavery did not exist before the ninth century, but the Umayyad went as far as they could in the direction of using the same kind of soldiers. Abbasids (749-1258). Slave soldiers dominated the Abbasid army and government of Baghdad by the mid-ninth century. Then, much later, when the Abbasids revived in the thirteenth century, slaves again acquired a major military role. Spanish Umayyads (756-1031). The Umayyads in Spain also developed a slave system in the early ninth century; slaves played a consistently great role throughout the life of the dynasty. At its dissolution in 1031, several dynasties with rulers of slave origins emerged. Buyids (932-1062). Although tribal soldiers from the Daylami mountains in Iran brought them to power, the Buyids rapidly recruited Turkish slave soldiers. This change also signaled a shift from infantry to cavalry warfare. Fatimids (909-1171). Like the Buyids, from an initial tribal army, the Fatimids (initially of Tunis, then of Cairo) quickly depended on military slaves, though they employed slaves of diverse origins, including Turks, Berbers, Blacks, and Slavs. Ghaznavids (977-1186). Founded by a military slave who broke away from the Samanids, the Ghaznavids of eastern Iran drew on slaves for their armies primarily from Central Asia, secondly from India. Seljuks (1038-1194).The Seljuks established the dynasty that was most influential for Muslim institutions. They came to power as the leaders of tribes of steppe warriors but soon, in Iran, made abundant use of military slaves. By the time of the Seljuk demise, slaves had almost taken control of the dynasty. Almoravids (1056-1147). The first major dynasty based in North Africa, the Almoravids began as a religious movement but gradually came to rely moderately on slaves in their armies. Almohads (1130-1269). They were similar to the Almoravids in locale, religious origins, and moderate use of military slaves. Ayyubids (1171-1250 in Egypt: until later elsewhere in the Levant). Beginning with free Kurdish and Turkish troops, the Ayyubids came to depend largely on military slaves from Central Asia. Supplies from there were greatly increased by the turmoil resulting from the Mongol invasions. The Ayyubid dynasty came to an end when its military slaves usurped the throne. Delhi sultanate (1206-1555). The Delhi sultanate was in reality six distinct dynasties, all of which made use of military slaves. The first of them, the Mu'izzis, were founded by a slave soldier who broke away from his Ghurid masters; several later Mu'izzi and other rulers were also of slave origins, and slaves played a prominent military role throughout. Hafsids (1228-1574). The Hafsid rulers of Tunis employed a black African bodyguard of slaves, but it is unclear whether the Turks they employed came as freemen or as slaves. In either case, slave soldiers had only a minor role. Mamluks (1250-1517). The military slave dynasty par excellence; not only did almost all the soldiers begin their careers as slaves, but they formed the government in Cairo and passed the rule on to other slaves. The Mamluks maintained a self-perpetuating slave oligarchy for centuries, recruiting mostly in Central Asia and the Black Sea region. Ottomans (1281-1924). Along with the Mamluks, this Istanbul-based dynasty had the best-known system of military slavery. Slave soldiers were introduced sometime in the fourteenth century and their last vestiges were only abolished in 1826. Besides supplying the army with foot-soldiers (the Janissaries), slaves took on many burdens of the central administration. Safavids (1501-1732). Slaves counterbalanced the tribal troops which had brought the Safavids to power in Iran. The slaves came mostly from the Caucasus region and lasted to the end of the dynasty. Sharifs of Morocco (Sa'di and Filali, 1511-). The Sa'di use of slaves in the army remained secondary, but the Filalis depended very heavily on them, especially in the eighteenth century. The slaves were black Africans. Mughals (1566-1858). While the central government in Delhi used slaves as soldiers only erratically, the mansabdars recruited them extensively. The central government found its soldiers in many places, usually free.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ackee: This maybe difficult to know, but what happened to the Roman soldiers captured by the Kandake,when she sacked parts of upper Kemet were they released or were they kept as slaves?
And what about Axum's wars with Persia did they transport slaves along with war booty back to Axum?and if so what became of them.
I don't think you will find much research for the Axum and Candake accounts as far as written material goes, and even though both were literate societies I doubt much can be found in English. I can hardly find info on Axum let alone Merowe and Nubia other than the 25th Dynasty. The only info I found was the Malmuks Army and Bodyguards in Mali..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Jari-Ankhamun and Sundjata for responding. You see I didn't know about Mamluk Slave guards in Mali,and yes i do know that southern and eastern slavery differed from the west in some respects,I just wish all those books in Timbuktu would be translated already.
As far as Axsum is concern i can only guess that their P.O.Ws from the Arabian peninsular were transformed into slaves the proberble fate of most ancient P.O.Ws.
Didn't Al-Jahiz had something to say concerning Axsum's war with Persia about the rape and pillage by Ethiopian troops of some town or city? I forgot his quote.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soldier slaves were a class of their own in the African and the Islamic worlds. They were used by the government as a defense force loyal to the potentate.
However, sometimes soldier slaves took over the reins of power and ruled over the state. At that point they were no longer slaves though at some point in time they could undergo a reversal of fortune.
Examples of the former would be Egypt's mameluks (white slaves) and Morocco's bukharis (black slaves). An example of the latter were Egypt's abeeds (black slaves) who were betrayed by both the Tulunids and Fatamids.
Colour and ethnicity were important identifiers in cosmopolitan societies and were factors that could be played on when divide and conquer strategies need come into play.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ colour and ethnicity were important identifiers too for your "Mesopotamian" Jewish brethrens (whom you bizarrely accept as "black") hence their Talmudic myth of the curse of blackness.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes, I remember reading St.Clair Drake's book Black Folks Here And There, that dug deep into the palace intregues of the Fatimids who were part Sudani themselves and how they battled the Mamalukes for supremecy, but was done in by their prince.This was followed by Saluddin the Kurd who disbanded them.(Btw Is that book still in print?)
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Soldier slaves were a class of their own in the African and the Islamic worlds. They were used by the government as a defense force loyal to the potentate.
However, sometimes soldier slaves took over the reins of power and ruled over the state. At that point they were no longer slaves though at some point in time they could undergo a reversal of fortune.
This is all I was trying to point out, That the only evidence I know about white slaves south of the desert were Mamluks in Mali. I thought Ackee was looking for POW, property type slavery as opposed to Mamluks so I pointed out the difference in treatment=I guess that makes my logic flawed...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Egypt was controlled by a Malmuk sultanate and alot of Islamic Sultanates were of slave origin...so I doubt the Malmuks were treated like American blacks..
And Mali was controlled by ancestors of Black Americans so I doubt that the ancestors of Black Americans were treated like Mamluks. Do you see how flawed your logic is or no?
I read in a book the Mali I think might have used Malmuk(slave) body guards.....I used Egypt being controlled by the Malmuks to show that slaves could obtain power in Islamic society...Like slave armies...
If Im wrong just say so...and explain. I don't understand the attack? Im not an expert nor do I claim to be, but Im not a boy nor am I a bully. I have been respectful to everyone on here so I don't understand why very little is ever shown?
What is your opinion...?? Where was I wrong..??? Was it no Malmuk bodyguards..???
You're being overly defensive. I merely pointed out your err in logic and all too often I think AAs are used as either scapegoats or somehow the ideal representation of "slave". Thread has nothing to do with AAs so why invoke them?
Speaking to your point, slave armies aside, at least Musa's Turkish slaves were not soldiers but rather, entertainers as recorded by al-Maqurizi.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ colour and ethnicity were important identifiers too for your "Mesopotamian" Jewish brethrens (whom you bizarrely accept as "black") hence their Talmudic myth of the curse of blackness.
LOLOL EXACTLY(as soon as I read what he posted I said the exactl same thing then I read what you wrote LOL!!!) this dude Alktruri never ceases to amaze me lol. What is up with this self hating/loathing nig nog Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: And Mali was controlled by ancestors of Black Americans so I doubt that the ancestors of Black Americans were treated like Mamluks. Do you see how flawed your logic is or no?
Well according to eurocentrists and the dumb "black" Americans that love to quote them and their work. AAs do not come from Mali. (This is what they say, not me)
They say that AAs come from:
1. A few selected jungle regions of "west" Africa (no Africans came from any desert regions)
and
2. Only "selected" ethnic groups of people within the "few selected jungle regions of west Africa" were taken to the Americas. (ie. no Africans deemed as admixed with caucasoids were taken)
So either you are lying or wrong, or the eurocentrists and their "black" lackeys are lying or wrong.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not hard to see how this works unless you're a dumb "black" American or dumb African or just a dumbass no matter your ethnicity or location.
Noticed how they bogusly separated Africans along the lines of geography and anthropology. This is designed to create a false association with Europeans for the specific purpose of allowing Europeans a to claim Ancient Egypt.
Then they create history fantasies so people who are needed to provide a bogus juxtaposition to Ancient Egyptians are deemed as historical slaves, while the people who are supposedly caucasoid never were.
Afterall if these supposed caucasian admixed people were used as slaves, the Europeans would look not only stupid, but crazy with regards of trying to form any kind of association with those people no matter how weak it is.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Sundjata wrote:
quote: And Mali was controlled by ancestors of Black Americans so I doubt that the ancestors of Black Americans were treated like Mamluks. Do you see how flawed your logic is or no?
Well according to eurocentrists and the dumb "black" Americans that love to quote them and their work. AAs do not come from Mali. (This is what they say, not me)
They say that AAs come from:
1. A few selected jungle regions of "west" Africa (no Africans came from any desert regions)
and
2. Only "selected" ethnic groups of people within the "few selected jungle regions of west Africa" were taken to the Americas. (ie. no Africans deemed as admixed with caucasoids were taken)
So either you are lying or wrong, or the eurocentrists and their "black" lackeys are lying or wrong.
The fact that you're repeating what some imaginary Eurocentrists say and extending it to imply that the ethnys that comprised Mali were "admixed with caucasoids" speaks much to your hypocrisy as well as your submission to their influence. As if this wasn't the last thing on my mind when responding to Jari.
Funny how this psycho spends umpteenth hours a day on here criticizing AAs for their supposed subconscious adoption of Eurocentric ideology, yet half the time this man is on here reciting their myths verbatim, some of which I've never even heard. If you aren't a race obsessed loon, then who is?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
What part of (This is what they say, not me) are you too stupid to understand.
Don't get mad at me because your cohorts have basically circumsised you out of Mali. LOL!
I'll be more than happy to post links. I might even find some with you saying the same thing as they have.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: egypt civilization is a consequences of being e1b1b1 ......e1b1b1 is the race of the ancient egyptions
Evergreen Writes: I don't believe in biological races. However, it is of interest that haplogroup E-M78 derived amoung NE Africans that looked most like a stereotypical modern West Afrcan.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evergreen wrote: ------------------------------ Evergreen Writes: I don't believe in biological races. However, it is of interest that haplogroup E-M78 derived amoung NE Africans that looked most like a stereotypical modern West Afrcan. ------------------------------
What is a "stereotypical modern West African"?
Folks I told you didn't I. These folks believe in the white mans mythologies. They just hate that eurocentrists have cut them out of the loop for being associated with Ancient Egypt. That is their only problem with eurocentrism.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Evergreen wrote:
What is a "stereotypical modern West African"?
Evergreen Writes: West Africans tend to have shorter and broader crania "on average" than Eastern Africans. There are of course no hard and fast rules in this regard because we find elongated types in Western Africa and broader types in Eastern Africa. The reference is to statistical trends. I hope this helps.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a 14th century representation "of Abu Bakr ibn Umar ibn Ibrahim ibn Turgut, sometimes suffixed al-Sanhaji or al-Lamtuni "(modern pronunciation Auelammiden.)
Abu Bakr brother of Yusuf bin Tashfin the Tuareg
Over the last 500 years Berbers have become less black. The modern Tuareg descend from people who mixed with slaves from Europe. Those are the fair skinned Africans among the Tuareg wearing the white veils. They also have African slaves called Takili or Iklan and vassal castes of Haratin/Azgar and Soninke origin.
Unfortunately most are unaware that Tuareg have "mixed with Turks and Tartars" as the manuscripts of Bornu say as well as other Europeans (particularly women) like the rest of the Berbers.
The dna also seems to bear this out.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooh so this Ben Tashifin's brother meeting Mansa Musa? interesting,I thought he was just some run o the mill trader.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ What Dana is suggesting is not that far off the mark, as the Taureg inhabit the original home of the Berbers, the Saharah and represent what the Original Berbers looked like, Black Africans.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjaita you would not have any info on Al-Mazruqi's account of Mansa's White slaves would you??
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^Good point..
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Egypt was controlled by a Malmuk sultanate and alot of Islamic Sultanates were of slave origin...so I doubt the Malmuks were treated like American blacks..
And Mali was controlled by ancestors of Black Americans so I doubt that the ancestors of Black Americans were treated like Mamluks. Do you see how flawed your logic is or no?
I read in a book the Mali I think might have used Malmuk(slave) body guards.....I used Egypt being controlled by the Malmuks to show that slaves could obtain power in Islamic society...Like slave armies...
If Im wrong just say so...and explain. I don't understand the attack? Im not an expert nor do I claim to be, but Im not a boy nor am I a bully. I have been respectful to everyone on here so I don't understand why very little is ever shown?
What is your opinion...?? Where was I wrong..??? Was it no Malmuk bodyguards..???
You're being overly defensive. I merely pointed out your err in logic and all too often I think AAs are used as either scapegoats or somehow the ideal representation of "slave". Thread has nothing to do with AAs so why invoke them?
Speaking to your point, slave armies aside, at least Musa's Turkish slaves were not soldiers but rather, entertainers as recorded by al-Maqurizi.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Thanks Bro..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What of the Turkish slave girls I believe Takruri's mentioned of, that were in West Africa (maybe Mali of somethin)?
I believe someone's mentioned that there were quite a number of them (under a particular ruler, or at a particular time, like in the hundreds or more).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the more puzzling questions concerns the status of a people designated the Slwl Arabs, who, says al-lsl, 'come to our land as slaves'. They are probably to be identified with the so-called Shuwa Arabs of Bornu, since in his reply Ahmad Baba describes them as claiming to be from the Judham [Yemen]. Fractions of the Judham are known to have been in, or close to, Bornu in the fourteenth century, since Mai cUthman b. Idris wrote to the Mamluk sultan of Egypt complaining of raids upon his territory by Judham Arabs. Ahmad Baba declares their status to be ambiguous, and that the scholars of Kano disagreed over whether Bornu Arabs could be turned over into slavery. Hugh Clapperton says that he gave freedom to an Arab from Bornu who was about to be sold to a Brazilian slave ship.14
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic