J. J. Saunders. "The Turkish Eruption"
How does Saunders explain the spread of the Turks in the Middle East?

Saunders begins his explanation of the Turks through the Middle East with their origin in the mid  6th century.  At this time, they formed a small, short-lived empire in Asia, which have since held the name Turkestan for the presence of the Turks.  When this empire broke up, the remaining Turkish people spread out over a vast area.  These groups were eventually under different rule, some Chinese, and others Persian.  Additionally, some became nomads and others eventually settled.  However, they all spoke the same dialects, possessed the same common folk lore, were religious shamanists, and they based their time on the twelve-year cycle named after animals.  Through this time, the Turkish tribes were in “political disarray” and were never able to fight off Arabs who fought to advance as far as the Talas River.  Eventually, from the 9th century and beyond, the Turks began to enter the Caliphate in small numbers as slaves or soldiers.  They penetrated the Islam world at this time.  

The Caliph Mu’tasim (833-842) was the first of the Muslim rulers to allow Turks to serve as his guards.  Turkish officers proved themselves to be worthy of “high rank, commanding armies, governing provinces, sometimes ruling as independent princes.”  From 933 until the Fatimid conquest in 969, a Turkish family, Ikhshidids, ran Egypt.  Around this time, one of the main trade routes ran through the territory of the Bulghars.  The Bulghars were a Turkish race living the Middle Volga region who had accepted Islam before 921.  In 960, a Turkish tribe of 200,000 recorded their adoption of the Islam faith as well.  In short, the 10th century saw a large number of Western Turks adopting Islam.

Not but 2 years later in 962, a Turkish officer seized the town and fortress of Ghazna in what is in present day Afghanistan.  Disputes between Turk and kingdoms they sought to control continued for some years until in 999, when a Turkish people of unknown ancestry, captured Bukhara.  Due to this, Persian rule disintegrated and Turkish princes reigned in Khurasan and Tranzoxiana.  Through their sovereignty, Turks stood for order, allowed Persian officials to run the government, protected trade, were orthodox Sunnite Muslims and “professed themselves ardent champions of the faith against heretics and unbelievers,” according to Saunders.  Mahmud of Ghazna lead seventeen massive raids into the Indus valley and the Punjab between 1000 and 1030.  He fought against unbelievers of Hindustan and also against heretics of Isma’ili.  While Mahmud and his successor were busy invading India, the Turkish nomads, Seljuks, rose to power and eventually took over all Western Asia. The Seljuks began raiding all over northern Persia and after Mahmud died in 1030, they pushed their way into Khurasan and seized both Merv and Nishapur in 1036.  Mahmud’s son, Ms’ud, attempted to block the Seljuk near Merv in 1040 and eventually retreated. The date of this battle marks the beginning of the Seljuk Empire.

The Seljuks moved west into Persia and Iraq; areas that suited their intervention.  The realm of the Buyids was suffering from internal problems that included hard economic times due to new political claims of land that left them without claims of a path to the Mediterranean. The Seljuks easily took over all of the towns of Persia.  Iraq asked for help for Cairo to aid them in stopping the advance of the Seljuks.  The struggle that ensued put the Seljuks in Baghdad in 1055 and then after losing foothold of Baghdad, fought their way back in 1060.  Through the rest of the century and into the 12 century, the Turkish continued to fight for land throughout the Middle East, including Egypt by defeating the Fatimid.


Peter Golden "World of the Steppes"

      There are relatively few cases of a culture that centered around both nomadic and sedentary lifestyles simultaneously.  The culture of the Turkic people is one example of such an occurrence.  Both sects of Turkic history survived through economic intermingling, while being quite separate on all other fronts.  As Golden shows throughout the reading these differences are many, and span from the way different groups spoke to the types of governments they had.

     The lifestyles of nomadic and sedentary groups are opposite by nature, of course.  Nomadic groups hunted and gathered, as well as being involved in some herding for their survival, their lives depending on climate, environment, and the health of their livestock.  The fact that they moved about, however, does not suggest that nomadic peoples based their lives on chance.  As is stated by Golden nomads generally travelled well known routes which they had traditionally depended on.  These routes could be expected to provide certain types of plants and animals year after year.

    Because of the fact that nomadic groups had to be on the move for survival their individual populations were smaller.  Families, clans and Tribes were the divisions of this culture.  Relatively large groups,(political affiliations)consisted of the smaller subsets-family, and clan.  These tribes were cooperative as far as decision making, and defensive or offensive actions, but somewhat loose and everchanging based on the family, or chief in charge.  Some tribes, or groups had little interaction with the sedentary culture, while others were very active with these settled groups.

    Languages of the tribes were very distinct and elegant, as indicated by Golden.  Yet, the more a tribe associated with the settled culture and learned other languages, their speech would become "slurred" or muddled.  Tribes were very proud and ones that held strictly to their own language felt quite serious about doing so.  However, tribal survival also depended on trade with the sedentary communities whether directly or through other nomads who did trade directly with the settled.  Because of this dependence on the settled for trading tribal communities did well when the settled communities did well.  Trading between the cultures really did make life easier for both.

     The sedentary communities were proud and unique, as well, but still had ties with the nomadic peoples.  With control of land that could be used for permanent agriculture these communities no longer needed to move about.  This had specific consequences on their way of life.  Instead of depending on climate and good hunting  settled groups depended on a good crop for survival. 

    These settled communities were able to support a much larger centralized population than the nomadic tribes due to the control of resources.  Because of such large populations it became necessary for more a complex government to keep order.  These governments were more close to the beareaucratic systems we know today.  There was a central leader, then smaller departments or divisions below him.

     The language, as stated before, was also a point of difference between nomadic and sedentary cultures.  Communication was necessary for trading, though, as both cultures depended on each other for a more comfortable existence.  The settled community depended on furs and other goods not available in their area from the nomads, adding to the community lifestyle.

     The relationship between the nomadic and sedentary peoples truly shows a cooperative arrangement.  Although there were, without a doubt, conflicts between the two cultures and their lifestyles were very different the desire for a more plentiful existence on both sides created a working relationship.  Each culture maintained its own very distinct characteristics while working with each other.  Language, government, even living arrangements (cities as apposed to tent villages) remained the unique, while cooperating between cultures. 
    

Marshall - Storm from the East

The decision of the Mongol empire to infiltrate the Middle East had tremendous political ramifications across western Asia and into Europe. The Islamic Middle East was a vastly sophisticated, wealthy and technologically advanced civilization; thus drawing the Mongol desires away from an attack from the less intellectually developed Europe. For centuries Muslim merchants had great influence throughout Eastern Asia. Their scientists, mathematicians and technologists were the envy of the world. Middle Eastern culture: arts, woodwork, music, poetry and writing were far more advanced then any. The Mongols were poised to lose nothing by a takeover of the Islamic world.

The attack had a two objective approach. First, it was necessary to rid the continent of the Assassins in Persia. Their control of the region prevented the primary objective of controlling Baghdad. With the help of Christians from Armenia and beyond, who viewed the Mongol attack as a holy crusade, the Assassins and later Baghdad quickly fell. Led by Hulegu, the Mongols controlled the cultural and intellectual center of Baghdad, described by many as “the greatest city the Mongols conquered in the Middle East.” As in many previous military expeditions, the Mongols deposed the Caliph and awarded Ibn al-Alkami, the chief minister control of the city. By placing some control in the hands of the local authorities, the Mongols were able to more easily maintain their holdings.

After taking Baghdad, the Mongols quickly moved to secure Syria and other parts of the Middle East. Their control over much of the region had important ramifications. It first and foremost brought a mass of culture and intelligence into the Mongol Empire. Constantly view by historians as un-intellectual peoples, the Mongols were able to gain a vast knowledge of cultural and political ideas. For the first time, Islamic society was brought back to the Far East. The campaign also, for a time, united the Christian sects of the region, as they viewed the attacks as a crusade to rid the Muslims from their holy land. This however, was short lived as discrepancies between eastern and western Christian trust issues with the Mongols led to a breakdown of Christian alliance.

Mongol success however was not to reign forever. With much of their forces spread among the vast territory they had just claimed, the Mongols found themselves weakened. Combined with the loss of Mongke Khan, the Mongol ruler, the military forces were unable to proceed further with plans to infiltrate Jerusalem. Knowing of the Mongol weakness, the Mamluks from Egypt saw this as their opportunity and “mission to save Islam and civilization” from the dissidents. The Mamluks, using Mongol military technique, trapped the invading forces in a valley. Fearing defeat, the Syrian contingent of the Mongol army broke ranks and fled. The remaining troops, led by Ked-Buqa charged the Mamluks and after a back-and-forth battle, eventually lost and retreated. This first major loss by the Mongol forces smashed the myth of Mongol invincibility and proved that they were “just as fallible and subject to the same twists of good and bad fortune” as any other army.