FORUM: MONGOL ATTACK ON BAGHDAD

Anyone knows about this event? Please detail the event here and if there is already an earlier thread please merge them.

As far as I know this event caused the downfall of the glorious Islamic Empire whose center was Baghdad. Important academic books were destroyed by the Mongol army. If that had not happened, the world would have been even more advanced as it would be in 100 years to come!

Am I right? Anyone can comment on this?

Me : I would like to contribute on this topic.

Monke who became the Great Khan after Ogedai's son, Guyuk (Great Khan for 2 years after his dad)was an expansionist compared to Ogedai. Although religious war was alien to Mongols who were generally impatial towards religions, they did hold the belief that the heaven had given them the whole world. Their objective in West Asia was the Caliph of Baghdad.

Before that they would have to eliminate all the superpowers around the region especially the Shias, such as the Ismailis who were often known as the Assassins and had settled in North and East Persia. The Mongols had received a SOS from a Muslim judge in Qazwin, a small town near Alamut(a stronghold of the Assassins). He had complained that people had to wear armour all day long for protection from the Assassins' daggers. Certainly this was a way to extract loyalty for the power of the day!

Secondly,The Mongols had news of a plan to send almost 400 Assassins to Qaraqorum, under disguise of course, to kill the Great Khan. Hulegu, Monke's brother, was the war general. Incidentally, many of his men were Buddhist and some were Christians. As such, to some of them this war also appeared as a holy war.

Nah, this news, in a way had managed to stop 40 years of civil war and unrest in Persia. Note that the Shias caused a lot of problems to the Abbasid Dynasty. The Mongols took 2 years to eliminate the Assassins .....almost completely from Persia. It's Grand Master, Rukn ad Din finally surrendered to Hulegu. Only after this he focused on Baghdad.

The origin of the word Assassin

Me : Yes, it originates from the word 'hashashashin'- those who use the drug hashish. According to tales, selected followers would be given the drug. Once they were "high" they would be given the command to commit murder - political assassination.

The expansion of the Muslim Empire is said to have reached it's height during the Umayyad Dynasty. It remained static during the Abbasid era. Only a few caliphs were real practical soldiers. Political power was more centered in Iraq. Governors in Persia were more or less left to manage their land on their own.... few respected Baghdad. In the meantime, Baghdad had become a cultural, spiritual and intellectual centre. Large mosques and libraries were filled with Arab and Persian writings. The Largest university and splendid palaces were all there.

As usual, the Mongols sent an emissary to Baghdad requesting her surrender. The request was refused. However, as other warlords have already surrendered, Hulegu and his army were able to focus 100% on Baghdad. The Christian army from Georgia had also joined forces with the Mongols making it even stronger.

At the time, Mustasim, the 37th caliph, was a young man said to be weak and whose preoccupation was in spiritualism. Court officials had exploited the situation and in fact they were the ones ruling Baghdad. They could have gathered their armies from all over their empire till which extended till Morocco, but unfortunately, Mustasim chosed his vizier, Ibn al -Alkami's advice that Baghdad's defence was adequate. At the same time, Ibn al -Alkami had sent a signal to the Mongol to attack as Baghdad's defence was in poor condition. Reference from Persian sources revealed that the reason for the treachery was that Ibn al -Alkami, a Shia, was not happy with the caliph's treatment of his fellow Shia brothers. I do not know if this story was purposely concocted to shift the blame to the Shia.

When Mustasim finally called his command to defend Baghdad, the Mongol army was already a day's march away. A contingent of 20,000 Persians left Baghdad and encamped at a nearby field. The Mongol surprised them by breaking the dams and dykes and flooding up the field. Many drowned and the rest were beheaded by Mongol cavalry.

In the meantime, Hulegu's engineers were digging trenches around the city. On 30th January, 1258, Baghdad was bombarded. All this happened so swiftly. Although the bullock carts carrying ammo from Jebal Hamrin were still 3 days away, the Mongols used whatever were available - tree trunks and foundation stones of buildings there. It took them 7 days to take control of Baghdad's eastern wall. When Baghdad's garrison finally surrendered, they were killed one by one. On 13th February, the sack of Baghdad began. It was said that the Georgian army was most keen at it. The eastern Christian community hiding in the church was saved. However the Muslim population...both Sunni and Shia....were resolved in a terrible manner. Most women, children and the caliph's treasures were sent to Qaraqorum. As for the caliph and his family, after a banquet, they were rolled and sewn up in carpets and trampled upon by horses till death. Thus ended the 500 year old Abbasid Dynasty.

Persian sources stated that between 800,000 and 2 million lives were lost in Baghdad. The smell of death was so strong that the Mongols had to camp outside the city wall. It is believed that Persian sources were exaggerated as soon after 2 years Baghdad rose again as a commercial and economic center.

Ibn al-Alkami continued in the service of the Mongol government.

Note: The Mongols believe blood had a spirit. Spilling it to the ground was a bad sign. That was why usually selected people were wrapped up in carpets before killing them so that their blood would not spill on to the ground. Of course there were other ways too.

What happened thereafter? I heard the Mongols became Muslims. Did they continue to live in Irag? There should be many decendents of Mongol in Iraq.

Me : Thereafter the rule of the Ilkhan began in Persia. It lasted for 60 years only. In the beginning, the Ilkhan were more keen towards Christianity and Buddhism. Generally, they they were oblivious towards religion until Ghazan the Reformer became Ilkhan(1295). For certain reasosn he converted into Islam causing his generals to follow suit.

After Baghdad, Hulegu prepared to attack Syria. Many Princes from the smaller principalities surrendered to him. He was now the new warloard of the realm. The Princes became Hulegu's vassals and their soldiers teamed up with Hulegu's.

I am angry at the destruction of the academic books which were of great value to mankind. Why take it on the books .....what a great loss!

Me : Mongol soldiers were illiterate and hence had little understanding of things academic. In my opinion, they had rather different mindset. Books were not assets. Their expertise were elsewhere............and mind you they were very, very good at what they were good at, considering their humble beginnings! Hulegu sent the emissary several times to Bahgdad...........from one perspective they were rather fair. However if they were insulted, then Mongol's wrath knew no bounds. I think the Caliph's refusal was mostly influenced by his vizier who had wanted to use the opportunity for revenge.

What happened after the Ilkhan Dynasty? It would appear in 1295, Malacca has not yet been established. There was just Srivijaya right?

Me : Actually, the Ilkhanate was the first Mongol nation to fall followed by China. The last Ilkhan, Abu Sa'id, did not leave a son. Mongols who did not convert to Islam left Persia while those who were Muslims got assimilated into the population. For a time Persia did not have an effective government until the emergence of a Turko-Mongol soldier from Samarqand, 30 years later(1365). His name was Timur.

Yes, Malacca was not on the map yet during the time of the Ilkhan.

The Mongols spent a lot of time fighting wars...they did not know what books to save..

Me : Also an interesting thought...

It is unfortunate that books on the Mongol history from the Mongol perspective did not survive. Hence, what we know of their history today are based on the written history of other nations such as China, Persia, Russia etc and from records of travellers of the Silk Road. Some may be bias towards the Mongols.

Many said that Islam in Baghdad and Persia could not be restored to it's original glory as many/all(?) intelectual references have been destroyed. I would like some comments on this.

Possibly the knowledge was only written in books. It would be impossible for it to just disappear if it had been practised by the general public. Not only were books destroyed, people were also killed. But then some did survive..

Me ; That is my view too. Is this a reflection of the level of their belief then?

Yes. An uncle of the Caliph survived and some members of his family did too. He was taken back to Cairo by the Mamluk and was elected Caliph there. Alas he was defeated in an attempt to regain Baghdad.

Like the sermon..??

Me : That was an illustration from Persian source....possibly from the jawi writing above it. It has been said that Genghis had listen intently to the sermons of the ulemas on the virtues of Islam. Only after that did he extol his opinion.

I'd like to emphasize that 30 years before the Baghdad incident, the Muslims had made a wrong calculation of the Mongols. Some people may not like my declaration. Nevertheless, that is a fact.

Since the beginning, the Muslim Empire of Khwarazm-Shah had diplomatic ties with the Mongols. In fact they had people with the Mongols......as spies , maybe. News of the Mongols' abilities were eye-opening. The Utrar insident in 1218 saw a Khwarazm Governor had massacred a Mongol envoy together with the Muslim caravan with him in case there were Mongol spies with them. As I have said before....Mongol's wrath had no equal......Khwarazm-Shah's Governor(also his son), Jalal-ad-Din was chased into India. The Mongols stopped at the Indus River upon hearing news of his death .... at least he was no longer a threat. His father however, was hunted into ignominy.

I Would like to ask about the terms:

A)Monggol;

B)Moghul;

C)Monggol-Tartar;

Do they represent different meaning?

Me : Mongol is a nomadic tribe of Central Asia. There were other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes too including the Tartar, Merkids, Oirat, Naiman, Khitan, Kereyid,Ongut, Tagut, Turk, Uighur........Central Asia extends between River Onon and River Kerulen, north of the Gobi Dessert.

Moghul is a Persian word for Mongol. Specifically, the Mogul Dynasty in N. India was built by Babur who was of Mongol decent.

Mongol-Tartar is a joint Mongol and Tartar ancestry such as a Turko-Mongol ancestry.

Hope it's clear..

Misunderstanding and ill-intentions towards the Mongols.

Me : A proposal letter for trade between their people was looked upon suspiciously by Khwarazm-Shah. He regarded the Mongols as Genghis' "children". Nevertheless, there was an agreement to allow traders and merchants to pass.

The caravan which was massacred at Utrar consisted of 450 Muslim merchants from the land of the Mongols and was the first to arrive there after the agreement was sealed. After that 3 Mongol envoys ...1 was killed and 2 others has their beard burnt. As the Mongols had always treated foreign envoys well, this act by Khwarazm-Shah was taken as an act of war. In history, he was also known to be proud, self- destructive and succeeded in bringing on the terrible destruction of the Muslim world in the east.

anyone may write a book as long as he has ideas and thoughts. However, it is not within our means to decide whether the thoughts are correct or wrong. In Islam, there are guidelines to distinguish whether something is fact or fiction. For example, the English said that Francis Light was the founder of Penang ....whereas there were already settlers in Penang before Francis Light arrived. The same goes to the writings on the Mongols which you seem to be supporting...for example from Chinese and Arab sources. As for us now, we are only able to study from existing sources but we do not know if they are true. Research on knowledge are always being made in a big way....knowledge may expand in accordance with the philosophy upheld by the researchers. The West spread it's knowledge of science and technology which are based on their own philosophy. That philosophy cannot be accepted by Muslims. So, as Muslims do we have to follow them? The arts to them is infinity....but in Islam there are arts that are allowed and disallowed....

Me : It is true that history may have several versions. That is why researchers would read many sources. With my limitations,I can refer to a few only. With regard to the Mongols, it is possible that I have a soft spot for them as they cannot defend themselves......all their own sources have disappeared.....and they can only borrow information from the history of other nations. Even then, during the time of Genghis, they did not have a written language. They were illiterate. So, what's wrong in looking from different perspectives so as to establish a more balanced discussion?

Regarding Francis Light, "Founder of Penang", what you had explained is not what it really mean...

The issue of philosophy is best dealt with in a philosophy board.