Comparing the Popes and Caliphs is definitely something I’ve been wondering. They’re each the head of their respective religions but had different roles in them, so learning more about them would interesting!

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Yes I also already thought about that!

@jobiden2942

8 ай бұрын

Bump

@Wakobear.

8 ай бұрын

The Caliph was far more ceremonial, and had far less power than the popes. Firstly, large swaths of the Muslim world didn't even recognize him, since they were Shia or Ibadi or other sects. Secondly, even within the Sunnis who recognised him, he couldn't override the opinions of the decentralised Ulamaa, as shown in the Mihna, when they tried to enforce a certain theological doctrine and failed, due to the Ulamaa (who had far more popular support than Caliphs, even in Baghdad) staunchly disagreeing, even when facing execution. So something like papal excommunication would be impossible. Later on their own slaves would kill Caliphs, or they became puppets of stronger dynasties like the Shia Buyids. The weakening of the Abbasid Caliphate allowed rival claimants in Spain and North Africa. Further weakening the Abbasid claim to it. But they still held prestige and ceremonial roles. Just no power. After the Sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols, the Caliphate largely ended. The Mamluks said they found a Abbasid, creating the Cairo based Caliphate. But these caliphs would just be dragged them out for Mamluk parade days or the appointment of a new Sultan, to add to their prestige. But outside of Mamluk lands the Caliphate was practically unknown. The ottomans didn't start properly using the title till 1774, but only Abdulhamid II truly pushed for the use of the title. But the Muslim world was under colonial powers and the Ottomans weak. It was only after it was disestablished by Atatürk that Muslims began to give the idea of Caliphate importance again

@DrShocktopus

8 ай бұрын

@@Wakobear. Well before the Abbasid started disintegrating and the rise of the Fatimids (Shia Resurgence after the Second Fitna), the Caliphate was very important, like under the Rashidun, Umayyad and early Abbasid rule. However, the Caliph was largely a secular leader rather than a spiritual one, especially during the Umayyad and Abbasid hereditary rule. Once the Abbasid lost their secular political power, the Caliph became demoted to a spiritual figurehead, but even then the Ulamaa as you say had more spiritual say.

@Wakobear.

8 ай бұрын

@@DrShocktopus True. The only pope like Caliphs would be the first 4 rightly guided ones, since they were the 4 most knowledgeable muslims on earth in their respective rulings. Though they still consulted other senior companions of the prophet, since the prophet himself would consult his companions. Hassan's 6 month rule, and ibn al-Zubayr's Caliphate could also be included in this. Of the Umayyads, some were very knowledgeable, and called Faqeeh (Judge, or one of deep knowledge) by the scholars at the time. Such as Muawiyah, Umar ii and even Marwan bin Hakam who are also counted as trustworthy narrators of hadeeth. But the Caliphs after Marwan, save for Umar ii, were kings, who rarely made legal rulings or were that attached to the Islamic sciences. But they didn't try to enforce any creeds, and stayed with mainstream Islam. Save the chaos of the third fitnah, when Marwan ii adopted the heretical qadariyyah theology. Though I'm unsure if he tried to enforce it, since his reign was many running from province to province desperately trying to put down rebellions. Al mamun was the first to force an ideology against the mainstream. Historians generally say that he pushed for the createdness of the Qur'an, as this would allow Caliphs to reinterpret the Qur'an, without need for the Ulamaa. This failed with the Ulamaa winning. The Ismaili Fatimids did have a pope like Caliphs. Since they believed their Caliph was an infallible imam and could come up with new laws, which is basically a prophet according to Sunnis. The problem is that the majority of their subjects were Sunnis and so rejected their Caliphate, making their actual power very weak. Other Shia groups didn't have a living Imam, and so had an Ulamaa class instead. They did believe in an imam in hiding/occultation, but he spoke to the Ulamaa, not their kings. Though the Ghulaat (extreme) Sufi/Shia Safavids/Qizilbash considered Shah Ismail as divine. But his successors adopted mainstream Twelver Shi'ism

Another interesting thing is that in the 867 start date close to the caspian sea there is a character from a cadet branch of the sassanid dynasty Also in 1066 there is a unlanded character called hassan i-sabah who was the guy that founded the order of the hashashin (assassins) that inspired assassins creed as well as the origin of the word assassin

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Super fascinating, thank you for your input!

I'd love to see an episode on 1066 Hungary, or if it's too small, Poland and Hungary together!

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Oh good idea! Could group it together as east central europe

@CommissarMitch

8 ай бұрын

As someone who does not inom way enough about Eastern Europe during the middle ages I highly agree. I would love to learn more.

@owoc8260

7 ай бұрын

@@CommissarMitch the founding of the Polish kingdom and its first successes and fights with the HRE are very interesting, the same with the Christianization of Hungary

You can also play as Beg Hasan of Tus, better known as Nizam al-Mulk. He was the Grand Vizier under Malik Shah, and was basically the de facto ruler/regent when Malik Shah was young. He is respected as one of the greatest political minds of his time and I believe has the Genius trait in CK3.

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Ah bummer we missed him!

Oghuz is pronunced as "ouz" if you are unfamiliar with soft "g", which is "ğ". It is Oğuz in proper Turkish. Chagri (Çağrı) is not pronunced with "sh" sound but with a "ç", as in "chariot". I don't know who came up with the name of "beg" but it is actually "bey", pronunced as "bay" in English.

@SrConstantinopla

8 ай бұрын

Beg is the correct form in middle Turkic. It may have been borrowed from an Indo European language, since other languages like Sogdian (bg) and Sanskrit (bhaga) have the same words.

@koktengri8724

7 ай бұрын

​@@SrConstantinoplaYeah everything is originated by indo europeans in the whole world

@Natoli33

Ай бұрын

It is pronounced O-ghous (O-ghouuse)

@tanvirhussain4485

Ай бұрын

Modern Turkish * these sounds were implemented by ataturk’s reformations. That ğ used to be similar to Arabic غ sound or English ‘g’. Arabic خ sound is ‘h’ in modern Turkish, etc

@osmanisildak2448

22 күн бұрын

@@tanvirhussain4485 our alphabet has changed, not our language. We accepted islam but no one will force us speak another language not even god.

It's a bird It's a plane It's the seljuk turk .

@braedenmclean5304

27 күн бұрын

“Ah!”

Süleyman is in the game, He starts in 1066 as a count of Samosata and Marash right on the border of Edessa within the Seljuks

@kaplan2653

3 ай бұрын

Suleyman Son of Kutalmıs. Founder of the Sultanate of Rum.

@tristin6995

3 ай бұрын

@@kaplan2653 Try forming Rum with him lol

You've made a very good decision in the background music, I've noticed it when I was in the first few minutes and enjoyed the tune all the way into the video. For anyone wondering, it's "Üsküdar'a Gider İken". Meaning, "On the Way To Üsküdar (a part of what's today called Istanbul), The one in the video is the instrumental version.

@ffreeze9924

7 ай бұрын

This version is actually from Civilization 6 as the theme for Arabia. That whole game’s soundtrack is like this, look for the “Industrial” and “Atomic” themes to get the big orchestral ones

I wasn't sure if this series was still alive but I'm here for it.

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

More to come in the next few months

As an EU4 enjoyer, I'd really like to see some content about how the Personal Unions are handled within the game, perhaps looking into mission trees and seeing how they compare to true historical events.

@jamjar1948

8 ай бұрын

does it worth playing? I have not played it.

@axnowledge660

8 ай бұрын

@@jamjar1948 it's a lot harder than ck3 but expands more on the strategic and historical aspects

@jamjar1948

8 ай бұрын

@@axnowledge660 Thanks

@velicanavc500

8 ай бұрын

@@axnowledge660 I would not say Eu4 is harder than Ck3. It is probably the most easy game of paradox.

@axnowledge660

8 ай бұрын

@@velicanavc500 you're mentally ill and this is a mentally ill take

Nice video, I have always been interested in how the Seljuks appeared

Nicely done video, congrats. However, with all due respect, I want to note that you may not have noticed the powerful vassal under the Marwanids, which is Count Suleyman (son of Kutalmish) of Samosata. This is the man, which you spoke of by mentioning the name "Suleyman", who forms Rum. Should you wish to form the Sultanate of Rum in CK3, I highly recommend you take a look at him. There is also the achievement "Turkish Eagle", which I myself have done twice and enjoyed doing it. I'm currently making a playthrough in my channel in Turkish, though you are all most welcome to check it out.

You deserve a million subs for your content, please keep doing your work❤

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Ah that’s so nice, thank you! We’re already overwhelmed with the community we have so far ❤️

I love your video essay style, great quality far exceeding its exposure. I believe the algorithm for your channel seems to like paradox games so i guess continue to use them as a sort of hook (they have games or mods that cover practically all of history so no shortage there).

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

That’s actually a good point :D Thank you very much!

@EvilSmonker

8 ай бұрын

@@historyinbits Good luck Mr. Bits!

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, 🎶it’s the Seljuk Turks🎶

This is one of the greatest (and one of my favourite) history videos of all time. Keep it going man!

@historyinbits

4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@AceticTWO

4 ай бұрын

@@historyinbits Of course, it was perfect

@AceticTWO

4 ай бұрын

@@historyinbits I actually just subbed to your patreon too

thanks for another video, i love these! I love learning about not very popular nations cause then i can have more fun when playing as them. like for example there's so little i know about india that i never play there despite how interesting it looks.

An episode on 867 England would be very fun I think, keep up the good work!

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

We did that about 2 months ago :D maybe check out our other videos on Crusader Kings

@reyne6515

8 ай бұрын

@@historyinbits You did! Must have missed that one.

More of these ck3 videos please + thank you for the great video ❤

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Thank YOU!

What an amazing channel! Keep it up.

I love your videos! Its a crime you dont have more subscribers

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Thank you so much!

*"There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white -- except by piety."* - Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) He(pbuh) was definitely not an Arab nationalist, he was always against tribalism whether it be nationality or lineage.

Amazing video keep it up.

Hey could u cover the Kushites in the future? I found them extremely interesting and i wish paradox expands on them.

Love the video! Really educational and easy to watch. Interesting fact in Ck3 867, the last umayyads still exist in Andalusia after the abbasids came to power

2:51 Islamic texts claim that the prophet and his teachings were not only for a fixed race or tribe of people but the whole world. So the question is answerable. The uniting of the arabs was just merely the first step of the process.

Nice video! I hope that after the Persian dlc, the Roman Empire will finally be portrayed correctly. And one small correction, the Achamenid Empire, the first Persian Empire you mentioned, was founded in the 5. century BC, not the 10.

These are some great vids to help with role playing

Very informative video im looking forward to the persia dlc paradox has said is coming soon

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Us too! And thank you for the compliment!

Keep doing this

Do the same region in 867. Take a look at the remnants of Zoroastrianism as well as the descendants of the Sassanid Kings. I think that would be an interesting video

I will say it’s a bit odd to do this now when a Persian DLC is coming out which I imagine will greatly affect CK3’s portrayal

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

We started working on it before the summer but kind of got side tracked. Hope there’s still some things you could take away with you!

What's the book at 8:09? Also you mention that in 867, the Abbasids are portayed as weaker than reality. I would disagree, since this was in the midst of the Anarchy at Samarra. Wherein rival claimants for the Caliphate were battling out between Samarra and Baghdad. Meaning, the rest of the Caliphate was completely independent. As shown by the upstart coppersmith of sistan, who marched on Baghdad in 870, almost ending the Caliphate. This was also during the Zanj marshland guerilla war. One of the most difficult revolt to put down in the entire history of the muslim world, due to its excellent leadership. Even after putting it down, Basra and southern iraqi agriculture never recovered. (Old Basra [Zubayr] was abandoned, founding the modern city of Basra on alUbulla) Meanwhile, one of their slaves decided to establish their own dynasty in Egypt, and would go on to take the levant, and undermine the caliph by taking control over the Byzantine Ghazi frontier. The fact the Abbasids managed to defeat the Zanj, Saffarids and Tulunids shows the quality of the post Anarchy caliphs, particularly al Muwaffaq. Unfortunately in 908 the Abbasid resurgence ended with the ascension of a minor purposely chosen by the bureacrats and military so as to manipulate him for their gain. Resulting in the total collapse of Abbasid power. Allowing Buyids, Ikhshidids, Fatimids and the dozens of other Bedouin, Kurdish Daylamite etc principalities to emerge.

@mrsqrrl

8 ай бұрын

Sources are in the description. It's 'The Seljuks of Anatolia - Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East'.

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Wow, you really know your stuff! Thank you for sharing all this! So the book is The Seljuks of Anatolia - Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East by Peacock and Yildiz.

Whats the background song called?

2:16 The fact that you censored the face of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) made me respect you more because most youtuber won't bother censoring his face, you earn a like and a new subscriber 👍 keep it up!

@pandaren_brewmaster

8 ай бұрын

What a big deal... Seljuks drew his face without censoring it.

@Rifqiethehero

7 ай бұрын

@@pandaren_brewmaster It is, it is widely believed among scholars that the Prophets should not be shown or drawn. However, some Seljuks have drawn his face without censoring it. It's important to note that not every Seljuks is knowledgeable about Islamic rulings and some may commission a drawing of the Prophet with his face without realizing the implications. As for why the scholars didn't advise them, it can be compared to a boss who ignores advice regarding a project. It's possible that Seljuks simply dismissed the scholars' advice or ruling about it

@pandaren_brewmaster

7 ай бұрын

@@Rifqiethehero Nope, religious authorities didn't have balls to warn Seljuks. Abbasid khalifs were pet dogs of Seljuks.

As an Iranian Azerbaijani Turk, I love playing as a count in the Seljuk empire and rise to power, and convert all the Persian provinces to Oghuz. Thanks for covering my history. ❤

You could try and do a video on the Men-at-Arms units in the game, that could be interesting?

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Good idea! We’ll look into it!

an episode about the caliphs in Baghdad and the popes in Rome would be an interesting video

Will you be doing videos on AC Mirage when it comes out? The Islamic Golden age is very interesting but I haven't found many good videos that help explain it better to understand the time.

@nasseribnamr9043

8 ай бұрын

Al muqadimah is the perfect channel for you

im really thankfull for this cause it fits pretty heavy with the next DLC

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Glad to be of service!

any chance youl make a video about the bulgarian empire?

The actual Seljuk from which the dynasty takes its name from, and the grandfather of Tughril and Chagri shows in CK2 in the earlier starts.

Thank you

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Thank YOU

Probably should have waited on this episode till after legacy of Persia drops. I am sure changes will be made to Seljuks in 1066.

@JoaoPedrFF7

8 ай бұрын

Maybe they can make a second part, comparing the versions and bringing more details to this fascinating region.

Strange time when persia was sunni and egypt was shia

Finally you talk about the seljuk

Could you cover the depiction of Tibet? one of my favourite starting positions in CK2 and CK3, and a region very different between CK2 and 3.

Comparing papacy and caliphate would be really interesting, idk if is good idea for video something similar to rags to riches like stories of Catherine I of Russia, Zhu Yuangzhang of Ming Empire or like from count to emperor.

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Good suggestions!

Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things also No Alp Arslan No Party 🎉🎉

This might be a bit different and less character-focused, but maybe an episode on the "obscure" religions in CK3? Stuff like Bon, Zunist, Adamite, the entire Dualist religious family, etc. I wonder if any of them are just explicitly fictional or incredibly exaggerated for gameplay.

awesome

I love your videos, and can you do Scandinavian?

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Already in the planning!

Good video, but I am surprised that a video centering on Alp Arslan does not mention Nizam al Mulk, Hassan-e Sabbah and Omar Khayyam. That is one of the great stories of the Middle Ages and The Omar Khayyam is an amazing author and scholar.

If you're gonna compare Caliphs to anyone it'd make more sense to compare them to Roman Emperors, or really just Emperors in general since they were the heads of large empires who had both religious and secular authority and were seen as at least somewhat divine. You can find this kind of ideological feature in almost all historical empires as it helps justify the absolute power of the Emperor as well as cement the divine status of the Empire itself, which of course gives it some sort of divine right to rule. For the Romans they had a divine right to rule because they were God's kingdom on Earth, thus they had natural dominion over it, for the Caliphates they had an almost humanitarian mission to rule the Earth in order to spread the true faith and its enlightenment. This idea was expressed through the concept of Jihad which was justified because it spread Islam, essentially a form of evangelism, though also a concept that is somewhat similar to the modern western idea of "spreading democracy", where war is justified on the basis that it supposedly benefits the conquered. Of course Jihad as a concept emerges during the time of the first Caliphate where Islam just meant the Caliphate so what it really was, was a way to justify imperial conquests. Though of course after the fall of the Caliphates the Caliphs do start to take on a role more similar to that of the Pope but that is probably also comparable to the Roman Empire, with how Rome went from being an imperial capital to becoming an important religious center. The difference just is that while the title of Emperor survived but lost its religious connotations, becoming a solely secular one, the title of Caliph instead lost its secular meaning and became a purely religious title. In general the history of the Caliphate is sorta like the history of the Roman Empire but on fast forward, with Mecca being like Rome and Baghdad being like Constantinople, it narratively kinda satisfying that the two would be united by the Ottomans who claimed both the title of Roman Empire and Caliphate.

nearly every name and title is butchered😂😂 but gives a good overview over the regions history, appreciate the video!

I would like to see a video on the Vikings. Especially the history of the remaining Vikings I’m 1066.

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

We have a video about the Great Heathen Army in 867, did you see that already? :)

@hosumaija

8 ай бұрын

Erik "the Heathen" is maybe the most famous of the ásatrú present in 1066. Historically we know basically nothing about him, just that he was co-king of Sweden together with the other Erik (the guy who is represented as king of Sweden in-game). His nickname 'the Heathen' comes from historical speculation that he and the other Erik may have co-ruled to appease the different religions of Sweden at the time, Erik 'the Heathen' obviously representing the heathens and the other Erik representing the christians. Olaf Gren in Åland is made up and somewhat ahistorical as it is thought that Åland was christened quite early during the beginning of the 1000s. Tolir af Roden in Gestrikalandia (Gästrikland) is actually a historical figure who we know about through the Hovgård stone or Håkon's stone, also known as 'Uppland Runic Inscription 11'. Björn af Hälsingland in Halsingland (Hälsingland) is possibly inspired by the 'Hälsingland Runic Inscription 1' which goes as follows: " Bio[rn](?)/...bio[rn](?)". Depicting him as ruler of all of Hälsingland is weird, especially when we know of the incredibly powerful Fä-Gylfe Family, which ruled big portions of Hälsingland at the time. Kolbjörn Ekeblad in Medelpad is seemingly just made-up. Additionally no rune finds from Medelpad mention the name Kolbjörn. Thord Eketräd in Ångermanland is seemingly made-up. This is especially reasonable considering the absence of knowledge about Ångermanland during this period. Botulf Frille in Sjeltie is seemingly made-up. He may be supposed to represent an early predecessor of the Birkarls, a sort of merchant-class in Northern Scandinavia during the middle ages. Either way very ahistorical. Toke Värending in Värend is likely inspired by Toke 'the Bounteous' (rough translation) mentioned in 'Småland Runic Inscription 2'. Western Småland being ásatrú is very much historical as it is known that Värend and Finnveden were some of the last places in southern Sweden to christianise. That's all the ásatrú rulers in 1066 so hope that answered any questions you had!

Seljuk state is indeed not related that close with Rums. While all Seljuk nobility stayed in Persia, Rums were migrants of less known Turkic Begs and their tribes looking for new lands.

>FERTILE LANDS OF ANATOLIA ITS ALL MOUNTAINS YOU CANT DEV HERE WHAT IS FERTILE ABOUT IT

Song?

@Algayersz

8 ай бұрын

civ 6 arabia theme

@koktengri8724

7 ай бұрын

​@@AlgayerszIts uskudara gideriken. Its a Turkish song.

@Algayersz

7 ай бұрын

@@koktengri8724 its based on that but the version used is the civ 6 arabia theme

A video about India would be interesting!

Have you been able to get the trophy for Rum ? It gliched for me

Catholic popes and the caliphs aren't really comparable. Unlike in roman christianity (appropriate descriptor for the middle ages) where there was this extensive religious hierarchy in parallel to the worldly hierarchy (both of which the pope tried to influence) the caliphs had over time become mostly limited to the worldly domain and the "clergy" if you can call it that was very decentralized and not really under the control of the caliph.

Arkada üsküdara giderken çalmasına patladım

ohh i would love to watch a pope/caliph viedeo

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Will see what we can find out

I, a muslim who studied in Madina, can Answer the Question. No, Muhammad PBUH has no worldly intentions as mentioned.. he just did what god tell him to do

@paulfitzgerald5611

Ай бұрын

Why didn’t he mention any of that Islam stuff before he left for Christian and Jewish lands

Turkic and Iranian aren't contradictory There are Iranian Turks such as Azeris, Qashqais and Turkmens in Iran today I'm a member of the Azeri Turk ethnicity

Sel juke = 100 platoons of 2000 horse archers , Chaghar zai tribe from Surbani confideracy formerly known as Tukharian Khiwa Razma AKA Hindu Shahi

Why are there so many recorded historical leaders that are just not even in the game? It literally takes a fucking wiki search come on Paradox

King King 👑👑

Seljuks suck because they dont have cassus belli for Anatolia and levant. And malik shah the child king of khorasan isnt heir of seljuks, hence they collapse within a gen or 2 without causing any major changes.

@awerewolf299

8 ай бұрын

Can't say anything about the second part, but if your playing as the Seljuks, you can use Conquest CB if you have enough fame and prestige, sure, most you can get is a duchy, but maybe you can use Invade Kingdom CB, and this all without mentioning, Holy Wars, which you can do any amount of Holy War For Kingdom, if you get By the Sword.

@ashketchum5466

8 ай бұрын

​@@awerewolf299ai never does that, for historical accuracy ai needs to be spoon fed. Also conquest of Anatolia was one time war not multiple duchy level conwuests. And a lucky fluke. But for historic accuracy you would need to spoonfed ai

@awerewolf299

8 ай бұрын

@@ashketchum5466 You're right, I was more of talking about when playing as them, not the AI, so you are right in regards to that.

Your intrepetation of the malikshah is wrong. Sure that arabs use Malik as King or more precisely as overlord. But in the naming context it reffers to the root meaning, owner. So his name is more grandour claiming to be owner of Kings as arabic lack the word emperor. Also khorasan is pronounced in the same way as Khan. The gutural sound most of us middleastern love to fiddle with.

In reality they fall apart within two decades due to the power struggle of having a child ruler. I hope the new legacy of Persia DLC fixes that cause it makes the Byzantines very powerful in 1066

Now do Georgia pls

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Georgia will actually feature in our next video coming out in 2-3 weeks, but it will only feature quite briefly

> Video about Seljuks > Starts with ERE Zzz

Or rather Caucasia in general

Marwanids were arabs not kurds tey descended from umayyad dynasty of marwan abdul malik

He was a mulla

@abdulrafay1664

5 ай бұрын

Lindus getting offended as always 😂

Well in reality in they are five Khalifa the fifth being Hassan Radi Allahu the fourth Khalifa son and Khalifa is not Emperor the emperor is Allah Khalifa is more like a viceroy I know this because I am Muslim I suggest brother from Adam so it will be great if you become brother in Faith also read open your heart and your mind about Islam and learn😊 and one more thing in Islam and in other religions the age of marriage is When You puberty mature which differs from person to person some people mature at 9 some at 10 the maximum age in which is a child does not hit puberty and should be considered a a grown man or a woman is the age of 15 so his marriage is not a child marriage Prophet Muhammad married our beloved Mother Ayesha at the age and she was 6 and had sexual relationship with her when she matured at the age of 9 no matter what the European Muslims see and try to change her age think still her age her real age was She was married at the age of 6 and sex with the prophet at the age of 9 when she matured because I have heard from a scholar my teacher that you can marry before puberty until she reaches puberty which she can at the age of 9 and if the max it will be 15 after that she will be considered a mature women or man

Bruh I dont know whos doing the ingame research for these videos but they suck because you didnt mention Suleiman Qutalmishoglu who is the founder of Rûm Sultanate he is a marwanid vassal ingame there even is an achievement for him study better next time smh

@ragiol170

8 ай бұрын

kinda suprising the man who conquered the entire anatolia and subsequently prompting the crusades is not mentioned even once, i guess they love the snapshot of history in 1066 rather than what comes after it, you never know.

As a Turkish Historian, you couldn't have done a better job, yes you did butcher the names but that's a given

@historyinbits

8 ай бұрын

Well thank you very much :D

2:25 here’s the awnser: He was the legitimate prophet from god, who's religion ruled from Indonesia to Spain, and from Russia to Mozambique, and spread beyond those borders to form the religion that is still intact as it was on day 1, a tradition of preservation and memorization of the quran and a science of hadiths, and clear signs for people to recognize God and obey him

Seljuks were not only turks. So do not portray them as just turks. Seljuks were Iranic and Turkic. Seljuklar iranli va Turkidi.

@Sadoyasturadoglu

8 ай бұрын

Seljuks were Turks, only their bureaucrats (like Nizam al-Mulk) were Iranians.

@jamjar1948

8 ай бұрын

@@Sadoyasturadoglu Saljuks were Iranian turks. Saljuklar iranli turkidi.

@augustus4102

8 ай бұрын

@@jamjar1948 Seljuks slaughtered Iranians like sacrifices My Iranian friend, stop stealing the history of Turks.

@jamjar1948

8 ай бұрын

@@augustus4102 It is Iran's common history with the east of Turkeye. Off-course, the Seljuks of Rum was formed in east of today's Turkeye. I already said, they were Turkic people of Iran. The slaughtering was religious matter, not racism. it was wrong and they did it to please the Calif in Baghdad. They were Persianized very soon. The issue with the history of Turks is our turkish brothers want to be considered as part of every Turkic speaking group, yet ,many of them ignore their Byzantine, lidyan, Hitties, and Ionians pasts and routes!

@augustus4102

8 ай бұрын

@@jamjar1948 Don't talk to me with the ridiculous fake internationalist DNA test videos you see :) Turks have largely Caucasian, East Asian and Siberian genetic heritage. The Anatolian genetic heritage you exaggerate only reaches 20 percent. Yes, Alhamdulillah we made these conquests as Muslims. Since the Turks were new Muslims, they slaughtered you Persians like lambs. Because my ancestors saw you Persians and Arabs as feminized people who could not properly spread the teachings of the Prophet and did not know how to fight. Çağrı Bey has a very famous saying about the Persians, Romans, Armenians and Arabs, about them being feminized cowards. And you know what, I'm tired of your nonsense, it's as if every race in the world is pure blood, only us Turks are a mixed race. Persian, listen to me, Mesopotamians, Jews and many other peoples migrated to your country. It was also conquered by many races such as Hellenes, Arabs, Turks and Mongols. You are a more mixed race than us. Also, since we Turks were new Muslims, we were extremely religious and very strict. As you know, it is forbidden to marry a non-Muslim man in Islam, and it is makruh for men to marry a non-Muslim woman. In addition, the Turks were so strictly religious that the Kutalmışoğlu Seljuks massacred the vast majority of Christians in Anatolia And Some of the Christians on the coastline would be massacred by Turkmen warlords during the Second Principality period, especially by the Early Ottomans, Karamanids and others. As for the Christians in Eastern Anatolia and the remaining Christians on the coastline, they were also going to be massacred by the Famous Hakan Abdulhamid II and the Committee of Union and Progress that came after his abdication. Those who remained would be massacred in the Turkish War of Independence and would be completely expelled from Anatolia with the population exchange with Greece during the Republic period. I hope you will stop masturbating that Turks are a mixed race:) Also, the Seljuks are Oghuz, get it into your thick, dysfunctional head;)

Happy to see CK content again! Still after the Abbasids!

Seljuks were Iranian turks For those how don't now

@Sheendyan

22 күн бұрын

They were not

@Arshia-cb2se

19 күн бұрын

@@Sheendyan of course they were

@Sheendyan

17 күн бұрын

@Arshia-cb2se 😂😂😂😂😂There is no Iran before 1935 Stop lying, these lies do not work any more. CUZ u need to provide Authentic Source of informations