They told us "Ertuğrul the Ghazi".. he stood up to the Tatars.. and my inbox filled up with nonsense.. some of it even claimed he faced the Tatar armies with 500 soldiers.
By the way, some people objected and said no, the Tatars are not the Mongols.. and some historians did say that.. they said they were two different tribes in appearance and in substance.. but the majority said they are one race with one homeland.. the ethnic distinction between them appeared later, as they scattered and intermarried with other peoples.. and the Arabs in general applied the word "Tatars" or "Tatar" to the Mongols.. the Europeans called them "Tartar".. the word "Tatar" in the old Turkic language means "horseman".. "Ibn Khaldun" gave them a new name, "al-Taghzaghuz".
In general, my dear, so that nobody makes a fool of you.. and tells you "Ertuğrul" defeated them with 500 soldiers.. the Tatars moved with 600,000 to 800,000 soldiers.. and they faced "Sayf al-Din Qutuz" on the Egyptian border with roughly that number.. and the moment they reached the Syrian border they camped in Alexandretta. They would never have reached Alexandretta if "Ertuğrul" had defeated them.. unless their horses flew on wings!
Then he tells you, "Fine, forget the Tatars.. he fought the Crusaders and won".. a few months ago I watched episodes of the series about the Crusades.. I watched them with a friend of mine, a doctor of history.. the series episodes are all chatter and nonsense, with very weak content.. propped up by an enormous amount of screaming and blood.. so that it looks like strong content.
In the series they bring us the European "The Knights Templar".. advancing on Anatolia.. with a huge army of tens of thousands.. only to discover that they cannot conquer the world unless they eliminate "Ertuğrul" and his tribe.. the Kai tribe...!
Note that the world at that time consisted of states.. meaning Egypt was a Mamluk state.. India was a Mamluk state.. Tunisia was a state.. Morocco was a state.. Russia was a state.. Iraq was a state.. the Arabian Peninsula was kingdoms.. Europe was states and kingdoms together.. while Anatolia was still "tribes" and clans and families; as if we were in the second Stone Age.. and they themselves admit that.
Anyway, the Crusaders decide to kill the hero "Ertuğrul", him and the seven hundred men with him.. so that they can occupy the world.. so "Ertuğrul" marches out to them with an army of 500 men.. and he stands up to them.. and they cannot set foot on the borders of Anatolia.. so they are forced to resort to trickery.. so they bribe some people.. and "Ertuğrul" is on the battlefield, far from the seat of power.. so that they can stage a coup against him.. but "Ertuğrul" returns at the last moment and saves the remaining 200 men.. from this dastardly coup.
Then "Ertuğrul" decides that "attack is the best form of defence".. so he attacks the fortress of the Knights Templar.. and he swoops down on the fortress with horses, with the handful of men he has.. and he slaughters and tears apart the limbs of thousands of the Crusader Templars - the strongest soldiers to appear in Europe throughout the history of the ancient world.. the ones in the picture - and he burns the fortress.
Well, good people.. the Knights Templar at that time had 4 fortresses close to Anatolia.. that could serve as a centre for the attack.. the first in Lebanese Tripoli.. and the fortress of Tripoli is still standing, neither burned nor demolished.. and the other two are in Cyprus.. and those, I think, it would be hard for "Ertuğrul" to reach, crossing the sea with horses.. and the fourth is in Acre.. and if our brother "Ertuğrul" wanted to reach that one.. he would first have had to destroy the fortress of Tripoli in northern Lebanon! And that did not happen.
So which fortress exactly was it?
Come, let us look at the matter of "Ertuğrul and the Crusader campaigns" through the dates.. and find out how far the media can let falsehood seep into minds and ruin generations.. and manufacture heroes of paper with no basis at all.
The First Crusade was in 1096.. and "Ertuğrul" was born in 1191. Meaning that when it took place he had not yet been born.. and he still had a century and five years ahead of him just to form as a sperm cell in the first place.
The Second Crusade was in 1145 AD. Meaning roughly half a century before the birth of "Ertuğrul".
The Third Crusade had already ended in 1192.. "Ertuğrul" was nine months old!
And the Fourth Crusade was in 1201 AD.. "Ertuğrul" was ten years old...
And the Fifth was in 1213, and it went by sea to Damietta.
And the Sixth was in 1228.. from Sicily by sea, via Cyprus, to Acre.
And the Seventh was in 1249 against Egypt, led by Louis IX, King of France, in the reign of the Ayyubid Sultan al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub.
And the Eighth, in 1270, went by sea to Tunis!
And the Ninth Crusade was in 1271, by sea against the Egyptian city of Alexandria!
Excuse me, which Crusade exactly.. was it that the valiant hero "Ertuğrul" stood up to?
Ah, a lovely series to watch with a falafel sandwich and a glass of strong black tea.. their vapours rise to your brain.. so a state of dullness and stupidity comes over you.. so you forget history and geography and say with an idiotic smile: "Never mind, let it go, we are just having fun".. and you fall asleep in your chair before the episode ends.
But as for the historical facts.. our friend the professor of history, when he watched the episodes with me, started raving and his saliva flowed involuntarily and he began to babble.. and then he started walking in his sleep.. I took him to a third friend, a psychiatrist, to see what was wrong with him.. but the psychiatrist, after two sessions, walked off in his sleep for some unexplained reason.. and we still do not know to this day where he went.
Which Crusade, good people, did "Ertuğrul" stand up to, and which Templars did he slaughter, and which fortress did he burn.. when the German Templars in the Crusade in which they seized Jerusalem set out from Austria.. and camped on the borders of Anatolia on the Bulgarian side.. and celebrated and drank to the point of intoxication and packed up their camp and entered Anatolia blind drunk.. and crossed it from beginning to end in 10 days, which is the normal rate for horses.. and the historians said literally "and they passed through it without any mentionable problems".
Meaning that if "Ertuğrul" had met them and said to them, "Where are you heading, men.. Jerusalem? Well, safe travels.. won't you sit down and drink something?".. they would have been delayed a little and taken ten and a half days.
And that is not even all of the German force that crossed Anatolia.. half of them stayed there looting and plundering and raping.. until the Byzantine Emperor sent a message to the German King "Conrad III".. and told him, "This is shameful and improper, and for my sake, please".
I do not know about the title "Ghazi" that you have attached to the name "Ertuğrul".. does it come from "raids", for instance? Because the man never moved one inch outside Anatolia and never raided anyone.. and when someone was attacking it, as your honours can see.. you have no idea where he was.. so the word can never possibly come from "raid" at all.
Which Crusade did he stand up to.. the campaigns before he was born, or unknown campaigns after he died? And how did the Mongols cross Anatolia while the fearsome warrior "Ertuğrul" was around, and reach Syria? Did they fly through the air?
I hope that by now we have dotted the i's and crossed the t's regarding this hollow Ottoman idol that you are trying to establish.. and that we have stripped it bare and exposed its falsity.. so that we can now begin to talk about the origins of "Ertuğrul" himself.. the man for whom every one of whose sons "Osman I" paid a couple of pennies.. to have a splendid history written for him that would please the listeners.. so you will find about him, precisely, among the historians, "his origins according to the book Dusturname-i Anwari".. "his origins according to the book Bahjat al-Tawarikh".. "according to the book Jami' al-Jami'ayn".. "according to the book Tawarikh Al-i Osman".. and "according to the book Jihannuma".
So you get confused and cannot find his origin.. and when you confront them they tell you, "Well, his origins are unknown, shrouded in mystery"!
So how are you making a historical series about him that is "based on true events", as you claim, brothers, when he is "shrouded in mystery".. and nobody knows who his father is.. and nobody knows where he was when the foreign armies attacked?
But there are references that are not shrouded in mystery, fortunately.. especially the Persian and Chinese references and the Uyghur books.. of those who were settled immigrants in this region.. they recorded its history and passed it on to their children, and it was inherited generation after generation.. until it finally reached us.
And those stories we will talk about later.
And there is more to come.
-----------------
- Previous posts:
1 - http://bit.ly/32Q5W4t
2 - http://bit.ly/2SJESze
3 - http://bit.ly/2YmsINT
#OttomanCaliphate 4