What's Ghulam and Ghilman? Tulag Explains

Users who are viewing this thread

Ghulam and Ghilman

Before starting you gotta know these:
Singular: Ghulam
Plural: Ghilman
So you can't say Ghulams or Ghilmans it's grammatically wrong

Official Description: Ghilman (singular Arabic: غُلاَم‎ ghulām, plural غِلْمَان ghilmān) were slave-soldiers and/or mercenaries in the armies throughout the Islamic world, such as the Abbasid, Samanid, Ottoman, Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar empires. Islamic states from the early 9th century to the early 19th century consistently deployed slaves as soldiers, a phenomenon that was very rare outside of the Islamic world.

The use of slave soldiers in the Islamic world stretches back to 625 when African slave soldiers were mentioned serving under Mohammed and the Rashidun Caliphate.
Slavs and Berbers were also used under the Umayyad Caliphs. However it was only in the mid-9th century that this became used on a large scale. Basically, they're slave soldiers taken captive by Muslim Arabs. When Arab Prience Kutayba ibn Muslim invaded Turkish Lands Khorasan, Samarkand and Transoxiana. They took the young boys whose suitable to serve in army and Arab Khilafah Mu'tansir's personal guard. So Ghilman was basically the Varangian Guard of the Arab Caliphate the only difference was they weren't Vikings but consisted mostly Turks but the things got out of control and Ghilman became so powerful they became the King-Makers. So they turned from being "Varangian" to "Praetorian". They killed four Arab Caliphs at the "Anarchy of Samarra" and eventually they became the Caliphs. The Ghilman appointed a Turkic Caliph called Akhmad Tolun with a Turkic Kipchak origin and their descendants kept the title of "Caliph" until 905 AD.
mamluks-slave-warriors-history_18-min.jpg

The Delhi Sultanate also made extensive use of Turkish cavalry ghilman as their core shock troops. The Turkish Seljuks and their successors the Ghurids and the Turkic Khwarazmian dynasty also continued with an army of mainly Turkish slave soldiers. Seljuk regional princes were each placed under the tutelage of slave soldier guardians (atābak) who formed their own dynasties. After a brief interruption under the Mongols, the institution returned under the Qara Qoyunlu and ** Qoyunlu Turkmens. The various Iranian dynasties (Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar)
The most powerful, influential and popular Ghilman are Kutuz and Baibars and had Kipchak Turkic origin. They overthrowed the Abbasids and founded "The Mamluk Sultanate" Mamluk has the same meaning as Ghulam "slave warrior"
250px-Mamluk_Barquq_copper_fals_Damascus_1382_1389.jpg
250px-Mamluk_Kitbugha_copper_fals_1294_1296.jpg

(You can see the similarity between the Mamluk and Aserai sigils)

Why TaleWorlds implemented them?
It makes sense since Ghilman did also mercenary work as much as they served in states as regular troops. But names in troop tree should be fixed since there's a grammatical mistake.

I wrote this for people who hasn't read about Ghilman yet so this is very simplified information to getting start to know about Ghilman.
dhdj0lv7hc051.jpg
 
Last edited:
So Ghilman was basically the Varangian Guard of the Arab Caliphate the only difference was they weren't Vikings but consisted mostly Turks but the things got out of control and Ghilman became so powerful they became the King-Makers. So they turned from being "Varangian" to "Praetorian".

This is a daring statement to say the least.

However, I agree with the argument, and although the term has been used for many centuries, a transversal line can be drawn between the concepts of "slave warrior" Mameluke, ghulam, black guards, janissary, etc.

It is clear that if one wants to draw inspiration from real sources, one has no choice but to investigate those sources in the process of documentation prior to development. So I think it is more a problem of nomenclature, once again. There are quite a few units with totally wrong names in the game (or that should be revised); but in my eyes this is a minor problem right now.
 
So Ghilman was basically the Varangian Guard of the Arab Caliphate the only difference was they weren't Vikings but consisted mostly Turks

Add the fact that the varangians weren't slaves but mercenaries, which I'd say is also a pretty big difference, probably even more so than place of origin....
 
Yes, Varangians weren't slaves but they protected the Emperor and served as his bodyguard. I meant that by "Varangian" not implying that Vikings were war-prisoners.
Well, saying that "the only difference" was their ethnicity implies that everything else about them was the same. That's why I corrected your statement.
 
Well, saying that "the only difference" was their ethnicity implies that everything else about them was the same. That's why I corrected your statement.
I may have mistaken there. I wanted to imply that both organisations were loyal to their monarch. However, Ghilman became treacherous after they became too strong but still, they were loyal when they were first founded. To clear out the things for new-comers, the only difference wasn't only ethnicity; Ghilman consisted of slave soldiers while Varangian consisted of free Viking warriors.
 
Back
Top Bottom