This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i can't see why this is important and should be in the article, since slavs and saqaliba are therms from the common era to middle ages, when english language did not exist. not even the old english language. maybe slave is a celtic word? or frankish? and through which process slave derived from slav. some etymology link maybe? Edi1kanobi ( talk) 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
from VfD:
The article says it's a term for "Soldiers of fortune from western and eastern Europe", but a Google search turned up nothing. Senori 02:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
To find the definition, Source: "A History of the Arab Peoples" Albert Hourani page 189. Not everything can be found on the internet.
end moved discussion
Reverted. The fact that russians cannot make chinese from japanese does not invalidate the fact that arabs could not make russians from poles. Not to say that this observation is important in the article's context. `' mikka (t) 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahim ibn Yaqub placed the people of "Saqalib" in the mountainous regions of Central Balkans, west of the Bulgarians and east from the "other Slavs" (Croats), thus in the Serb lands. The Saqalib had the reputation of being "the most courageous and violent".[2]
You have forgotten the Slovens men! And Ibrahim ibn Yaqub means surely not just Serb lands. That´s includes also Croat land!-- Zrin22 ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Theophanes mentions that the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I settled a whole army of 5,000 Slavic mercenaries in Syria in the 660s." In 660s arabic muslim Ummayyad caliph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.10.156 ( talk) 22:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This term is cited as not fully explained in the article text, yet surely this is a reference to Carantanians, or derived from the name of the territory known as Carantania - inhabitants of the borderlands of present-day Northern Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in the period of the early Slavic settlement. This population would have been multi-ethnic, consisting not solely of Slavic tribes, but also remnants of the many earlier peoples who 'passed through' this territory during the Late Roman and Migration Periods, e.g. Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, Goths and groups from other Germanic tribes. 'Illyrians' (i.e. Albanians) and Greeks would almost certainly have featured among the slave population: the Arab slavers would have sought their human goods from all along the northern coasts of the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and the Aegean and their many islands. 86.162.246.47 ( talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Te word refers not only to Balkan Slavs but also to other Europeans who were kidnapped by slave traders, or captured in war periods, even from as far north as Iceland. Here is the resource: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/conant/mushin1998. It is very well referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 ( talk) 20:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. “Sakaliba“ doesn't mean slavs. Saqaliba is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“. From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.) The Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves). 178.48.177.1 ( talk) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
When did this practice occur? During certain dynasties or throughout the period of the whole Ottoman Empire? Was it done by Arab countries outside of the Empire? Right now, while descriptive, there is no historical context that even provides a century when this practice occurred. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
rv'd edit containing the following:
No source listed, no Google hits. Needs a source. - Senori ( talk) 22:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Here are some sources Senori: “Sakaliba“ is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“ From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.) The Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan (who visited Almysh) as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves). 178.48.177.1 ( talk) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The Arabic word Saqaliba did not mean "slave." This word referred to the inhabitants of eastern Europe (wither they were Slavic, Turkic, Uralic, etc.). The Volga Bulghar king was called by Ibn Fadlan "King of the Saqaliba." He obviously did not mean "King of the slaves." The slavery tag on this article is misleading and should be removed.-- HD86 ( talk) 16:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
“Sakaliba“ is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“ From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.
About what HD86 says: the Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves).
178.48.177.1 (
talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It ts deemed that the Saqaliba were mostly Poles and Serbs. The geographical descriptions perfectly fit to the territories of East-Central Europe and South-Eastern Europe. 192.162.150.105 ( talk) 11:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i can't see why this is important and should be in the article, since slavs and saqaliba are therms from the common era to middle ages, when english language did not exist. not even the old english language. maybe slave is a celtic word? or frankish? and through which process slave derived from slav. some etymology link maybe? Edi1kanobi ( talk) 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
from VfD:
The article says it's a term for "Soldiers of fortune from western and eastern Europe", but a Google search turned up nothing. Senori 02:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
To find the definition, Source: "A History of the Arab Peoples" Albert Hourani page 189. Not everything can be found on the internet.
end moved discussion
Reverted. The fact that russians cannot make chinese from japanese does not invalidate the fact that arabs could not make russians from poles. Not to say that this observation is important in the article's context. `' mikka (t) 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahim ibn Yaqub placed the people of "Saqalib" in the mountainous regions of Central Balkans, west of the Bulgarians and east from the "other Slavs" (Croats), thus in the Serb lands. The Saqalib had the reputation of being "the most courageous and violent".[2]
You have forgotten the Slovens men! And Ibrahim ibn Yaqub means surely not just Serb lands. That´s includes also Croat land!-- Zrin22 ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Theophanes mentions that the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I settled a whole army of 5,000 Slavic mercenaries in Syria in the 660s." In 660s arabic muslim Ummayyad caliph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.10.156 ( talk) 22:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This term is cited as not fully explained in the article text, yet surely this is a reference to Carantanians, or derived from the name of the territory known as Carantania - inhabitants of the borderlands of present-day Northern Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in the period of the early Slavic settlement. This population would have been multi-ethnic, consisting not solely of Slavic tribes, but also remnants of the many earlier peoples who 'passed through' this territory during the Late Roman and Migration Periods, e.g. Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, Goths and groups from other Germanic tribes. 'Illyrians' (i.e. Albanians) and Greeks would almost certainly have featured among the slave population: the Arab slavers would have sought their human goods from all along the northern coasts of the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and the Aegean and their many islands. 86.162.246.47 ( talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Te word refers not only to Balkan Slavs but also to other Europeans who were kidnapped by slave traders, or captured in war periods, even from as far north as Iceland. Here is the resource: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/conant/mushin1998. It is very well referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 ( talk) 20:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. “Sakaliba“ doesn't mean slavs. Saqaliba is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“. From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.) The Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves). 178.48.177.1 ( talk) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
When did this practice occur? During certain dynasties or throughout the period of the whole Ottoman Empire? Was it done by Arab countries outside of the Empire? Right now, while descriptive, there is no historical context that even provides a century when this practice occurred. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
rv'd edit containing the following:
No source listed, no Google hits. Needs a source. - Senori ( talk) 22:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Here are some sources Senori: “Sakaliba“ is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“ From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.) The Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan (who visited Almysh) as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves). 178.48.177.1 ( talk) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The Arabic word Saqaliba did not mean "slave." This word referred to the inhabitants of eastern Europe (wither they were Slavic, Turkic, Uralic, etc.). The Volga Bulghar king was called by Ibn Fadlan "King of the Saqaliba." He obviously did not mean "King of the slaves." The slavery tag on this article is misleading and should be removed.-- HD86 ( talk) 16:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
“Sakaliba“ is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“ From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.
About what HD86 says: the Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves).
178.48.177.1 (
talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It ts deemed that the Saqaliba were mostly Poles and Serbs. The geographical descriptions perfectly fit to the territories of East-Central Europe and South-Eastern Europe. 192.162.150.105 ( talk) 11:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)