Race and color is political

[Anatolia]

For example, The Turkish slaves of the arabs - Mamluks ended up taking over the entire country and created the mamluk empire.

I can't forsee in a million years black slaves taking over america and being the rulers back then

You're right but a few things might I add. It wasn't just “slave soldiers took over the Islamic world,” but that’s not how it happened. The real story is that the Abbasids became over‑reliant on Turkic military elites, and once your entire empire depends on one warrior class, they eventually become the ones who hold the power.

Under the Abbasids, Turkic mamluks weren’t just random slaves — they were professionally trained cavalry, raised from childhood for discipline, loyalty, and war. They became the backbone of the army because the Abbasid elite spent more time in the palace than on the battlefield. Power in pre‑modern states comes from the army, not from handing out bags of gold.

By the 9th–10th centuries, Turkic commanders were effectively running the military and influencing politics. The caliphs weren’t “overthrown by slaves”; they were sidelined because they had outsourced all real military authority to Turkic officers who actually fought the wars, defended the borders, and controlled the troops.

The same pattern appears later in Egypt. The Mamluk Sultanate wasn’t a random uprising — it was the logical result of decades of rulers depending entirely on Turkic mamluks for warfare. When the army is the only functioning institution, the army becomes the state.

So no, it wasn’t “slaves taking over.”It was rulers who stopped ruling, elites who stopped fighting, and a military class that became indispensable. Once the Turkic mamluks were the only loyal, effective soldiers left, they didn’t need permission to govern — they already held the real power.

History is simple:
Empires are built by armies.
Empires are kept by armies.
And whoever commands the army commands the empire.

That’s why the Abbasids lost control, and why the Mamluks rose ..not because of slavery, but because of military dependence and political complacency.

The same thing happened in the Roman Empire. Late Rome relied heavily on Hunnic, Gothic, and Germanic federates to defend its borders .. often against other Germanic groups. Roman citizens weren’t filling the legions anymore, so the empire depended on foreign mercenaries and tribal allies. Eventually those federates realized they were the ones holding the swords, not the emperors. The Western Roman Empire didn’t fall because of one invasion.. it fell because it outsourced its military to people who had no long‑term loyalty to Roman elites.

And Byzantium repeated the same mistake. They hired Kipchak Turk mercenaries to fight the Seljuks, thinking gold could buy loyalty. But mercenaries fight for whoever offers the better deal. At the Battle of Manzikert and other frontier clashes, Turkic auxiliaries simply switched sides mid‑battle and joined the Seljuks. Once again, an empire that relied on foreign soldiers discovered that you can’t buy loyalty with coin bags.

 

[retaxis]

You're right but a few things might I add. It wasn't just “slave soldiers took over the Islamic world,” but that’s not how it happened. The real story is that the Abbasids became over‑reliant on Turkic military elites, and once your entire empire depends on one warrior class, they eventually become the ones who hold the power.

Under the Abbasids, Turkic mamluks weren’t just random slaves — they were professionally trained cavalry, raised from childhood for discipline, loyalty, and war. They became the backbone of the army because the Abbasid elite spent more time in the palace than on the battlefield. Power in pre‑modern states comes from the army, not from handing out bags of gold.

By the 9th–10th centuries, Turkic commanders were effectively running the military and influencing politics. The caliphs weren’t “overthrown by slaves”; they were sidelined because they had outsourced all real military authority to Turkic officers who actually fought the wars, defended the borders, and controlled the troops.

The same pattern appears later in Egypt. The Mamluk Sultanate wasn’t a random uprising — it was the logical result of decades of rulers depending entirely on Turkic mamluks for warfare. When the army is the only functioning institution, the army becomes the state.

So no, it wasn’t “slaves taking over.”It was rulers who stopped ruling, elites who stopped fighting, and a military class that became indispensable. Once the Turkic mamluks were the only loyal, effective soldiers left, they didn’t need permission to govern — they already held the real power.

History is simple:
Empires are built by armies.
Empires are kept by armies.
And whoever commands the army commands the empire.

That’s why the Abbasids lost control, and why the Mamluks rose ..not because of slavery, but because of military dependence and political complacency.

The same thing happened in the Roman Empire. Late Rome relied heavily on Hunnic, Gothic, and Germanic federates to defend its borders .. often against other Germanic groups. Roman citizens weren’t filling the legions anymore, so the empire depended on foreign mercenaries and tribal allies. Eventually those federates realized they were the ones holding the swords, not the emperors. The Western Roman Empire didn’t fall because of one invasion.. it fell because it outsourced its military to people who had no long‑term loyalty to Roman elites.

And Byzantium repeated the same mistake. They hired Kipchak Turk mercenaries to fight the Seljuks, thinking gold could buy loyalty. But mercenaries fight for whoever offers the better deal. At the Battle of Manzikert and other frontier clashes, Turkic auxiliaries simply switched sides mid‑battle and joined the Seljuks. Once again, an empire that relied on foreign soldiers discovered that you can’t buy loyalty with coin bags.

Yes of course my reasoning was to az country was that many slaves in Islamic and Rome and even China had far more opportunities and were able to rise far above their station of being a doormat slave like in america. Black slaves in america did not have what other slaves around the world had and that is hope and opportunity. Black slaves were always stuck in the worst conditions for life with no options or choices in life.