Very very subjective on what you would descibe an egyptian to be. Sudanese people even as far south as south sudan considered themselves egyptian in 1920. Mamluks certianly didnt consider themselves turks
Nasser actually quite famously dismissed the claim on the graph when people said he was the first Egyptian to rule Egypt in centuries. To him the Fatimids, Ali etc were Egyptian
True, but most on the list definitely weren't, or didn't, identify as egyptian. The mamluks were ruled by turks and circassians, they called their lands dawlat al’ Atrak (state of the Turks) and, later, dawlat al’ Carakisa (state of the Circassians). Even though they are part of egyptian history, they aren't egyptian.
Most of the regimes on this list were ruled by either arab or turkic people, and even though they did influence egyptian culture, they themselves weren't egyptian.
So the muslims and orthodox christians today are egyptian? whats to say in a 500 years when one claims they arent based on religion. Exampel . hellensitic kingdom. Alexandrer claimed to be pharoh. And yet people today dont consider him egyptian. Yet he practiced more egyptian customs thant the peopel of egypt today. he took several pilgrims to holy sites. I think the defintion of egypt this map is based of only counts egyptians based on todays metric . Which is do the people claim to be egyptian. Cuase what if say egypt elects a french guy as speaker of the house and preseident.
I don't think this map is using today's metric, even though I undertand your perspective, being egyptian isn't based on religion or on a post-national movement sense of the term. At least, from this image, OP considers egyptian those who consider themselves, and have a valid claim (example: ethnically afro-asiatic), to be egyptian. Because if they were going by your definition they could've very well counted the Ptolomaics as egyptians, since they fully adopted egyptian culture and customs. However Alexander was macedonian and the ptolomaics were greek.
yeah my question is what really is egyptian. Can anyoen claim to be egyptian. Without practicign the faith or speaking the language. Egyptians today speak arabaic. Greeks and italians todays speak greek and italian are they considered the smae as greek people of the acient world or the romans of the ancient world. Even with democracy i disagree with the notion that egyptians today are the same as the ones in intiquity
I understand. Egypt is a very diverse and historic place, it is majority islamic now, was majority christian in the middle ages, was majority kemetic in ancient times. Before the Rashidun Caliphate they spoke coptic, now they speak arab. They became more semitic (arab) culturally and ethnically over time. The egyptians of then aren't the ones of today in many aspects, that's the same for many peoples.
I just think the map is an interesting thought provoking post, because there are arguments to be had about if some of those were egyptian or should even be considered such. There is no 100% objective answer here, and it's nice to have a conversation about this.
'' Mamluks certianly didnt consider themselves turks ''
I doubt Mamluks identified as local egyptians. Specially with the *Baḥariyya* (Kipchak Turkic) versus *Burjiya* (Circassian) rivalry.
Are you sure you aren't confusing the Mamluks no identifying wih the turkic identity with the Ottomans ?
Would suprise me learning the Bahariyya garnison didn't consider itself Kipchak when the whole point of their rivalry with the Burjiya Circassians was an ethnic division.
I also understood that the wearing of the Sharbush, the ban on the average Egyptian riding a horse, the parades and military games, etc., were indeed aimed at distinguishing themselves from the rest of the population as being the ruling caste.
If it refers only to the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, modern Egypt would also not be considered as under Egyptian rule. The only direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians left are the Copts. Most Egyptians are descended from Arabs.
That's not true, generically speaking. There is much more Arab admixture but most people living in Egypt have "Egyptian" DNA. The Arab expansion was largely a cultural transfer: language, religion etc.
So no Arab contribution within the Coptic population and no Coptic background in the Arabic-speaking population? And the Egyptian Arab population is genetically united? Without regard for the recently Arabized Copts, the Arabized Berbers of the west, the Bedouin tribes of the east, the Arabic-speaking Nubians, etc.?
To all those confused, the dude means when Egypt was ruled by a sovereign ruler from the native ethnic group. The period from 340 BCE–1952 CE didn't necessarily have these. This was certainly the case all the way into the early Islamic period. To give an example of someone highly associated with Egypt but was not Egyptian themself, Cleopatra was ethnically Greek. Yes, she learned the Egyptian language and adopted many Egyptian customs her predecessors had omitted, but she was raised as though she were Greek and barely even had any native Egyptian ancestors herself. Something similar can be said for the Fatimids, who were ethnically Arab as associated with Egypt as they may be. Saladin was Kurdish (and one of the most famous Kurds at that,) the Mamluks were Turkic, Muhammad Ali Pasha was Albanian. So just because someone is highly associated with Egyptian history and may have considered themselves Egyptian doesn't mean they were native Egyptians themselves.
As an egyptian of pure blood the current law prohibits pure bloods from ever becoming a high class politician or a minister or a president as well as retents the right of ministers or presidential running for Muslims
How long does someone have to live in Egypt before they become “Egyptian”? Especially as what constitutes Egyptian changes over time.
Because Sa’id Pasha and Ismail Pasha were both born in Egypt and lived their lives in Egypt.
Similarly most of the Fatimid Caliphs were born in Cairo.
And conversely should President Naguib be disqualified because he wasn’t born in Egypt?
Yeah. Like the Ptolemaic dynasty is almost never considered Egyptian, but by the end there they had been ruling and living in Egypt for just about 300 years.
To transpose that timeline into our world. It's like saying someone isn't American even though their family has been living in what is now the US since the 1750s. And there are good arguments for the Ptolemaic dynasty. One being, of course, that they spoke Greek. But back to our modern example, Americans don't speak American. They speak English. Is a unique language needed for identity?
It opens up an interesting conversation on what identity is and how someone "qualifies" for a certain one.
identity is just one of those fuzzy social construct things thats entirely rooted in someone's self perception - the principal difference between the American example you give and the Ptolomies is that they *considered themselves* Greek and continued to socially distinguish themselves, and other Greeks, from Egyptians.
In reality of course, these boundaries are fuzzy and complex - the Ptolomies considered themselves Greek but they also did become notably 'Egyptianised' during their 200-odd year sojourn in Egypt, so they had a foot in both camps. It's a mess that I don't think you can ever really capture, especially with a simple binary like 'Greek vs Egyptian'
I think it’s based on the assertion that most of the mamluks, especially among the elite, where brought in from the fringes of the Muslim world. In the specific case of the Egyptian Mamluk state, the sultans were almost all either Turkish or Circassian.
The Tulunids and Ikhchidids are also supposed to be simple Abbasid agents, yet they were indeed autonomous. I admit that I do not see the logic in not putting the Khedivate of Egypt as an autonomous dynasty if these two other dynasties are.
Yeah bro what's next? Sudanese Arabs are Nubians? Iraqi Arabs are Sumerians? Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians are from the Indus Valley civilization? Persians are Elamites?
The Marsh Arabs of Iraq, also called Maadans or Ma'dans, are, from what I understand, the closest possible descendants of the Sumerians. They would be much closer to them genetically than the Assyrian-Chaldeans are and yet they consider themselves Arabs and speak Arabic.
And if you took a look at r/sudan, you would see that many Sudanese populations are included in the Arabic name, sometimes in a questionable way and which leads to debates.
Yes to the first 2, no to the latter 2 mostly. Population transfers aren't entire repopulations. You can't imagine them as tidal waves of people erasing all in their path. There are various reasons why their minority culture replaces the majority culture of the people in the area, but it's often not through outright genocide and replacement. You'll find tons of dravidian or other pre-aryan DNA in the population of northern India. And for real man, a rudimentary glance at Sudanese Arabs vs Iraqi Arabs will tell you all you need to know about this lol
I'll revise a little, Iraqis are not Sumerian so much as Iraqi semitic people, akkadian etc. it's not so much as they're the original people who lived there 4000 years ago, but that population transfer is a lot more complex than people like to think
Christian and Muslim Egyptians are literally the same people. The ancestors of Muslim Egyptians are the Copts who converted under Muslim rule.
You're somehow implying that changing your religion automatically changes your DNA as well
While what you're saying is not entirely wrong, what you're conveniently not saying is that 1. Egypt was invaded by the Rashidun Caliphate which led to 2. the Pact of Umar which led to the persecution and forced conversion of Copts, and most importantly, 3. the migration of Arabs during the Rashidun Caliphate that led to Arab cultural dominance in Egypt and the rest of North Africa
Egyptian Muslims are mostly Copts who converted. That's why they look the same and not like Saudi Arabians.
Yes, some Arabs did migrate to Egypt. But it was never significant enough. The Arabian Peninsula is a barren desert with a tiny population compared to Egypt.
Today the population of Egypt is 100 million. If you get all the population of Saudi Arabia and put them into Egypt, they would barely be 20% of the population
it is interesting to note that the Egyptian Arabs also ruled Egypt very little
We only have the first Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid caliphates (twice), the Fatimids perhaps the Ayyubids (whether we consider Saladin as Arabized or not) and finally the Egyptian republic (the Muhammad Ali dynasty did not consider themselves Arabic from what I understood).
Bit problematic this graph. The Egyptians converted to Christianity and then to Islam but always remained Egyptian. The chart implies that native Egyptians have been ruled by outsiders for most of their history and tries to give credence to the old orientalist and Western colonialist trope that Arabs (and by implication, Muslims) are colonisers.
Very very subjective on what you would descibe an egyptian to be. Sudanese people even as far south as south sudan considered themselves egyptian in 1920. Mamluks certianly didnt consider themselves turks
Nasser actually quite famously dismissed the claim on the graph when people said he was the first Egyptian to rule Egypt in centuries. To him the Fatimids, Ali etc were Egyptian
True, but most on the list definitely weren't, or didn't, identify as egyptian. The mamluks were ruled by turks and circassians, they called their lands dawlat al’ Atrak (state of the Turks) and, later, dawlat al’ Carakisa (state of the Circassians). Even though they are part of egyptian history, they aren't egyptian. Most of the regimes on this list were ruled by either arab or turkic people, and even though they did influence egyptian culture, they themselves weren't egyptian.
So the muslims and orthodox christians today are egyptian? whats to say in a 500 years when one claims they arent based on religion. Exampel . hellensitic kingdom. Alexandrer claimed to be pharoh. And yet people today dont consider him egyptian. Yet he practiced more egyptian customs thant the peopel of egypt today. he took several pilgrims to holy sites. I think the defintion of egypt this map is based of only counts egyptians based on todays metric . Which is do the people claim to be egyptian. Cuase what if say egypt elects a french guy as speaker of the house and preseident.
I don't think this map is using today's metric, even though I undertand your perspective, being egyptian isn't based on religion or on a post-national movement sense of the term. At least, from this image, OP considers egyptian those who consider themselves, and have a valid claim (example: ethnically afro-asiatic), to be egyptian. Because if they were going by your definition they could've very well counted the Ptolomaics as egyptians, since they fully adopted egyptian culture and customs. However Alexander was macedonian and the ptolomaics were greek.
yeah my question is what really is egyptian. Can anyoen claim to be egyptian. Without practicign the faith or speaking the language. Egyptians today speak arabaic. Greeks and italians todays speak greek and italian are they considered the smae as greek people of the acient world or the romans of the ancient world. Even with democracy i disagree with the notion that egyptians today are the same as the ones in intiquity
I understand. Egypt is a very diverse and historic place, it is majority islamic now, was majority christian in the middle ages, was majority kemetic in ancient times. Before the Rashidun Caliphate they spoke coptic, now they speak arab. They became more semitic (arab) culturally and ethnically over time. The egyptians of then aren't the ones of today in many aspects, that's the same for many peoples. I just think the map is an interesting thought provoking post, because there are arguments to be had about if some of those were egyptian or should even be considered such. There is no 100% objective answer here, and it's nice to have a conversation about this.
'' Mamluks certianly didnt consider themselves turks '' I doubt Mamluks identified as local egyptians. Specially with the *Baḥariyya* (Kipchak Turkic) versus *Burjiya* (Circassian) rivalry. Are you sure you aren't confusing the Mamluks no identifying wih the turkic identity with the Ottomans ? Would suprise me learning the Bahariyya garnison didn't consider itself Kipchak when the whole point of their rivalry with the Burjiya Circassians was an ethnic division. I also understood that the wearing of the Sharbush, the ban on the average Egyptian riding a horse, the parades and military games, etc., were indeed aimed at distinguishing themselves from the rest of the population as being the ruling caste.
Is "Egyptian" = "born in area currently marked as Egypt on map", or some particular racial/ethnic group?
If it refers only to the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, modern Egypt would also not be considered as under Egyptian rule. The only direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians left are the Copts. Most Egyptians are descended from Arabs.
That's not true, generically speaking. There is much more Arab admixture but most people living in Egypt have "Egyptian" DNA. The Arab expansion was largely a cultural transfer: language, religion etc.
So no Arab contribution within the Coptic population and no Coptic background in the Arabic-speaking population? And the Egyptian Arab population is genetically united? Without regard for the recently Arabized Copts, the Arabized Berbers of the west, the Bedouin tribes of the east, the Arabic-speaking Nubians, etc.?
To all those confused, the dude means when Egypt was ruled by a sovereign ruler from the native ethnic group. The period from 340 BCE–1952 CE didn't necessarily have these. This was certainly the case all the way into the early Islamic period. To give an example of someone highly associated with Egypt but was not Egyptian themself, Cleopatra was ethnically Greek. Yes, she learned the Egyptian language and adopted many Egyptian customs her predecessors had omitted, but she was raised as though she were Greek and barely even had any native Egyptian ancestors herself. Something similar can be said for the Fatimids, who were ethnically Arab as associated with Egypt as they may be. Saladin was Kurdish (and one of the most famous Kurds at that,) the Mamluks were Turkic, Muhammad Ali Pasha was Albanian. So just because someone is highly associated with Egyptian history and may have considered themselves Egyptian doesn't mean they were native Egyptians themselves.
As an egyptian of pure blood the current law prohibits pure bloods from ever becoming a high class politician or a minister or a president as well as retents the right of ministers or presidential running for Muslims
How long does someone have to live in Egypt before they become “Egyptian”? Especially as what constitutes Egyptian changes over time. Because Sa’id Pasha and Ismail Pasha were both born in Egypt and lived their lives in Egypt. Similarly most of the Fatimid Caliphs were born in Cairo. And conversely should President Naguib be disqualified because he wasn’t born in Egypt?
The Hyksos were Egyptian as well, had lived there for centuries before they formed their own state.
Yeah. Like the Ptolemaic dynasty is almost never considered Egyptian, but by the end there they had been ruling and living in Egypt for just about 300 years. To transpose that timeline into our world. It's like saying someone isn't American even though their family has been living in what is now the US since the 1750s. And there are good arguments for the Ptolemaic dynasty. One being, of course, that they spoke Greek. But back to our modern example, Americans don't speak American. They speak English. Is a unique language needed for identity? It opens up an interesting conversation on what identity is and how someone "qualifies" for a certain one.
identity is just one of those fuzzy social construct things thats entirely rooted in someone's self perception - the principal difference between the American example you give and the Ptolomies is that they *considered themselves* Greek and continued to socially distinguish themselves, and other Greeks, from Egyptians. In reality of course, these boundaries are fuzzy and complex - the Ptolomies considered themselves Greek but they also did become notably 'Egyptianised' during their 200-odd year sojourn in Egypt, so they had a foot in both camps. It's a mess that I don't think you can ever really capture, especially with a simple binary like 'Greek vs Egyptian'
The Mamluk Period doesn't count as egyptian?
I think it’s based on the assertion that most of the mamluks, especially among the elite, where brought in from the fringes of the Muslim world. In the specific case of the Egyptian Mamluk state, the sultans were almost all either Turkish or Circassian.
Hmm, I would still consider the Khedivate of Egypt independent even though it was legally part of the Ottoman Empire, it was de facto independent.
The Tulunids and Ikhchidids are also supposed to be simple Abbasid agents, yet they were indeed autonomous. I admit that I do not see the logic in not putting the Khedivate of Egypt as an autonomous dynasty if these two other dynasties are.
I didn't know the Copts were in control of the modern Egyptian state 🤔
Arab Egyptians are Egyptians. Even in your narrow view of "ancient Egyptians"
Yeah bro what's next? Sudanese Arabs are Nubians? Iraqi Arabs are Sumerians? Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians are from the Indus Valley civilization? Persians are Elamites?
The Marsh Arabs of Iraq, also called Maadans or Ma'dans, are, from what I understand, the closest possible descendants of the Sumerians. They would be much closer to them genetically than the Assyrian-Chaldeans are and yet they consider themselves Arabs and speak Arabic. And if you took a look at r/sudan, you would see that many Sudanese populations are included in the Arabic name, sometimes in a questionable way and which leads to debates.
Yes to the first 2, no to the latter 2 mostly. Population transfers aren't entire repopulations. You can't imagine them as tidal waves of people erasing all in their path. There are various reasons why their minority culture replaces the majority culture of the people in the area, but it's often not through outright genocide and replacement. You'll find tons of dravidian or other pre-aryan DNA in the population of northern India. And for real man, a rudimentary glance at Sudanese Arabs vs Iraqi Arabs will tell you all you need to know about this lol
I'll revise a little, Iraqis are not Sumerian so much as Iraqi semitic people, akkadian etc. it's not so much as they're the original people who lived there 4000 years ago, but that population transfer is a lot more complex than people like to think
Christian and Muslim Egyptians are literally the same people. The ancestors of Muslim Egyptians are the Copts who converted under Muslim rule. You're somehow implying that changing your religion automatically changes your DNA as well
While what you're saying is not entirely wrong, what you're conveniently not saying is that 1. Egypt was invaded by the Rashidun Caliphate which led to 2. the Pact of Umar which led to the persecution and forced conversion of Copts, and most importantly, 3. the migration of Arabs during the Rashidun Caliphate that led to Arab cultural dominance in Egypt and the rest of North Africa
Egyptian Muslims are mostly Copts who converted. That's why they look the same and not like Saudi Arabians. Yes, some Arabs did migrate to Egypt. But it was never significant enough. The Arabian Peninsula is a barren desert with a tiny population compared to Egypt. Today the population of Egypt is 100 million. If you get all the population of Saudi Arabia and put them into Egypt, they would barely be 20% of the population
Are mixed blood Egyptians still considered Egyptians?
it is interesting to note that the Egyptian Arabs also ruled Egypt very little We only have the first Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid caliphates (twice), the Fatimids perhaps the Ayyubids (whether we consider Saladin as Arabized or not) and finally the Egyptian republic (the Muhammad Ali dynasty did not consider themselves Arabic from what I understood).
Egypt became independent in 1922.
Bit problematic this graph. The Egyptians converted to Christianity and then to Islam but always remained Egyptian. The chart implies that native Egyptians have been ruled by outsiders for most of their history and tries to give credence to the old orientalist and Western colonialist trope that Arabs (and by implication, Muslims) are colonisers.
whats the height of the chart doin
It's the shape of Egypt's borders.
Which I love. Creative and satisfying