Origins of the Mamluk Sultanate
Discuss about the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt and Syria.
The military slavery institution in the Muslim world could be traced back from the 9th century when the Abbasid Caliphate of the Middle East began disintegrating, when a huge number of autonomous dynasties started establishing themselves in Samarra and Baghdad. To buttress their illegal rule, the rulers began to recruit the Turkish slave corps by their own.
The slave status or the Mamluks was not something that can be considered as derogatory in this regard. The Mamluk sultanate was established in the year 1250 after the end of the famous Ayyubid dynasty and the solidifying control of Syria and Egypt (Sabra 2013). They were the Turkic slave soldiers. They were the first Muslim armies of Baghdad in the 19th century’s Abbasid Caliphs and there quickly spread all over the Muslim world. Their rules and society were greatly non-hereditary and they were presumably implemented for reducing the factionalism but in reality, they enhanced the same as the death of every sultan brought on various questions of legitimacy and succession. The Mamluk sultans were chosen from the caste of warrior slaves (Dekkiche 2017). They served Ayyubid sultans from 12th century and they slowly grew very powerful in order to summon the actuality of the other rulers, who were then in fact their masters. Mamluks were at the mercy of their commanders. Aybak was the first Mamluk who actually ruled and he influenced the mother of the last Ayybid sultan in order to marry him. He served the Abbasids caliphs in the 9th century of Baghdad. The Abbasids caliphs recruited the primarily from the Turkic non-Islamic captured in the northern areas of the Black Sea. They were often sold for slavery for slavery by the ruin steppe families or they were kidnapped by the slave traders of that time.
Mamluks were later converted into Islam and then they were being trained as the cavalry soldiers (Laband 2017). They lived together within their corps. Their mode of entertainment included presentations of their combat skills and archery competitions. The Mamluks were no longer regarded as slaves after they were converted into Islam but they were still very obliged to serve the Sultans.
The Mamluks has their dynasty spread in India too. In the year 1206, commander of the Mamluk forces, Qutb-ud-din Aybak had declared himself as a sultan and he was the first Sultan-e-hind (independent). Their dynasty in India lasted to the year 1290 (Nicolle 2014). However, the Mamluk Sultanate origin of the Egypt lies in the Ayyubid Dynastry that Salah al-Din had developed in the year 1174. By 1189, he had strengthened his Kurdish family’ power and control over Middle East. After the death of Saladin, all his sons went into arguing over the distribution of that empire and each of them strived to enclose themselves with bigger expanded escorts of Mamluk. By the year 1200, brother of Saladin, Al-Adil was prospered in securing his control over the entire empire by killing and defeating his rest of the brothers and his nephews in return. With every success, Al-Adil was incorporating the defeated retinues of the Mamluks into his own. The same process was restated at the death of Al-Adil in the year 1218 and at Al-Kamil’s (son of Al-Adil) death in the year 1238. Ayyubids became locale by the control and power of the Mamluks and later he engaged them in the then existing inner court politics that was prevailing in the kingdom.
The Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt
In 1258, the Mongol troops, led by Hulegu Khan had sacked the Baghdad and took over the Damascas (Emiralioglu 2016). At that time, many people escaped from Damascus and one of those people included the Mamluk general named Baibars. During that time, Baibars fled way to Cairo. After a year or two, Baibars returned back and assassinated Qutuz, who tricked the Mongolian army into the snare near the river Orontes and scattered them in the famous battle of Ain Jalut. Baibars, by assassinating Qutuz, seized the power. At those time, the power was transferring in the same way several times and the mean reign of the Mamluk ruler was nearly seven years only. Mongols was once again defeated by the Mamluks in the year 1260 in Homs, Syria. Mamluks started driving them back to the East. They also defeated the crusader states in Holy land.
For near about 250 years, Egypt and Syria were under the rule of the Mamluk sultans who were supported by the class of warrior slaves. They took the benefit of their power in order to become the main landholders of Egypt. They were mainly divided into two primary dynasties- the Bahris and the Burjis. The Bahris were chiefly the Mongols and Turks, who ruled from 1250 to 1382, while the Burjis were chiefly Circassians, who ruled from 1382 to 1517. The sultans of Bahri dynasty were selected from chief families but at the time of Burji, there was a negligible respect for the genetic principles in the selection procedures of the rulers. By the end of the 14th century, majority of the Mamluks were made up of the Circassians based on the North Caucasus region. In the year 1382, the Burji dynasty took over the power when Barquq was proclaimed as the Sultan. Barquq was the enemy of Timur Lenk, the Turkic conqueror who threatened him to invade Syria. None of the two dynasties was able to perform more than their finite power over the stormy Mamluk soldiers. One of the most powerful Mamluk rulers was Baybars. He, along with al-Malik an-Nasir of 1293 to 1341 were two among the most outstanding Mamluk sultans. Baybars ruled for about 17 years (from 1260 to 1277) (Syria 2015). He defeated the Mongols at the Ain Jalut, Syria in the year 1260 and it was the first significant problem the Mamluk dynasty had received. He had also established a relative of last Abbasid caliph of the Baghdad as one of the Mamluk puppet caliph in Cairo. However, the rule of al-Nasir, i.e., from the year 1293 to 1340, interrupted various times in between the whole process and was one of the luxuries and ostentations, which had helped to eroded the Bahris (Flinterman and Van Steenbergen 2015). On the other hand, the Burji period was one of the periods of treachery and bloodshed. It was marked by the war in against of Timur Lenk, and the overpowering of the island of Cyprus. After the death of al-Malik, the stability and strength of their realm got weakened. The increase importance that was assigned to the ethnic affiliation was the only cause of its decline. However, the economic factor is also an equally important cause for its declination. The losses in the demographic factor that was caused by the rage of plagues in Egypt and in the other part of East had also contributed to the economic decay of the reign. In such situation, Mamluks failed to defend the Syria from Timur in the year 1400.
The Bahri and Burji Dynasties
Under the reign of Barsbay, the internal stability of the Mamluks was briefly restored and the Mamluk glory rescued by the Cyprus conquest in the year 1426. However, the increase in the demands for higher taxes to finance has enlarged the financial difficulties of Mamluks.
In order to maintain their position the Muslim world, Mamluks revitalized the caliphate that the Mongol dynasty had destroyed in the year 1258 and they installed a caliph in Cairo under their surveillance (Hassan 2017). Magnificent success in the war and the diplomacy were held up economically by the support of crafts and industries of the Mamluks and with the same, by their refurbishment of the Egypt as the main trading route in between the Mediterranean and the Orient.
Towards the end of 15th century , the Mamluks engaged in a major war with Ottoman Turks who then captured the Cairo in the year 1517 (Coureas 2015). Mamluks took the side of the cavalry and the personal combats along with shield and swords. The Ottomans were far better than the Mamluks in terms of power and rule. They were in no match with the Ottomans, who used to make use of the artilleries and their slave infantry (Janissaries) very skillfully in order to defeat the Mamluks sultans. Selim I was one of the Ottoman rulers who had ended the Mamluk sultanate and they developed a small Ottoman garrison in Egypt. However, the Ottoman did not completely demolish the Mamluks (Van Steenbergen, Wing and D’hulster 2016). The Mamluk governors remained in his control of his assigned provinces, they were permitted to keep the private armies as well and the Ottamans kept the Mamluk and as they were earlier.Towards the end of the seventeenth century,when the power of the Ottomans was in the process on decline, the Mamluk power once again hold the virtual control over the Egyptian and the Syrian armies, the revenues and the country government. Slowly, the Istanbul was decreased to recognizing the autonomy of the Mamluk’s faction that could guarantee the yearly payment of different sums to the Ottomans. It was the time when Napolean invaded the Egypt, i.e., in the year 1798 and he confronted the Mamluk state and its armies. The power of the Mamluks was finally destroyed then in a massacre of 1811 by the new ruler of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha (Cleveland and Bunton 2016).
The Mamluk period is widely known mainly for its achievements and architecture in the historical writings and in the architecture (Weber 2017). It is also known for an unsuccessful attempt in the socio-religious reforms. The Mamluk historians were the prolific biographers and efficient chronicles. As the builders of the religious edifices such as schools, mosques, tombs and monasteries, the Mamluks funded Cairo with some of their impressive monuments and most of them are still standing erect, for example, the Mamluk tomb-mosques, whose massiveness is still offset by the geometrical carving on it. By far, one of the most popular single religious figures of the Mamluk period was Ibn Taymiyah. Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned by the Mamluk authorities due to his attempts to save the Mamluk Islam of foreign accretions and superstition.
In simplest terms, politics is the main struggle for the power and in this sense, Mamluk Sultanate was a Hobbesian world in true meaning in which the cost of defeat was regarded as equal as the loss of life itself. The politics of Mamluk sultanate was very rational and serious. The period of Mamluk sultans was regarded as the period that constitutes a fundamental problem for the Egyptian thinkers. However, in the modern Egypt and Syria, the Mamluks symbolizes both the power and the decline.
References
Cleveland, William L., and Martin Bunton. A history of the modern Middle East. Hachette UK, 2016.
Coureas, Nicholas. “LATIN CYPRUS AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE MAMLUK SULTANATE, 1250–1517.” The Crusader World (2015): 391.
Dekkiche, Malika. “Keeping the peace in Premodern Islam: theory and practice of diplomacy under the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).” (2017).
Emiralio?lu, P?nar. “Islam and empire.” The Encyclopedia of Empire (2016).
Flinterman, Willem, and Jo Van Steenbergen. “Al-Nasir Muhammad and the Formation of the Qalawunid State.” Pearls on a String: Art in the Age of Great Islamic Empires(2015): 87-113.
Hassan, Mona. Longing for the lost caliphate: A transregional history. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Laband, John. “The Slave Soldiers of Africa.” Journal of Military History 81, no. 1 (2017).
Nicolle, David. Mamluk ‘Askari 1250–1517. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
Sabra, Adam. Poverty and charity in medieval Islam: Mamluk Egypt, 1250-1517. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
SYRIA, IN. “At the battle of Man??ra in the Nile Delta on February 8, 1250, the Ayy?bid army was caught completely off guard by a surprise crusader attack under the general command of King Louis IX of France, coming after a standoff of several weeks across a large channel of water. The sultan, al-Malik al-??li? Ayy?b, had recently died (November 22, 1249), and the commander of his army, Fakhr al-D?n ibn Shaykh al-Shuy?kh, was cut down before he could organize resistance. Frankish knights broke through the Muslim ….” The Crusader World (2015): 324.
Van Steenbergen, Jo, Patrick Wing, and Kristof D’hulster. “The Mamlukization of the Mamluk Sultanate? State Formation and the History of Fifteenth Century Egypt and Syria: Part I—Old Problems and New Trends.” History Compass 14, no. 11 (2016): 549-559.
Weber, Martin. “Two (?) Lion Reliefs from Iron Age Moab: Further Evidence for an Architectural and Intellectual Koiné in the Levant?.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 377 (2017).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
