A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

Rivkin · 30th July 2005, 06:49 AM

[QUOTE=ham]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Respectfully Rivkin, I doubt very much whether that is what Aqtai meant; it is patently untrue. Mamluks regularly took Arabic names from the time they were brought to Baghdad under the Abbasid sultans in the bloody ninth century, to say nothing of the fact that literally every Egyptian Mamluk Sultan had an Arabic name as well. And as far as giving a Mamluk an Arabic name in order to Ottomanize him...? You'll have to explain that one.

Not pretending to be a specialist, and being too lazy to go to the library and pick up the book:

Concerning the names, I can't say I remeber "literally every" Sultan, but from the names I remember : Baybars, Qutuz, Qautbay, Barsbay, Tumanbay, Qalawun, Yilbay, Temur-Buga, semi-sultan Khairbek do not sound to me anything like arabic names. Is Inal an arabic name ? I'm sure they had long, arabic titles and aliases, al-rachman, al-malek, al-dawla something (did they Abdallah to signify their way to Islam ?) and that's may be even the way ulema called them, here I'm at complete ignorance, but I don't remember, may be to my shame, any sultan who would have an explicitly arabic name.
As far as I remember the point was specifically that even Circassians (and their names are very unturkish) always took a turkish (atrak) name when becoming a mamluk. Btw it's a surprise for me that you say they used ottoman, I always thought they used more "classical" turkish.

P.S. may be I was not exactly correct in phrasing my statement - not that they could not have arabic names, titles and aliases, but one of the main symbols of being mamluk was being given a turkish name during the process.

P.P.S. After writing this I went through my books and indeed found Muhammed ibn-Qalawun. No turkish name, only arabic. Interesting, did he go through a traditional mamluk education ?

Aqtai · 30th July 2005, 11:15 AM

Rivkin, that is exactly what I meant

.

Mamluks during the Mamluk period used Turkish names like Baybars, Qalawun, Khushqadam, Qaitbay and Tumanbay. As Rivkin said this even carried on after mamluks were no longer Turkish and recruited from the Caucasus. I assume it was some kind of tradition. Indeed mamluks actually spoke the Qipchaq dialect, for example Sultan Qansuh El-Ghuri, who was of Circassian erigin, commissioned a Turkish translation of the Shah-nameh so that other mamluks could understand it! BTW this Mamluk shahnameh remains a useful source of information on the appearence of mamluks. During the Ottoman period, as Rivkin pointed out, the mamluks started using Arabic names.

With regards to Muhammad ibn Qalawun, the children of mamluks who were born and brought up in Egypt always had Arabic names and were excluded from military careers, although they may have been allowed to join the halaqa in the early Mamluk period. Yusef Ibn Taghri-birdi and Mohammed Ibn Ahmed Ibn Iyas were sons and grandsons of mamluks. However children of mamluks were entitled to a state pension, which is probably why these two had the time to become historians, they also had access to many mamluk emirs and even the sultan himself. AFAIK the only two mamluk sultans of mamluk origin, not the sons of a previous sultan, who didn't have Turkish names I can think of are Sultan Barquq (which means plum) and Sultan Al-Mu'ayyad Sheikh.

Ham, thanks for letting me know about the research carried out on Mamluk and Ottoman armour. Is any of it being published in English or available to the public?

Rivkin · 30th July 2005, 05:01 PM

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

Aqtai · 30th July 2005, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

Hi Rivkin, I have never heard this story about Circassian mamluks being buried in trees, from what I know of the mamluks and the Mamluk sultanate, I think it would be highly unlikely. For all their frequent lapses (such as murdering each other, drinking wine and qumiz, love of fine clothing and over-taxing the native peoples of their kingdom

) the mamluks were pretty orthodox and overall quite sincere Muslims. Those kind of pagan practices would simply not have been tolerated. I don't know were the ordinary mamluks were buried, but certainly Cairo is littered with the splendid tombs of emirs and sultans, many of which I have visited. I assume the tombs of ordinary mamluks would have ressembled those of their contemporary middle-class Egyptians. In fact there is a lot we don't know about mamluks.

I'm not sure what you mean by pre-Mamluk era? certainly until the reign of the penultimate Ayyubid Sultan Es-Salih Ayyub, Mamluks would have been a tiny elite minority in an army made up largely of free-born Turks, Kurds and the occasional Arab tribesman. Even during Ayyub's reign the Bahri mamluks would probably only have numbered a couple of thousand at most. What distinguished Ayyub is he promoted his mamluks over the heads of free-born emirs. Indeed by the time he died all the emirs seem to have been of Mamluk origin. What also distinguished the Bahris is that they were nearly all of Qipchaq Turkish origin and were extremely loyal to each other as well as their sultan, whereas previously mamluks came from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds and included Turks, Armenians and Slavs. With regards to Armour and weapon virtually nothing survives which can be positively identified as Ayyubid or early Mamluk. As far as I know the earliest swords and helmets, apart from the sword of Ayyub, date to the late 13th and early 14th century.

This picture of a helmet and aventail comes from an Arabic translation of L. A. Mayer's "Mamluk Costume", A book I would love to own but which is terrifyingly expensive. The helmet is early 14th century and is attributed to Sultan Muhammad ibn Qalawun. If that mail is genuine (which I doubt), then it is the earliest piece of Mamluk mail I know of. These 2 pieces were in the Porte de Hal museum in Brussels.

I've not heard of Rustam's autobiography, what is it?

Rivkin · 30th July 2005, 08:59 PM

I was also puzzled by this tree story. I'll try to get my hands on the book and see if he provides any references.

Rustam's memoirs unfortunately have not been translated into english (to my knowladge), it's an autobiography by Napoleon's mamluk bodyguard. While it's relatively short it was extremely educating for me, for it's may be the only autobiography of this kind I know about. There is a french version:

Roustam Raza
"Souvenirs de Roustam, mamelouck de Napoléon", 1er.
Introduction et notes de Paul Cottin. Préface de Frédéric Masson (Paris, 1911) 302p.

Here is Napoleon with Roustam in the background:
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/nap...g/8NIII058.jpg

Aqtai · 30th July 2005, 09:31 PM

That would be an interesting book to read. I think in terms of material culture however early 19th century mamluks would have been more influenced by Ottoman culture than 13th-16th century Mamluke sultanate culture. Certainly the costumes worn by the mamluks of this period were Ottoman.

I'll see if I can get hold of it. My French is bit rusty now, but hopefully i should still be able to read a book

.

BTW what language were the mamluks speaking among themselves in Rustam's time? Were they still speaking Qipchaq?

Rivkin · 31st July 2005, 04:03 AM

Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan.

Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive:

a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars.
b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day.
c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks.
d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate.

Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

B.I · 31st July 2005, 11:51 AM

what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail??

i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined.
i know jens is on a road trip but jim??

aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.

30th July 2005, 11:15 AM	#2
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Rivkin, that is exactly what I meant. Mamluks during the Mamluk period used Turkish names like Baybars, Qalawun, Khushqadam, Qaitbay and Tumanbay. As Rivkin said this even carried on after mamluks were no longer Turkish and recruited from the Caucasus. I assume it was some kind of tradition. Indeed mamluks actually spoke the Qipchaq dialect, for example Sultan Qansuh El-Ghuri, who was of Circassian erigin, commissioned a Turkish translation of the Shah-nameh so that other mamluks could understand it! BTW this Mamluk shahnameh remains a useful source of information on the appearence of mamluks. During the Ottoman period, as Rivkin pointed out, the mamluks started using Arabic names. With regards to Muhammad ibn Qalawun, the children of mamluks who were born and brought up in Egypt always had Arabic names and were excluded from military careers, although they may have been allowed to join the halaqa in the early Mamluk period. Yusef Ibn Taghri-birdi and Mohammed Ibn Ahmed Ibn Iyas were sons and grandsons of mamluks. However children of mamluks were entitled to a state pension, which is probably why these two had the time to become historians, they also had access to many mamluk emirs and even the sultan himself. AFAIK the only two mamluk sultans of mamluk origin, not the sons of a previous sultan, who didn't have Turkish names I can think of are Sultan Barquq (which means plum) and Sultan Al-Mu'ayyad Sheikh. Ham, thanks for letting me know about the research carried out on Mamluk and Ottoman armour. Is any of it being published in English or available to the public? Last edited by Aqtai; 30th July 2005 at 11:30 AM.

30th July 2005, 05:01 PM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Thank you Aqtai ! btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate: 1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these. It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it. Did someone see something on this issue ? 2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ? Sincerely yours, K.Rivkin

30th July 2005, 08:59 PM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I was also puzzled by this tree story. I'll try to get my hands on the book and see if he provides any references. Rustam's memoirs unfortunately have not been translated into english (to my knowladge), it's an autobiography by Napoleon's mamluk bodyguard. While it's relatively short it was extremely educating for me, for it's may be the only autobiography of this kind I know about. There is a french version: Roustam Raza "Souvenirs de Roustam, mamelouck de Napoléon", 1er. Introduction et notes de Paul Cottin. Préface de Frédéric Masson (Paris, 1911) 302p. Here is Napoleon with Roustam in the background: http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/nap...g/8NIII058.jpg

30th July 2005, 09:31 PM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	That would be an interesting book to read. I think in terms of material culture however early 19th century mamluks would have been more influenced by Ottoman culture than 13th-16th century Mamluke sultanate culture. Certainly the costumes worn by the mamluks of this period were Ottoman. I'll see if I can get hold of it. My French is bit rusty now, but hopefully i should still be able to read a book . BTW what language were the mamluks speaking among themselves in Rustam's time? Were they still speaking Qipchaq?

31st July 2005, 04:03 AM	#7
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan. Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive: a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars. b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day. c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks. d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate. Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

31st July 2005, 11:51 AM	#8
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail?? i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined. i know jens is on a road trip but jim?? aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.