Hubbry Logo
MamlukMamlukMain
Open search
Mamluk
Community hub
Mamluk
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mamluk
Mamluk
Mamluk
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mamluks
مماليك
Ottoman Mamluk lancers, early 16th century. Etching by Daniel Hopfer (c. 1526–1536), British Museum, London[1]
Active830s–1811
CountryAbbasid Caliphate
Fatimid Caliphate
Seljuk Empire
Ayyubid Sultanate
Mamluk Sultanate
Delhi Sultanate
Ottoman Empire
TypeEnslaved mercenaries,
slave-soldiers,
freed slaves

Mamluk or Mamaluk (/ˈmæmluːk/; Arabic: مملوك, romanized: mamlūk (singular), مماليك, mamālīk (plural);[2] translated as "one who is owned",[5] meaning "slave")[7] were non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Mongols[8], Eastern and Southeastern European) enslaved mercenaries, slave-soldiers, and freed slaves who were assigned high-ranking military and administrative duties in the Muslim world.[11]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in medieval Egypt, which developed from the ranks of slave-soldiers.[12] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origins from the Eurasian Steppe,[15] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[17] Mongols[8], Abkhazians,[18][19][20] Georgians,[24] Armenians,[26] Russians,[10] and Hungarians,[8] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[8][27] Greeks,[8] and South Slavs[29] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[13] The "Mamluk/­Ghulam Phe­nom­enon",[9] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[30] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the 9th century to the early 19th. (See: Ghilman.)

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by dynastic Arab rulers.[31] Particularly in Egypt and Syria,[32] but also in the Ottoman Empire, Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power.[8] In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys.[13] Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[33] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. With the capture of Ruad in 1302, the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[8][34]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[35] they were enslaved mercenaries[37] and their status was above that of ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks.[38] In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali, Mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above that of the general population in the Middle East.[8]

Overview

[edit]
Mail and plate armour with full horse armor of an Ottoman Mamluk horseman (circa 1550), Musée de l'Armée, Paris
A Muslim Greek Mamluk portrayed by Louis Dupré (oil on canvas, 1825)
A Mamluk nobleman from Aleppo (Ottoman Syria, 19th century)

Daniel Pipes argued that the first indication of the Mamluk military class was rooted in the practice of early Muslims such as Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and Uthman ibn Affan who, before Islam, owned many slaves and practiced Mawla (Islamic manumission of slaves).[39] The Zubayrids army under Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, son of Zubayr, used these freed slave retainers during the second civil war.[39]

Meanwhile, historians agree that the massive implementation of a slave military class such as the Mamluks appears to have developed in Islamic societies beginning with the 9th-century Abbasid Caliphate based in Baghdad, under the Abbasid caliph al-Muʿtaṣim.[6] Until the 1990s, it was widely believed that the earliest Mamluks were known as Ghilman or Ghulam[9] (another broadly synonymous term for slaves)[Note 1] and were bought by the Abbasid caliphs, especially al-Muʿtaṣim (833–842).

By the end of the 9th century, such slave warriors had become the dominant element in the military. Conflict between the Ghilman and the population of Baghdad prompted the caliph al-Muʿtaṣim to move his capital to the city of Samarra, but this did not succeed in calming tensions. The caliph al-Mutawakkil was assassinated by some of these slave soldiers in 861 (see Anarchy at Samarra).[40]

Since the early 21st century, historians have suggested that there was a distinction between the Mamluk system and the (earlier) Ghilman system, in Samarra, which did not have specialized training and was based on pre-existing Central Asian hierarchies. Adult slaves and freemen both served as warriors in the Ghilman system. The Mamluk system developed later, after the return of the caliphate to Baghdad in the 870s. It included the systematic training of young slaves in military and martial skills.[41] The Mamluk system is considered to have been a small-scale experiment of al-Muwaffaq, to combine the slaves' efficiency as warriors with improved reliability. This recent interpretation seems to have been accepted.[42]

After the fragmentation of the Abbasid Empire, military slaves, known as either Mamluks or Ghilman, were used throughout the Islamic world as the basis of military power. The Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171) of Egypt had forcibly taken adolescent male Armenians, Turks, Sudanese, and Copts from their families to be trained as slave soldiers. They formed the bulk of their military, and the rulers selected prized slaves to serve in their administration.[25] The powerful vizier Badr al-Jamali, for example, was a Mamluk from Armenia. In Iran and Iraq, the Buyid dynasty used Turkic slaves throughout their empire. The rebel al-Basasiri was a Mamluk who eventually ushered in Seljuq dynastic rule in Baghdad after attempting a failed rebellion. When the later Abbasids regained military control over Iraq, they also relied on the Ghilman as their warriors.[43]

Under Saladin and the Ayyubids of Egypt, the power of the Mamluks increased, and they claimed the sultanate in 1250, ruling as the Mamluk Sultanate.[13] Throughout the Islamic world, rulers continued to use enslaved warriors until the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire's devşirme, or "gathering" of young slaves for the Janissaries, lasted until the 17th century. Regimes based on Mamluk power thrived in such Ottoman provinces as the Levant and Egypt until the 19th century.

Organization

[edit]
An Egyptian Mamluk warrior in full armor and armed with lance, shield, Mameluke sword, yatagan and pistols.

Under the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo, Mamluks were purchased while still young males. They were raised in the barracks of the Citadel of Cairo. Because of their isolated social status (no social ties or political affiliations) and their austere military training, they were trusted to be loyal to their rulers.[36] When their training was completed, they were discharged, but remained attached to the patron who had purchased them. Mamluks relied on the help of their patron for career advancement, and likewise, the patron's reputation and power depended on his recruits. A Mamluk was "bound by a strong esprit de corps to his peers in the same household".[36]

Adult Mamluks were not slaves, but former slaves. The Mamluks were sons of kafir (non-Muslim) parents from Dar al-harb (non-Muslim lands); they were bought on the slave market as children, converted to Islam and brought up in military barracks where they were raised to become Muslim soldiers, during which they were raised, as slave children without families, to view the sultan as their father and the other mamluks as their brothers.[44] Their education was finished by the kharj ceremony, during which they were manumitted and given a position in either the courtly administration or the army, and were free to begin a career as a free ex-slave Mamluk.[45] Mamluk slave soldiers were preferred to freeborn soldiers because they were raised to view the army and their sultan-ruler as their family and thus seen as more loyal than a freeborn soldier who would have a biological family to whom they would have their first loyalty.[46]

Mamluks lived within their garrisons and mainly spent their time with each other. Their entertainments included sporting events such as archery competitions and presentations of mounted combat skills at least once a week. The intensive and rigorous training of each new recruit helped ensure continuity of Mamluk practices.[13]

Sultans owned the largest number of mamluks, but lesser amirs also owned their own troops. Many Mamluks were appointed or promoted to high positions throughout the empire, including army command.[13] At first their status was non-hereditary. Sons of Mamluks were prevented from following their father's role in life. However, over time, in places such as Egypt, the Mamluk forces became linked to existing power structures and gained significant amounts of influence on those powers.[13]

Relations with homelands and families

[edit]

In Egypt, studies have shown that mamluks from Georgia retained their native language, were aware of the politics of the Caucasus region, and received frequent visits from their parents or other relatives. In addition, they sent gifts to family members or gave money to build useful structures (a defensive tower, or even a church) in their native villages.[47]

Egypt

[edit]
Main article: Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)

Early origins in Egypt

[edit]
See also: Balkan slave trade
The battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, 1299. depicting Mongol archers and Mamluk cavalry; 14th-century illustration from a manuscript of the History of the Tatars.
Mosque-Madrassa of Sultan Hassan (left) along with the later Al-Rifa'i Mosque (right) and two Ottoman mosques (foreground) in Cairo

The practice of recruiting slaves as soldiers in the Muslim world and turning them into Mamluks began in Baghdad during the 9th century CE,[4] and was started by the Abbasid caliph al-Muʿtaṣim.[6]

From the 900s through the 1200s, medieval Egypt was controlled by dynastic foreign rulers, notably the Ikhshidids, Fatimids, and Ayyubids. Throughout these dynasties, thousands of Mamluk slave-soldiers and guards continued to be used and even took high offices.[3] This increasing level of influence among the Mamluks worried the Ayyubids in particular. Eventually, a Mamluk rose to become Sultan of Egypt.[6][13][48] The Mamluks in medieval Egypt were predominantly of Turkic and Circassian origins,[3][13] and most of them descended from enslaved Christians.[13] After they were taken from their families, they became renegades.[13] Because Egyptian Mamluks were enslaved Christians, Muslim rulers and clerics did not believe they were true believers of Islam despite the fact that they were deployed for fighting in wars on behalf of several Islamic kingdoms as slave-soldiers.[13]

By 1200, Saladin's brother al-ʿĀdil succeeded in securing control over the whole empire by defeating and killing or imprisoning his brothers and nephews in turn. With each victory, al-ʿĀdil incorporated the defeated Mamluk retinue into his own. This process was repeated at al-ʿĀdil's death in 1218, and at his son al-Kāmil's death in 1238. The Ayyubids became increasingly surrounded by the Mamluks, who acted semi-autonomously as regional atabegs. The Mamluks increasingly became involved in the internal court politics of the kingdom itself as various factions used them as allies.[13]

French attack and Mamluk takeover

[edit]
Main article: Bahri Mamluks

In June 1249, the Seventh Crusade under Louis IX of France landed in Egypt and took Damietta. After the Egyptian troops retreated at first, the sultan had more than 50 commanders hanged as deserters.

When the Egyptian sultan as-Salih Ayyub died, the power passed briefly to his son al-Muazzam Turanshah and then his favorite wife Shajar al-Durr, a Turk according to most historians, while others say she was an Armenian. She took control with Mamluk support and launched a counterattack against the French. Troops of the Bahri commander Baibars defeated Louis's troops. The king delayed his retreat too long and was captured by the Mamluks in March 1250. He agreed to pay a ransom of 400,000 livres tournois to gain release (150,000 livres were never paid).[49]

Because of political pressure for a male leader, Shajar married the Mamluk commander, Aybak. He was assassinated in his bath. In the ensuing power struggle, viceregent Qutuz, also a Mamluk, took over. He formally founded the Mamluke Sultanate and the Bahri mamluk dynasty.

The first Mamluk dynasty was named Bahri after the name of one of the regiments, the Bahriyyah or River Island regiment. Its name referred to their center on Rhoda Island in the Nile. The regiment consisted mainly of Kipchaks and Cumans.[citation needed]

Mamluk-Syrian glassware vessel from the 14th century; in the course of trade, the middle vase shown ended up in Yemen and then China.

Relationship with the Mongols

[edit]

When the Mongol Empire's troops of Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258 and advanced towards Syria, the Mamluk emir Baibars left Damascus for Cairo. There he was welcomed by Sultan Qutuz.[50] After taking Damascus, Hulagu demanded that Qutuz surrender Egypt. Qutuz had Hulagu's envoys killed and, with Baibars' help, mobilized his troops.

When Möngke Khan died in action against the Southern Song, Hulagu pulled the majority of his forces out of Syria to attend the kurultai (funeral ceremony). He left his lieutenant, the Christian Kitbuqa, in charge with a token force of about 18,000 men as a garrison.[51] The Mamluk army, led by Qutuz, drew the reduced Ilkhanate army into an ambush near the Orontes River, routed them at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, and captured and executed Kitbuqa.

After this great triumph, Qutuz was assassinated by conspiring Mamluks. It was widely said that Baibars, who seized power, had been involved in the assassination plot. In the following centuries, the Mamluks ruled discontinuously, with an average span of seven years.

The Mamluks defeated the Ilkhanids a second time in the First Battle of Homs and began to drive them back east. In the process they consolidated their power over Syria, fortified the area, and formed mail routes and diplomatic connections among the local princes. Baibars' troops attacked Acre in 1263, captured Caesarea in 1265, and took Antioch in 1268.

Mamluks attacking at the Fall of Tripoli in 1289

Mamluks also defeated new Ilkhanate attacks in Syria in 1271 and 1281 (the Second Battle of Homs). They were defeated by the Ilkhanids and their Christian allies at the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar in 1299. Soon after that, the Mamluks defeated the Ilkhanate again in 1303/1304 and 1312. Finally, the Ilkhanids and the Mamluks signed a treaty of peace in 1323.

Burji dynasty

[edit]
Main article: Burji Mamluks

By the late fourteenth century, the majority of the Mamluk ranks were made up of Circassians from the North Caucasus region, whose young males had been frequently captured for slavery.[16] In 1382 the Burji dynasty took over when Barquq was proclaimed sultan. The name "Burji" referred to their center at the citadel of Cairo.

Barquq became an enemy of Timur, who threatened to invade Syria. Timur invaded Syria, defeating the Mamluk army, and he sacked Aleppo and captured Damascus. The Ottoman sultan, Bayezid I, then invaded Syria. After Timur's death in 1405, the Mamluk sultan an-Nasir Faraj regained control of Syria. Frequently facing rebellions by local emirs, he was forced to abdicate in 1412. In 1421, Egypt was attacked by the Kingdom of Cyprus, but the Egyptians forced the Cypriotes to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Egyptian sultan Barsbay. During Barsbay's reign, Egypt's population became greatly reduced from what it had been a few centuries before; it had one-fifth the number of towns.

Al-Ashraf came to power in 1453. He had friendly relations with the Ottoman Empire, which captured Constantinople later that year, causing great rejoicings in Muslim Egypt. However, under the reign of Khushqadam, Egypt began a struggle with the Ottoman sultanate. In 1467, sultan Qaitbay offended the Ottoman sultan Bayezid II, whose brother was poisoned. Bayezid II seized Adana, Tarsus and other places within Egyptian territory, but was eventually defeated. Qaitbay also tried to help the Muslims in Spain, who were suffering after the Catholic Reconquista, by threatening the Christians in Syria, but he had little effect in Spain. He died in 1496, several hundred thousand ducats in debt to the great trading families of the Republic of Venice.

Portuguese–Mamluk Wars

[edit]

Vasco da Gama in 1497 sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and pushed his way east across the Indian Ocean to the shores of Malabar and Kozhikode. There he attacked the fleets that carried freight and Muslim pilgrims from India to the Red Sea, and struck terror into the potentates all around. Various engagements took place. Cairo's Mamluk sultan Al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghawri was affronted at the attacks around the Red Sea, the loss of tolls and traffic, the indignities to which Mecca and its port were subjected, and above all for losing one of his ships. He vowed vengeance upon Portugal, first sending monks from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as envoys, he threatened Pope Julius II that if he did not check Manuel I of Portugal in his depredations on the Indian Sea, he would destroy all Christian holy places.[52]

The rulers of Gujarat in India and Yemen also turned for help to the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt. They wanted a fleet to be armed in the Red Sea that could protect their important trading sea routes from Portuguese attacks. Jeddah was soon fortified as a harbor of refuge so Arabia and the Red Sea were protected. But the fleets in the Indian Ocean were still at the mercy of the enemy.

The last Mamluk sultan, Al-Ghawri, fitted out a fleet of 50 vessels. As Mamluks had little expertise in naval warfare, he sought help from the Ottomans to develop this naval enterprise.[53] In 1508 at the Battle of Chaul, the Mamluk fleet defeated the Portuguese viceroy's son Lourenço de Almeida.

But, in the following year, the Portuguese won the Battle of Diu and wrested the port city of Diu from the Gujarat Sultanate. Some years after, Afonso de Albuquerque attacked Aden, and Egyptian troops suffered disaster from the Portuguese in Yemen. Al-Ghawri fitted out a new fleet to punish the enemy and protect the Indian trade. Before it could exert much power, Egypt had lost its sovereignty. The Ottoman Empire took over Egypt and the Red Sea, together with Mecca and all its Arabian interests.

Ottomans and the end of the Mamluk Sultanate

[edit]

The Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II was engaged in warfare in southern Europe when a new era of hostility with Egypt began in 1501. It arose out of the relations with the Safavid dynasty in Persia. Shah Ismail I sent an embassy to the Republic of Venice via Syria, inviting Venice to ally with Persia and recover its territory taken by the Ottomans. Mameluk Egyptian sultan Al-Ghawri was charged by Selim I with giving the Persian envoys passage through Syria on their way to Venice and harboring refugees. To appease him, Al-Ghawri placed in confinement the Venetian merchants then in Syria and Egypt, but after a year released them.[54]

After the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, Selim attacked the bey of Dulkadirids, as Egypt's vassal had stood aloof, and sent his head to Al-Ghawri. Now secure against Persia, in 1516 he formed a great army for the conquest of Egypt, but gave out that he intended further attacks on Persia.

In 1515, Selim began the war, which led to the conquest of Egypt and its dependencies. Mamluk cavalry proved no match for the Ottoman artillery and Janissary infantry. On 24 August 1516, at the Battle of Marj Dabiq, Sultan Al-Ghawri was killed. Syria passed into Turkish possession, an event welcomed in many places as it was seen as deliverance from the Mamluks.[54]

The Mamluk Sultanate survived in Egypt until 1517, when Selim captured Cairo on 20 January. Although not in the same form as under the Sultanate, the Ottoman Empire retained the Mamluks as an Egyptian ruling class, and the Mamluks and the Burji family succeeded in regaining much of their influence, but as vassals of the Ottomans.[54][55]

Independence from the Ottomans

[edit]
Main article: History of Ottoman Egypt
Charge of the Mamluk cavalry by Carle Vernet

In 1768, Ali Bey Al-Kabir declared independence from the Ottomans. However, the Ottomans crushed the movement and retained their position after his defeat. By this time new slave recruits were introduced from Georgia in the Caucasus.

Napoleon invades

[edit]
Main article: French campaign in Egypt and Syria
Charge of the Mamluks during the Battle of Austerlitz by Felician Myrbach. An elite body of cavalry whom the French encountered during their campaign in Egypt in 1798, the Mamluks could trace their lineage of service to the Ottomans back to the mid-13th century.

In 1798, the ruling Directory of the Republic of France authorised a campaign in "The Orient" to protect French trade interests and undermine Britain's access to India. To this end, Napoleon Bonaparte led an Armée d'Orient to Egypt.

The French defeated a Mamluk army in the Battle of the Pyramids and drove the survivors out to Upper Egypt. The Mamluks relied on massed cavalry charges, changed only by the addition of muskets. The French infantry formed square and held firm. Despite multiple victories and an initially successful expedition into Syria, mounting conflict in Europe and the earlier defeat of the supporting French fleet by the British Royal Navy at the Battle of the Nile decided the issue.

On 14 September 1799, General Jean-Baptiste Kléber established a mounted company of Mamluk auxiliaries and Syrian Janissaries from Turkish troops captured at the siege of Acre. Menou reorganized the company on 7 July 1800, forming three companies of 100 men each and renaming it the "Mamluks de la République". In 1801 General Jean Rapp was sent to Marseille to organize a squadron of 250 Mamluks. On 7 January 1802 the previous order was canceled and the squadron reduced to 150 men. The list of effectives on 21 April 1802 reveals three officers and 155 of other rank. By decree of 25 December 1803 the Mamluks were organized into a company attached to the Chasseurs-à-Cheval of the Imperial Guard (see Mamelukes of the Imperial Guard).

The Second of May 1808: the charge of the Mamelukes of the Imperial Guard in Madrid, by Francisco de Goya

Napoleon left with his personal guard in late 1799. His successor in Egypt, General Jean-Baptiste Kléber, was assassinated on 14 June 1800. Command of the Army in Egypt fell to Jacques-François Menou. Isolated and out of supplies, Menou surrendered to the British in 1801.

After Napoleon

[edit]

After the departure of French troops in 1801, the Mamluks continued their struggle for independence; this time against the Ottoman Empire. In 1803, Mamluk leaders Ibrahim Bey and Osman Bey al-Bardisi wrote to the Russian consul-general, asking him to mediate with the Sultan to allow them to negotiate for a cease-fire, and a return to their homeland, Georgia. The Russian ambassador in Constantinople refused, however, to intervene, because of nationalist unrest in Georgia that might have been encouraged by a Mamluk return.[54]

In 1805, the population of Cairo rebelled. This provided a chance for the Mamluks to seize power, but internal friction prevented them from exploiting this opportunity. In 1806, the Mamluks defeated the Turkish forces in several clashes. In June, the rival parties concluded an agreement by which Muhammad Ali, (appointed as governor of Egypt on 26 March 1806), was to be removed and authority returned to the Mamluks. However, they were again unable to capitalize on this opportunity due to discord between factions. Muhammad Ali retained his authority.[13]

End of power in Egypt

[edit]
Massacre of the Mamelukes at the Cairo citadel in 1811.
Massacre of the Mamelukes by Horace Vernet, 1819

Muhammad Ali knew that he would have to deal with the Mamluks if he wanted to control Egypt. They were still the feudal owners of Egypt, and their land was still the source of wealth and power. However, the economic strain of sustaining the military manpower necessary to defend the Mamluks's system from the Europeans and Turks would eventually weaken them to the point of collapse.[56]

On 1 March 1811, Muhammad Ali invited all of the leading Mamluks to his palace to celebrate the declaration of war against the Wahhabis in Arabia. Between 600 and 700 Mamluks paraded for this purpose in Cairo. Muhammad Ali's forces killed almost all of these near the Al-Azab gates in a narrow road down from Mukatam Hill. This ambush came to be known as the Massacre of the Citadel. According to contemporary reports, only one Mamluk, whose name is given variously as Amim (also Amyn), or Heshjukur (a Besleney), survived when he forced his horse to leap from the walls of the citadel.[57]

During the following week, an estimated 3,000 Mamluks and their relatives were killed throughout Egypt by Muhammad's regular troops. In the citadel of Cairo alone, more than 1,000 Mamluks died.

Despite Muhammad Ali's destruction of the Mamluks in Egypt, a party of them escaped and fled south into what is now Sudan. In 1811, these Mamluks established a state at Dunqulah in the Sennar as a base for their slave trading. In 1820, the sultan of Sennar informed Muhammad Ali that he was unable to comply with a demand to expel the Mamluks. In response, the Pasha sent 4,000 troops to invade Sudan, clear it of Mamluks, and reclaim it for Egypt. The Pasha's forces received the submission of the Kashif, dispersed the Dunqulah Mamluks, conquered Kordofan, and accepted Sennar's surrender from the last Funj sultan, Badi VII.

Impact

[edit]

According to Eric Chaney and Lisa Blades, the reliance on mamluks by Muslim rulers had a profound impact on the Arab world's political development. They argue that, because European rulers had to rely on local elites for military forces, lords and bourgeois acquired the necessary bargaining power to push for representative government. Muslim rulers did not face the same pressures partly because the Mamluks allowed the Sultans to bypass local elites.[58]

Other regimes

[edit]

There were various places in which Mamluks gained political or military power as a self-replicating military community. Some examples of this can be seen in the Tripolitania region of Libya, where Mamluk governors instated their various policies under the Ottoman Empire until October 18, 1912, when Italian forces took over the region in the Italo-Turkish War.

South Asia

[edit]

India

[edit]
Main article: Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi)

In 1206, the Mamluk commander of the Muslim forces in the Indian subcontinent, Qutb al-Din Aibak, proclaimed himself Sultan, creating the Mamluk Sultanate in Delhi which lasted until 1290.

Further information: Delhi Sultanate

West Asia

[edit]

Iraq

[edit]
Main article: Mamluk dynasty of Iraq

Mamluk corps were first introduced in Iraq by Hassan Pasha of Baghdad in 1702. From 1747 to 1831 Iraq was ruled, with short intermissions, by Mamluk officers of Georgian origin[22][59] who succeeded in asserting autonomy from the Sublime Porte, suppressed tribal revolts, curbed the power of the Janissaries, restored order, and introduced a program of modernization of the economy and the military. In 1831 the Ottomans overthrew Dawud Pasha, the last Mamluk ruler, and imposed direct control over Iraq.[60]

Rulers

[edit]

In Egypt

[edit]
Main article: List of Mamluk sultans

Bahri Dynasty

[edit]
A Mamluk on horseback, with a Piéton or foot-soldier mamluk and a Bedouin soldier, 1804

Burji Dynasty

[edit]

In India

[edit]
The mausoleum of Qutb al-Din Aibak in Anarkali, Lahore, Pakistan.

In Iraq

[edit]

In Acre

[edit]

Office titles and terminology

[edit]

The following terms originally come from either Turkish or Ottoman Turkish language (the latter composed of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian words and grammar structures).

English Arabic Notes
Alama Sultaniya علامة سلطانية The mark or signature of the Sultan put on his decrees, letters and documents.
Al-Nafir al-Am النفير العام General emergency declared during war
Amir أمير Prince
Amir Akhur أمير آخور supervisor of the royal stable (from Persian آخور meaning stable)
Amir Majlis أمير مجلس Guard of Sultan's seat and bed
Atabek أتابك Commander in chief (literally "father-lord," originally meaning an appointed step-father for a non-Mamluk minor prince)
Astadar أستادار Chief of the royal servants
Barid Jawi بريد جوى Airmail (mail sent by carrier-pigeons, amplified by Sultan Baibars)
Bayt al-Mal بيت المال treasury
Cheshmeh ششمه A pool of water, or fountain (literally "eye"), from Persian چشمه
Dawadar دوادار Holder of Sultan's ink bottle (from Persian دوات‌دار meaning bearer of the ink bottle)
Fondok فندق Hotel (some famous hotels in Cairo during the Mamluk era were Dar al-Tofah, Fondok Bilal and Fondok al-Salih)
Hajib حاجب Doorkeeper of sultan's court
Iqta إقطاع Revenue from land allotment
Jamkiya جامكية Salary paid to a Mamluk
Jashnakir جاشنكير Food taster of the sultan (to assure his beer was not poisoned)
Jomdar جمدار An official at the department of the Sultan's clothing (from Persian جامه‌دار, meaning keeper of cloths)
Kafel al-mamalek al-sharifah al-islamiya al-amir al-amri كافل الممالك الشريفة الاسلامية الأمير الأمرى Title of the Vice-sultan (Guardian of the Prince of Command [lit. Commander-in-command] of the Dignified Islamic Kingdoms)
Khan خان A store that specialized in selling a certain commodity
Khaskiya خاصكية Courtiers of the sultan and most trusted royal mamluks who functioned as the Sultan's bodyguards/ A privileged group around a prominent Amir (from Persian خاصگیان, meaning close associates)
Khastakhaneh خاصتاخانة Hospital (from Ottoman Turkish خسته‌خانه, from Persian)
Khond خند Wife of the sultan
Khushdashiya خشداشية Mamluks belonging to the same Amir or Sultan.
Mahkamat al-Mazalim محكمة المظالم Court of complaint. A court that heard cases of complaints of people against state officials. This court was headed by the sultan himself.
Mamalik Kitabeya مماليك كتابية Mamluks still attending training classes and who still live at the Tebaq (campus)
Mamalik Sultaneya مماليك سلطانية Mamluks of the sultan; to distinguish from the Mamluks of the Amirs (princes)
Modwarat al-Sultan مدورة السلطان Sultan's tent which he used during travel.
Mohtaseb محتسب Controller of markets, public works and local affairs.
Morqadar مرقدار Works in the Royal Kitchen (from Persian مرغ‌دار meaning one responsible for the fowl)
Mushrif مشرف Supervisor of the Royal Kitchen
Na'ib Al-Sultan نائب السلطان Vice-sultan
Qa'at al-insha'a قاعة الإنشاء Chancery hall
Qadi al-Qoda قاضى القضاة Chief justice
Qalat al-Jabal قلعة الجبل Citadel of the Mountain (the abode and court of the sultan in Cairo)
Qaranisa قرانصة Mamluks who moved to the service of a new Sultan or from the service of an Amir to a sultan.
Qussad قصاد Secret couriers and agents who kept the sultan informed
Ostaz أستاذ Benefactor of Mamluks (the Sultan or the Emir) (from Persian استاد)
Rank رنك An emblem that distinguished the rank and position of a Mamluk (probably from Persian رنگ meaning color)
Sanjaqi سنجاقى A standard-bearer of the Sultan.
Sharabkhana شرابخانة Storehouse for drinks, medicines and glass-wares of the sultan. (from Persian شراب‌خانه meaning wine cellar)
Silihdar سلحدار Arm-Bearer (from Arabic سلاح + Persian دار, meaning arm-bearer)
Tabalkhana طبلخانه The amir responsible for the Mamluk military band, from Persian طبل‌خانه
Tashrif تشريف Head-covering worn by a Mamluk during the ceremony of inauguration to the position of Amir.
Tawashi طواشى A Eunuch responsible for serving the wives of the sultan and supervising new Mamluks. Mamluk writers seem not to have consulted the eunuchs themselves about "their origins."[61]
Tebaq طباق Campus of the Mamluks at the citadel of the mountain
Tishtkhana طشتخانة Storehouse used for the laundry of the sultan (from Persian تشت‌خانه, meaning tub room)
Wali والى viceroy
Yuq يوق A large linen closet used in every mamluk home, which stored pillows and sheets. (Related to the present Crimean Tatar word Yuqa, "to sleep". In modern Turkish: Yüklük.)
[edit]

Dynasties founded by Mamluks

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mamluk

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Mamluks were elite military slaves, typically non-Muslim boys of Turkic, Circassian, or other non-Arab origins purchased from regions north of the Islamic world, converted to , and subjected to rigorous training in warfare, horsemanship, and loyalty to their patrons, forming a that often transcended their servile beginnings to wield significant political power in medieval Islamic societies. Originating as a military institution under the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th century, the Mamluks gained prominence under the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt, where Sultan al-Salih Ayyub amassed a large force of them; following his death in 1249, these warriors orchestrated a coup, overthrowing Ayyubid rule in 1250 and establishing the Mamluk Sultanate, which governed Egypt, Syria, and parts of the Hejaz until 1517. Stabilized by the reign of Sultan al-Zahir (1260–1277), the sultanate achieved pivotal military successes, including the decisive victory over the Mongol Ilkhanate at the in 1260, where Mamluk forces under and Baybars employed feigned retreats and ambushes to shatter Mongol invincibility and prevent further incursions into the . Subsequent campaigns under and his successors, notably , culminated in the siege and capture of Acre in 1291, expelling the remaining from the and securing Mamluk dominance over the eastern coast. The sultanate flourished economically through monopolies on and overland trade routes, fostering patronage of Islamic scholarship, architecture—evident in Cairo's enduring mosques and madrasas—and enameled glassware and metalwork, while maintaining a system where new sultans purchased and trained fresh Mamluk cohorts to sustain the regime's martial ethos. This era ended with the Ottoman conquest at the in 1516, after which Mamluks persisted as a subordinate elite in until their massacre by in 1811.

Origins and Institution

Early Development and Spread

The Mamluk system emerged in the 9th-century as caliphs sought to counterbalance unreliable Arab tribal levies with professional, loyal forces composed of purchased slaves, primarily Turkic youths from . Caliph (r. 833–842) pioneered its large-scale implementation by recruiting thousands of such slaves—reportedly at least 7,000 Turkic —trained in and warfare, their foreign origins and manumitted status fostering dependence on patrons without hereditary claims or local allegiances. This addressed chronic military instability from factional strife, prioritizing empirical effectiveness in combat over ethnic or familial ties, with slaves converted to and elevated through merit to command roles. Under the (1171–1250), the institution matured in , where sultans like systematically acquired Kipchak Turkic slaves displaced by Mongol incursions, integrating them as elite cavalry regiments to sustain campaigns against Crusaders. By 1229, Ayyubid ruler had amassed approximately 1,000 mamluks, forming the backbone of the army and gaining administrative leverage due to their specialized training and cohesion. Their non-Arab, non-hereditary nature ensured tactical reliability in high-stakes conflicts, evolving the system from auxiliary troops to a politically potent cadre. The model proliferated to and during the early Ayyubid era, as emirs in these regions—facing analogous threats from nomadic incursions and rival powers—adopted slave-soldier recruitment for merit-based hierarchies that minimized internal betrayal risks. In , under Ayyubid governors, mamluks supplemented local forces, while in , Abbasid precedents persisted into successor states, institutionalizing slavery's role in forging disciplined, unattached elites amid perpetual warfare demands.

Recruitment, Training, and Military Role

Mamluk recruitment centered on the acquisition of non-Muslim boys, typically aged 10 to 15, through slave markets in the Black Sea and regions, ensuring a supply of physically robust and culturally alien youths amenable to total formation. During the Bahri dynasty (1250–1382), recruits were predominantly from Turkic Kipchak tribes of the Eurasian steppes, while the Burji period (1382–1517) shifted emphasis to from the , reflecting adaptations to changing slave trade dynamics and geopolitical pressures. Upon purchase, often by sultans or high-ranking amirs, these boys underwent immediate , severing prior ethnic ties and integrating them into a new identity bound to their patrons. Training occurred in regimented barracks systems called mamlukiyya, where recruits received multifaceted education lasting several years, combining martial prowess with religious indoctrination to forge unbreakable unit cohesion. Core skills included advanced horsemanship—encompassing (sawaran), lance handling, and archery from horseback—alongside instruction in Quranic recitation and Islamic (fiqh) to enforce discipline and ideological alignment. The system's design prohibited Mamluks from bequeathing status to offspring, mandating fresh recruitment to avert hereditary factions and maintain the corps' meritocratic renewal, though in practice, informal kinship networks sometimes emerged among co-ethnics. Successful trainees were manumitted as adults, transitioning from slaves (mamluk meaning "owned") to elite (freedman status), yet retaining perpetual allegiance to their ustadh (master) and the sultanate. In their military role, Mamluks formed the core of the sultanate's forces, comprising 10,000 to 20,000 royal (mamalik al-sultaniyya) and amiral troops optimized for high-mobility operations. Equipped with lamellar armor, kite shields, recurved bows, lances, and maces, they excelled in combined-arms tactics blending steppe-derived with shock charges, enabling defeats of numerically superior foes through superior maneuverability and firepower. Innovations included refined "shower shooting" volleys for sustained ranged harassment and psychological feints mimicking nomadic retreats to lure enemies into ambushes, leveraging their training's emphasis on endurance and tactical flexibility over sheer mass. This professionalized structure distinguished Mamluks from levies, positioning them as the sultanate's decisive striking force in defensive and expeditionary warfare.

Rise and Rule in Egypt and Syria

Bahri Dynasty: Foundation and Expansion (1250–1382)

The Bahri dynasty was established in 1250 following the assassination of the last Ayyubid sultan, Turanshah, amid the chaos of the Seventh Crusade. Al-Mu'izz Aybak, a Turkic Mamluk commander married to the widow of Sultan al-Salih Ayyub, Shajar al-Durr, was elevated as the first sultan by the Mamluk amirs to consolidate power against internal rivals and external threats. Aybak's rule focused on suppressing rival Mamluk factions, including a 1254 crackdown on the Bahriyya regiment, which temporarily stabilized the nascent regime but sowed seeds of factionalism. In 1259, Sayf al-Din seized the sultanate from Aybak's successors during the Mongol invasion threat. Qutuz rallied the Mamluks and decisively defeated the Mongol forces at the on September 3, 1260, halting their advance into and marking the first major Mongol reversal. En route back to , Qutuz was assassinated in a conspiracy led by his commander , who ascended as al-Zahir Baybars in late 1260, initiating a period of aggressive expansion. Baybars secured legitimacy by installing an Abbasid caliph, , in in 1261, relocating the symbolic from the Mongol-sacked to anchor Mamluk authority over the Islamic world. He rapidly expanded into , capturing and to counter residual Ayyubid and Mongol influences, while launching campaigns against Crusader strongholds, including the conquest of Caesarea, Arsuf, and Antioch in 1268. These victories stemmed from Mamluk superiority and strategic alliances, incentivized by the sultan's distribution of spoils and iqta' land grants to loyal mamluks, fostering a system that prioritized military prowess over familial . Under ' successors, such as (1279–1290), territorial stabilization continued through further Crusader expulsions, culminating in al-Ashraf Khalil's siege and capture of Acre on May 18, 1291, ending major Crusader presence in the . This expansion integrated firmly into the sultanate, with as the administrative core. Internal cohesion relied on networks of manumitted mamluks bound by khushdashiyya () ties, yet succession remained contested, often resolved through assassinations or coups among amirs, as seen in the frequent turnover after ' death in 1277. These dynamics ensured short-term stability through merit-based rewards but presaged chronic instability by the dynasty's later phases.

Burji Dynasty: Consolidation and Challenges (1382–1517)

The Burji dynasty, also known as the , commenced in 1382 when Sayf al-Din , a originally purchased during the reign of , orchestrated a coup against the Bahri al-Mansur al-Salih Ali, deposing him and assuming the sultanate. Barquq's rule marked a shift toward Circassian dominance in the elite, with an estimated 5,000 Circassians recruited en masse to bolster the regime's power base, supplanting the Kipchak Turkic elements of the prior era. To consolidate revenue amid fiscal pressures, Barquq intensified the iqta' system, granting larger land assignments to loyal mamluk households, which temporarily stabilized finances but sowed seeds for later over-allocation and administrative inefficiency. The non-hereditary nature of mamluk rule, prohibiting sultans from passing power to biological heirs, engendered chronic instability, as each ruler prioritized short-term alliances over enduring governance reforms, leading to rampant through the sale of offices and iqta' rights to buy factional support. This dynamic fueled frequent coups and regicides, with over 20 sultans ascending and falling between 1382 and 1517, many via violent overthrow by rival amirs or household mamluks, exacerbating factional divides between Circassian subgroups and remnants of Bahri loyalists. revolts compounded these internal fractures, particularly in 15th-century and , where tribal incursions disrupted iqta' collections and agricultural output; for instance, unrest in the 1410s and 1460s forced sultans like (r. 1422–1438) to expend resources on punitive campaigns, diverting funds from military modernization. Economic strains intensified as recurrences from the 1340s onward diminished iqta' yields by up to 30–50% in affected regions, while eroded enforcement, rendering the state fiscally vulnerable without adaptive fiscal policies. Externally, the Burji faced existential threats that exposed military rigidities. In 1400–1401, Timur's invasion of culminated in the sack of in October 1400 and in March 1401, where Mamluk forces under al-Nasir Faraj (r. 1399–1405, 1405–1412) crumbled against Timur's mobile cavalry, resulting in massacres of 20,000–100,000 civilians and the flight of artisans to Timurid lands; Faraj's subsequent payments averted deeper incursions but humiliated the sultanate. By the early , Portuguese naval incursions disrupted Red Sea and Indian Ocean trade routes critical for spice and pepper revenues, which constituted up to 20% of state income; raids in 1505–1507, including the capture of 20+ vessels near , nearly collapsed Mamluk commerce, as their outdated galleys proved ineffective against cannon-armed caravels, prompting futile fleet-building efforts under al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghawri (r. 1501–1516). These pressures, unmitigated by innovation in or , underscored the Burji's consolidation of Circassian alongside mounting challenges that eroded territorial control and economic resilience by 1517.

Major Military Conflicts and Strategic Victories

The Battle of ʿAyn Jālūt on September 3, 1260, marked a decisive Mamluk victory over the Mongol vanguard, halting their westward expansion into the after the sack of in 1258. Sultan Qutuz, with field commander , led approximately 20,000 Mamluk troops against a Mongol force of 10,000–20,000 under , exploiting terrain advantages near by feigning retreats to lure the enemy into an ambush, followed by a devastating countercharge with and superior composite bows outranging Mongol archery. This tactical reversal, leveraging mobility and deception rather than sheer numbers, resulted in heavy Mongol casualties, including Kitbuqa's death, and preserved Muslim control over , shifting the balance from existential threat to Mamluk ascendancy. Mamluk campaigns against the emphasized systematic sieges and scorched-earth tactics to erode fortifications and supply lines. In March 1265, besieged Arsuf, a Hospitaller stronghold defended by 270 knights, capturing it after 40 days through relentless bombardment and , with minimal Mamluk losses due to disciplined rotations and forward enabling sustained pressure. Similarly, Sultan Qalawun's 1289 siege of employed massed siege engines and infantry assaults, breaching walls after four weeks and razing the city, where Crusader defenders suffered near-total annihilation—thousands killed or enslaved—while Mamluk forces, numbering over 100,000, demonstrated logistical superiority via prepositioned granaries and naval interdiction. These operations, culminating in Acre's fall in 1291, expelled Latin presence from the through attrition rather than pitched battles. In protracted conflicts with the Ilkhanids, Mamluks secured strategic victories through defensive depth and opportunistic alliances, prioritizing survival over conquest. The 1281 saw repel an Ilkhanid invasion with 60,000 troops against a similar force, using fortified positions and rapid reinforcements to inflict retreat on the despite initial setbacks. Diplomatic maneuvering with the , including intelligence sharing and a 1260s marriage alliance under Khan, countered Ilkhanid threats via —exploiting fratricidal khanate rivalries—rather than ideological solidarity, as Mamluks navigated betrayals like Hülegü's overtures while maintaining military readiness. Though the 1299 Third Battle of Homs yielded a temporary Ilkhanid win under , Mamluk resilience in subsequent skirmishes and Ilkhanid internal collapses affirmed their regional dominance.

Governance and Internal Dynamics

Administrative Structure and Power Distribution

The Mamluk sultanate's administrative hierarchy placed the at the apex as supreme commander and executive ruler, overseeing a system of amirs ranked by the size of their mamluk contingents. Amirs were categorized as amir mi’a (commanding 100 or more mamluks), amir ṭablakhāna (40 mamluks), amir ‘ashara (10), and amir khamsa (5), with top amirs potentially controlling hundreds or thousands through personal forces. The atabak al-‘askar served as the sultan's chief deputy, coordinating while amirs managed provincial garrisons and iqṭāʿ assignments. This sultan-amir framework distributed power through meritocratic promotion from slave origins but relied on the sultan's personal to curb amiral , often enforced via purges of disloyal factions. Central to fiscal administration were the dīwān councils, specialized bureaus handling taxation, , and allocation, with the dīwān al-khāṣṣ overseeing state lands directly under sultanic control. The iqṭāʿ system formed the core mechanism, granting amirs temporary rights over lands for extraction to fund troops, rather than , thereby preventing hereditary entrenchment and tying loyalty to the . Under sultans like I (r. 1260–1277), iqṭāʿs were assigned to loyal amirs in key provinces such as and , with Egyptian wālīs supervising collection and to ensure yields, while Syrian muqṭaʿs had freer rein but faced reassignment upon death. Reforms by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 1309–1341) via cadastral surveys (rawk) centralized iqṭāʿ redistribution, boosting royal shares from land taxes (kharāj), which constituted the primary source tied to agricultural output. Power distribution hinged on factional balances between royal mamluks (al-mamālīk al-sulṭaniyya or khāṣṣakiyya, directly trained in the sultan's household) and those in amirs' private houses, fostering competition that rewarded competence but bred chronic instability. Groups like the Bahriyya and Zāhiriyya vied for dominance, with loyalties confined to patrons rather than institutions, enabling rapid rises but precipitating over 40 sultans' depositions or assassinations between 1250 and 1517, as seen in coups against (1260) and al-Ashraf Khalīl (1293). This authoritarian system, reliant on sultanic and iqṭāʿ revocation to suppress rivals, sustained elite cohesion amid external threats but undermined long-term governance through recurrent mutinies and regicides.

Economic Systems, Trade, and Fiscal Policies

The derived substantial economic strength from its strategic position controlling key trade routes linking the Mediterranean to the , particularly through the ports of and . The regime established monopolies on high-value commodities such as spices, pepper, and slaves, channeling imports from and via the before redistribution to European merchants. This control generated significant customs revenues; for instance, duties on spices and related goods formed a cornerstone of state income, with sultans like (r. 1422–1438) enforcing fixed sales prices to maximize profits. Fiscal revenues peaked in the , with annual budgets often exceeding 1 million dinars, bolstered by land taxes () from Egypt's rural districts alone contributing over 1.4 million jayshi dinars yearly during periods of stability. However, these surpluses masked underlying weaknesses in the iqta' system, under which military elites received temporary, non-hereditary land grants in exchange for service, discouraging long-term investments in or due to insecure property rights. Recent analysis links this institutional feature—where iqta' holders prioritized short-term extraction over productivity enhancements—to broader , as grantees avoided capital improvements knowing assignments could be revoked upon death or reassignment. Agrarian policies exacerbated fiscal pressures, with heavy taxation on peasants and reliance on labor for and maintenance burdening rural populations and limiting agricultural yields. Sultans frequently resorted to currency debasements, such as Barsbay's 1425 reduction in fineness, to fund deficits amid expenditures and disruptions, eroding monetary stability and inflating prices. While fostered urban growth in centers like , enabling artisanal production and merchant wealth, the non-hereditary political order and extractive fiscal practices ultimately constrained sustained development, contrasting with contemporaneous European shifts toward secure tenure.

Social Relations: Families, Homelands, and Subjugated Groups

The Mamluk system ideologically prohibited the of elite status by offspring of manumitted slaves, ensuring the remained dependent on the for and preventing the formation of hereditary dynasties that could challenge centralized authority. This , rooted in the institution's origins as a slave system, dictated that sons of Mamluks—known as awlad al-nas—were barred from holding high or administrative posts, compelling sultans to continually purchase new slaves from regions like the and Kipchak steppes to replenish the ranks. In practice, however, familial ties persisted through informal factions called khushdashiyya or khwan (brethren), groups of Mamluks bonded by shared origins under the same master or batch, which fostered loyalty networks and influenced power struggles despite official proscriptions. Manumitted Mamluks maintained connections to their homelands, particularly among Circassian and Georgian recruits, through retained linguistic and cultural awareness, occasional remittances to kin, and diplomatic alliances that leveraged ethnic ties for recruitment or intelligence. Georgian Mamluks, for instance, tracked developments in the Bagratid Kingdom and corresponded with relatives, while Circassian emirs formed links back to their Caucasian origins to secure slave supplies amid regional instability. These bonds, though secondary to loyalty to the buying sultan, occasionally enabled cross-border alliances, such as during conflicts with Mongol successors, but were subordinated to the system's demand for deracinated soldiers devoid of divided allegiances. Mamluk society enforced strict hierarchies over subjugated groups, granting dhimmis—primarily Coptic and —legal protections under Islamic law in exchange for taxes and social restrictions, yet subjecting them to periodic violence and forced conversions amid economic resentments over their roles in fiscal administration. Bedouin tribes, as semi-autonomous pastoralists, faced military campaigns to curb raids on routes but also received subsidies or alliances when serving as auxiliaries against external threats. Tensions erupted in events like the 1301 Cairo riots, where mobs targeted dhimmis for perceived extravagance, leading to mass conversions, property seizures, and executions under al-Nasir Muhammad's initial tolerance before reimposition of protections. The system's perpetuated slavery's renewal by design, as the exclusion of freeborn progeny from elite status necessitated ongoing slave imports, contrasting the proven loyalty of manumitted Mamluks—bound by oaths and iqta' land grants—to sultans, against the frequent revolts of halqa freeborn Arab troops who lacked such personal ties and often prioritized tribal interests. Empirical cases, such as halqa uprisings in the that destabilized garrisons in , underscored this dynamic, with sultans like Baybars I relying on Mamluk cohesion to suppress them, though the policy's rigidity later contributed to factional infighting as aging elites vied for scarce resources.

Mamluks Beyond Egypt

In the Indian Subcontinent

The Mamluk-influenced Slave Dynasty, the first phase of the , was founded in 1206 by , a Turkic slave who had served as a general under the Ghurid . After Ghor's death in 1206, Aibak seized power in and declared himself , establishing control over northern by suppressing local Hindu rulers and rival Turkish commanders. His brief reign focused on consolidating authority, constructing early Islamic monuments such as the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque and initiating the in , before his death in 1210 from injuries sustained during a match. Unlike the Egyptian Mamluks, who maintained a elite superimposed on an Arab-Islamic societal core, the Delhi variant adapted to the subcontinent's Persianate framework derived from Ghurid and Central Asian influences, utilizing Persian as the court language and integrating bureaucratic practices like the land revenue system to manage diverse Hindu-majority territories. Shams ud-Din , Aibak's successor from 1210 to 1236, solidified this adaptation by defeating internal rivals such as Taj al-Din in 1215 and Nasir ud-Din Qabacha in 1220, while expanding southward through campaigns against kingdoms, capturing Ranthambore in 1226, , in 1231, and other forts in and . These victories, supported by a core of loyal slave cavalry, extended Sultanate influence from the Indus to , though full subjugation of resistance remained incomplete. Subsequent rulers like Ghiyas ud-Din Balban (1266–1287) further emphasized Persianate kingship ideals, including rituals such as sijda (prostration) and paibos (kissing the sultan's feet), to enforce hierarchy among the Turkish nobility known as the Turkan-i-Chihalgani or "Group of Forty." However, the dynasty's reliance on slave loyalty proved vulnerable in India's fragmented terrain, where regional revolts and the forty nobles' factionalism undermined central control. Repeated Mongol invasions from the 1220s onward, including raids under Genghis Khan's successors, strained resources and exposed defensive weaknesses, contributing to administrative disarray alongside weak late rulers like Muiz ud-Din Qaiqabad (1287–1290), who suffered paralysis and neglected governance. The dynasty collapsed in 1290 when , a non-Turkish noble, overthrew and killed Qaiqabad on June 13, ushering in the amid these internal divisions and external pressures.

In Iraq, Syria, and Peripheral Regimes

In , following the Mamluk conquest of Ayyubid territories after the in 1260, several regional principalities retained limited autonomy under the oversight of Cairo-appointed na'ibs (governors), who were typically senior Mamluk officers. The in , for example, continued as hereditary rulers paying tribute to the sultanate until 742 AH/1341 CE, when Abu al-Fida II's grandson Abu al-Hasan Ali revolted against Mamluk authority, prompting Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad to dispatch forces that annexed the principality and executed the rebels. Similarly, ' Ayyubid emirs maintained semi-independent status until their subjugation in 698 AH/1299 CE after the Battle of Homs against Ilkhanid forces, after which direct Mamluk administration was imposed but local elites were co-opted to manage iqta' land grants. These arrangements emulated the Mamluk model of military slavery and factional but allowed regional emirs to levy troops and collect revenues autonomously, fostering commerce in coastal enclaves like Tripoli, conquered in 688 AH/1289 CE from the Crusaders. However, such decentralization bred fragmentation; autonomous elements occasionally allied with external powers, as seen in 14th-century and Turkmen revolts in northern that exploited weak central oversight during sultanic succession crises. The conquest of Acre in 690 AH/1291 CE under Sultan marked the extension of firm Mamluk control over the southern Levant, razing the city's fortifications to preclude Crusader resurgence and integrating it as a provincial , though brief local governance persisted amid resettlement efforts. In (), Mamluk influence remained peripheral and indirect during the 13th–14th centuries, constrained by Ilkhanid Mongol dominance until its fragmentation post-736 AH/1335 CE. No independent Mamluk regimes emerged, though sultans like pursued expansionist diplomacy, receiving appeals from anti-Mongol figures such as Shaykh Hasan of the in 740 AH/1339–40 CE to seize , , and surrounding areas—a proposal unrealized due to logistical limits and internal priorities. Local governors under Ilkhanid or successor Jalayirid rule occasionally employed Turkic Mamluk-style slave troops, blending Persianate administrative traditions with imported military practices, but these lacked subordination to and faced persistent Mamluk-Ilkhanid hostilities, culminating in failed invasions like Oljeitu's 1312 campaign. This absence of entrenched offshoots underscored the sultanate's eastern vulnerabilities, as fragmented loyalties in enabled rival powers to contest borderlands without direct Mamluk emulation.

Cultural, Architectural, and Intellectual Legacy

Patronage of Scholarship and Arts

![Gilded and enameled glass bowl from Syria, Mamluk period, 1350s-1400s][float-right] The Mamluks extensively patronized Islamic scholarship through endowments of madrasas and libraries, which served as hubs for jurisprudence, hadith, and historiography across the four Sunni schools. Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad (r. 1310–1341) and his successors funded institutions like the madrasa of Umm al-Sulṭān Shaʿbān in Cairo, established in the mid-14th century, providing salaried positions for scholars and librarians to sustain teaching and manuscript preservation. This support yielded substantial historiographical output, including chronicles by al-Maqrizi (1364–1442), whose works like Al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-l-āthār documented Egyptian history in exhaustive detail, drawing on archival access facilitated by elite patronage networks. Following the Mongol sack of in 1258, which disrupted Abbasid intellectual centers, Mamluk emerged as a key node for transmission, attracting and preserving texts through libraries and courtly commissions. Patronage extended to , with sultans constructing khanqahs—Sufi lodges—that integrated mystical practices with Shafi'i and Hanafi , as evidenced by endowments under al-Bunduqdari (r. 1260–1277) and later rulers, promoting "juridical Sufism" among the populace. Yet this endorsement prioritized Sunni orthodoxy; heterodox sects, including Twelver Shi'a and Ismailis, encountered suppression, such as Mamluk campaigns in Kisrawan (1292–1305) targeting perceived threats and restrictions on Shi'i expressions in after 1260s control of the Hijaz. In arts, Mamluk rulers commissioned luxury objects like enameled glassware and illuminated manuscripts, often blending Persian influences with local Syrian-Egyptian techniques, as seen in 14th-century Syrian vessels that reflected courtly refinement and trade prosperity. Recent studies highlight modest Coptic integrations, with dhimmis contributing administratively but facing conversion pressures that limited overt scholarly patronage beyond Sunni frameworks, underscoring the regime's causal emphasis on consolidating orthodox authority amid post-Mongol fragmentation.

Architectural and Urban Developments

The Mamluks significantly expanded the Cairo Citadel, originally founded by in the late 12th century, transforming it into a sprawling complex of palaces, mosques, and that symbolized sultanate . Under (r. 1293–1341), major additions included the royal mosque completed in 1318, which served as the site for prayers and reinforced the Citadel's role as the political and nerve center overlooking the city. These developments integrated defensive architecture with ceremonial spaces, projecting Mamluk power through monumental scale and strategic elevation. Mamluk patronage produced over 2,000 monuments across in the 250 years of their rule, encompassing mosques, , , and hospitals that filled interstitial urban zones between older Fatimid and Ayyubid settlements. The (1284–1285), comprising a , four-iwan , and , exemplifies early Bahri innovations by combining multiple functions in a single facade along Bayn al-Qasrayn street, blending Ayyubid plans with Syrian iwans and ablution fountains for ritual purity. Such multi-purpose structures enhanced urban vitality while advancing stonework techniques, including intricate portals and geometric incising. Architectural advancements included tiered minarets, as in the Mosque of Sultan Hasan (1356–1363), and late-period carved stone domes with zodiac motifs, reflecting eastern influences amid evolving stylistic synthesis. Urban planning emphasized ceremonial axes like al-Darb al-Ahmar, linking the Citadel to the city core, where monuments such as the Khanqah-Madrasa of Ahmad al-Mihmandar (1324–1325) projected patronage through recessed facades and processional visibility. Waqf endowments funded infrastructure, including market expansions, but late Circassian projects like Sultan Qansuh al-Ghuri's complex (1503–1504) diverted resources into ornate enclosures amid fiscal strain from Timurid threats and internal strife, prioritizing spectacle over military readiness.

Decline, Fall, and Long-Term Impact

Factors of Decline and Ottoman Conquest

The Mamluk Sultanate's decline in the early stemmed primarily from chronic internal factionalism among its Circassian emirs, which undermined sultanic authority and military cohesion. By the reign of Qansuh al-Ghawri (r. 1501–1516), power struggles between rival households frequently led to coups and assassinations, with sultans often selected for their weakness to preserve emir privileges rather than merit. This enfeebled central command, as emirs prioritized personal loyalties and wealth accumulation over state defense, eroding the disciplined slave-soldier ethos that had sustained the regime for over two centuries. Despite the system's longevity without hereditary succession—enduring invasions by , , and plagues—these divisions fostered corruption and indiscipline, rendering the sultanate vulnerable to external aggression. Mamluk military stagnation exacerbated these weaknesses, particularly in adopting technologies. While the sultanate employed some handguns and early s since the , Mamluk elites resisted widespread integration of firearms, viewing them as incompatible with their cavalry-centric tactics and social hierarchy, where defined status. In contrast, the Ottomans under (r. 1512–1520) fielded disciplined infantry and superior field artillery, honed through conquests in and the . This technological and organizational gap proved decisive; Mamluk forces, numbering around 60,000 at Dabiq, faltered against Ottoman barrages that shattered morale without close engagement. External pressures compounded internal rot, notably naval neglect amid Portuguese incursions in the . The Mamluks maintained only sporadic fleets, lacking timber resources and naval expertise, which left trade routes exposed after defeats like the 1509 , where allied Gujarati-Mamluk ships succumbed to Portuguese carracks armed with heavy ordnance. These disruptions strained fiscal resources without prompting sustained maritime reform, diverting attention from Ottoman threats on the northern frontier. The Ottoman conquest culminated in Selim I's swift campaign of 1516–1517, triggered by Mamluk support for the Safavids and ambitions over . At the on August 24, 1516, Qansuh al-Ghawri's 80,000-strong army collapsed after Ottoman fire and the sultan's death—likely from a stroke or fall amid the chaos—prompting mass desertions and the surrender of . Tuman Bay II's subsequent resistance at Ridaniya on January 22, 1517, failed against Ottoman entrenchments and firepower, leading to Cairo's fall on April 26, 1517, after brutal . Selim's forces, leveraging superior and unity, incorporated Mamluk units intact, highlighting the invaders' adaptive edge over a fractious defender. This conquest ended the sultanate's independence, though its non-dynastic resilience underscores that decline arose from cumulative failures in adaptation rather than inherent flaws.

Post-Sultanate Influence in Egypt

After the Ottoman conquest of 1517, Mamluk elites persisted as a semi-autonomous in , integrating into the Ottoman administrative and military structure while retaining significant local control over fiscal and provincial affairs. By the eighteenth century, Mamluk beys had expanded their influence, dominating the military households and challenging Ottoman governors through alliances with local interest groups and control of tax-farming revenues. This autonomy enabled beys to manage key trade routes, including Levantine commerce and shipping, while maintaining private armies that secured their economic privileges. Factional rivalries among Mamluk households, particularly between the Qazdagli and rival groups, escalated into from 1786 to 1798, marked by assassinations, sieges, and economic disruption. In 1786, Ottoman forces under Hasan Pasha invaded to dismantle Mamluk dominance but withdrew after inconclusive campaigns, allowing beys like and Ibrahim Bey to consolidate power amid ongoing internecine conflicts. These wars weakened central authority, fostering banditry and fiscal instability that Ottoman pashas struggled to contain. The French invasion disrupted Mamluk hegemony when Napoleon's army defeated approximately 21,000 Mamluk cavalry and Ottoman auxiliaries at the on July 21, 1798, inflicting 1,500 to 2,000 casualties and capturing . Despite this rout, Mamluks evaded total eradication, retreating southward and later allying with British forces against the French. Post-French withdrawal in 1801, surviving beys briefly regained influence but faced rivalry from Pasha, the Ottoman-Albanian commander who maneuvered to supplant them. Mamluk beys' entrenched control over and iltizam systems perpetuated a decentralized reliant on their patronage networks, often prioritizing household loyalties over broader reforms. This structure impeded Ottoman centralization efforts, as beys resisted disbanding private forces and reallocating revenues, contributing to administrative stagnation until external pressures forced change. On March 1, 1811, invited around 500 Mamluk leaders to a banquet at the Cairo Citadel, where his troops ambushed and slaughtered them, with survivors hunted down in subsequent days, decisively terminating Mamluk political dominance. This cleared the path for 's modernization initiatives, replacing Mamluk with a conscript and state-controlled .

Historiographical Debates and Modern Reassessments

Scholars have debated the concept of "Mamlukisation," a term coined to describe the profound socio-political transformations of the in the fifteenth century, particularly through initiatives like the project directed by Jo Van Steenbergen, which posits a shift from earlier centralized structures toward decentralized, factionalized power dynamics involving broader societal groups. This framework challenges earlier narratives of unrelenting decline by framing such changes as potential institutional adaptations fostering resilience amid fiscal pressures and Circassian dominance after 1382, though critics argue it masked underlying instability from recurrent elite turnover and weakened central authority. Comparative analyses extend this to global contexts, emphasizing Mamluk engagements with sub-Saharan African trade networks and Mediterranean European polities as evidence of adaptive rather than isolation, countering Egyptocentric historiographies that overlook these peripheral ties. Traditional Orientalist portrayals of the Mamluk system as archetypal , characterized by arbitrary rule and chronic , have been reassessed through evidence of elements, where advancement hinged on proven martial competence irrespective of origin, enabling the regime's durability from to 1517 despite non-hereditary succession. Nonetheless, this operated within an authoritarian core, as factional loyalties among mamluk households prioritized short-term allegiance over institutional permanence, a causal dynamic affirmed by archival records of iqta' land grants that incentivized extraction over sustainable governance. Recent scholarship, drawing on prosopographical studies of sultans and amirs, debunks unqualified by highlighting procedural norms in elite recruitment, yet upholds the regime's inherent volatility as a barrier to broader political evolution. Economic reassessments underscore tensions between military achievements—such as repelling Mongol incursions at Ayn Jalut in 1260 and Crusader remnants—and structural short-termism, with Lisa Blaydes' quantitative analysis of endowments and revealing how mamluk cycles eroded secure property rights, deterring investment and perpetuating fiscal dependence on agrarian rents that declined amid fourteenth-century plagues. Blaydes links this to long-term underdevelopment, arguing that reliance on imported slave elites severed state-society bonds, contrasting with European feudal evolutions toward representative institutions; empirical data from registers show iqta' reallocations every 20-30 years on average, fostering elite predation over . Such causal realism critiques prior overemphasis on nominal stability, attributing post-sultanate to these institutional legacies rather than exogenous shocks alone. Emerging 2020s research highlights agency among subjugated groups, including , whose administrative roles in fiscal bureaucracy—documented in multilingual papyri and chancery manuals—enabled subtle influence on policy despite periodic persecutions, challenging monolithic views of Mamluk dominance and revealing hybrid governance reliant on non-Muslim expertise for collection exceeding 10 million dinars annually by the 1370s. This reassessment, informed by digitized Geniza fragments, underscores empirical contingencies over ideological determinism, though mainstream academic sources occasionally underplay such nuances due to prevailing institutional biases favoring narrative coherence.

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-slavery/slavery-in-the-mamluk-sultanate/BB8E3CF15101D2338B67518033C44D47
  2. https://blaydes.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj24621/files/media/file/land1.pdf
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mamluk-sultanate/synopsis-of-events/EFAB029E15449EA793225265E08B9226
  4. https://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/aynjalut.htm
  5. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1267/the-siege-of-acre-1291-ce/
  6. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/the-art-of-the-mamluk-period-1250-1517
  7. https://www.realmofhistory.com/2022/06/23/mamluks-slave-warriors-history/
  8. https://exploringhist.blogspot.com/2018/03/who-were-mamluks.html
  9. https://www.aptigoat.com/posts/masters-and-mamluks-islams-slave-soldiers/
  10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1595777
  11. https://kipchaks.com/the-mamluks-slave-warriors/
  12. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-874
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mamluk-sultanate/ethos-of-the-slavesoldiers-regime/FBC5EB96DBB76460DBEA7F2A57F236DB
  14. https://medievalslavery.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/source-the-training-of-mamluks/
  15. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/05/mamluk-military-professional-medieval-army/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233304324_The_Reality_of_Mamluk_Warfare_Weapons_Armour_and_Tactics
  17. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/03/slave-sultan-baybars/
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/163694
  19. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/13706/24343680-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-egypt/bahri-mamluk-sultanate-12501390/36CE0C00365BD495CEA37390A76FE516
  21. https://hal.science/hal-00383336/document
  22. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/jesh/56/2/article-p189_2.xml
  23. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/when-the-last-banner-falls/
  24. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/08/power-struggles-mamluk/
  25. https://egymonuments.gov.eg/en/historical-periods/circassian-mamluks-burji/
  26. https://www.historycaucasus.com/blog/the-circassian-mamluk-sultanate-dawlat-al-jarakisa
  27. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate
  28. https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/24/1.0166156/3
  29. https://www.fias-fp.eu/publication/revolts-late-medieval-middle-east-1200-1500
  30. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate_%28Cairo%29
  31. https://www.academia.edu/12429139/The_Mamlu_ks_in_Egypt_and_Syria_the_Turkish_Mamlu_k_sultanate_648_784_1250_1382_and_the_Circassian_Mamlu_k_sultanate_784_923_1382_1517_in_The_New_Cambridge_History_of_Islam
  32. https://brill.com/view/journals/djap/3/2/article-p165_2.xml?language=en
  33. https://www.medievalists.net/2011/04/some-notes-on-the-portuguese-and-frankish-pirates-during-the-mamluk-period-872-922ah-1468-1517ad/
  34. http://assets.cambridge.org/0521462266/sample/0521462266WS.pdf
  35. https://study.com/academy/lesson/mamluk-dynasty-history-rulers.html
  36. https://history-maps.com/story/Mamluk-Sultanate
  37. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/07/mamluks-mongols/
  38. https://www.academia.edu/98903522/The_Urgent_Need_for_Cash_Thoughts_on_the_Taxation_of_Land_in_the_Late_Mamluk_Sultanate
  39. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/orient1960/22/0/22_0_85/_pdf/-char/en
  40. https://michiganjournalhistory.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cahill.pdf
  41. https://medpopculture.voices.wooster.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/2018/01/fischel_spice-trade-in-mamluk-egypt.pdf
  42. https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200504/the.coming.of.the.portuguese.htm
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mamluk-sultanate/political-economy/70D92BF2A17F61D002E02CB8BA71D94F
  44. https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/199203/american.silver.ottoman.decline.htm
  45. https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies/who-were-mamluks
  46. https://www.mamluk.uni-bonn.de/publications/working-paper/ask-wp-6.pdf
  47. https://africame.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-277.html
  48. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/mamluks
  49. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/slave-dynasty/
  50. https://www.nextias.com/blog/mamluk-dynasty/
  51. https://prepp.in/news/e-492-decline-of-mamluk-dynasty-medieval-india-history-notes
  52. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004384637/BP000011.xml
  53. https://dashboard.inspire.redlands.edu/downloads/2b201728-d528-4ccb-8b10-eef71d42aceb
  54. https://www.academia.edu/44053167/_The_Curious_Case_of_a_Fourteenth_Century_Madrasa_Agency_Patronage_and_the_Foundation_of_the_Madrasa_of_Umm_al_%25E1%25B9%25A2ult%25C4%2581n_Shab%25C4%2581n_
  55. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004387058/BP000003.xml?language=en
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mamluk-sultanate/cultural-legacy/DC9A64038C537925AF1EB101157859CF
  57. https://www.mamluk.uni-bonn.de/publications/working-paper/ask-wp-30-nasser-rabbat.pdf
  58. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789004452725/B9789004452725_s015.pdf
  59. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2302382
  60. https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/1005/files/MSR_III_1999-Winter.pdf?register_download=0
  61. https://www.sheptytskyinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Coptic-Christians-in-Mamluk-Egypt-during-the-Ba%25E1%25B8%25A5ri-Period-1250%25E2%2580%25931382.pdf
  62. https://madainproject.com/cairo_citadel
  63. https://artandarchaeology.princeton.edu/whats/events/building-islamic-metropolis-cairo-under-mamluks
  64. https://web.mit.edu/4.615/www/handout09.htm
  65. https://www.archnet.org/collections/2365
  66. https://sites.duke.edu/rethinkingglobalcities/files/2014/09/Rabbat-Staging-the-City-14.pdf
  67. https://www.academia.edu/46888669/Mamluk_Religious_Architecture_Between_Luxury_and_Tadb_%25C4%25B1r
  68. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0658.xml
  69. https://www.academia.edu/111513057/The_Change_of_the_Power_in_the_Context_of_Factional_Struggle_in_the_Formation_Years_of_the_Maml%25C5%25ABk_State
  70. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/337368-rise-and-fall-of-mamluk-sultanate-the-st-bc49ccce.pdf
  71. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-186
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336045031_Account_for_the_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Mamluk_State
  73. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-31
  74. https://www.historynet.com/the-battle-of-marj-dabiq/
  75. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12357
  76. https://www.danielpipes.org/8122/mamluk-survival-in-ottoman-egypt
  77. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/7803/1/Engel17PhD.pdf
  78. https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/battles/Egypt/c_MouradBey.html
  79. https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/napoleon/facts-and-figures/napoleon-in-egypt.html
  80. https://insidegmt.com/napoleon-in-egypt-the-battle-of-the-pyramids/
  81. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/the-campaign-in-egypt/
  82. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/mamelukes-are-massacred-egypt
  83. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/cairo/history/mohali/mohali.html
  84. https://research.flw.ugent.be/en/projects/mamlukisation-mamluk-sultanate-political-traditions-and-state-formation-15th-century-egypt
  85. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mamluk-sultanate/mamluk-sultanate-from-a-global-perspective/326DE7820ED1D27C20AD166816F73B02
  86. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12358
  87. https://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_I_1997-Guo.pdf
  88. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/chaney/files/feudalrevolutionfinal.pdf
  89. https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/243442/1/Rizzo%252C%2520Travelling%2520and%2520Trading%2520%2528published%2520version%2529.pdf
  90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.136.1.1
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.