
Who Were the Mamluks? - petethomas
https://www.historytoday.com/james-waterson/who-were-mamluks
======
dfsegoat
Tying things back to today: A Mameluke Sword is what you see US Marine Corps.
officers carry on specific formal occasions (or in recruiting commercials!):

 _" Marine Corps history states that a sword of this type was presented to
Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon by the Ottoman Empire viceroy, Prince
Hamet, on December 8, 1805, during the First Barbary War, in Libya, as a
gesture of respect and praise for the Marines' actions at the Battle of Derna
(1805)"_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mameluke_sword#United_States_M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mameluke_sword#United_States_Marine_Corps)

~~~
ivanhoe
what's exactly the distinction between swords and sabres in English? In my
native language we'd call this a sabre (sablja), as word sword (mač) is used
only for straight double-edged blades.

~~~
enraged_camel
A saber is a type of sword. It’s pretty heavy and was meant for use on
horseback (i.e. cavalry).

~~~
narag
Nothing about a sword being straight and sabre curved?

------
beat
If you're interested in this kind of history stuff, I recommend reading _The
Silk Roads_ , by Peter Frankopan. It's a recent (2015) epic-scope history
book, from the beginning of written history to the present day, based on the
idea that the Middle East, rather than Europe, is the true center of
civilization - that the area stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to
western India has been foremost, and remains foremost. (In particular, he
argues that northern/western Europe was basically an uninteresting, barbarian
backwater until 1500 or so.)

Great book, totally fascinating reading, with the hottest geopolitical issues
of today traced back through thousands of years of history.

~~~
beat
One interesting thing that comes from the book is realizing just how
tremendously important the early Islamic expansion and empire was, filling the
vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire with a new culture, devoted
to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of
earlier civilizations. Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of
ancient Greece.

~~~
ng12
> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire

What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have
filled the vacuum even better.

~~~
beat
The Byzantines were an eastern empire, not a western one - more aligned with
the Orient than with Europe. That said, pretty much the moment Islam appeared,
they ripped Egypt and the Levant out of Byzantine hands - reducing the
"Byzantine empire" from "empire" to "regional kingdom that will eventually get
sacked". Less than a century after Islam started, they were laying siege to
Constantinople. Over the next couple of centuries, Constantinople lost 90% of
its population.

Basically, they only lasted meaningfully for a few centuries, between the fall
of the western empire and the rise of the Islamic empire. If you count the
transition from the original Islamic conquest to the Ottoman empire as a
single continuous system (as you're doing with the western Roman empire and
the Byzantine empire), then the Islamic empire lasted for north of 13
centuries, finally dying only in the 20th century, the end of WWI.

~~~
evol262
The Byzantines were as aligned with the "Orient" as Alexander was. They held
onto territory in Italy until a full 600 years after the West fell (once
Belisarius recaptured it in the 600s). They had active diplomacy with the Holy
Roman Empire and other states in the West up until the 4th Crusade, basically.

You've completely glossed over the Renaissance of the empire around 1000 AD
(550 years after the West fell) under John Tzimiskes, Basil II, etc. You can
blame this on the decline of Abbasid power if you want, but even if the
caliphate _technically_ held territory in Syria/Lebanon, there was no question
as to military superiority. The Byzantines raided with impunity and got
tribute from the local emirs.

Constantinople lost 90% of its population after the plague of Justinian, and a
recurring series of outbreaks over the next centuries, plus a loss of manpower
after the desperate end of the Sassanian wars under Heraclius (which Heraclius
technically won, but both empires were so diminished that they were easy prey
for the new caliphate). It rebounded. Never to its maximum, but it was back
near 750000 under the Macedonians.

So, the empire was ok until 660, lost territory, rebounded in the 10th
century, and was arguably at its best organizationally and culturally until
the real decline started during Manzikert.

It lasted 1000 years. Please read something other than Gibbon, or at least
listen to The History of Byzantium (which follows on where The History of Rome
left off). History is not a static field, and the Byzantines are rapidly
becoming rehabilitated as more documents come up.

~~~
beat
I'd also argue that Alexander was an oriental emperor, and even Rome had a lot
more in common, economically and culturally, with the middle east than they
ever had with northern/western Europe. Note the extent of the Roman empire in
the east, relative to the west - they pretty much ignored everything north of
the Mediterranean.

The rebound of the Byzantines is a good point, but they never really reclaimed
their former glory. Still, point taken.

edit: Actually, going further with this, the modern "European-ness" of
classical Roman and Greek culture is largely a retcon of actual history. The
culture of western Europe had very little to do with the culture of ancient
Greece, relative to, say, Egypt or Syria.

~~~
evol262
I'd disagree that the Romans had more in common with the Middle East than
northern/western Europe purely on the basis that a substantial part of the
feudal organization, religion, and law of northern/western Europe comes
directly from the latter Empire. That's unfair as an argument, because we
don't really know what was there before that (lack of Celtic writings), but
it's also hard to disagree with. The Goths and Vandals were Romanized to a
significant degree before they even came West.

I don't think it's fair to say that Roman culture being European is a
"retcon". Sure, for the Greeks, but the Romans were the forebears of virtually
all European institutions, and any argument that the society Europe
consciously modeled itself upon was somehow not European falls apart.

~~~
beat
Yeah, I can see that. Certainly, the Celts and Germans had plenty of contact
with the Romans, and Roman bureaucracy and aristocracy (not to mention Roman-
distributed Christianity) directly informed their institutions. But in a lot
of ways, it's not so much an inheritance as a cargo cult, but it's still a
valid connection.

But Greek culture... yeah, that's a retcon.

~~~
GW150914
Of course Roman culture was itself a retread of Greek culture with a few mods
thrown in, they even pulled an asset flip with the Greek pantheon.

~~~
evol262
I mean, not really. The Romans, as always, picked and chose the parts they
liked and integrated them into their own mythology. The Roman pantheon was a
superset of the Greek pantheon (among others), as evocatio was used as a final
part of conquest. The Romans also stole the gods of their foes, and more than
just the Greeks.

Roman culture, though, was heavily focused on superstition and virtue, rather
than logic, and is not in any way a retread of Greek culture.

------
zeveb
> Boys of about 13 would be captured from areas to the north of the Persian
> empire, and trained to become an elite force for the personal use of the
> sultan or higher lords. The Arabic word Ghulam (boy) was sometimes employed
> for the bodyguards they would become. The boys would be sent by the caliph
> or sultan to enforce his rule as far afield as Spain (Venice and Genoa were
> major players in their transportation despite Papal interdictions) and sold
> to the commanders of the Islamic governments of the region. Under their new
> masters they were manumitted, converted to Islam, and underwent intensive
> military training.

Think about the mass human history involved in that: each Mamluk was either
bought from a desperate family or (more likely) captured in raids in which
many of his friends and relatives were no doubt slaughtered; he was carried
thousands of miles from anywhere he knew or recognised; then he was 'freed,'
with no choice but to fight on behalf of those who'd bought him. No doubt many
of them were subject to torture and abuse.

It's very similar to the Janissaries, who were taken from Christian villages
in the Balkans and Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), made to convert and then
trained to serve as soldiers for the Ottomans.

The mind boggles at the centuries of boys taken from their families at forced
to fight on behalf of their kidnappers.

~~~
sorokod
and we are not done yet...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_military#Curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_military#Current_situation)

------
glastra
Francisco Goya painted some of them in _The Charge of the Mamelukes_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_of_May_1808](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_of_May_1808)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamelukes_of_the_Imperial_Guar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamelukes_of_the_Imperial_Guard)

------
puranjay
Every time I read something like this, I'm reminded of how much I know my
grounding in history to _Age of Empires 2_.

Sure, it got a lot of things wrong and it took liberty with a lot of
historical facts, but it also gave me a basis for, and appreciation of
history.

I knew about the Mamluks because they were an elite unit in the game, and I
happened to one day just Google their name and read the wiki page.

~~~
kumarharsh
So true. AoE II was a great learning experience too on top of being an
excellent game. The campaigns (although not exactly historically accurate)
made me learn a lot about European and Asian histories, rivalries, amd
personalities.

------
hmd_imputer
"the Mamluks were not native to Egypt but were always slave soldiers, mainly
Qipchak Turks from Central Asia." \- if two Turks come together, they would
establish an empire.

~~~
Symmetry
I seem to recall that because the Mamluks were mostly Turkic their country was
called "The home of the Turks" or essentially "Turkey" for a while.

~~~
mustaflex
if I remember correctly one of the first of the Mamluk kings was named "bay
pars" meaning rich leopard in turkish.

------
esharte
I really enjoyed the wonderful In our Time podcast about the Mamluks
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bfmlh](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bfmlh)

~~~
davidwtbuxton
Me too. I love In Our Time, so many interesting subjects and I think it is a
very well produced programme.

------
mustaflex
Fun fact: the mamluks where prohibited by their masters to marry arabs to not
"lessen" their warrior genes

~~~
dmix
The article says as much:

> And they kept their garrisons distinct, not mixing with the populace in the
> territories. The contemporary Arab historian Abu Shama noted after the
> Mamluk victory over the Mongols at Ayn Jalut in 1260 that, ‘the people of
> the steppe had been destroyed by the people of the steppe’.

They kept their south Russian steppe blood well into their empire.

------
onetimemanytime
If you're go do it, do it fast and for good:
[https://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/mamelukes-
are...](https://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/mamelukes-are-
massacred-egypt) _> >By 1811 Muhammad Ali was strong enough to deal with the
Mamelukes. He organised a grand ceremonial procession in Cairo to which he
invited some 500 Mameluke notables. Assembled in the citadel, they were warmly
welcomed and treated to coffee, sweetmeats and polite conversation, but when
the time came for the procession they had to go down a narrow, winding
passageway between high walls in single file. Suddenly the gates at each end
were slammed shut and the Wali’s soldiers appeared on top of the walls and
opened a murderous fire with muskets. All or possibly all but one of the
Mamelukes were killed. More Mamelukes were swiftly hunted down and killed in
Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt, to a total of perhaps 3,000._

------
kfe
For those find the topic interesting I would suggest reading "The Arabs: A
History"[1] by Eugene Rogan. A truly fascinating read. [1]
[https://www.amazon.com/Arabs-History-Eugene-
Rogan/dp/0465025...](https://www.amazon.com/Arabs-History-Eugene-
Rogan/dp/0465025048)

------
swampthinker
According to my EU4 history lessons, Ottoman food.

------
jmwenda
It is actually interesting as 'Mamluki' is Swahili term for mercenary

------
Giorgi
one of the well known mameluks where actually Georgians. they are well known
for world leaders, like Stalin

------
Drup
The Mamluks are a major power stuck between the Ottomans and Persia with a
weird government form that almost guarantees rulers with a 6 in paper mana.

They somehow often colonize Australia.

~~~
shrimp_emoji
I'm sorry; is "paper mana" some uneducated term for admin power?

Also, yep. I was surprised to see them in Indonesia!

~~~
swampthinker
Paper Mana, Bird Mana, and sword mana

------
catacombs
They were those bastards who nearly dominated the Ottoman Empire and all of
the western Mediterranean region in my recent EU4 game. They listed me as a
rival for nearly 200 years without ever waging war, which, in hindsight, was a
blessing.

~~~
ayayecocojambo
you should first handle memluks before going west. (in the history, whole
memluk region is conquered by ottoman empire with only a single war)

~~~
madeuptempacct
Didn't the Ottomans eventually have the Jannissaries demand more and more
power?

So basically the same story as Mamluks rebelling against their Arab leaders.

