A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[ham]

Aqtai,

Regarding the medallion on the Ottoman shirt-- Arabic was the language of the Egyptian Province as you know. Mamluks were acquired from the Caucasus and Anatolia primarily, hence they spoke their native language, as well as Osmanlici and Arabic. Arabic titles were typical for Mamluks even under the Ottomans-- the Mamluk governor continued to be known as the Shaykh al-Beled until after Abu Kir. A Mamluk who went by the title al-Gaabi is not unusual. And tax collecting was a highly profitable position to which one was appointed as an honor there.


Sincerely,

Ham

[Rivkin]

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

Concerning titles, indeed they carried titles in arabic, for example an honorary title yaqtaq (sorry, don't speak arabic and cite by memory, but it's supposed to be the butcher ? The title of Murad, Ibrahim and Mehmed and all others who killed 72).

Now on mail - afaik the subject of armour is even less understood than that of weapons. During the last few days I had the opportunity to speak with a few historians of mamluk period and I've got a very certain impression that they know the words of furisiyya, but have no ideas how these "swords", "bows" etc. look like - well many historians out there certainly do, but it's not a very common knowladge. For example one can look at Ayn-Jalat by Smith and "Mongol-Ilkhanid war" by Amitai-Preiss. The latter one quite honestly admits that there is no depiction of Ilkhanid armor, weaponry or tactics of the time. The description they use is due to Marco Polo (!), who obviously did not have anything to do with Mongol-Mamluk wars. The rest (and it's like 100 pages in these manuscripts) is an open speculation. For example Smith claims that Mongols used georgian/armenian cavalry because of it's shock power, but Amitai-Preiss counteracts with the statement that there is not a single (!) depictions of georgian or armenian cavalry of the time.

One of the most puzzling things to me was that no one in the middle ages seemed to be interested in for example testing a typical "mamluk" armor against a bow in order for example to determine the effective range of their weapons, or may be no one was interested in recording this for posterity, which is not unusual, taking in mind that 90% of books on mamluks will reference same works - Maqrizi, Ibn-Iyas, Ibn-Khaldan, Bar Hebraus, Rash-Al-Din, Furisiyya and may be 5 to 10 lesser known volumes.

In light of this there is a lot of speculation when it comes to "what was the difference in armor between royal and amir mamluks ?" "Did halqa use mails ?" and so on.

[Rivkin]

Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar.

Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...

[fearn]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar.

Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...

Hi Rivkin,

I'd suggest that, once you get someone off the horse, an armor-piercing knife is useful. After all, that's what the European misericorde was for.

On the other hand, I do agree with you: I don't know much about Indian martial arts, but I certainly wouldn't want to count on a katar as a main battle weapon. However, off the battlefield (i.e. in a dark alley, an ambush, a skirmish, or whatever), I suspect it was quite useful. After all, the thickened point doesn't prevent it from being used on unarmored foes as well as armored ones. I'd suggest we simply look at it as an Indian version of a cinqueda and go with it.

Otherwise, I'm quite enjoying the discussion of indian armor, so I'll fade back into the woodwork.

F

[Tim Simmons]

Small heavy bladed knives and katars would be very useful getting through heavy and padded cotton armour as Fearn says. By the mid to late 19th century some oriental metal armour had become quite light and only partially protecting the torso. These knives might well never have been expected to be in use against metal armour around the close of the 19th century. Tim

[ham]

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

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

Despite the scarcity of data on arms and armor of the Mamluks, Mamluk arms in Egypt are not entirely occluded by the mists of time. Excellent research has been done and continues to be done by European, Arab and Turkish arms historians. What Mamluk arms and armor were like is not the realm of Islamic, Ottoman, Egyptian or Mamluk historians, nor is it ever but rarely touched upon by military historians. It is arms historians who specialize in this esoteric area which requires a background in numerous languages, history, metalurgy and extensive experience with the artifacts themselves-- and while their research may be found in arms journals such as the newly revived GLADIUS, the best way to fill gaps in one's own knowledge is to examine the material record itself-- museums in both Cairo and Istanbul have numerous examples of Mamluk arms and armor identified by the names of their owners and the rulers under whom they fought-- for the present,the most reliable method of attribution known.

[Rivkin]

[QUOTE=ham]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aqtai]

Rivkin, that is exactly what I meant.

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

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

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

[Rivkin]

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

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

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

Did someone see something on this issue ?

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

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

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

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

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

Did someone see something on this issue ?

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

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

Hi Rivkin, I have never heard this story about Circassian mamluks being buried in trees, from what I know of the mamluks and the Mamluk sultanate, I think it would be highly unlikely. For all their frequent lapses (such as murdering each other, drinking wine and qumiz, love of fine clothing and over-taxing the native peoples of their kingdom ) the mamluks were pretty orthodox and overall quite sincere Muslims. Those kind of pagan practices would simply not have been tolerated. I don't know were the ordinary mamluks were buried, but certainly Cairo is littered with the splendid tombs of emirs and sultans, many of which I have visited. I assume the tombs of ordinary mamluks would have ressembled those of their contemporary middle-class Egyptians. In fact there is a lot we don't know about mamluks.

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

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


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