A gift for Sultan Muhammad Ibn Tughluq of India

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rivkin,

No it was not wrong of you to offer your oppinion, and in a way there can be some truce in it. Most mamluks were of low rank, but there were some which held a high/very high rank in the Sultans army, so they would have had very elaborate swords - only they might not have been Egyptian swords, not even the type, and a sword given to the Sultan of India for a gift, must have been something very special, or you may end up in jail or some place less pleasent - when it came to gifts, they did not joke much those days.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Rivkin,

No it was not wrong of you to offer your oppinion, and in a way there can be some truce in it. Most mamluks were of low rank, but there were some which held a high/very high rank in the Sultans army, so they would have had very elaborate swords - only they might not have been Egyptian swords, not even the type, and a sword given to the Sultan of India for a gift, must have been something very special, or you may end up in jail or some place less pleasent - when it came to gifts, they did not joke much those days.

Heh, this is funny. When Hulegu Khan was marching throught the Jazira, one of the Ayyubid emirs (forgot his name) gave him a gift of slippers. This made Hulegu Khan furious and said "How dare you! do you see me barefooted!". The Emir said "No your highness, but these shoes bear my face on their on their soles, so that every time you step with them, you step on my face"

And this is a true story confirmed by several historians.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Rivkin,

No it was not wrong of you to offer your oppinion, and in a way there can be some truce in it. Most mamluks were of low rank, but there were some which held a high/very high rank in the Sultans army, so they would have had very elaborate swords - only they might not have been Egyptian swords, not even the type, and a sword given to the Sultan of India for a gift, must have been something very special, or you may end up in jail or some place less pleasent - when it came to gifts, they did not joke much those days.

I have to strongly disagree. The records of slave auctions suggest that (taking one dinar to be approximately equal to 13 dirhams, and taking in mind that the weight of dinars and dirhams varied greatly over time, especially during the economical crisis of late years):

The cheapest slaves were pagans (kafir) captured in masses during military campaings - like the lowest class of slaves, hindus. Their price was 2-10 dirhams.

Quality Black male slave would cost about 100-300 dirhams (depending on skills, endurance, age etc.)

In the beauty market non-whites costed far less than whites, especially beautiful blonde boys and girls - the range was from 10 to 300 dirhams for a black woman to 10,000 dirhams for exceptional (mostly white blonde) beaties, with the majority of really attractive black women being sold for 500-1000 dirhams .

Eunuchs costed 4 times more than normal males, because only 25% on average survived castration.

Now to the military slaves - average turkish soldier costed 500 dirhams in Mosul, a little more in Cairo. Good turk fighter costed 1000 dirhams.

The price for very good soldiers was about 10,000 dirhams. Later the prices started to grow - caucasian mamluks wanted to have caucasians under their command, which dictate sometimes completely exorbitant prices, but 10,000 dirhams seems to be a good estimate for quality "mamluk-commander".

Concerning their weaponry, during napoleonic campaigns, the body of a mamluk (with his weaponry) was bringing to founder 15,000 francs (something like three year salary for a ranking officer).

In short I seriously doubt that sultan's mamluks (which were of better quality than mamluks of local leadership), every one of them costing like 250 hindus would carry inferior quality swords.

P.S. why they were so expensive ? Couple of things you had to pass to be a Mamluk:

Riding a horse in between of two lines of targets. Chopping the targets down. Horse should go as fast as to come in between of 3 targets in 1.5 seconds. All targets should be destroyed.
Similar test in archery.

References: as usual, would start with Nasidze, Lewis, "Muslim Slave System
in Medieval India" by Lal etc.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

I have to strongly disagree. The records of slave auctions suggest that (taking one dinar to be approximately equal to 13 dirhams, and taking in mind that the weight of dinars and dirhams varied greatly over time, especially during the economical crisis of late years):

The cheapest slaves were pagans (kafir) captured in masses during military campaings - like the lowest class of slaves, hindus. Their price was 2-10 dirhams.

Quality Black male slave would cost about 100-300 dirhams (depending on skills, endurance, age etc.)

In the beauty market non-whites costed far less than whites, especially beautiful blonde boys and girls - the range was from 10 to 300 dirhams for a black woman to 10,000 dirhams for exceptional (mostly white blonde) beaties, with the majority of really attractive black women being sold for 500-1000 dirhams .

Eunuchs costed 4 times more than normal males, because only 25% on average survived castration.

Now to the military slaves - average turkish soldier costed 500 dirhams in Mosul, a little more in Cairo. Good turk fighter costed 1000 dirhams.

The price for very good soldiers was about 10,000 dirhams. Later the prices started to grow - caucasian mamluks wanted to have caucasians under their command, which dictate sometimes completely exorbitant prices, but 10,000 dirhams seems to be a good estimate for quality "mamluk-commander".

Concerning their weaponry, during napoleonic campaigns, the body of a mamluk (with his weaponry) was bringing to founder 15,000 francs (something like three year salary for a ranking officer).

In short I seriously doubt that sultan's mamluks (which were of better quality than mamluks of local leadership), every one of them costing like 250 hindus would carry inferior quality swords.

P.S. why they were so expensive ? Couple of things you had to pass to be a Mamluk:

Riding a horse in between of two lines of targets. Chopping the targets down. Horse should go as fast as to come in between of 3 targets in 1.5 seconds. All targets should be destroyed.
Similar test in archery.

References: as usual, would start with Nasidze, Lewis, "Muslim Slave System
in Medieval India" by Lal etc.

Hello Rivkin,

Werent Turkish slaves first bought as slaves then trained in the sultans tibaq (barracks)? Or were they bought as professional warriors. As I have surely read that they were bought at a very young age, at 4 or 5 and sent to the barracks to train in the arts of war until the age of 20 then freed and enter the Sultans army.

I have read about the thing about chopping up targets, its in the furussiya manual, that must have been very hard. They also trained using the dabbus(mace) and nishab (crossbow).

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by M.carter

Hello Rivkin,

Werent Turkish slaves first bought as slaves then trained in the sultans tibaq (barracks)? Or were they bought as professional warriors. As I have surely read that they were bought at a very young age, at 4 or 5 and sent to the barracks to train in the arts of war until the age of 20 then freed and enter the Sultans army.

This was the most desired case. However (Rustam's memoir) in reality children from 4 to 14 were considered. Adult fighters also were present on the market - some of the mamluks were resold before being freed, however in the early age of the system a lot of accomplished fighters from abroad have been purchased - to be both soldiers and trainers.

On mamluk training - "Training of the Mamluk Faris" seems to be probably the most comprehensive book, together with "Archery of Saracens" and so on.