Mamluk Cairo, a Crossroads for Embassies Studies on Diplomacy and Diplomatics Edited by (original) (raw)
Related papers
The cities of Mecca and Medina attracted the attention of orientalists as early as the 16th century, but primarily because they were the scene of the birth of Islam and less as eastern urban entities, like Istanbul or Cairo for example. Nevertheless, as these two cities were off-limits to them, it was less through visiting and more through the collation of Arab and Persian sources that scholars came to know them, depending on the orientation of these primary sources. When some travellers were able to visit them, their interest remained focused on the sanctuaries. The history and topography of the sanctuaries were undoubtedly detailed, but the urban organization and social history of the less investigated localities.
The Mamluk sultanate was the principal power in the eastern Mediterranean for a quarter of a millennium. This unique and sophisticated political-military regime was not an isolated island in an ocean of infidels and enemies. The geopolitical position of Egypt and Syria defined the sultanate's participation in the medieval "world system."1 Commercial and diplomatic networks connected Cairo with neighboring and remote governments. The control of Islam's holy cities2 strengthened the cultural communications of the sultanate with Muslims from lands far beyond the eastern Mediterranean.3 This political reality exposed the Mamluks to developments in near and remote regions.4 Cairo, the capital city of the Mamluk sultanate (dawla),5 was a great consumer center whose very survival depended heavily on overseas trade and on good relations with close and remote lands.6 To supply local markets and in response to private and public demands, Cairo developed into an entrepôt of networks of sophisticated intercontinental trade. It is no wonder the Mamluks demonstrated a keen interest in lands beyond the frontiers of their abode.7 The sultans observed even slight changes in border lands and in far-off countries,8 1 Humphreys, Egypt in the world system 452-4, 459-61. 2 Ibn al-Ḥimṣī, Ḥawādith al-zamān i, 226 (sulṭān al-ḥaramayn). 3 It is clear from contemporary chronicles and from biographies of Muslim ʿulamāʾ and Sufis. Al-Sakhāwī, al-Tibr al-masbūk i, 181-3 (847/1447 biography of Abū Bakr al-Kakhtawī; quotes al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān). 4 Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iii, 78 (877/1472: wa-qad intahakat ḥurmat sulṭān Miṣr ʿinda mulūk al-sharq wa-ghayrihā ḥattā l-fallāḥīn ṭamaʿū fī l-Turk wa-tabahdalū ʿindahum bi-sabab mā jarā ʿalayhim min Suwār wa-kādat an takhruj al-mamlaka min al-Jarākisa). 5 Al-Jazarī, Taʾrīkh i, 153. 6 Broadbridge, Kingship and ideology 16-26. 7 On Mamluk embassies (728-38/1328-38) to Dasht-i Qipchaq (Cumans), see al-Fākhirī, Taʾrīkh 437-8. 8 Thus for example, reports from Cairo indicate that during the Venetian-Genoese war (753/ Summer 1352) vital commodities did not reach the sultanate. ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ, Nayl al-amal i, 230-1; military failures projected badly on the stability of the regime.
A review of "Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam"
This is a review of Patricia Crone's ´Meccan Trade and the rise of Islam´1, which I wrote during my MA Comparative Religion at the University of Leiden in The Netherlands because of the numerous inconsistencies of Crown's work. This review is divided into four parts each treating one aspect of Crone's work. I have compared her work often with Mahmoud Ibrahim's work on the Umayyad caliphate which contains concise and invaluable information obtained from more primary sources.
The Rise of Mecca: Geopolitical Factors
The Muslim World, 1995
This thesis is presented in a number of works: Irfu&mmmi'aI Mecca (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953); Mufiammad UI &-dn8 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956); Muhammad Prophe/ andS(8emm (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), and Mu~ammad5Mecca (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1989). A summary of it appears in 'Makka,' 3ncycfopedh of hfam, VI (new * hkxxn ?hde andthe h%e ofh'am (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). This approximate dating is derived by counting back five generations (30 years each) from Mubammad to his ancestor Qqayy. who supposedly brought Mecca under the control of Quraysh. ed.). pp. 145-6. See W. Montgomery Watt, 'Djurhum,' Gncyclo@iu offifam, I1 (new ed.), pp. 603-4. For further on this issue, see Crone, Mecrarn nade chapter eight. See her %ves on Homes: The Evofution of rbe fdmic Po/&(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), chapter one; Albrecht Noth. Que&enkn?/>c.he Studen zu Tiemen, Formen, und Tendenzen h&5ALam5cher Geschik.htsk5erfieferung (Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientdischen Seminus der Universitit, 1973); and John W. Jandora, TheMarrb From Medna., R Rew%om>t Study of L3e h a b Cbnquests(Clifton: Kingston Press, 1990), chapter five. ' See Gerald R. Hawting, 'The Origin of Jedda and the Problem of al-Shu'ayba,' Arabica 31 (1984), pp. 318-26. Hawting is unaware that the location of al-Shu'ayba is given in navigational charts and gazetteers. Many place names of ancient Arabia have survived into modern times.
Concerning the questions of Ottoman integration into the modern diplomatic networks in the early modern period, The Ottomans and the Mamluks deals with Ottoman-Mamluk diplomatic relations and contributes to the field of Ottoman diplomatic history, especially to understanding how the Ottomans used diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy and to what extent diplomacy was a mechanism at which interstate conflicts were highlighted, discussed and resolved through diplomacy as an alternative to warfare. Instead of a diplomatic history overshadowed by political history, it focuses on treating the diplomatic exchange itself as a subject matter with a pursuit of understanding the symbolic and representational aspects of the ceremonies, correspondences, gift exchanges, developing ambassadorial decorum etc. in various cultural contexts. Cihan Yüksel Muslu tracks the evolution of Ottoman-Mamluk relations from the mid-fourteenth century until 1512. Having an introduction and five chapters and three appendices, the book presents a chronological evolution of the Ottoman-Mamluk relations. Primary concern of the book is to understand the dynamics between the Ottomans and the Mamluks and how it changed over time. Although the Mamluk supreme political power disappeared from the scene in 1517, Muslu does not include last five years of the Mamluks, on the grounds that "a study that would include the final five years would undoubtedly produce a second volume," (pp. 21-22) because of the intensity of the relations in these years. Besides, the author states that her book serves to depict an alternative picture of Ottoman-Mamluk relations that is undistorted by the weight of the ultimate Ottoman victory. In fact, the Mamluks were the superior and more respected political power compared to the Ottomans from the beginning of the early fourteenth century to the end of the fifteenth century when the Ottomans began to challenge this superiority. Dîvân 2016/1 109 KİTAP DEĞERLENDİRMELERİ ambiguous. Do they refer to the sultans? Or do they include also the sultans' entourage, and bureaucracy that involve in the diplomatic exchange? She mostly focuses on Ottoman and Mamluk sultans in every occasion and pays little attention to the agencies of the pashas, secretaries who most probably participated actively in composing the letters and arranging the diplomatic settings. Köstendilli Ali el-Halvetî. Telvîhât: Bir Osmanlı Şeyhinin Dilinden Tasavvuf. Haz. Semih Ceyhan. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2016. 285 sayfa.