The Mamluk Conception of the Sultanate (original) (raw)

1994, International Journal of Middle East Studies

Int. J. Middle East Stud. 26 (1994), 373-392. Printed in the United States of America Amalia Levanoni THE MAMLUK CONCEPTION OF THE SULTANATE During their rule in Egypt and Syria (1250-1517), the Mamluks showed a certain ambiguity in their attitude toward the sultanate including its rules of succession and the ruler's source of power. This ambiguity has led to a variety of opinions about the nature of the Mamluk Sultanate in scholarly works on Mamluk history. David Ayalon implies, in "The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom,"' that the principle of heredity was recognized to various degrees in the Mamluk state, although it was weak during the Bahri period and altogether abandoned during the Circassian period.2 In "From Ayyubids to Mamluks," Ayalon confirms that when the Mamluks came to power they had not "ever dreamt of creating a non-hereditary sultan's office" because most of the Bahri period was ruled by the Qala'unid dynasty. When nonhereditary rule came about, at least in the Bahri period, it was without any form of planning. In his "Mamluk Military Aristocracy: A Non-Hereditary Nobility," Ayalon stresses that even during pre-and post-Qala'unid times the sultan's office was only nonhereditary to a certain extent and that "throughout the history of the Mamluk Sultanate there is not the slightest mention of the non-hereditary character of the sultan's office, or of the intention of turning it into such."3 P. M. Holt writes, in "Succession in the Early Mamluk Sultanate," that the Mamluks tried to establish the right of inheritance during the years 1250-1310, but the idea was not compatible with Mamluk tradition, which did not pass down privileges to descendants. Holt suggests that the usurpations so common in this period were their way of resolving the problem in Mamluk politics (the Qala'unid dynasty being the exception).4 In an earlier article, "The Position and Power of the Mamluk Sultan," Holt argues that the Qala'unid rule lasted so long because it was convenient to have a nominal sultan to act as a faqade for the oligarchy of the amirs.5 Robert Irwin, in The Middle East in the Middle Ages, indicates by describing Baybars's and Qala'un's accession to power that hereditary succession was not established in the Mamluk Sultanate before the end of al-Nasir Muhammad's third reign (1310-41). During the earlier period Mamluk amirs claimed power and became sultan by virtue of their abilities, achievements, and the acceptance of their leadership by their peers.6 After al-Nasir Muhammad's third reign, which was both long and free of civil strife, "no one questioned the rights of the descendants of Qala'un to the