Talk:Mamluk

message: The map includid does not show the size of the mamluke sultanate at all, its not appropriate.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCaire (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map 

message: I find the information about hte Mamluk a bit thin concerning its early history. It does a good job describing what advantages they brought but it doesn't describe how former slaves become the most powerful forces in Egypt. The name origins aren't discussed, etc. The focus is too much on late 19th century politics.--Ebralph 15:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit more info on the early period 

message: Is this really true that the English translation of the word "Mamluk" is owned?85.147.0.215 21:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't speak arabic, and i don't know arabic etymologies, but mlk being an ancient acronym sounds like "folk etymology"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about an acronym? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owned? 

message: Changes:
From what I've read, usually "mamluk" is not capitalized
when refering to the practice/institution and the troop.
It is only capitalized when refergint to the kingdom in
Egypt/Syria, or the subsequent Ottoman era elites. So I've
edited it accordingly.
Also, I've removed a couple of wrong statements on the
Mamlukes vis-a-vis Ain Jalut (the idea that of Berke 
distracting Hulagu, and the idea of Mamluk familiarity 
with Mongol tactics as key to Ain Jalut victory).
Suggestions:
I think there is too much on the Mongols and Mongol
politics in the Egyptian Mamluk Dynasty section.
More importantly, I think that the Egyptian Mamluks
deserve their own page, as their were a major power
in late-medieval Middle Eastern Islamic history.
MYLO 08:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHANGES AND SUGGESTIONS 

message: This text does not directly relate to mamluks and should be moved elsewhere. - Skysmith 11:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genghis khan stuff 

message: The following is biased, it is written from a Pro-Crusader perspective, and ignores the fact that the arrival and installment of the Franks in the middle east was achieved through a campaign of massacre and genocide. The Franks themselves were involed in the persecution of the indeginous eastern churches of the middle-east. There are still plenty of Chritians in the ME, and many of them are Arabs, so it seems this claim lacks any real substance.
"Furthermore, despite their genocidal extermination of the Franks and most of the Christian population in the Levant including the annihialation of the cities which had stood for thousands of years, there are some influences of the Mamluk dynasties on Syria and Egypt which can be viewed today in the architecture"
:Yeah, the same guy added a lot of extremely biased nonsense to the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. I don't know how to fix it here, though. Adam Bishop 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The recent edit by the IP introduced some good new factual information to the article, but it was intertwined with all sorts of implicit anti-Muslim bigotry. It's no good just to revert, but somebody needs to pick out all the bad parts, like a Japanese chef picking out the poison in a blowfish. Babajobu 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions by IP

message: It is very important to highlight that there were two distinct Mamaloukian dyansties; The Turkish (Bahraiah or Barjiah) and the Jarkasiah (from Georgia, south of Russia)
Interesting to note that during the rule of Galloun (i think he was the third king in the Turkish dynasty) and out of lack of trust for his peers, he sought soldier slaves from the what is now Georgia to start his own army and bodyguards. The Jarkas were blonde, blue eyed, good body stock and famous for their ferocity in battle. The irony is that later on, they became masters and started the second mamalouk dynasty. they did not have the charisma of the Turks who fought the mongols and seen as Islam's defenders and lacked the power of the Turkish dynasty. civil turbelence and hostility continued during the're dynasty. They had to face Tamerlane as well who ransaked Syria. They were demised by the Otommans as stated.
I think this article and others I have read on the Mamluks are a bit vague on some details.  When they became established as rulers in Egypt and elsewhere, were they being replenished with fresh recruits, or did they form a stable ethnic community within their host country?  If the latter, then to what extent were they still a community apart from the bulk of the population e.g. did they speak the local language or another? PatGallacher 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mamlouk Dyanasties 

message: Less than 400,000 lires, actually only 250,000 and my source is the book Crusades.
In that time it was custom to pay it in installments, after the first installment the prisoner would be released on conditions and the conditions removed when the rest was finally paid, which in this case it was not.Tourskin 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Loui's ransom 

message: Hi Adam Bishop. Slave in Arabic = ABD  / plural ABID.
Mamluk in Arabic is "possessed" that is to say possessed by the Sultan. 
There were slaves (Abid) and Mamluks (Mamalik) living side by side. Slaves served at the households of nobles while Mamluks served the Sultan.
unfortunately, the word Mamluk was translated often by orientalists and western writers to "slave". In mediaeval Near East the Slavery system differed from the slavery system in the west. Slaves in the Near East were rather servants at households of nobles and aristocrats.
Mamluks were the sultan's men. He paid them salaries, gave them houses, financed their marriages and sent their children to schools. Mamluks held high postions at the court of the sultan and thus they were, mostly, very loyal to to him. Mamluks formed a special class in the society distinguished by wealth and position. Samsam22 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks...why did you address this to me, though? (I must have said something stupid somewhere, haha!) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves and Mamluks 

message: ;Slaves to Sultans
The word mamluk means “one who is owned.” The term was originally applied to boys from Central Asian tribes who were bought by the Abbasid caliphs and raised to be soldiers. The same practice was adopted by the Fatimids, an Ismaili dynasty based in Tunisia that conquered Egypt in 969 and founded Cairo as its new capital. 
When Salah ad-Din (Saladin to the West), the son of a Kurdish general, supplanted the Fatimids and founded the Ayyubid dynasty in 1174, he formed the Mamluks into a distinct military body. Since the Ayyubids were strangers in Egypt, they likely felt more comfortable with the support of their fellow foreigners. 
Slave traders bought the children of conquered tribes in Central Asia, promising them security, discipline and the possibility of great fortunes. Mamluk boys then endured several years of rigorous training in horsemanship and archery. They were used both as royal bodyguards and to offset the dominating influence of the Arab military in the state. Not to be confused with ordinary slaves, the Mamluks were members of an elite military corps—a kind of proto-Foreign Legion or a knighthood of Islam. In 1254, the Mamluks revolted against the Ayyubid ruler and one of their own—a Turk named Aybak—married Shagar al-Durr, the wife of the murdered sultan: The Mamluks had accomplished the rare feat of transforming themselves from slaves to masters. 
Power in the Mamluk realm was not based on heredity. Every Mamluk arrived in Egypt or Syria as a slave- soldier. The young men were converted to Islam and worked their way up the ranks on merit alone. Every commander of the army and nearly all of the Mamuk sultans started life in this way. The result was a succession of rulers of unbounded ambition, courage and ruthlessness. 
After the Mamluks made themselves masters of Egypt and Syria, they continued the tradition of recruiting foreigners for their military. Agents were sent to buy and import boys from Central Asian tribes, chiefly Circassians, Turkomans and Mongols. Mamluks looked on their Egyptian-born sons as socially inferior and would not recruit them into regular Mamluk units, which only admitted boys born on the steppes. 
This constant influx of new blood prevented the dynasty from decaying from within as a result of less-capable princes ascending to the throne, but it also made for turmoil at the top: While some Mamluk sultans ruled for a decade or more, the average length of rule was only five years. As an autocratic military caste, the Mamluks ruled with considerable harshness, imposing heavy taxes and holding all political and military power. They did employ the native-born population in civil posts; such persons often achieved high rank and honors in the civil administration. In contrast to their harsh reputation as rulers, the Mamluks also bequeathed an astonishing legacy of artistic achievement. Much of the glory of medieval Cairo still visible today is the result of Mamluk patronage. 
The Mamluks ruled Egypt until 1517, when Cairo fell to the Ottoman Turks whose artillery and firearm skills far surpassed that of the Mamluks who, as consummate horsemen, disdained such novelties. The Ottoman ruler, Selim i, ended the Mamluk sultanate but did not destroy the Mamluks as a class; they kept their lands, and Mamluk governors retained control of the provinces and were even allowed to keep private armies. 
In the 18th century, when Ottoman power began to decline, the Mamluks were able to win back an increasing amount of self-rule. In 1769 a Mamluk leader, Ali Bey, proclaimed himself sultan and declared independence from the Ottomans. Although his reign collapsed in 1772, the Ottoman Turks still felt compelled to concede increasing measures of autonomy to the Mamluks and appointed a series of them as governors of Egypt. The last great charge of the fabled Mamluk horsemen took place on July 17, 1798, when Napoleon Bonaparte’s modern army shattered the Egyptian cavalry at the Battle of the Pyramids. Their power as an elite class ended in 1811 when Muhammad Ali, an Albanian Turk who had wrested control of Egypt from the Ottomans in 1805, invited several hundred prominent Mamluks to dinner in the Cairo Citadel. After diner, as the Mamluk notables and their entourages made their way to one of the fortress’s lower gates, Muhammad Ali’s troops massacred them all, a violent final chapter for a dynasty whose rulers rose from slavery to control much of the Middle East. --220.226.199.10 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief Note on the Mamluks 

message: I removed this hidden comment: 
incomprehensible: In 1813, its Chasseurs-à-Cheval of the Imperial Guard a decree of 17 March established another company attached to the Young Guard.
 which I found when editing the "Under Napoleon" section.  I think it would be more useful here in the Talk section instead of being hidden until someone happens to notice it. TresÁrboles (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comment 

message: The Mamluk political entity that ruled Egypt and Syria from 1250 to 1517 should be one article, and mamluks as a social institution should be a separate article.  Mamluks in the latter sense were a part of many Muslim societies from the ninth century through the early modern period, and merit a separate entry.  I recommend the general social category of mamluks be the subject of the default article "Mamluk", while the regime based in Cairo in the late Middle Ages be called perhaps "Mamluks (Egypt)" - Mamluks being plural because it refers to them as a political group, rather than to their mamlukness in general.  Worlingham (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation recommended 

message: The infobox is a bit misleading here, since the article is about the concept of a type of slave soldiers, not the state founded by them. If someone was to write a separate article on the Mamluk Sultanate, fine, but there's no logic in having a country infobox in this article.
Peter Isotalo 15:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is also about the Mamluk Sultanate. I see above, however, that there is a request for splitting the page, which is a good idea. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a state 

message: I've created a new page, Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), to handle the state, and I've placed the infobox there.  I will also create a disambiguation page to handle the at least four Mamluk articles that now exist. Worlingham (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguated 

message: I am merging in as much useful content as I can from the Mamluk identity article (revision as of today).  As I perform this merge, I will be gradually removing content from that article, and finally will simply redirect from there to here.  Nimur (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done.  See Talk:Mamluk_identity for more details; if anyone has any content from this revision which they feel is not represented in the current Mamluk article, please merge it in.  Nimur (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Mamluk Identity

message: Some coins of the Mamluks. Feel free to insert them into the article. PHG (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coinage

message: Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Is there any connection to the Italian term Mamaluke??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.89.187 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derogatory in Italian American Slang 

message: What was the reason of excluding the information about Georgian origination of the Mamlukes? There're plenty of sources proving this. Please, don't delete information in this article groundlessly. Thanks.MrKindSailor (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in Wikipedia we should tolerate and respect all points of view of all participants. BUT there are some rules that we all have to follow here. Among them is a rule which says that each statement should be based on a source, and a source must be identifying and reliable. I respect your opinion on this article, BUT I demand that all changings you make here must be based on reliable sources. What is a base of your statement that Georgians didn't make a sigificant part of Mamluks, but Kypchaks and Circassians did? Your opinion? Is it a reliable source? NO! I've added this article by information (based on scientific works) which proved that Georgians did formed a quite significant part of the Mamluk phenomenon in Egypt and Iraq (moreover Georgian Mamluk dinasty ruled Iraq during the XVIII century). You have deleted it. It looks like an act of vandalism that is not tolerated here. So, please, don't spoil this article again.MrKindSailor (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about Georgian mamlukes 

message: You will probably be thrilled to learn that mamelucker (mamluks) is the Swedish word for pantalettes. The word has somewhat gone out of fashion, as has, as I understand, the garment in question. Bcarlssonswe (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses of the word

message: The article wrote: In the Middle Ages, the Mamlukes took up the practice of furusiyya "chivalry", although Mamluk knights were slaves until their service ended. The Arabic term for a knight was fāris (plural fursān),  The faris and the notion of furusiyya originated in pre-Muslim Persian brotherhoods. Within the Muslim world, the fursān became prized as ideal warriors.
The fursān – whether free like Usama ibn Munqidh or enslaved professional warriors such as the ghilman and mamluks – were trained in the use of various weapons such as the sword, spear, lance, javelin, mace, bow and arrow, and tabarzin or "saddle ax". (The Mamluk bodyguards known as the tabardariyyah.) They were also trained in wrestling, and their martial skills were honed first on foot as piéton and then perfected when as mounted warriors.Nicolle, Saracen Faris, page 8–9. They were popularly used as heavy knightly cavalry by a number of different Islamic kingdoms and empires, including the Ayyubid dynasty and the Ottoman Empire.
All this is side tracking and introducing a new, unclear label as fursan - and that does not belong into the lead. Moreover, it is largely unsourced and contains claims (e.g. Persion origin) that are in contrast to the text of linked articles. -- Zz (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fursan 

message: It is not logical calling a high skilled military unit as a slave. May be the men in it originated from slavery but they were not slaves. You may call it mercenary as they were being paid and held a upper class in society. I do not know slave term as a soldier who posseses weaponry and a horse which are very valuable things in that time. Can you call a modern soldier as a slave while the only difference is in means of payment? They get their money from sultan nowadays from government? It is misleading you may want to change it. 213.211.24.250 (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave?