The Position and Power of the Mamlk Sultan

Author(s): P. M. Holt
Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 38,
No. 2 (1975), pp. 237-249
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/613211 .
Accessed: 11/08/2013 12:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE MAMLUK SULTAN
By P. M. HOLT
I could not say much of the Mamalucs,of whom I know no author that has
written in particular: neither did they deserve that any should. For they were
a base sort of people, a Colluviesof slaves, the scum of all the East, who, having
treacherouslydestroyed the Jobidae, their Masters,reigned in their stead; and
bating that they finished the expulsion of the WesternChristiansout of the East
(wherethey barbarouslydestroyed Tripoli, and Antioch,and several other Cities)
they scarce did anything worthy to be recordedin History.
HumphreyPrideaux (1722) 1
The Mamlfik state, as it was constituted after the defeat of the Mongols at
'Ayn Jalfit (658/1260) and the annexation of Muslim Syria, resembles both
territorially and structurally the Ayyftbid dominions which had preceded it.
There were, however, important differences. Under the Ayyfibids the territories
had been partitioned among members of the ruling clan; at any given time (at
least after the death of Saladin) the territorial settlement was unstable, although
a series of Ayyfibid rulers whose power was based in Egypt-first al-'Adil Sayf
al-Din, then al-Kamil, lastly al-Slih Ayyfib-exercised a somewhat pre-
carious paramountcy over their kinsmen in Syria. By contrast the Mamliik
state was one and indivisible; no part of it (with one or two temporary and
insignificant exceptions) was granted away in appanage; no rival ruler
succeeded in establishing himself in the territories of the Mamlfik sultan.
The Mamlfik dominions are usually termed in the contemporary sources
al-diydr al-Misriyya wa 'l-mnamalikal-Shdmiyya 'the Egyptian territories and
the Syrian provinces', a distinction which may imply a technical difference
between the Egyptian and the Syrian constituents of the state, or may be
merely an affectation of rhetoric. Throughout the state the sultan's power was
delegated to provincial officials, each of whom bore the title nd'ib al-saltana
'deputy of the sultanate ', but who were not of equal standing. Highest among
them was the vicegerent in Egypt, followed by the governor of Damascus, then
by him of Aleppo, then of Tripoli, Safad, and al-Karak. All these
governors were I;.amah,
normally Mamliiks, although Ayyfibid princes were permitted
to linger on at al-Karak and Hims until 661-2/1263, and even longer at
There in 710/1310, after more than a decade of rule by Mamlfik governors, H.Iamah.
the
sultan al-Nasir Muhammad b. Qalawfin granted the province to an Ayyfibid
prince, al-Mu'ayyad Ism'il, better known as Abt 'l-Fida' the chronicler. He
succeeded in retaining the confidence of al-Nasir Muhammad, who in 720/1320
granted him the insignia and title of sultan, which in due course were inherited
by his son. This signified little: it was a mark of personal favour, not an ex-
periment in indirect rule. In 742/1341, after al-Nasir Muhammad's death, the
son of Abfi 'l-Fida' lost his sultanate and was given a command of a Thousand
1 Anon., The life of the Reverend
Humphrey Prideaux, D.D., Dean of Norwich, London,
1748, 268-9.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 P. M.HOLT

(the highest military rank) in Damascus, while HIIamh passed again and
permanently under a Mamlfik governor.
The Mamlfik sultan was in an obvious sense the successor to the Ayyfibid
rulers of Egypt and Syria. Three of the early amlfik sultans, al-Mu'izz Aybak
(648-55/1250-7), al-Zahir Baybars (658-76/1260-77), and al-Mansilr Qalawfin
(678-89/1279-90), whose combined reigns cover 34 of the first 40 years of the
regime, had been members of the Mamlfikhousehold of al-Salih Ayyfib, the last
effective Ayyfibid sultan in Egypt. The Mamlfikrulers necessarily derived from
their predecessors concepts of their office, as well as of the administrative
structure of the state over which they ruled.
The nature of the Mamlilk sultan's position is indicated by a series of
observances at the time of his accession. The beginning of al-Mu'izz Aybak's
reign is described by al-Maqrizi in these words:
'The amirs and the Bahriyya assembled for counsel, and they agreed to
install the amnr 'Izz al-Din [Aybak], the commander of the guard, in the
sultanate. They gave him the title of al-Malik al-Mu'izz.... They caused
him to ride on Saturday at the end of Rabi' II. The amirs in turn bore the
saddle-cover [al-ghtushiya]before him to the Citadel, and they sat at the
banquet with him '.2
Ibn Taghribirdi gives a slightly different series of events:
'They [sc. the amirs] swore allegiance to him [bdya'ilhu],made him sultan,
and seated him upon the bench of kingship [dast al-mulk].... The saddle-
cover was borne before him, and he rode with the insignia of the sultanate.
The first who bore the saddle-cover before him was the amir IHusamal-Din
b. Abi 'Ali, then the great am7rstook it in turn, one after another. He was
mentioned in the khutba, and proclamation of his sultanate was made in
Cairo and Old Cairo '.3
Putting these two accounts together, we arrive at some such pattern of
events as the following.
(1) The election of the sultan by a group of Mamlfiks-this is also mentioned
by Ibn Taghribirdi before the passage translated above.
A
(2) series of events at the time of the election, viz.
(a) the assumption by the sultan-elect of a malik-title;
(b) the taking of an oath of allegiance (bay'a) by the electors;
(c) the enthronement of the sultan.
(3) A state procession, the sultan riding, through the capital, with the saddle-
cover borne before the sultan by the amirs in turn.
(4) An accession-banquet (sim@t).
(5) The mention of the sultan's name in the khutba.
Some, but not necessarily all, of these observances are noted at the inauguration
of subsequent sultans down to the last of them, al-Ashraf Tfman Bay, who was
installed when Selim the Grim had already occupied Syria.
2
Al-Maqrizi, al-Sulitk, I, pt. II, Cairo, 1956, 369.
3 Ibn Tagluribirdi,al-Nujimmal-zihira, vii, Cairo, n.d., 4-5.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE MAMILOKSULTAN 239

Aybak was raised to the sultanate by a group which al-Maqrizi describes as

consisting of 'the amirs and the Bahriyya ', i.e. his khushddshiyyawho had
been members with him of the household of al-Salih Ayytib. Election continued
to be the most usual title to succession throughout the Mamlfikperiod, although
the procedure was never formalized, nor was the electoral body ever defined-
no Golden Bull was ever promulgated in the Mamlfik sultanate. It is therefore
not surprising that the power to elect was on occasion arrogated to itself by a
victorious faction, and was used to condone usurpation. Thus in 678/1279
Qalawfin,with the agreement of the amirs and the khdssakiyya(i.e. the Mamlfiks
of the palace) deposed the infant sultan al-'Adil Saldmish b. Baybars, and
usurped the throne. In 696/1296 a faction of amirs overthrew al-'Adil Kitbugha
(who was himself a usurper), and installed their own leader, Lachin. A similar
coup had been carried out in 693/1293 against al-Ashraf Khalil b. Qalawiin,
who was murdered while hunting. On that occasion, however, the faction failed
to take Cairo, and its leader (and sultan-elect) was himself put to death.
Although the sultanate was usually elective, some of the stronger rulers
ensured that their sons should succeed them on the throne. There were two
procedures for accomplishing this. The first was the association of the son as
joint (and nominal) sultan with his father. So in 662/1264 al-Zahir Baybars,
apparently on the advice of the amirs, raised his son, al-Sa'id Baraka Khan, to
the sultanate. The same procedure was followed by al-Mansfir QalawTin,first
with respect to his son al-Salih 'All, who predeceased him, then to al-Ashraf
Khalil. The second device for ensuring an hereditary succession was the
testamentary nomination of a son by a sultan when dying. Three days before
his death in 741/1341, the great sultan Muhammad b. Qalawfin, was
persuaded by his senior ani-rs to nominate al-N.sir
a son as his successor. His choice fell
on Abfi Bakr, who was enthroned as al-Malik al-Mansairon the day of his
father's death. It may be noted that several years earlier, in 732/1331, al-Nasir
Muhammad had convoked the aminrs,the judges, and the caliph to recognize
another son, Anfik, as his heir, but had changed his mind at the last minute.
Such hesitation to inaugurate a son, who might become a rival, is not surprising.
Indeed, it seems that al-Ashraf Khalil's status as joint sultan was technically
defective, as his father repeatedly refused to validate the diploma of appoint-
inent. The safer procedure of nomination in articulo mortis was also utilized by
al-Zahir Barqfiq, the first of the Circassianline of sultans, in 801/1399. On his
deathbed, he convoked the caliph, the judges, the amirs, and the great officers
to swear to the succession in turn of his three sons, Faraj, 'Abd al-'Aziz, and
Ibrahim.
A cursory glance at the line of Turkish Mamlfik sultans, who reigned from
648/1250 to 784/1382 (with a brief sequel seven years later), would suggest that
in this period the hereditary principle was more strongly entrenched than in
fact it was. Al-Mu'izz Aybak was succeeded by his son al-Mansfir 'Ali; al-
7,ahir Baybars by two sons, al-Sa'Id Baraka Khan and al-'Adil Salamish; and
al-Mansfir Qalawfin by four generations of his direct descendants. In mere

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 P. M.HOLT

longevity the Qalawlinid dynasty surpassed its Ayyftbid predecessor. This

appearance of dynasticism is, however, specious and misleading. Al-Mansfir
'Ali b. Aybak was installed as a convenient figurehead-a device which was
frequently to be employed in the following two and a half centuries. Al-Sa'id
Baraka Khan was, as we have seen, joint sultan with his father, but his brother
and successor, al-'Adil Salamish, was installed at the behest of Qalawfinuntil the
latter could usurp the throne. Of the long series of Qaldwfinids,only al-Ashraf
Khalil and al-Mansfir Abdi Bakr were designated by their fathers to succeed
them; the other sultans of this house were nominees of the great amirs or even
of a court faction. The long continuance of the Qaldwfinids is hardly to be
explained by any residual loyalty of the Mamlfikstowards the family, but rather
by the convenience of the nominal sultanate as a fagade for the oligarchy of
the amirs.
The appearance of dynasticism in the Turkish Mamlfik period forms a
contrast with the line of CircassianMamlfik sultans who reigned from 784/1382
to 922/1517. Concerning them, Stanley Lane-Poole remarked in his
Mohammadan dynasties, 'As there are seldom more than two kings of a
family ... a genealogical table is unnecessary '. His statement is formally
correct, but it is unilluminating, since it disregards the fact that in this period
the group within which the succession to the sultanate passed was not the
blood-family but the household, composed of both the heirs of the body and the
Mamlfiks of the founder. A pedigree of the Circassian sultans constructed on
this basis shows, first, that (with the brief and anomalous exception of the
sultan-caliph al-Musta'inin 815/1412) all the later sultans down to the Ottoman
conquest were linked to al-iZahirBarqfiq by natural or Mamlfik affiilation;
secondly, that of the seven sons who succeeded their fathers in this period, only
one, al-Nasir Faraj b. Barqiiq, was an effective ruler, while none of them founded
Mamlfikhouseholds from which later sultans emerged; thirdly, that the house-
hold founded by al-Ashraf Qa'it Bay was in its turn a nursery of sultans,
producing Qa'it Bay's son and his five Mamlfik successors, who reigned until
the coming of the Ottomans. Seen in this light, as a synthesis of members by
blood and members by Mamlfik recruitment, the succession inaugurated by
Barqfiq resembles the great neo-Mamlfik households of Ottoman Egypt, in
which, however, the natural descendants had a far stronger position vis-4-vis
the Mamlfiks.
Thus in the Mamlfik sultanate the concept of an hereditary monarchy
failed to establish itself against a rival view of the state as a crowned republic,
an oligarchy of magnates in which the throne would pass by election or usur-
pation to one of the amirs. Yet it should be observed that the competition for
the sultanate was not open to all: it is simply not true to say, as does Wiet,
'C'est un monde bien 4trange que ce milieu des Mamlouks, qui, presque tous,
croyaient " porter dans leur giberne " le sceptre du sultanat '.5 It was only
4 Stanley Lane-Poole, The Mohammadandynasties, Paris, 1925, 83.
5 Prici8 de l'histoire d'lEgypte,ii, Le Caire, 1932, 238.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE MAMLCK SULTAN 241

from among the Royal Mamrniks,and indeed from a small inner circle of these,
that the candidates for the sultanate emerged.
To pass now to a consideration of the accession observances. The assumption
of a malik-title is obviously derived from Ayyaibid usage, which itself had
Saljiiqid precedents. But there was a significant difference. Among the
Ayyfibids, malik-titles were borne by members of the clan who were not
actually rulers, as well as by the sultan and the ruling princes. This custom
survived the end of Ayy-ibid domination-an Ayyfibid who died in 727/1326-7,
and whose highest rank had been that of an anmirof a Hundred in Damascus,
was styled al-Malik al-Kamil.6 Among the Mamlfiks, by contrast, a malik-
title was hardly ever borne by anyone but the sultan himself. The only
exception known to me before the Qalawfinids is the third son of al-Zahir
Baybars, Khadir, who never reigned but was styled al-Malik al-Mas'fid. This
was a courtesy-title, bestowed on him in 678/1280 by al-Mansir Qalawfin in
respect of his appanage of al-Karak, perhaps because this had been an
independent lordship under the Ayyiibids.7 Within his own family, Qalawfin
seems to have reverted to the Ayyiibid practice. In his treaty of 684/1285 with
Leon III of Lesser Armenia, two sons are associated with him in the preamble,
and they both have malik-titles, viz. al-Malik al-Salih 'All and al-Malik al-
Ashraf Khalil.8 It seems, further, that the title of al-Malik al-Nasir was
conferred at birth on another son, the future sultan, who many
Muh.ammad,9
years later similarly gave the title of al-Malik al-Muzaffarto his own new-born
son One other anomaly is the style of al-Malik al-Amjad, given by
H.jji.o
Ibn Taghribirdi to Husayn, a son of al-Nasir Muhammad who never reigned.1'
Here the title may have been conferred retrospectively, since a son of
did become sultan as al-Ashraf Sha'ban. Apart from these Qalawfinids, there
HI.usayn
is one other exception in the Turkish Mamlfik period: Anas, the son of the
usurper al-'Adil Kitbugha, is styled al-Malik al-Mujahid, although he did not
come to the throne.12 The close connexion between accession and the assump-
tion of a malik-title is borne out by the practice of unsuccessful usurpers, such
as Sanjar al-Hlalabi (658/1260) and Sunqur al-Ashqar (678/1279), rebels
against Baybars and al-Mansfir Qalawfin respectively, and Baydara,
the killer of al-Ashraf Khalil (693/1293). All three took mnalik-titles.l3
al-.Zhir
The oath taken by the amirs and others on the accession of a sultan might
be either of two kinds: the oath of allegiance to the ruler as sovereign (bay'a),
or the sworn convenant to support him personally (halif, hilf). It is perhaps

6 Ibn al-Dawlddri, Kanz al-durar, vii, Cairo, 1973, 5; Ulrich Haarmann,

Quellenstudienzur
fridhen Mamlukenzeit, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1970, p. 229, n. 3.
7 Nuj~m, vii, 273.
8 Ibn 'Abd al-ZIhir, Tashrif al-ayyim, Cairo, 1961, 94-5.
9 Tashrif, 110.
10Kanz al-durar, Ix, Cairo, 1960, 126.
I" Nujim,
12
xI, 6.
Nujf~m, Ix, 261.
13
Nujiim, vii, 104, 294; viin, 19; cf. Kanz al-durar, viii, Cairo, 1971, 348.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 P. M.HOLT

significant that, according to al-Maqrizi, the oath taken to the puppet-sultan

al-Mans-ir'All b. Aybak was of the latter kind.14 The covenant might indeed be
of a mutual character between the new sultan and the amirs. There are two
good examples of this, both arising out of a usurpation of the sultanate. The
contemporary biographer of Baybars, Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, describes how, when
Baybars had killed al-Muzaffar Qutuz and sought recognition as sultan,
'he said to some of the company of amirs, " Take the covenant [ihlifl] ".
The atdbak said to the sultan, " Most of this company have been retired
and have undergone hardship. Only let the sultan covenant with them
[yahlif lahum] to be as munificent to them as he can, as soon as he can,
and after that they will take the covenant [yahlifiin] to the sultan "....
The sultan took the covenant to them, and after that they took the cove-
nant, and the Mamliaks[al-nds] took the covenant until late afternoon '.5
A second example is taken from the coup d'itat of 696/1296, when Lachin
ousted his sultan and former colleague, al-'Adil Kitbughd, and usurped the
throne. His associates, however, imposed conditions upon him: that he was
to be primus inter pares, that he was not to act on his sole discretion, and that
he was not to give one of his own Mamliakspower over them. Then in the words
of the contemporary chronicler, Baybars al-Dawadar al-Mans-iri, 'Lachin
repeated the covenant [al-halif] to them that he would not do so, and thereupon
they covenanted with him [halafil lahu] '.16
Another contemporary, Abfi 'l-Fida', gives a very similar, but independent,
description of the incident, ending with the words:
'LLjin responded to them on this [i.e. the set of terms], and covenanted
[halafa] with them upon it. Thereupon they covenanted with him and
swore allegiance to him as sultan [halafil lahu wa-baya'fihubi 'l-saltana] '.17
The distinction and the relation between the two oaths could hardly be shown
more clearly.
The ritual act which marked the inauguration of a new sultan was his
enthronement. Its importance is indicated in the detailed account which Ibn
'Abd al-Zahir gives of the accession of Baybars, which took place in unsual
circumstances, when the Mamlfik army was returning to Egypt after the
victory at 'Ayn Jdfiit. After the killing of Qutuz, Baybars and his companions
entered the royal pavilion with the atabak, and a discussion took place. In the
end, the company recognized Baybars's claim to the sultanate, and at that
point Baybars took his seat upon the royal cushion. Normally, of course, the
enthronement was a formal act in the Citadel of Cairo.
We come now to the state procession of the new sultan, during which he
rode through Cairo to the Citadel, accompanied by the amirs (who are often
described as going dismounted on this occasion), and preceded by the insignia

14 Sul?lk, I, pt. II, wa-balafi~ lahu wa 'stablafii al-'askar.

15 S. F. Sadeque, Baybars the First of Egypt, Dacca, 1956, 17 (Arabic text).
11 Cited in
NAjiZm, vin, 99.
17 Ismd'il Abfi 'I-Fidi', al-Mukhtasarft akhbdral-bashar, Cairo, n.d., Iv, 34.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE MAMLUK SULTAN 243

of the sultanate, among which the saddle-cover (al-ghdshiya) is particularly

mentioned. In it we have an emblem of sovereignty derived directly from the
Ayyiibids and ultimately from Saljiiqid usage. Al-Qalqashandi describes the
ghashiya as
'a saddle-cover of leather, decorated with gold, so that the observer would
take it to be made entirely of gold. It is borne before him [sc. the sultan]
when riding in state processions for parades, festivals, etc. The rikabddriyya
carry it, the one who holds it up in his hands turning it to right and left. It
is one of the particular insignia of this kingdom '."s
Becker, who discussed the ghdshiya in a short article over 60 years ago, saw
in this an object of religious significance, intended primarily to cover the hands
as a sign of submission. It is surely more appropriately regarded as a symbol of
authority natural to rulers who originated as horse-ridingwarriors. If one seeks
a Western analogy to the ghdshiya, it is not the episcopal glove, as is suggested
in Becker's article, but the golden spurs borne before the sovereign in the
English order of coronation.19
Not only the saddle-cover, but also its display in a state procession, had
Ayyiibid and even Saljfiqid precedents. An instance from the Ayyfibid period
was in 589/1193, when al-'Adil Sayf al-Din, Saladin's brother, installed his
nephew, al-'Aziz 'Uthmdn, as sultan in Egypt, and ' he walked before him with
the saddle-cover ', as Ibn Taghribirditells us. Again, when al-Silih Ayytib was
a claimant for the sultanate in 636/1238-9, the saddle-cover was borne before
him in Damascus by his cousin.20 The two Ayyfibid puppet-sultans of HIamah,
Ab-i 'I-Fidd' and his son, were by one of the ironies of history accorded the
prerogative of the ghdshiya by their overlord, al-Nasir Muhammad.21
As long as there was a caliph in Baghdad, a new sultan was formally con-
firmed in office by him. At the time of Baybars's accession there was, of course,
no caliph, but interesting developments ensued when, a few months later, he
received in Cairo a refugee 'Abbasid prince whom, after due formalities, he
installed as caliph with the title of al-Mustansir bi'lldh. To him he took the
oath of allegiance (bay'a) on 13 Rajab 659/13 June 1261. Al-Mustansir in turn
invested the sultan with the rule over the Islamic lands and those which he
would conquer from the infidels, i.e. the Mongols and the Crusaders. The
territories were specifically named in the diploma of investiture, which was
publicly read on 4 Sha'ban/4 July, as Egypt, Syria, Diyar Bakr, the Hijaz, the
Yemen, and the lands of the Euphrates, together with any new conquests. A
similar procedure was followed at the installation of the second 'Abbasid caliph
in Cairo, al-Hakim bi-amr Illh, in Muharram661/November 1262.22 There-

is Al-Qalqashandi, Cairo, n.d., Iv, 7.

" al-a'sha, "
19 C. H. Becker, 'Le Sub.Ghashiya comme embleme de la royaut6'', Centenario della nascita
di Michele Amari, Palermo, 1910, 148-51. Cf. [E.] Quatrembre, Histoire des sultans mamelouks
de l'IPgypte,I, I, Paris, 1837, p. 3, n. 7.
20
Nuj'Zim,vI, 124, 306.
21
Mukhtasar, Iv, 87; Quatremebre, op. cit., n. 7 at p. 6.
22
Sadeque, Baybars, 35-41, 61-3 (Arabic text).

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 P. M.HOLT

after the caliph was technically indispensable at every accession to give formal
authority to the new sultan. A good description is given by Ibn Taghribirdi
of the procedure at the accession of al-MansilrAbfi Bakr on 2 Muharram742/18
June 1341:
'The judges went up [sc. to the Citadel] and the Caliph al-HIakimbi-amr
Illah Abit 'l-'Abbds Ahmad took his seat on the third step of the sultan's
throne. He wore a green robe, and on his turban was a black covering with
stripes of gold. Then the sultan came out into the hall by the secret door,
according to custom. The caliph, the judges, and the seated amirs stood up
for him, and he took his seat upon the first step, below the caliph. The caliph
stood up and began the khutba'.
At the conclusion of the khutba,the caliph addressed the sultan saying, ' I have
delegated to you all the jurisdiction of the Muslims, and invested you with that
wherewith I am invested in matters of the Faith '. Ibn Taghribirdi continues:
'He sat down. Immediately a black robe was brought, and the caliph with
his own hand robed the sultan. Then he girt him with an Arab sword, and
the judge 'Ala' al-Din 'Ali b. Fadlalldh, the confidential secretary, read
the caliph's diploma to the sultan in its entirety. He then presented it
to the caliph, who signed it, followed by the signatures of the chief judges
as witnesses. The banquet was then spread. They ate, and the court
dispersed'.23
Returning to the delegation of powers by the Caliph al-Mustansir to al-
Zihir Baybars, one must emphasize that the listing of the territories conferred
on the sultan, all of which he did not actually possess, was not simply rhetorical
hyperbole. Their mention served two purposes, of which the first was to outline
and publicize a programme of expansion, particularly into lands under Mongol
domination. It is perhaps curious that there is no mention of al-Sawihil-
the coastlands still under the rule of the Latin Kingdom and Antioch-Tripoli-
but at that date the Mongols were a far greater danger than the Franks. The
second purpose of the list is to represent Baybars as being not merely sultan of
Egypt, or even (like his Ayyiibid predecessors) of Egypt and Syria, but as the
universal sultan of Islam. This claim may not have been entirely new. The
chronicler Ibn al-Dawadari, writing of events before his own time, and perhaps
not writing advisedly, entitles al-Mansfir 'Ali b. Aybak sultdn al-Islkm in
657/1258-9 (i.e. after the extinction of the caliphate in Baghdad), although in
the previous year he merely styles him 'the lord of Egypt' (sahib Misr). The
same author gives the title also to Baybars's immediate predecessor, al-Muzaffar
Qutuz.24
In sum, the accession observances in the early Mamlfik period had two
purposes: first, to stress the continuity of the Mamlfik with the Ayyfibid
sultanate, and hence to manifest the sultan as the legitimate successor of the
Ayytibids; secondly, in more general and traditional terms, to present the new
23
Nujfim, x, 4-5.
24 Kanz al-durar, viii, 34, 38, 45.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE MAMLOK SULTAN 245

sultan as the lawful ruler. The element of continuity with the Ayyfabids (and
even with the Saljfiqids) appears in the sultan's assumption of a malik-title, and
in his state procession with the saddle-cover. These usages continued with the
the momentum of established ritual long after the Mamlfiksultanate had become
firmly established and its origin in violent usurpation had lost significance.
The administration of the bay'a by the caliph, his act of recognition, and the
mention of the sultan's name in the khutbawere traditionally associated with
the inauguration of a new Islamic ruler.
A comparison of these observances with the rites which accompanied the
accession of a medieval Christian king shows one great difference: there is no
parallel in the Mamlfik usages to the administration of unction, which from
Carolingian times onwards had bestowed on some European rulers a sacral
character. Sacral kingship did not, of course, begin with the anointing of Pippin
the Short; his long-haired Merovingianpredecessorswere descended from a sea-
god, just as the kings of the West Saxons (and subsequently of the English)
sprang from Woden. Such sanctity by blood-descent or by unction could not
be acquired by rulers who were ex hypothesi slaves by origin and Muslims by
religion. Are we then to conclude that there is no trace of sacral kingship in the
Mamlfik sultanate? On the contrary, there seems to be an aura of sacredness
around certain individual sultans, although this apparently did not extend to
their families, nor was it inherent in their office. Some evidence of this can be
shown in regard to at least three sultans: al-MuzaffarQutuz, Baybars,
and al-NMsirMuhammad b. Qaldwfin. al-.Zhir
To begin with Baybars. Ibn 'Abd al-Zhir (d. 692/1292-3), whose panegyric
of this sultan, al-Rawd1al-zdhirfi sirat al-Malik al-Zdhir, is one of the principal
primary sources for the reign, at times suggests that Baybars was the object of
a special divine providence. He recounts an adventure of the time when Baybars,
not yet sultan, was in the service of al-Mughith 'Umar, the Ayyibid lord of
al-Karak, and, after defeat in battle, was travelling through the desert with three
companions. When Baybars was about to perish of thirst, says the writer, God
sent rain-and even a little straw for his horse. After Baybars's usurpation of
the throne, the divine assistance was unremitting. In Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir's
words, 'Since God gave him the kingdom, no one imagined evil against him
but God acquainted him with it '.25
Qutuz, in spite of his short reign, so swiftly terminated by Baybars after
'Ayn Jalflt, seems to have impressed his contemporaries as possessing a degree
of sanctity. His tomb was a place of pilgrimage until Baybars ordered his
exhumation and its demolition.26 A Maghribi diviner, we are told, prog-
nosticated the reign of Qutuz and his defeat of the Mongols nearly 10 years
before his accession. In another anecdote, a khushddshof Qutuz describes how,
as a youth, the future sultan was assured by the Prophet in a dream that he
would rule Egypt and defeat the Mongols. Ibn al-Dawadari, who transmits
25 Sadeque, Baybars, 9-10, 31 (Arabic text).
28 87.
Nujim, vii,

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 P. M.HOLT

these two stories, gives another version of the episode with the diviner, derived
from his own Mamlfik father. In this version, the diviner encounters three
young Maml-fks, Qutuz, Baybars, and Baktfit al-Atabaki. He prophesies that
the first will rule Egypt and defeat the Mongols, that the second will reign long
and slay the first, and that the third will hold a high amirate, all of which duly
came to pass.27
When Ibn al-Dawadrli speaks of the birth of al-Nasir Muhammad b.
Qalawfin, the reigning sultan when he wrote, his pages are filled with signs and
portents. He tells of a star in the east, a three-tailed comet seen at Mosul in
the year of al-Nasir's birth, which signified that the child would live thrice
thirty years. A holy man saw in a dream the Imam 'Ali b. Abi Talib, come from
the Hijaz to restore al-Nasir for his third reign, after which the sultan would
conquer Baghdad. There is an eschatological flavour about this anecdote;
al-Nasir seems a Muslim counterpart of the Emperor of the Last Days in
medieval Christian millenarianism. Another anecdote (which Ibn al-Dawadari
gives twice in different contexts) tells of a mysterious voice which spoke to
Saladin as a youth, foretelling his victories and those of Baybars and al-Nasir
Muhammad.2" Much of this may have been propaganda or flattery, but it is
significant that it took the form it did, suggesting a popular readiness to see
a sultan as personally God's chosen and not merely God's delegate.
The primary function of an early Mamlfk sultan was to wage war against
external enemies. Just as the accession observances had a twofold derivation,
from the traditions of the Ayyfibids (and ultimately of the Saljfaqids),and from
the older traditions of Islamic sovereignty respectively, so the sultan as warrior
can be viewed under a dual aspect. As the leader of a host composed of his
comrades (khuslkidshiyya)and his own Mamlak household (a host which was
perhaps in its structure and loyalties essentially a synthetic tribe), he was a
Heerk6nig, to use an appropriate German term. As a Muslim ruler and the
caliph's delegate, he was a mujahid, a fighter in the Holy War, a defender of
the Community of Islam, as Baybars is eulogized in the inaugural khutbaof the
Caliph al-Hakim:
' This sultan al-Malik
al-Zahir, the most majestic lord, the wise, the just, the
fighter in the Holy War, the guardian of the frontier, the pillar of the world
and the Faith, undertook to help the caliphate when there were few to help,
and scattered the infidel armies which had penetrated through the land '.29
This role of the sultan as Heerkdnigand mujdhid is very apparent in the
first 50 years of the Mamlfik sultanate. After the murder of the last Egyptian
Ayyfibid, al-Mu'azzam Triran Shah, when the fight against St. Louis and his
Crusaderswas still continuing (648/1250), Aybak was installed, first as atabak
al-'asckir (meaning here commander on behalf of the queen regnant, Shajar
al-Durr), then as sultan. Almost a decade later, when the Mongols were
27 Kanz al-durar, viI, 40-3.
28Kanz al-durar, viii, 271-6; of. ibid., vII, 8-9.
29Sadeque, Baybars, 62 (Arabic text),

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE
MAMILOKSULTAN 247

advancing into Ayyfbid Syria (657/1259), Aybak's son, al-Mansfir 'All, was
deposed, and Aybak's Mamlfak,Qutuz, became sultan. His murder and replace-
ment by Baybars (658/1260) merely substituted one warrior-chieffor another.
The continuing dangers from the Mongols and the Crusader states prevented
the sons of Baybars from retaining the sultanate. Once again a warrior, the
atdbak Qaldwfin, took the throne (678/1279), and, after a successful fighting
career, was succeeded by his son, al-Ashraf Khalil (689/1290). Unusually, this
sultan and son of a sultan was himself a warrior, and brought about the final
overthrow of the Crusader states. The threat from the Mongols was passing
away at the same period.
Although the early Mamlfik sultans were pre-eminently leaders in war,
defending the state (or, as they would have seen it, the Muslim Community)
against external enemies, they were also the mainspring of government. These
governmental functions grew in importance with the ending of the threat from
the Crusadersand the Mongols, and with the evolution of the sultanate itself
into an unchallenged, stable, and pacific monarchy-a development which was
completed in the long third reign of Muhammad b. Qaldwfin from
709/1310 to 741/1341. In respect of al-N.sir
these functions, the sultan was always
potentially, and sometimes actually, despot with arbitrary discretion, who
a
sought bring into submission the three categoriesof his subjects: the Mamlfiks
to
themselves (al-nds), the sedentary natives (al-ra'dyd),and the nomads (al-'urbdn).
But although an arbitrary despot, the sultan was not, either in legal theory
or administrative practice, an absolute monarch. As a Muslim, he was as much
bound by the Holy Law of Islam as any of his Muslim subjects, although the
absence of means to compel his submission to the sharz'a deprived this concept
of effective sanctions. The caliph and the four chief judges, who headed the
official administration of the Holy Law, deferred to reason of state and the
reality of power by validating actions which they could not oppose and
decisions which they could not upset.
The notional omnicompetence and the divine authority of the. Holy Law
resulted, however, in certain practical limitations on the sultan's functions. He
was left formally with no scope in legislation. A similar limitation was, of course,
imposed on the Ottoman sultans, who effectively circumvented it by their
qniins, which as a systematic corpus of legislation have no equivalent in Mamldk
practice. The Mamldk sultan's judicial function was of greater significance. The
hearing of petitions and consequent redress of grievances, although in form an
administrative act, was so institutionalized, and so closely associated with the
prerogative of the ruler, as to result in the creation of what was in effect a royal
court of justice with a known and regular procedure. But a comparison with
medieval European development is instructive. The personal and arbitrary
power of decision retained by the sultan prevented the formation of a body of
precedents and case-law. No royal judiciary came into existence: the qcddis
administered only the Holy Law and had no competence in these cases.
Admittedly, the sultan did not personally hear and decide every case, but his
VOL. XXXVIII. PART 2. 20

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
248 P. M.HOLT

prerogative powers were delegated, not to a body of legal specialists, but to the
great officers of the state and household-the vicegerent in Egypt, the atibak,
and the high steward (ustaddr).30
A continuing practical limitation on the power of the sultan was exercised
by the magnates, the great amirs, who might be his khushddshiyya,originating
from the same Mamlfakhousehold as he himself, and thus being his peers in
status. Between the sultan and this oligarchy of magnates there was almost
constant tension. Quiescent, even submissive, when occupied in foreign wars
or when dominated by a sultan of strong personality backed by adequate
resources, the amirs at other times were quick to display a factious spirit, both
against the sultan and among themselves. They derived the means to disobey,
to control, even to depose the sultan, in the first place from their own Mamlfk
households, the members of which felt loyalty to their ustadh, their immediate
master, rather than to the sultan. In addition, the tenure by great amirs of
provincial governorships in Syria gave them not only very considerable profits
of office but territorial power-bases. Even in the early days of the Mamlfik
sultanate, while the threat from the Mongols and the Crusadersyet remained,
both al-Zhir Baybars and al-Mans-r Qalawftn were opposed by rebellious
governors of Damascus, each of whom was a khushddshof the sultan against
whom he rebelled.
The strength of the magnates and the weakness of the sultan resulted
ultimately from the alienation of great sources of revenue in Under the
early Mamlfik sultans the privy purse received only iqt.'.
one-sixth of the landed
revenue in cash and kind, the rest being divided between the amirs and the
old corps d'dliteof the Ayyfibids. It was not until 715/1315 that
.Halqa-the
al-Ndsir Muhlammadsucceeded in carrying out a cadastral survey (al-rawk
al-Ndsiri), in resuming a larger share of the landed revenue for the privy purse,
and in carrying out other fiscal reforms which strengthened his position.
In spite of the splendour and luxury that surrounded him, the strict and
formal ceremonial of his public appearances, and the pompous ritual of his
accession, the sultan occupied a precarious position. The caliph's delegation
of authority counted for little in a crisis. When in 709/1310 the usurper al-
MuzaffarBaybars was confronted with a general revolt, and tried to reinforce
his authority with a new diploma from the caliph, his act provoked only the
jeering comment, 'Stupid fellow. For God's sake-who pays any heed to the
caliph now? '.31 At all times the Royal Mamlfiks were the sultan's main safe-
guard, but there were limits to their reliability. Those Mamlaks whom a sultan
had himself recruited, trained, and manumitted felt loyalty to him as their
ustadh rather than as their monarch, while no such bond existed between the
sultan and the qarinis, the Royal Mamlaks of his predecessors. The qaranis
might indeed form a faction hostile to the new sultan. It was out of such a
situation that the Mamlfk sultanate itself arose, when in 648/1250 the resentful
30 cf. S. M. Stern,' Petitions from the Mamlfk period ', BSOAS, xxIx, 2, 1966, 268-75.

a1Nujiim, viII, 262.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE POSITION AND POWER OF THE MAMLYK SULTAN 249

Bahriyya of Ayyfib conspired to kill his son and successor, al-Mu'azzam

Tfiran Shah.al-S.lih
Furthermore, the recruitment and training of a Mamlfikhousehold
was a slow business; hence one reason for the strength of Qalwfitn, who during
the long years of his amirate was able to build up the household that sustained
him as sultan. His son, al-Nsir Muhammad, probably profited similarly from
the long period between his first accession in 693/1293 and the third and final
inauguration of his sultanate in 790/1310. Hence on the other hand the weak-
ness of the later Qalawfinids, who, brought from the harem to the throne, had
virtually no Royal Mamlfiks of their own recruitment. Moreover, it was not
enough for a sultan to have a large Mamlilk household: it was also necessary
for him to place his own amirs in the key positions of government. This was a
most delicate operation, which taxed to the utmost the capacity and resolution
of a sultan. It was an operation carried out with notable success by al-Nasir
Muhammad at the start of his third reign.
The Mamlfik sultanate was a complex political and social organization. It
had inherent sources of weakness-inevitably clearer to later generations than
to contemporaries-but it was a remarkably durable structure with a greater
and more effective concentration of military and political power than had existed,
except briefly and occasionally, under the Ayyfibids. It was not a static but a
changing and developing polity. The two and a half centuries of the sultanate
may be analysed into several periods which differ in their character, and in
which varying historical forces are at work as the institutions and offices of the
state and royal household evolve. We have to do, not with' a Colluviesof slaves',
but with a wealthy, powerful, and sophisticated medieval state.

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:08:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions