OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ 9°:- du per item RETURNING LXBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to move charge from cimuhticn records THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND THE MAMLUK EMPIRE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY By Yousif Ali Al-Thakafi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michifan State University in partial fu fillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ' Department of History 1981 © Copyright by Yousif Ali Al-Thakafi 1981 ABSTRACT THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND THE MAMLUK EMPIRE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY by Yousif Ali Al-Thakafi This study examines and analyzes the diplomatic relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Mamluk Empire in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, with a particular focus on the conquest of Egypt by the Ottomans in 1517. The study is divided into three parts. Part One provides a technical introduction, including statements of purpose, significance, and scape. It also provides a review of the sources which included ancient Turkish and Arabic literature as well as modern Turkish, Arabic, French, and English literature. . Part Two is the body of the study, provided in five chapters. Chapter One gives the historical background of the study. It provides information and some analysis of the Ottoman and the Mamluk empires, with data on origins, governmental systems and society of the two civilizations. Characteristics of the two empires are compared and con- trasted. Chapter Two describes and analyzes the diplomatic Yousif Ali Al-Thakafi relationships between the Ottoman sultans and Mamluk sultans prior to the conquest. The examination begins 'with the year 1382, when the two empires first came in diplomatic contact with one another, and continues through 1517 when they faced one another in war. Chapter Three provides the researcher's analysis of the reasons behind the conquest. The reasons are defined as the revenge motive, the economic motive, the political motive, the religious motive, and the border state control motive. Each is examined in detail. Chapter Four outlines the course of the conquest in a chronological fashion. It be- gins with an examination of diplomatic correspondence be- tween the Ottoman Sultan Selim.I and the Mamluk Sultan Kansuh el-Gawri and continues through the Ottoman conquest of Cairo. Chapter Five provides a description and analysis of the effects of the conquest as seen by the researcher. These are categorized as political, economic, and religious effects. Part Three of the study is the conclusion. In it the significant points of the study are reviewed, and results of the study are defined. One result of the study is the new body of information in the following areas: the diplomatic relationship between the Ottoman and Mamluk empires prior to 1517; the factors which contributed to the conquest; and, the effects upon both sides as a result of the conquest. Another result of the study is the new inform- ation.it provides in English regarding ancient Arabic and Turkish.sources. Also included in Part Three are suggestions Yousif Ali Al-Thakafi for further research. An appendix and extensive biblio- graphy complete the study. YaISIFALIRAL-IHAKAFI 1.. tau-bun)? my . M“ 1980/1981 cw” H fHAl/rHA' t” IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE COMPASSIONATE mg MERCIFUL ,,.- ~. fi'c 22-. '9‘- 1 ' .5 . ,. w "" - 3:364. _ W, may" . ; y“. A f --,‘.d \N'HHL ‘ \ ,~ 2,} JIM-x.“ 5‘7“ find/Jr 5"» f; :33 ”when... "a”. if >J .1“. {\ c.» ”K . w _“ . , .uegvcr-cgfiw ,. , . ‘ ‘H‘ . .r V" v. rt «.33.:{suqa-‘3fi. a . ,Mfihuxmyflv‘ " ii DEDICATION 1""“"‘('IOMYFA’IHERALIBNRABIAL-‘l'IHAKAFI, TOMYI‘DIHER SALEHAH, TOMYRESPECI‘ABIEWIFEI‘ESIAHAHOSSIEN AL-THAKAFI, AMJ'IOWDAUGII‘ERSFDNAANDNASEEIDW _(( 9...”), MI...» zaJtrnJ CV‘JO'V'L‘ in)...” ”J: Hum 33 It; “‘3‘, 9"". GL-LILJ um‘ W M “hr-1U.“ )- iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many individuals who provided me with help and encouragement during the course of this study and throughout my program of education at Michigan State university. A special acknowledgement is extended to my advisor, Dr. Alan W. Fisher who provided me with several sources for the study, primary as well as secondary, guided me to specific articles and books which were very helpful, gave countless suggestions and comments, and pro- vided invaluable direction. His concern for the success- ful completion of this study is deeply appreciated. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Department of History at Michigan State University, Dr. Donald Lammers. I was fortunate to be able to take courses in my minor field of international relations taught by Dr. Lammers, which enlarged my understanding of world history. His encourage- ment and help during my years of study at Michigan State University as well as his specific astute comments regarding the final draft of the dissertation, have been extremely helpful. Thank you to Dr. Richard E. Sullivan, who was a member of my doctoral committee. Dr. Sullivan taught ‘courses in my minor field of the Middle Ages of Europe which iv helped me in my understanding of the development of relations between the East and West, and thereby contributed to this study. He also made many useful suggestions and helpful comments during the final preparation of this dissertation. I would also like to acknowledge another committee member, Dr. Eleanor E. Huzar. Her teachings regarding the ancient history of the Middle East helped me in my growth as a historian. She also guided me during my Masters degree study at Michigan State University, and aided in my develop- ment of research skills and procedures. To Dr. Douglas G. Campbell, thank you for being on my doctoral defense committee as college representative and for sharing his viewpoints and helpful comments. Thank you to Judy Ulrich, who provided editorial assistance for the dissertation. Without this help in style and mechanics, the study could not have been completed as expected. Also thank you to Mrs. Joy Walker for the typing of this dissertation. A special acknowledgement goes to my wife, Meslaha .Al-Thakafi, who endured being very far away from.home and provided valuable support, and to my children, Mona and Naaeem, who always lifted my spirits when I was tired or dis- couraged. To my parents and family, a deep thank you for support and for tolerating such a distance between us. I would also like to acknowledge the officials of TopKapi Saray palace in Istanbul, particularly the Assistant Director, Jankiz Bey, who gave me permission and V access to primary sources in the archives and library. Additional thanks go also to the officials in Cairo at Dar el—Kutub and Mahad el-Makttotat el-Arabia (The Institute of the Arabic Manuscripts), who were helpful in my acquisition of microfilms and other materials. Personnel of inter-library loan at Michigan State Univer- sity are recognized for their speedy location of a variety of materials from other universities. Also, thank you to the personnel of the History Department, especially Mrs. Doris Swanson and Mrs. Doris Cuthbertson for their help during my years of study there. vi CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . PART ONE: PART TWO: PART THREE: APPENDICES: TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . THE STUDY . CHAPTER I: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EMPIRES . . . . CHAPTER II: THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OTTOMAN SULTANS AND MAMLUK SULTANS PRIOR TO THE CONQUEST . . . CHAPTER III: REASONS FOR THE CONQUEST . The Revenge Motive . The Economic Motive . The Political Mbtive . The Religious Motive . . The Border State Control Motive CHAPTER IV: THE COURSE OF THE CONQUEST . The Relationship Between Sultan Selim I and Sultan Kansuh e1- Gawri . . . The Battle of Marj Dabig and the Defeat of the Mamluks in Cairo . . CHAPTER V: THE EFFECTS OF THE CONQUEST . The Political Effects . The Economic Effects . The Religious Effects CONCLUSION . A. A CONGRATULATION LETTER FROM SULTAN SELIM TO HIS SON SULEYMAN REGARDING THE CONQUEST OF EGYPT B. THE FIRST PART OF SELIMFS°GGNGRATU-' LATORY LETTER TO HIS SON SULEYMAN REGARDING THE CONQUEST OF EGYPT . . C. A COPY FROM A.MANUSCRIPT IN DAR-EL KUTUB EL-MASRIAH . . . . . vii iv 31 . 31 . 54 . 97 .98 112 2 122 . 131 . 138 . 150 . 151 . 160 . 185 . 187 . 198 . 208 . 224 . 231 235 236 CONTENTS (Continued . . .) 4‘ WNH D. A COPY FROM A MANUSCRIPT IN TOPKAPI SARAYI KUTUBKHANE (LIBRARY) . . E. A COPY FROM A MANUSCRIPT IN DAR EL- KUTUB EL- MASRIAH . . . . . . . . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Map of The Portuguese in the Indian Ocean . Map of The Final Act . . . . Map of Tentative Sketch of Operations Around Cairo 1517 . Map of The Ottoman Empire at its Greatest Extent . inp the 16th Century . viii - 238 :239 117a °. 173a . 174a 195a PART ONE: TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE From the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries A.D. the Ottomans expanded their possessions of land from a small district in northwest Asia Minor to a large empire which included Syria, Egypt, the Amirat of North Africa , Yemen, Aden and the holy Islamic cities of Mecca and Medina. In the beginning of the fifteenth century they started taking European territories one after another until they reached Vienna in 1529. During the first quarter of the sixteenth century there were two events which affected the development of the Ottoman state and its society. The first was the rise to power in Iran of the Shiite dynasty; the second was the Ottoman conquest in 1517 of Syria and Egypt. After the destruction of the caliphate of Baghdad by the Mongols in the thirteenth century there was disorder and contention among the Arab countries. The Shiites took advantage of this unstable situation, gained control of Iraq, and attempted to spread their rule more and more. Finally, the Ottoman sultans, fearing Shiite influence which was surfacing in their border states of east Anatolia, took part in this rivalry between the Shiites and the Moslems. 2 First they succeeded in overcoming the Persians in the battle of Caldiran in 1514. Then the Ottomans directed their acti- vities toward the Arab lands and overcame those lands part after part until the conquest of Egypt in 1517. During this period most of the Arab territories were under the rule of the Mamluk dynasty, sometimes referred to as the slave dynasty, and Egypt was the seat of the administering government. There- fore Egypt was the main target of the Ottoman campaign. This study examines the conquest of Egypt by the Ottomans in 1517 and, in particular, focuses on the diplomatic relationship between the Ottoman and the Mamluk Empires in the first quarter of the 16th century. The first chapter of this study provides historical background of the Ottoman and Mamluk states. It attempts to explain who the Ottomans and the Mamluks were, as welloas how and.where they developed their states, and provides as a background to the study a general overview of the two societies. Chapter Two describes the diplomatic relationships between the Ottoman and Mamluk sultans prior to the conquest. It is a chronological explanation of changing events and relationships prior to the conquest. Chapter Three explores the major reasons for the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517. Among the causes that are put forth and examined by this study in detail are: a "revenge" motive of the Ottoman sultans; economic motives; political motives, including the imperialistic dreams and 3 personality of the Ottoman ruler; religious motives; and, motives developing from disputes over control of Ottoman- Mamluk border states. The course of the conquest is outlined in Chapter Four. First, the deteriorated relationship between the Mamluk ruler el-Gawri and the Ottoman Selim.is described, as well as their preparations for war. Then the battle of Marg Dabig and the Ottoman entrance to Cairo is depicted. Chapter Five explains effects of the conquest on various aspects of life in both societies such as economic, religious, and political life. The concluding pages of the study summarize the events as well as restate the con- clusions drawn by the researcher. Purpose of the Study The first purpose of this study is to examine diplomatic relationships between the Ottoman and Mamluk empires prior to the conquest of Egypt in 1517. These relationships took many forms. By examining correspondence between the two states one can see that attitudes and feel- ings fluctuated between friendliness, cool formality, cautiousness and suspicion. Finally, the tenuous associ- ation deteriorated to outright war. The second purpose is to explore, explain, and analyze the main-factors which motivated the Ottoman empire to invade Egypt. While some of these factors have been cited by other historians a close examination of the factors 4 by this study will show some of them.to be of more influence than others. For example, revenge, economic and political motives appear to this researcher to be more of contributing factors to the fall of Egypt in 1517 than has heretofore believed. Seemingly well-meaning motives such as religious and the border state control motives are shown in this study to be mainly secondary justifications used by the Ottomans' Sultan Selim I to disguise his primary motives which were expansionistic in nature. A The third purpose of this study is to show the course of the conquest of Egypt in 1517 beginning with the deterior- ating relationship between the contemporary rulers of both states. There is an attempt to determine which party was ultimately responsible for starting the conflict. The final purpose, which is the main object of this study, is to give an accurate account of how the Mamluk Empire came to an end with the conquest of Egypt in 1517, and what effects this had, both negative and positive, upon both the Ottoman and Egyptian societies. Few scholars deal with this time period in Middle East history, as it is a period in world history treated as a "dark age" by many writers. 'Significance of the Study This study of the diplomatic relationship between the Mamluks and the Ottomans in the first quarter of the 16th 5 century contributes significantly to the understanding of the history of the Middle East as well as the history of Europe as a whole. The conquest of Egypt in 1517 by the Ottomans was a turning point in the history of the Arab ‘world. The conquest without a doubt resulted in important changes in different aSpects of life in the societies of the region. Therefore, it is the responsibility of scholars, especially those from.the Middle East, to undertake the task of studying this period carefully and honestly. It is the finding of this researcher, a native of the Middle East, after living and studying in the U.S.A. for more than six years, that the topic of this study has been poorly treated by historians. As a result the Mamluk- Ottoman relations in the first quarter of the sixteenth century is a subject virtually unknown to westerners. Many have never heard of the Mamluk empire, or may know of the Mamluks only as opponents of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798. A good deal of materials, manuscripts, and archival docu- ments do exist, but they are primarily in the Arabic and Turkish languages and in need of scholars to examine them. What has been written about the sixteenth century Ottoman- Mamluk relationship is primarily based on western sources. These sources may show the picture of the period from a wrong angle, perhaps with the intention of the authors of serving their own aims, perhaps on purpose, or perhaps as a result of the failure to consult the original documents in Egypt and Turkey from the time period. Also the many 6 centuries of animosity between Christians and Muslims, from the Crusades up to even present day in some instances, may have contributed to an inclination not to pay much atten- tion to the Mamluks as compared to western concentration of states contemporary to the Mamluk Empire such as sixteenth century Greece, Italy, and other European countries. There- fore, it is significant that this study brings to light in the English language an object of great importance, the history of the Ottoman-Mamluk relationship in the first quarter of the Sixteenth century, and that this tapic is researched and analyzed by a scholar with tri-lingual skills which provided access to Arabic and Turkish, as well as English sources. Scope of the Study This study is primarily concerned with and limited to the diplomatic relationship between the Ottoman and the Mamluk empires in the first quarter of the 16th century. An emphasis is given to the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517, as it is a focal point in the relationship of the two empires and a turning point in Middle East history. One chapter is devoted primarily to events prior to the 16th century, beginning with details of events in the year 1382. This date marked the beginning of the Circassian Mamluk Dynasty when the Mamluk and Ottoman empires first came in contact with one another. 7 Prior to 1382 the Mamluks were on good terms with the Ottoman sultans. While it is difficult to judge why no conflicts occurred in the early years, an examination of the political situation of the times indicates that neither state had strong designs against the others proper- ties. This idea is examined in detail in Chapter Two. It is not so easy to determine a single date which limits this study in regards to the after-effects of the conquest of 1517. Some of the repercussions were short- term while others, such as four centuries of Turkish occupation of Egypt, last for many years. However, this study is limited primarily to the more immediate effects of the conquest, those which can be seen when studying six- teenth century Ottoman rule. Research Questions of the Study The questions which constituted the focus of this study and demonstrate the themes on which it was constructed are provided at the beginning of each chapter. By providing meaningful answers to these questions the aims of the study as identified in the preceding pages were fulfilled. Sources and Procedures for the Study The objective of this study is to provide in the English language a meaningful and accurate analytical account of the OttomanfMamluk diplomatic relationship in the first quarter of the 16th century. It is a significant historical era found by the researcher to be inaccurately 8 reported or largely ignored in English texts. It would seem, therefore, that the best way to undertake such a study would be to examine the Arabic and Turkish writings, con- temporary to the period, as these authors were witnesses to many of the events pertinent to the present study. The researcher has used original Arabic and Turkish manuscripts and correspondence whenever possible to provide the main narrative for this study. To amplify these primary sources, minor English as well as French and Arabic sources were used as secondary references. A few books in the English language, and analytical reports provided by current periodicals also contributed to the data. The sources which deal with Ottoman-Mamluk relations and were used for this study could be classified as follows: I. Primary Sources A. Archival materials B. Manuscripts C. Published materials II. Secondary Sources A. Books B. Articles Primary sources in the original languages were used whenever they were obtainable. Archives and libraries in Egypt and Turkey house many of the primary sources used in this study. In addition, the researcher's own books gathered from.various countries and related to the research tOpic, contributed to the data. Books available at Michigan 9 State University and the University of Michigan, materials from other U.S. university libraries (such as the Univer- sity of Minnesota) via inter-library loans, and various periodicals and journals also provided significant help. Data obtained from these sources was critically examined and analyzed in its relevance to the present study. Primary Sources Archival materials relating to the subject of this study exist in Turkey and Egypt. Some of these materials are previously published, others are not. In Turkey, the archival materials are found both .in Istanbul and Ankara. However, the TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi (Archives) in Istanbul was found by the researcher to carry materials most pertinent to this study. The Archives con- tain political,economic, and social materials from those areas which were under the domain of the Ottoman empire. TopKapi Sarayi was the principal residence of the Ottoman sultans following the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by‘ Mehmed II, the conqueror up to the middle of the nineteenth century. The Archives has two large volumes which contain an index to the principle subjects mentioned in the registers and documents. Most of the materials in the TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi deal with the organization and finance of the personal households of the Ottoman sultans, personal correspondence of the sultans to members of the royal family and to the 10 outside governors, and reports of political conditions and military activities in different parts of the empire. Of great value to this study was the correspondence exchanged between the Ottoman sultans and the Mamluk sultans. . In Egypt, a collection of materials from the seven- teenth century to present day is numerous. Archival materials dated prior to this period are limited. In 1820 the citadel in Cairo which held most of the archival materials was destroyed by fire, and most of the official papers concerning the Ottoman-Egypt relations were burned. However, the provincial and local government offices in Cairo still have some archival materials which deal with the period of the sixteenth century and earlier. One such place is Daq al Mahfuzat el-Umuyah (The Egyptian National Archives). It contains a collection of materials dealing primarily with financial affairs, particularly the financial administration of the government, and two public registers, Diwan al-Daftari and Diwan al-Ruznamah. Little information is available in regards to political activities, for example, or correspondence between governmental figures. An- other location in Cairo for archival materials is al-Mahkama el-Shariah (The Court of Personal Status). It contains annual registers of cases, but these do not deal with the sixteenth century at all. Materials there are limited to cases from the eighteenth century on. Manuscripts relevant to this study are found primar- ily in libraries of Istanbul and Cairo. These libraries are: ll TopKapi Sarayi Kutuphane (Library) in Istanbul; Dar el-Kutub el-Masriah in Cairo; and, Mahad el-Maktotat el-Arabia (The Institute of Arabic Manuscripts) in Cairo. In each of these libraries volumes of indexes are available to scholars. Each library contained manuscript materials contemporary to the period of this study. Most of the manuscripts dealing with the sixteenth century and before, and available in the Istanbul and Cairo libraries, are written in Arabic, and often in the early Ottoman style. That is, spellings of words and formations of the alphabetic letters often vary considerably from modern Arabic. This presents an additional challenge to the scholars who are not proficient in the language, and makes it difficult for non-natives or those who do not speak Arabic professionally to choose and locate materials pertinent to their particular studies. Copies of those manuscripts of great value to this study were obtained by the researcher. Microfilms were made of some materials. In some instances the researcher studied and took personal notes. The following pages describe some of the best and most relevant manuscript materials. While it is not the purpose of this study to review in detail each of the numerous primary and secondary sources consulted during the research of this study, it is of use to the reader to have some understanding of the nature and quality of some of the sources considered most useful and reliable by the researcher. One example of the better 12 manuscripts is Feridun Bey's collection of Turkish state papers entitled Munshaat il-Muluk wal Salatin, compiled sometime before 1583. It was learned that this collection was published at Constantinople in two volumes in 1858, but could not be found by the researcher in an exhaustive search through bookstores and libraries in Istanbul and Egypt. Co- incidentally, the adviser to this study, Dr. Alan Fisher of Michigan State University, possessed a copy of the 1858 collection and this was provided to the researcher upon returning to the United States. While the 1858 publication and the original manuscript are similar both are listed as consulted sources, the former was used primarily to verify the researcher's notes on the latter. The manuscript deals primarily with diplomatic correspondences which are arranged chronologically. It covers the period from the time of Timur (born 1336 A.D.) up to the end of the reign of Sultan Suleyman, the Magnificent (1520-1566 A.D.). Most interesting is the last half of the manuscript which is devoted to letters interchanged among the sultans of the Ottoman empire, and the rulers of Persia, and the rulers of the Mamluks of Egypt during the sixteenth century. Another important manuscript is the last book of six in a collection (Auszuege gus Neshri's Geschichtdes Osmanischen hauses) by Neshri, who is said to have died dur- ing the reign of Selim. It provides a great deal of inform- .ation regarding the Ottoman empire from its origin to the time of Selim. It seems to the researcher that Neshri was 13 a true historian for he possessed the historian's fundamental virtue, the desire to establish the truth of events. A significant manuscript of the fifteenth century is that of qu al-Juman Fi Tawarih ahl l-Zamam by Aini. This history deals in part with the Mamluk history and in part with the early Crusades. Aini had the post of Grand Kadi (Judge) and was curator of a pious foundation. He had access to court materials for he was a great favorite of Sultan Barsbay (1422-1438). His manuscript is located in Dar el-Kutub el-Masriah under the number 1584. In al-Manhal a1 Safi Abu l-Mahasin Gamal ed-Din Yousif Ibn Tagri Birdi (died 1470) provides biographies of distin- guished men from.the year 1252 to his own time. The writer came from a high-ranking Mamluk family and was a friend of Sultan Jakmak (1438-1453). This friendship undoubtedly gave him.access to the official documents of the court. The manuscripts consist of two volumes, the second of which was most useful to this study as it covers social and political activities of the Sultan Jakmak. These volumes are located in Dar el-Kutub el-Masriah under the number 1209. A small manuscript of just sixty pages entitled Tarih-i Devlet el-Aliah Osmanyye in Darl el-Kutub, author unknown, traces the origin of the Ottoman Empire up to the year 1640. In studying its contents it appeared that the author used reliable sources; for example, in his first chapter he mentions the point of view of Ibn Khaldun (who was l4 contemporary to the period before the conquest) regarding the origin of the Ottoman dynasty. Also, the unidentified author expresses viewpoints and ideas very similar to highly reliable authors of the time period. The most outstanding manuscript dealing with the Ottoman invasion of Egypt is that of Ahmed Ibn Zunbul, wakat el-Sultan Selim.Khan Fi Fotoh Misir Ma el-Sultan el- Qgggi_(The Invasion of Sultan Selim.I upon Sultan el-Gawri). This manuscript was obtained by the researcher from.the Institute of the Arabic Manuscripts in Cairo and was micro- filmed. It was also obtained on microfilm.from.the Oesterreichische National bibliothek in Vienna. In Dar el- Kutub el-Masriah the original manuscript is located under the number 124, Tarih. The manuscript is a collection of heroic prose and provides a history of the conquest in chronicle style. The first part deals with the campaign of Selim against el-Gawri, and the remainder deals with events following the battle of Marg Dabig (1516) until the Ottoman entrance to Egypt in 1517. Although the manuscript deals : mostly with the course of the conquest and does not explain possible causes or effects of the invasion, it is probably the most important manuscript in regards to the courses of battles between the Ottomans and the Mamluks. Published materials contemporary to the period of this study were also consulted. Probably the most import- ant source for the history of the Ottoman-Mamluk relations in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries is 15 Muhammed Ibn Ahmad Ibn Iyas (died 1524) in his history entitled Bad'i az-zuhur Fi‘waqa'l ad-duhur. This straight forward and rather unbiased eyewitness account of the Ottoman conquest provides an insight into the political, social, and economic life of the Ottoman empire and Egypt. Also, it provides an otherwise unobtainable glimpse of the life of the natives of Egypt. The history consists of five volumes, sometimes published as one complete volume. It covers the time period from the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs in 640 A.D. through the conquest of Egypt in 1517 by the Ottoman Empire. Ibn Iyas's work is a reliable source for he had access to the Mamluk court and had friends among the.Mam1uk officers. He was born of a prominent family, and was a member of Awlad el-nas, the regiment consisting of sons of Mamluk emirs. Ibn Tagri Birdi, author of the manuscript al-Manhal a1 Safi, wrote another scholarly work entitled el-Nujum az- zahirah Fi Akbar Misir wal Kahirah. The latter work con- sists of twenty-three volumes and deals mainly with political events of the Mamluk sultans described in chronological order. It provides a good background of Egypt in the period before the sixteenth century. The volumes cover the history of Egypt from.its conquest in 640 by Omar Ibn el-As up to 1367. They were published by Dar el-Kutub el-Masriah, and were translated into English from.the Arabic annals by the American scholar William.Popper. Of value for the history of Egypt during the skirmish- es between the Mamluk and Ottoman empires in the first half 16 of the fifteenth century is the work of Tag-al-Din Ahmed el-Makrizi (1364-1442). el-Makrizi was one of the most famous medieval historians in Egypt. eleMakrizi was appointed Kadi (Judge), Imam, administrator of wakfs (endow- ments) in Egypt and Syria. He wrote a history of Egypt entitled Kitab as-Suluk li-Marifat dual a1 Muluk. The book includes geographical, historical, and biographical sections which treat both antiquity and contemporary events of the period. It is the opinion of this researcher that his work deserves first rank among histories of his time; his work emerged from theological and practical thought. For the second half of the fifteenth century, Ibn el-Sairafi Ali Ibu Dawood's manuscript entitled Nuzhat el- Nufus wal Abdan Fi Twarih el-Zaman is of importance. This author was a contemporary of Ibn Tagri Birdi, el-Makrizi, and Ibn Iyas. His work,which is located in Dar el-Kutub e1- Masriah under number 12861 H, was investigated and edited by Dr. Hassan Hebshi in 1970. Hebshi's investigation was come, pared by this researcher to the original manuscript, in order to find out if there was any difference in the presentation of data. Dr. Hebshi merely made minor corrections in such things as grammar and use of terms, and made some clarifica- tion of ideas. For an account of political events of the Mamluk Empire in the last half of the fifteenth century this source is reliable. , For the Ottoman-Mamluk war of 1485-1491 the chronicle of Ashaq Pash-Zade translated by Giese, is a goOd source. 17 It contains a description of the nature of the diplomacy and campaigns between the two states. Western books which can be considered as primary sources include the works of R. Knolles who in 1603 com- piled The General Histories of the Turks together with The Lives and Conquests of the Ottoman Kings and Emperors. He based his writings upon the chronicles of the contemp- orary writers such as Ibn Iyas, Ibn Tagri Birdi, and e1- Makrizi. The book supplied information especially perti- nent to this study, about the various personalities associ- ated with both the Ottoman sultan Selim and the Mamluk sultan el-Gawri. There also exists an abundance of good materials dealing with the Ottoman-Mamluk relationship in the sixteenth century in three volumes by de Lamartine, (translated to English from the French by D. Appleton and Company), and entitled The History of Turkey. The second volume was most useful to the present study as it dealt with the topic and time period of this research in particular. The work is not only an outstanding history of the Ottoman empire but an' astute political analysis of the 16th and 17th centuries. Another significant work is Des Osmanischen Reichs Staatsverfassungund Staatsverwaltung, a book in two volumes by Joseph Von Hammer. Von Hammer was familiar with.most of the Middle East languages. His work consists of the gist of histories written by the Ottoman and Persian historians. 18 The original text is in the German language and was trans- lated into French by Hellert. Secondary Sources The secondary sources which provided data relevant to this study are numerous, and written in a variety of languages (Arabic, Turkish, French and English). In all of them there are many things which yet require fuller detail and explanation. Two areas which need to be amplified are the diplomatic history between the Ottoman empire and the Mamluk Empire before the conquest of Egypt, and an analysis of the main factors which motivated the Ottoman empire to invade Egypt. As was noted, as it is impossible to cite and review all of the sources which contributed to this study; the following discussion is limited to the most important secondary sources. In regards to sources dealing with the Ottomans as well as the Mamluks one text which was useful to the study was el-Dowlah el-Osmaniah wal Shark el-Arabi by Mohammed Anis. It is available in Arabic. The book is useful pri- marily as an overview sort of study, however, as it covers the history of four centuries of the Ottoman Empire in approximately three hundred pages. It covers a variety of tapics, but in a very broad manner. The author in parti- cular deals with the expansion of the Ottoman empire, the type of administration it established in many locales, and the ways in which the Ottoman Empire paved the way for the l9 influx of European rule in the Middle East by the 20th century. While the text is useful as a general history, the author neglected to use original Arabic and Turkish sources. Most of his work is based on European and English sources. A second source which deals with both cultures was available to the researcher in the English language. Carl Brockelmann, considered one of the world's leading author- ities on comparative linguistics, wrote The History of the Islamic People, published in German in 1939 and translated to English by Carmichael and Perlmann in 1947. Obviously thoroughly researched, using international scholarly liter- ature and citing convincing evidence, the book covers the history of the Near and MHddle East from the rise of Islam through the 1930's. It is a very detailed and data-filled source, covering political events as well as cultural and civilization trends of the Islamic people. A drawback to Brockelmann's book, however (as compared to Hitti's, for example), is that it cites primarily English, German, and a variety of European sources as opposed to original ancient Arabic or Turkish sources. Another important source dealing with both the Ottomans and the Mamluks is The History of the Arabs by Philip K. Hitti. Like Brockelmann, Hitti covers an extensive period of history, from pre-Islamic civilizations of Arabia to the first part of the 20th century. Hitti's book is very well written, carefully organized and with a style that is 20 easy to read. It appears unbiased and accurate in that it is written in an objective and analytical tone and is care- fully documented with a variety of respected international sources, as well as ancient Arabic and Turkish sources con- temporary to the period such as Ibn Khallikan and el-Mazrizi. Hitti has taught at and conducted research from.a wide number of universities throughout the world. His writings on Near and Middle East history are extensive. This text puts Arab history in perspective with the history of the older Semitic civilization. Two books by Stanley Lane-Poole were useful to the research. One provided information on the Ottoman Empire and one provided a history of Egypt. The Story of Turkey, pub- lished in 1888, proposes to outline the history in broad strokes, and does just that. It clearly tells a story, a general overview of the history of Turkey and the development of the Ottoman Empire which provides the reader with a good background to the area and times. Lane-Poole's sources are poorly indicated, however. He cites von Hammer's Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches and Creasy's History of the Ottoman Turkg but fails to indicate original Arabic and Turkish sources he may have consulted. Lane-Poole's book is signifi- 'cant however, in that it is one of the first texts in English to address the period of history, 1250-1880, in question. Lane-Poole's later publication A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, is likewise a good overview of a lengthy period of history. It covers the 7th century A.D. up to the conquest 21 of Egypt by the Ottomans in 1517. Unlike The Story of Tgrkgz this volume on Egypt lists an impressive group of primary Turkish and Arabic sources such as Ibn Iyas, el- Makrizi, and Ibn Khaldun. It also contains numerous foot- notes to the data it presents, and includes useful tables and illustrations. As in his earlier book, Lane-Poole in A History of Egypt writes in a clear and authoritative manner. ‘ Three sources in the list of secondary references deal with the Mamluk dynasty in particular. They are des- cribed below. Sir John Glubb's Soldiers of Fortune : The Story of the Mamluks is well documented and scholarly, citing ancient historians contemporary to the period in question. Glubb covers the origin of the Mamluk dynasty through the fall of the empire in 1517. It is considered to be one of the most detailed accounts on the Mamluk dynasty to date, and is one of the few in English devoted wholly to the subject. Maps, tables, chronologies, and a large index add to its value. It includes fact-filled accounts of events as well as Glubb's analyses of significant developments and moments of Mamluk history. The Mamluk or Slave Dynasty of Egypt by William Muir surveys the history of the Mamluks from their first importa- tion as slaves in the 10th century A.D. through their rise as rulers of Egypt, through the conquest by the Ottomans in 1517. While Muir's primary source is German (Weil's 22 Geschiechte der Chalifen drawing from original Turkish and Arabic sources) his account is detailed, comprehensive, and well-organized. Like Vucinich's book, The Ottoman Empire: Its Record and Legacy (see p.25) it provides a good overview of many elements of one of the societies which were the topics of this study. An Arabic text by Ibrahim.Ali Tarkhan, entitled Migr_ Fi asr dawlat a1 Mamalik discusses the Mamluk empire from 1382-1517. It includes descriptions of economic, political and social life of the period. The text does not provide ‘much detail about governmental administration. The author based his work on primary sources in Arabic (but not in Turkish) as well as modern English and French sources. It is useful to both the specialist and the general reader interested in the Mamluk history, but is available only in Arabic. A variety of books deal specifically with the Ottoman empire and its development. One of these texts is by Herbert Adams Gibbons, entitled Foundation of the Ottoman Empire. It is a large book with.many maps, a chronological table, an extensive bibliography including sources of numerous languages and a thorough index. The author was for many years a resident of Istanbul. His references include Byzan- tine writers, translated Turkish historians, chronicles by a variety of ancient writers, state papers, popular songs, and modern analytical sources, and numbers over five hundred. 23 The Foreign Relations of Turkey 1481-1512 by Sydney N. Fisher is a good source but has a somewhat misleading title. For the most part it deals with the succession and reign of the Ottoman sultan BayezidII.It succeeds, however in providing useful and seemingly accurate information on the ruler. Fisher cites some primary Ottoman sources as references but does not list any Arabic sources. He also bases his work on a number of English and European scholars. Halil Inalcik is a historian who is native of Turkey, the geographical area considered his specialty. He does research in a variety of languages including Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and English, and is a widely-published professor of history at the University of Chicago. His book entitled The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age 1300-1600 is very com- prehensive yet succinct, covering the political institutions of the empire and its development as well as elements of economic, religious, societal and cultural life. Inalcik is considered one of the finest scholars in Islamic history; the references he used includes significant works in a multi- tude of languages. Also included are a glossary of Ottoman terms, genuologies, and a chronological outline of Ottoman history which are extremely helpful. The translation is clear and enjoyable to read. Stanford Shaw is a prolific writer and historian of ‘Middle East history, a professor at Harvard University, and fluent in a variety of languages including Turkish, Arabic and Persian. Two works by Stanford Shaw were found very 24 useful to the researcher. The Financial and Administrative Organization and Development of Ottoman Egypt, 1517-1798, published in 1958 examines in great detail the system of government, finances, and administration set up by the Ottomans in Egypt. Shaw directly consulted Ottoman archives in Cairo and Istanbul as well as public and private libraries in Egypt, Turkey, France and London. Ottoman administrative documents and records supplied much of the data. The book is an extensive collection of figures, calculations, and tables, as well as an analysis of the basic objectives of Ottoman rule in Egypt and the extent to which they were ful- filled. The bibliography lists numerous Arabic and Turkish sources, and the well-organized index is very helpful. Shaw's History of the Ottoman Empire and Mbdern Turkey is equally well documented and carefully written, while more narrative in fashion. As Shaw admits in his preface, to relate the story of Ottoman history is complicated. He succeeds, however, in tracing the origin of the Turks through. the rise and decline of the empire with a style that is flow- ing and easy. He covers political, administrative, religious, and social aspects of the diverse culture. His bibliography (with some annotative notes) is extensive and covers sources in all languages. The organization of the text and index Shaw provides facilitate the reader in locating facts in the wealth of data he supplies. A source of which provides a good general account of the history of the Ottoman-Arabic relationship as'a whole is 25 The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, 1511-1574, a rather small book published by George W.F. Stripling in 1942. Stripling fails to analyze such things as reasons behind the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517, effects of the conquest, and the cause and effects of various stages of Ottoman-Arabic rela- tionship. His outline of many significant historical events, and the details he provides on such things govern- ‘ment, geography and trade in a variety of locales, is useful, however, in that it is provided in a clear, topical manner, and is based on numerous international sources. Many of the sources, however, are French and German; only a limited number of references are made to ancient writers contempor- ary to the period. Wayne Vucinich's book, The Ottoman Empire, is useful in that it succinctly records the origins of the Ottomans and the type of administration they instituted as well as the society which developed. Elements such as government, armed forces, justice, education, and culture as well as specific topics such as the janissaries, Turkish art and poetry, the palace school, and harem and eunuch institutions. are clearly described. The book is not, however, well documented. It contains no notes, and only a short biblio- graphy. Vucinich's work is recommended as a good overview of the Ottoman civilization, and a useful source for indi- viduals new to.the field. The author is fluent in many languages (although none of the Middle Eastern languages are included), has published a variety of history books on 26 Russia, Eur0pe, and Asia, and is a professor of history at Stanford University. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire by Paul Wittek is a small but interesting publication. This 54 page book, based on his lectures at the University of London, poses questions in regards to traditional analyses of the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Herbert Gibbons work (The Foundations of the Ottoman Empire), for example, is viewed by Wittek to be too narrow in scope, ending its narrative of the empire's development with the year 1403 a time when Wittek feels no realization of an empire could have yet been realized. Wittek traces the development from its 9th century beginnings through its decline. The author also views the decline as a slow one, not accelerating until the 19th century. The book includes a small but various section of notes, and references are a variety of scholarly international sources. Bibliography The complete bibliography including journals, period- icals, and specific articles is listed in the final pages of this study. There are, of course, many works which contri- buted to the researcher's understanding of the topic but which are not directly cited in the text of the study and its footnotes which follow. In addition there are additional works which cover aspects related to this study (for example, studies of other societies in the world contemporary to the conquest; or, conquests similar to the Ottoman conquest of 27 the Mamluks)which are not included in the bibliography. This does not mean they have been of no value to the researcher. It would, in fact, be impossible to cite all of the references which have led me to and enabled me to undertake this project and attempt to produce a work which provides an honest insight into the historical period in question. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined to facilitate the reading of the study. The words will appear throughout this dissertation in just one spelling, except in some cases of direct quotation when another historians' spelling will vary and that author's spelling of the word will be used. Agha - The name of a general officer, or head servant of a household. (In Ottoman usage, usually a Eunuch). Bey - (1) the title given to a governor of a territory, or (2) the title given to a prince. "Lord of lords", the highest-ranki official in the Ottoman provincial government; is district ‘was called Beylerbeyilik for it was the province with the largest administrative unit in the Turkish government; the office of the Beylerbey 'was called Beylik. Beylerbey Caliph - the title of respect given to the one who was appointed successor to the throne; the Ottoman su tans tried to use this title to emphasize their pre-eminence among Muslim rulers and their protectorship of Islam; during the Abassid and gumygd dynasties this individual was called a e. Celebi (l) a title of respect given to those of upper classes, or (2) a title given to a religious leader. '28 Dar ul-harb-the land or home of war. Dar ul-Islam-the land or home of Islama Defterdar - the chief of the treasury. Dervish - a member of a Muslim religious order. devsirme - the levy of Christian children who were taken by the Ottoman government and who were trained to hold posts in the governmental offices. Divan-i humayun - the council of the Ottoman empire, the organ of the Ottoman government. Emir - commander , prince . gmlgk - real estate property 513155 - a district or province Ferman - a decree or edict of the sultan £3335 - a response from the Mofti or Shiek ul-Islam in any matter the sultan could ask for; most often the fetva would be based on what was written in the holy book of Islam, the Koran. Fikh - the regulations of the sacred law Gazi - a title of respect given to one who fights the infidels on behalf of Islam, Grand vizir-the deputy of the sultans Kutba - a sermon following Friday prayer. (In any mosque the name of the sultan had to be mentioned in the Kutba.) Ibn - son Imam - the lawful successor of Muhammed, a leader of daily prayers. ligygh '- tax on non Muslims Kadi - a judge Kadi al askar - a judge of the military forces Kanun ' - a secular law issued by the sultan, an imperial decree. Kanunnam Kizilbas Maktaba ‘Mufti naib Osmanli Pasha Ramazan reaya Sanjak Shiek Seriat Sherif Shiite sofi Sunnis Timar Ulema 29 a collection of the sultan's decrees the tribes of East Anatolia whose religious belief is Shiite. library , Muslim legal authority a deputy or lesser judge used within the title of ancient books, meaning "Ottoman empire". the title of a very high official, such as a governor of a province. the month in which the Muslims fast (sometimes spelled Ramadan). the subjects of the Ottoman empire; sometimes refers to the non-Muslim Ottoman subjects. district or chief administrative unit of the Ottoman empire; its governor was referred to as Sanjak Bey. the chairman of the religious community, or the head of the tribe; preacher. the sacred law of Islam the title of the governor of Mecca; means a descendent of the prophet Muhammed. one of the Muslim sects; its followers believe that Ali Abu Talib, the fourth caliph after the prOphet Muhammed, was the first true Imam and who should have become the immediate heir of the prophet. a dervish, or a very conservative Muslim who acts against modernization. the Orthodox Muslims, one of the sects of the religious Islam which is always in conflict with the Shiites. a fief of small income whose privileges are grant- ed in return for military services. the Muslim.pe0ple who were learned in the sacred law; a learned man was named Alim, but the whole 30 of the learned subjects was called Ulema. Vakf - religious endowment vizir - a government minister PART II CHAPTER I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EMPIRES In this chapter the researcher provides informa- tion as well as some analysis regarding the civilization of the Mamluk and Ottoman Empires. The following ques- tions are addressed: Who were the Mamluks? The Ottomans? What are their origins? How did they come to rule? What type of government did they each establish? What were the characteristics of each society? the people? the economics? the armed forces? What were the unique qualities of each of the empires that may contribute to the success of each? to the final conquest of Egypt by the Ottomans? How do the characteristics of the empires compare with one another? The specific information in this chapter is provided in a summarized or "overview" form as it is not the intent of this study to examine in detail the history and development of each civilization. The materials in this chapter are provided as a background to facilitate the understanding of the main topic of this study, the events of the Ottoman 31 32 conquest of Egypt in 1517 and possible reasons for and results of the conquest. The Mamluks The Mamluks were a dynasty of rulers in Egypt who held power from 1250 until 1517 when Egypt was conquered by the Ottomans.* The Mamluks had their origins** in soldiers recruited by the sultans of the Ayyubid dynasty *The Mamluk dynasty may be divided into two periods accord- ing to the background and ethnic descent of the sultans. In the first period which covered 1250-1382 the rulers were pri- marily Turkish in origin. They were called the Bahri Mamluks ‘ due to the fact that as slave bodyguards of Sultan Ay bid they had been quartered in barracks on Roda (Arrawdah Island in the Nile River (Arabic "bahr") near Cairo. The Burji Mamluks reigned from 1382-1517. The ancestors of this group had been quartered in the Cairo Citadel (Arabic "burg") **Regarding the primary sources which deal with the history of the Mamluks the best are the works written by the contemp- orary historians in chronicle style. Of these are: Aini, Ahmed, qu al-Juman Fi Tawarih ahl l-Zaman; el-Sakawi, el-Tabr e1 Masbul zail el-Suluk; Ibn Tagri Birdi, a1 Manhal al-SafI; Al-Jabarti’Abdfal Rahman, Ajaib al Athar Fi Tarajim wail akhbar 3 vols; el-Makrizi Tagi aI-Din, Kitab as suluk li-ma rifat dual a1 muluk; Ibn el-Sairafi Ali IBn“Dawoodi; Nuzhat él-nufus wal Abdan Fi Twarih Ahl el-Zaman; Ibn Iyas Bada'l az-zuhur Fi waqa l ad-duhur. The best general discussion of the Mamlukshistory is the work by S. Lane-Poole A Historyof E t in the Middle Ages (1968), which gives a reliEbIe survey 0: the Mamluk history in the general context of medieval Egyptian history. I.M~ Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later 'Middle Ages (1967), focuses on the structure anaIHynamics of political and social classes in the'Mamluk. A brief history of the individual sultans of the Circassian Mamluk is given by W. Muir, The Mamluk or Slave Dynasty of Egypt; S. John Glubb, Soldiers of Fortune. Far the Mamluks under the Ottomans P.M.‘Holt, E st and the Fertile Crescent 1516-1922: A political history (1966) provides a more detailed survey than that giveany S. Lane-Poole. Three monographs by D. Ayalon analyze the structure and ethos of'Mamluk institu- tions in meticulous detail: L'Esclavage du.Mamluk; "Gunpowder 33 before them. These soldiers were extracted from the ranks of foreign slave corps. While some of their numbers were brought from other places, a great majority were of Turkish descent.2 The Ayyubids conscripted these indivi- duals at an early age, and trained them rigorously in the capital city of Cairo in politics, administration, and soldiering. They were then given positions in the armed forces or in government as guards, armour-bearers, body guards, etc. Those Who showed promise were given adminis- trative posts in the government and military.3 **(Cont‘d from previous page) and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom” (1956" an examination of the result of "Mamluk reluctance to adopt new equipment and technology" and the series of articles "Studies on the structure of the Mamluk Army," Bulletin of the school of Oriental and African Studies, 15:203-228, 448-476 (1953) and 16:57-90 (1954), "a description of the evolution of the Mamluk army." R. Lopez, H. Miskiman, and A. Udovitch, "England to Egypt 1350-1500," in MgA. Cook (ed), Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East (1970), sets forth the economic factors that contribute to the decline of the Mamluk State. The introductory chapter of S.J. Shaw, The Financial and Administrative Organization and DevelOpment of the Ottoman Egypt 1517-1798 (1962), outlines the process by which theIMamluks'infiltrated the Ottoman government of Egypt. Also, A.N. Poliak, Feudalism in Egypt, Syria and Palestine and Lebanon. The Circassian's Mamluk‘s relation, especially politically is given by G.W.F. Stripling, The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, 1511-1574. Urbana, IllT_I942 (repr. 1968); and N.Fisher,“The Foreign Relation of Turkey, 1481-1512. Urbana, Ill. 1948. G? Wiet, Historie'de la nation Egy tiénne vol. v contains general history of Egypt,but the author based his information on the contemporary sources such as Ibn Iyas, Ibn Tagribirdi and so on. 34 In 1249 the last of the Ayyubid sultans died. A decade of struggle for the throne by his heirs and other members of the government followed. Finally the Mamluksvmme successful in establishing one of their own, Baybars I (reigned 1260-1277)*, as sultan.5 The Mamluk sultans continued the practice of importing individuals to be specially trained for military and governmental posts, and eventually brought in men of Turkish, Kurdish, Circassian, and Greek descent as well as 6 These indivi- slaves from the Balkans and parts of Asia. duals, molded for positions of authority, comprised a ruling group that was very separate from the rest of society. The Mamluk governmental system was basically an oligarchy. The sultan was at the head and his power was absolute.7 In cases of emergency the sultan might consult his emirs or the governors he selected to administer the various provinces of Egypt. He might also ask advice of his special counsel of chief military commanders. But the sultan was still the individual with sole responsibility for defend- ing the properties of the country against enemies, for gathering necessary funds for operation of the government and the military, and for keeping stability within the country.8 1 The Mamluks ruled with vigor. Gains in land, successes in promotion and protection of the Islamic faith, * Further information regarding the life of Baybars can be seen on p. 32. 35 victories in war, activity in building, and developments in industry and agriculture, mark the period of Mamluk Egypt.* Under the name of Islam the Mamluks expanded their empire at one point to the Libian desert as far as Barka in the west, in the south Nubia as far as Massow'a, and in the north to the Mediterranean Sea. Their rule extended over Syria in the east whose frontiers stretched to the Euphrates, to Der al-Zor through Rakka in the south, to the Arabian deserts, and in the north to the Taurus.9 The sultan became the recognized protector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The Mamluks managed to consolidate their empire while gaining prestige in the Islamic-Arabic world when they succeeded in driving the last of the Christian crusaders from.their territories and in keeping the Mongols from mov- ing westward when they defeated them at Ayn Jalut, Palestine in 1260.10 They justified their rule and their activities to the people of the Middle East by restoring the Caliphate in Cairo in 1261.11 (The Caliph had been driven from Baghdad by the Mbngols). Baybars I, the Mamluk sultan at that time, had the powers of the caliph ceremoniously trans- ferred to the sultanate, however. The caliphate remained in Cairo for several hundred years and, while any power and influence it enjoyed was unwritten, the sultans still *See p. 32. 36 looked to the religious representatives for blessings upon their thrones and their actions.12 Dozens of buildingsof all types were erected by the Mamluks. Mosques, schools, monasteries, hospitals, and tombs were erected. The economy was prosperous for many decades, particularly with the government support of crafts l3 and industries during the early decades, and again in the middle half of the 14th century, when the Mamluks succeeded in their invasion upon Cyprus (the island spice-trade route to Asia) in 1426,Egypt took its place as the main transit route between the Orient and the Mediterranean.14 The people of Egypt under the Mamluks were divided into two very separate societal classes, the upper ruling class of foreign born Mamluks, and the lower working class of native Egyptians. This situation of a foreign born ruling class was unique to the Mamluk empire. As William Muir'writes: we search in vain for a parallel in the history of the world. Slaves have risen on their masters and become for the moment dominant. But for a community of purchased bondsmen, maintained and multi- plied by a continuous stream of slaves bought, like themselves and by themselves, from Asiatic salesmen; such a community ruling at will over a rich country with outlying lands--the slave of today the sovereign of tomorrow--the entire governing body of the same slavish race, that such a state of things should hold good for two centuries and a half, might at first sight seem incredible. 37 The Mamluk dynasty's foreign origins, and its continuation of importing non-natives for development into powerful members of its ruling class undoubtedly fostered resentment in the native Egyptians. As will be shown in later chapters division, rivalry and dis- loyalty existed among the ruling class members themselves. This factionalism.throughout the empire, apparently a result of the Mamluk habit of installing non-Egyptian leaders throughout all areas of life, necessitated their a hard-handed rule of the people, and contributed to their eventual downfall. The Egyptian natives cultivated the land, paid the taxes, and manufactured most of the goods. Large amounts of money and goods were continually gathered from the lower classes. Those individuals found contributing inadequately ‘were publicly beaten. The natives were also not allowed to hold important positions in government and business, and ‘were given only low-ranking administrative posts in the religious and judicial sectors. Children of Mamluk parents born in Egypt were also considered of lower rank than foreign- born Mamluks” All of these individuals of less rank than the ruling class were regarded as common peasant workers. Law-breakers were dealt with harshly. If, for example, a native struck a Mamluk, even in self-defense, he often lost an eye or a hand. Even those natives who were lucky enough to hold a government administrative post (such as a super- visor of properties belonging to the sultan or caretaker of 38 the royal horses and camels) were treated harshly. Dur- ing financial cutbacks, the Egyptians' stipends were the first to be reduced. If a native complained of injustice 17 This treatment of he faced dismissal from his post. the natives, of course, would not result in favor of the Mamluks. To this point Stripling writes regarding the feelings of the natives: "The Arab dislike of the Mamluks was based on suspicion and distrust of foreigners whom the Arabs could neither understand nor converse with."18 A question would arise of why the Mamluks isolated themselves from.their subjects and treated them badly. Muir based his idea of the isolation of the Mamluks 19 But the racial factor does not upon the racial factor. seem to be acceptable as the real reason of the Mamluk's isolation from the natives. Personal characteristics of both were almost the.same. So, it is not probable that the Mamluks because of their race did not incorporate with the natives. It seems that political and economic motives were the main factors which contributed to the Mamluk's isolation. The Mamluks feared that by fusing themselves with or into the subjects, they might gradually lose their political power, and the status of lords over their subjects, whose ‘main task was to serve them and cultivate the lands. Ibn Kaldun divided the society of Egypt during the Mamluk Circassian periods into two classes: the Sultan and the 20 subjects. According to his division, it seems that he ‘was influenced by political consideration into explaining 39 that Egyptians by that time could be described as oppressed subjects by the oppressors; the Mamluks. What supported the political and economic motives was the division of the Egyptian society made by el-Makrizi. He states that people of Egyptkue divided into seven categories. The first was ahl el-dowlah (the ruling class); the second was the rich merchants; third was the regular merchants; fourth was peasants who lived in villages; fifth, the poor people who consisted of the Fokaha (clergyman), scholars and most of Ajnad a1 Kalg (sons of peoples); sixth the profitional workers such as blacksmiths, carpenters and masons; seventh was the 21 According to this division one beggars and needy peOple. would say that el-Makrizi based his division of the Egyptian society upon economic foundations, however, for he made the ruling class as the first category and having nothing to do other tasks except taking care of political activities, he (el-Makrizi) supported the idea of Ibn Khaldun in regard to the political consideration and explains the roles of differ- ent categories of the rules subjects. Another element of the Mamluk Empire that is parti- cularly relevant to the tOpic of this study is the condition of the armed forces of Egypt under the Mamluks. While the army and the navy of the Mamluk Empire never attained the strength (nor obtained the advanced weaponry) of the Ottomans, they did succeed in developing a skilled corps of horsemen and a well-equipped navy powerful enough to fend off sporadic enemy attacks, particularly from the Mongols.22 40 Other conditions which develOped by the 16th century as well as one innate characteristic of the Mamluk civilization are seen by the researcher to be particularly relevant to the present study of the Ottoman - Mamluk relations. They include economic and trade conditions which prevailed in Egypt in the years immediately prior to the conquest and the factionalism that occurred among the Mamluk themselves as well as between the two societal classes.23 Despite the renewal of the spice trade route through Egypt by 1375, the economy began to decay over the next quarter century. By 1400 the monies taken in from agricul- ture, taxes and industries had dropped sharply, never to rise again during the Mamluk reign. Reasons for the decline are many. One was the Mamluk inability to protect its trade and agriculture from the Beduoins, to defend Syria from Timurleng in 1400,24 or to withstand Portuguese assault against its trade in the Red Sea at the turn of the 15th century.25 Tax difficulties also contributed to economic woes. For example, Sultan Barsbay (1422-38) briefly restor- ed Mamluk glory by invading and controlling Cyprus in 1426. While these sort of ventures brought some amount of renewed vigor to the Mamluks, they demanded increased and often- times impossible taxes for the people. Recent research shows that devastating plagues in Egypt and surrounding areas during later years also contributed to the citizens' inability to produce agriculture products, goods and labor 41 that would have kept the Mamluk economy stable.27 By the time of the 1517 attack on Egypt by the Ottomans all sections of government and nonpolitical Mamluk life had been severely weakened because of the poor economy. The Ottomans The Ottomans may be identified as those members of the powerful empire which controlled most of Asia Minor by the 15th century and continued to conquer territories in the Middle East, Europe and Africa until it more than doubled its size and rose to its height as a world power in the 16th Vcentury. The seat of the Ottoman government at its zenith ‘was located in Istanbul.28 The life of the Ottoman Empire--its governmental system, its society, economics, armed forces--defies easy explanation because of its nature as an expansionist empire. As will be shown, it was a state constantly on the increase through the late 16th century. Years of rapid decline through the 19th century continued to keep it a civilization in constant flux. As the historian wayne Vucinich says, "The Ottoman Empire was an intricate network of social systems and subsystems, which changed from one period to another far more than is generally believed."29 In view of this, the description of the Ottoman civilization which follows will be limited, as was the des- cription of the Mamluks preceding, to those facets and those time periods which the researcher has deemed germane to the present study. 42 The origin of the Ottomans* is obscure. The word Ottoman has no ethnic significance, but is a dynas- tic term derived from.the man who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, Osman I** (1299-1326)30 Tradition*** tells that the forefathers of Osman came from central Asia *The two classic studies of Ottoman origins are Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, London, 1938, which stresses their gazi connections, and Fuat Koprulu, Les Origines de l'Empire Ottoman, Paris, 1935, which emphasizes the essen- Eially Turkish origins of Ottoman institutions. The latter was translated into Turkish and published as Osmanli Devletinin Kurulusu (The Foundation of the Ottoman State) Afikara, 1959, wifh an introduction and commentaries on later studies on the subject by the author. Ernst Werner, Die Geburt einer Grossmacht Die Osmanen, 1300-1481LBer1in, 1966, pro- vides a compréhensive but ratherlMarxist-oriented study of the period. Fuad Koprulu, Turk Edebiyatinda Ilk Mutasavnflar (The First Mystics in Turkish Literature), 2nd ed., Ankara, 1966, discusses the role of the mystic leaders in the develop- ment of Turkish culture and civilization in Anatolia. Mukrimin Halil Yinanc, "Ertugrul Gazi," IA, IV, 328-337, provides an exhaustive study of Osman's father, Ertugrul. 31. *TM. Tayyip Gokbilgin, "Osman I," IA, IX, 431-443, brings to- gether all available information on Osman I himself. See also Fuad Koprulu, "Osmanli Imparatorluguinum.Etnik Mensei Meseleleri" (Problems of the Ethnic Origins of the Ottoman Empire), Belletin 7, (1944), 219-313. Problems associated with the Kayi tribe, out of which the Ottomans emerged, are discussed by Fuad Koprulu, "Kayi kabilesi hakkinda yeni notlar" (New notes on the Kayi Tribe), Belletin, 8 (1944) 421-452; Faruk Sumer, "Kayi", IA, VI, 459-562; Faruk Sumer, "Osmanli Devletinde Kayilar" (The Kayis in the Age of the Ottomans), Belletin 12, (1948) 576-615; Faruk Sumer, "Anadolu' ya yalniz Gbcebe‘Turkler mi geldi?" (Did Only Nomandic Turks Come to Anatolia?), Belletin 24 (1960); F. Demirdas, "Osmanli Devrinde Anadoluda Kayilar"“(The Kayis in Anatolia in the Age of the Ottomans), Belletin, 12 (1948) 576-615; Paul Wittek "Deux Chapitres de I‘Historie des Turcs de Roum”, Bayantion, 11 (1936), 85-319; and Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsuli, "Osmanii Tarihi' nin Ilk Devreleri'ne Aid Bazi Yanlisliklarm Tashihi" (Correc- tion of Some Mistakes Concerning the First Ages of Ottoman History), Belletin, 21 (1957), 173-188. 32. * For the lack of written records of the origin of the Ottoman empire before the capture of Constantinople, Gibbons in his 43 to Anatolia, and then from.Anatolia to Asia Minor as a small band of horsemen in the thirteenth century. Under Osman a strong state was developed in the late 1200's on the Byzantine border in northwestern Anatolia.34 In 1326, the year of Osman's death, the Ottomans took‘Bursa.35 Then began a somewhat slow but steady increase in terri- tories until they controlled most of the extreme northwest corner of Asia Minor by mid-century. With their seizure of Gallipoli in 1354 the size of the Ottoman state grew rapidly. Next they invaded the Balkan states, and con- tinued their steady advancement northward to Bulgaria, and westward to Macedonia. Bulgaria eventually was subjugated in 1393, and Serbia became a vessel state of the Ottomans.36 In 1400 they were masters of almost the whole of Anatolia and had taken nearly all the European possessions of 37 By this time, the state had a ruler who bore the title of Byzantium.and there remained only Constantinople. Sultan. Its new possessions were organized into two adminis- trative regions, Anatolia (Asia) and Rumelia (Europe). It had well begun efforts of Islamization of its conquered people, and was strengthening its armies by conscription of young Christian boys into service of the new state.38 ***(Cont'd) book The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire stated that the legends are not to*be ignored, but they should be examined an carefully weighted. He finally agreed that the Ottoman originally came as herds from Asia Minor and were granted a piece of land from Alaeddia, the governor in Yum. 33 44 The Ottoman expansion was halted for a time in the first years of the 15th century when the Mongols under Timurleng advanced from central Asia and defeated the Ottomans at a battle in Ankara in 1402.* In the 1420's and 1430's, however, the Ottomans recovered and continued their expansion into Greece, and towards Europe, pushing their frontiers into Albania, Serbia, and Hungary.39 The Ottomans were gaining a forefront position in terms of world power and were by the middle of the 15th century regarded by the rest of the world as an awesome force. The fall in 1453 of Constantinople to the Ottomans (who later called it Istanbul) marked unequivocally the beginning of the Ottoman empire (as well as the end of 0 Byzantium).4 In the next century the Ottomans continued their expansion into the Balkan Peninsula, Asia, and Africa.41 Just as the size of the Ottoman Empire holdings during its nearly six hundred years of existence was con- constantly in a state of flux, so were many facets of its governmental system. Even during the 16th century, a later time in this study, the empire was a network of en- claves, vassal principalities, ill-defined zones, and territories only recently conquered by the Ottomans. The people were a vast mixture of beliefs, nationalities, and * . See Page 64. 45 languages, from Christian European heritage to Eastern Muslim descent. The amount and variousness of territory over which the government ruled was equally large. One element of government that remained fairly con- stant during the six hundred years of the Ottoman rule, was the sultanate. As in the Mamluk Empire, the sultan was all powerful. The Ottoman government was basically a theocratic monarchy, with the sultan professing to base his rule on sacred Muslim law. The ruling Ottoman sultans, throughout the six centuries, were all from the Osman dynasty. Because there was no confirmed law in the early years of the Ottoman Empire which could be followed in regards to the succession to the throne, the strongest son became sultan when his father died. Examples of this situation can be seen by observing the many civil wars among sons of the sultans after the death of their fathers.*42 During the 15th and 16th centuries a two-part political administration system was perfected. One part was the ruling institution of converted Muslims and the other part was the Muslim institution of born Muslims; each had its own functions. The ruling institution included the sultan, his family, officers of his household, high officers of the army, the armed forces, and a large body of young slave recruits (mostly foreign born Christians converted to Islam) who were trained for service in the army, the court, and the government. The ruling institution controlled all * Throughout this study some of these situations are discussed. 46 government functions except the judiciary. In the Muslim.institution were educators, priests, jurisconsults, judges and trainees for these positions. Also included were dervishes and sayyids (holy men believed descended from the Prophet Muhammad). These persons, all Muslim.born, were responsible for Muslim learning, religion, and law.“3 The sultan appointed many officials who assisted in running the central government. Regional governments of the empire's territories (there were nine territorial divisions in the 16th century) were headed by appointed governors, often brothers of the sultan, each of whom had an assisting staff. The territories were further divided into provinces and then into judicial districts all headed by officers appointed by imperial decree.44 A large amount of the taxes collected not surpris- ingly went to support the Ottoman military forces, the army and the navy. Until the end of the 16th century, the feudal army which they developed was the principal force.45 Fief-holders were obliged to provide soldiers as well as serve themselves. (In some cases financial pay- ments could be made in lieu of such services). Augmenting this corps of peasant tenants were the Janissaries, the young Christian slave recruits were specially trained for the military life. It is believed that this practice of conscripting young men and specially molding them for the army began in the 1300's. It reached its height during the 47 years of Sultan Suleyman (reigned 1520-1566) when the Janissaries comprised the bulk of the powerful military, their numbers equalling about 12,000. During the time of the invasion of Egypt there were approximately 10,000 46 according to Stanley Lane-Poole who stated Janissaries, that the urgent need of a strong and standing army led the Ottomans to develop an infantry, Janissaries, or "new troops" which for centuries constituted the flower of the Ottoman army.47 The navy did not develop nearly as much as the land forces. The reason is apparently because in the early years of the formation of the Ottoman state land warfare was the basis of the Ottoman strategies of conquest. A navy was not even developed until the 15th century. At first, the function of the navy was not more than the defend- ing of straits and coasts, and the transporting of soldiers. During the second half of the 15th century, however, the navy achieved prominence by succeeding in turning the Black Sea into a virtual lake of the Ottomans. In the years following the conquest of Egypt it had other periods of prominence as it battled with the Portuguese for dominance over the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.48 As the Mamluks had the unique distinction of being a totally foreign-born ruling class, which resulted in condi- tions perhaps unfavorable for fending off the Ottomans, so the Ottoman society possessed a unique outlook that, while not accounting for the Ottoman victory over the Egyptians, 48 certainly sheds some light on why the Ottomans made such an expansionary effort and perhaps why they were for many centuries so successful. Islam was the foundation of the Ottoman society. As Vucinich notes, "Few people have been so intransigently Muslim as the Ottomans, who took the missionary aspect of "49 From the early days of Osman I there Islam.seriously. was high respect for the ghazi, or the frontier defender, who ideally was obligated to make jihad, or war against any infidel on behalf of the Muslim faith. Osman early campaigns attracted ghazis from other parts of the Islamic world, as well as others who came for the opportunity to win plunder. Throughout the many centuries of Ottoman con- quests through the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe campaigns were undertaken in the name of Islaml Certainly its questionable if this was the singular motive of the Ottoman sultan. However, the ghazi ideal gave a form to the Ottomans activities. Their forceful attempts at new victories and the government and types of social reform they laid down in subjugated lands were couched in the ex- pressed desire to eradicate the infidels and to consolidate the expanding Islamic world under their rule which was based in the principles of Muslim holy law. In summary, we can see that some similarities exist- ed between the Mamluk and the Ottoman empires. Both were Islamic states. Both were prestigious and powerful as world powers. Each supported a ruling class headed by a supreme sultan. 49 In contrast to one another, the Ottomans were constantly attempting to expand their territories while the Mamluls were not nearly so active in campaigns for new lands. Ottoman holdings were vastly larger than the Mamluks by the 16th century. The Mamluk economy was also suffering by this time while the Ottoman was not. Also, the army of the Ottomans used advanced weaponry such as firearms and the Mamluks did not. Both sides, however, depended largely on foreign-born soldiers to augment their troops. A characteristic unique to the Mamluk society was the ruler's practice of recruiting and training foreign-born individuals for all positions of power in society. While this apparently resulted in factionalism within the Mamluk empire, the vastly diverse Ottoman empire enjoyed some solidarity under the ideal of the ghazi, the desire to bring the world together under Islam. However, it should be noted that this ghazi ideal of the Ottomans was not a main motive behind the Ottomans march on Egypt in 16th century. It may be seen as giving impetus to the overall tendencies toward expansion, particularly in regards to Christian Europe. As the following chapters will show, numerous other factors and situations led to the Ottoman move to conquer Egypt in 1517. 10. ENDNOTES Philip Hitti. The History of the Arabsp_London: Macmillan and Company,*Limited, 2nd ed.,II94O, p. 672. Stanley Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, p. 243, 323. Ibn Iyas Muhammad, Ibn Ahmed. Bada'al az-zuhur Fi waqa'l ad-duhur. Cairo: Matbat al-shab, 1960, p. 74. Stanley Lane-Poole. A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, London Methuen afid’Company, 5th ed}, 1936, p.242-43. Stanley gznezgoole. A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, p. - . For further information see Donald P. Little, "Mamluks" The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. II, 15th ed., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., I974, p. 401. Peter Mansfield, The Arabs. London: lst ed., Cox and wyman Ltd., 1976, p. 69. E.M. Sartain, Jalal al-din al-Suyuti. Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge‘University Press, 1975, p. 2. C.H. Becker "Egypt" The Encyclopedia of Islamm A Dictionary of the Geography, Ethnography and Biography of the Muhammaden Peoples. Prepared by a number of leading orientalists edited by M. Th. Houtsma, A.J. Wensinck, T.W; Arnold, W. Heffening and E. Levi-Provencal. Vol. II, London: Luzac and Co., 1927, p. 13. Philip Hitti. The History of the Arabs, p. 694. Abdulrahman el-Rafai and Said Ashur. Misr Fi al-usur al- , wusta. Cairo: Dar el- Nahda al-Arabiah, ea’.,197o p.555. M. Sobernheim "Mamluks", The Encyclopedia of Islam., Vol. III, 1936, p. 217. M. Sobernheims "Mamluks", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. III, 1936, p. 217. Ibn Iyas, p. 80. Peter Mansfield, The Arabs, p. 69. 50 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 51 Ali Ibrahim Hassan, el-Tarih el-Islami el-Am. Cairo: Maktabat el- Sunnah el-Mohamadiah, 3rd ed. 1963, p. 472, 3. Philip Hitti, The History of the Arab People, p. 675. Ali Abrahim.Hassan, e1 Tarih el-Islami el-Am. p. 472-73. Peter Mansfield, The Arabs, p. 69. Tarkhan Ibrahim, Misr Fi asr dawlat al-Mamalik Cairo: Maktabat el- nahda, 1959, p.54. MT. Sobernheim., "Mamluks" The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. III, 1936, p. 217. Tarkham Ibrahim Misr Fi asr dawlat al-Mamalik, p. 313, 322. Ibn Iyas, p. 326. Ibn Taghri Birdi, Histo of E 1382- 1469 A. D. (Part IV, 1422- 1438 X. D. 5, Trans tby William.Popper, Vol. 18, University of California Press, 1958, p. 27. Lane-Poole Stanley, A History of Egypt in the Middle Age, p. 338-339. William.Muir, The Mamluk or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt, Amsterdam Oriental Press, I968, p. 215. EgM. Sartain, Jalal al-din al-Su ti, p; 9, 10, ll. Ibn Iyas, p. 97, I37, I66, IgI, 172, 191. Ibid. G;W.F. Stripling, The Ottoman Turks and The Arabs, Urbana: The University ofIllinoisTress, 1942, p.17. William.Muir, The.Mam1uk or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt, p.215, 221. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimah An Introduction to History, Trans. by Franz Rosenthal. Vol. I, Princeton University Press, 2nd ed., 1967, p. 334. El-Makrizi Taqi - al-din Ahmed. Ikathat el-Omah be Kashf el-Komah. Cairo: 1940, p. 72, 73. Abdulrahman el-Rafai and Said Ashur. Misr Fi al-usur al- Wusta, p. 562-563, Tarkhan, p. 294. Abdulrahman el-Rafai and Said Ashur, p.543. Ahmed Ibn Arabshah. Tamerlane or Timur The Great Amir MSS. Trans. by J. H. Sanders, Lahore: Progressive Books, 2nd ed. 1976. p. 127. Tarkhan Ibrahim Misr Fi asr dawlat al- Mamalik, p. 80. Ibid., p. 132. E. G. Browne, A Literary Histor of Persia, Vol. III, The Tartar Dominion 1265-1502, Cambfidge at thedUniversity Press, I956, p.197: Abdulrahman el- Rafai and Said Ashur, p.543. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 52 William Muir, The Mamluk or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt, p. 142. Ibn Iyas, p. 327-329. Ibn Tagri Birdi, Histor of E t 1382-1469 A.D. (Part IV, l422-I438 K.D.$ Trans. By William Popper, p. 69. Philip Hitti, The History of the Arabs, p. 696. Halil Inalick. The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300-1600. Trans. by Norman ItZkowitz and Colin Imber;*London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973, p. 3, 29. Stanford Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey , V61, 1: Empire of the Gazis, ThelRise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280- 1808. Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 1. Wayne S. Vucinich. The Ottoman Empirg, Its Record and Legacy, Princeton D. van NostrandCbmpany, Inc., , p. 3. Ibid., p. 9-13. Also see, Unknown author Tarih el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah. A Manuscript in Cairo. Dar éI-Kutub, No. 42, p. 9. Edward S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, Beirut: Khayats, 1961, p. 4. Abdulrahman Sharaf. ’Tarih-i Devlet-L Osmaniyye. Istanbul: 1931. p. 66-67. 7Mfihammed Fareed Bey, Tarih el-Dowiat el-Aliah el-Osmaniah. Istanbul, Muhammad Efendi Matbaah, 1896, p. 41. Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, p . 305 . Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, p. 305-6. H.A. Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, p. 18, 73. Abdulrahman Sharaf. Tarih i-Devlet i-osmaniyye. p.60- 61. Muhammad Ania, El-Dowlah el-Osmaniah wal Shaficq, el-Arabi, Cairo Dar él-Jeel L a1:T3baah, p. 13, 14. Abdulrahman, Sharaf, p. 66. Ibid, p. 82. Also, see Abu al-Farook, Tarih i-Osmaniyye Istanbul. Matbat Amedi, 1931, p. 126, ‘Muhammed’ Fareed Bey Tarih el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah, p. 44-47. PaulIWitték, The Rise of_the Ottoman gapire, New York: 1938, p. 44, 46. 7H.A. Gibbons, e oundation of the Ottoman Empire, London: 2nd ed. .FfankCass and—Co., 1968, p. 94, 195, 100, 103, 160-3. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 53 Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, p. 46. Wayne S. Vucinich, The Ottoman Empire, p. 14. Wayne S. Vucinich, The Ottoman Empire, p. 15. Ibid. Also see Ibn Iyas, p. 350. Ibn Tagri Birdi, Histo of E t (part 6, 1453-1461) Trans. by WiIIiam Popper, p. 38-39. F. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, Princeton University Press, 1978, p. 91-93. See Chapters III, IV. Unknown author. Tarih i Devlet-isomaniyye, p. 22, 24, 27, 28. Ismail Hikmet, Suitan Cemr iBu eser Is Ban Kasi Tarafindan bastirilmistirdIstanbul, Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951, p. 110, 111, 112. Muhammed Fareed Bey, p. 48, 52, 54, 55. Wayne S. Vucinich. The Ottoman Empire, p. 22. This author based his information upon Albert H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleyman, and H1A.R. Gibb and Braune, Islamic Seciety and the West, Vol. I, Part I (Eondon, 1950) Part 2 (London, 1957). Ibid., p. 27, 29. Ibid., p. 29. Ibid., p. 30-33. Stanley Lane-Poole, The Story of Turkey. Andrew S. Hess, "The Evolution of the Seaborn Empire in the Age of Oceanic Discoveries", American Historical Review, 1970, p. 1900, 1904. wayne S. vucinich, p. 34, 35 wayne S. Vucinich, p. 62-63. CHAPTER II THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OTTOMAN SULTANS AND MAMLUK SULTANS PRIOR TO THE CONQUEST The relationship between the Ottoman sultans and the MEmluk sultans prior to the conquest is a subject requiring close examination if full understanding of the Ottoman victory is desired. In this chapter the following questions will be addressed: What was the diplomatic relationship between the two states prior to 1517? was it friendly or hostile, or was it characterized by both? What were the effective fac- tors resulting in any such characteristics? What was the I resulting impact, if any, on the two states? Did the in- ternal or external affairs of either state have any impact upon their relations with one another? Did the border states contribute to a strain upon or developments in the relationship? Did the relationship between the Ottoman and Mamluk Empires prior to the conquest have any connec- tion with the final invasion by the Ottomans which resulted in the destruction of the Mamluk Empire? If so, how did it develop? Who initiated the first strikes against the other? ‘Was one state "more responsible" for the final confrontation than the other? 54 55 Prior to the conquest in 1517, the relationship between the Ottoman sultans and the Mamluk sultans took many forms. An examination of diplomatic correspondence between the two states shows feelings and attitudes fluc- tuating between friendliness, cool formality, cautiousness, and suspicion. This tenuous relationship finally deterior- ated to the point of outright war. In this chapter, the events and developments lead- ing to the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517 will be exam- ined. The examination will begin with the year 1382 which ‘marked the beginning of the Circassian Mamluk Dynasty, when the Mamluk and Ottoman empires first came in contact with one another. According to sources contemporary to the period, such as Ibn Iyas, Ibn el-Sairafi, a1 Aini, and el-Makrizi it appears to the researcher that the Mamluk and Ottoman sultans were on good terms with one another in the years prior to 1382 from the time that the Mamluks first gained power in Egypt. There is no evidence of conflict between the two empires which suggests that neither state had any designs against one another. There are three addi- tional points which support this suggestion. First, in the early time, the frontiers of both states were far from one another so there was little reason, for each power to intervene in one another's affairs. For many decades the two empires were separated by the Karman state which was relatively smaller than the Ottoman and Mamluk states but 56 nevertheless created some distance between their lands. There was no conflict along this common boundary until later, when the Ottomans marched upon the Amirates of Asia Minor (in the first quarter of the thirteenth century), such as Angora, Karasi, and Tokat.1 Second, the Ottoman Empire at this time, was occupied by expansionist activities in the west toward Christian Europe, especially the Byzantine and Balkan principalities; it did not spend its efforts toward the east. This also indicates to the researcher that the Mamluks may have viewed these Ottoman expansionist efforts favorably, as they, too, were Sunni Muslims, and the Ottoman activities were diverted against Christianity, a belief they also Opposed. Third, it would seem that the advancement by the Mbngols towards the west during this period, would have encouraged the Ottoman and Mamluk sultans to associate on good terms with one another in case of their need to unite efforts against a common enemy. It seems improbable that they did not see the potential danger of the Mongols, particularly after Timur's* (1336-1405) advancements *During his lifetime Timur had a record kept of all his acts and arranged for the preparation of an official biography. This survived in the contemporary recension of Nizam.ul-Din Shwmi ed. by F. Tauer, two volumes (1937-56) and in the more florid version of Sharaf ul-Din Yazdi, trans. by F. Petis de la Croix (1722). The opposite point of view, bitterly hostile EE—Timur, is given by another contemporary Ibn Arabshah, trans- lated by J.H. Sanders, Tamerlane: or Timur, the Great Amir (1936). The supposed memoirs (mulffiZat) trans. bydC. Stewart (1830), and Institutes (Tuzukat) of Timur are generally held to be forgeries, and the circumstance of their 57 towards them. In 1384, an exchange of correspondence be- gan which supports this idea that an awareness of and cau- tion towards the Mongols existed in both governments. Sultan Murad I (1359-1389)* sent his envoy, whose name is alleged discovery and presentation to Shah Jahan in 1637 was tself open to suspicion. The most scholarly study of the evidence relating to Timur's life is in the English translation of V.V. Barthold, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, Vol. 1, A Short History of Turkestan: History,of Semirechye (1956), and V6I, 2Ulugh-6eg (1958). BdGed substantially on this work is the account of his life given in Hilda Hookham, Tamburlaine,,the Conqueror (1962) which also contains the fullest availabIebibliography of works in English. Another account of Timur is given in Harold Lamb, Tamerlane, the Earth Shaker (1929). *Murad I's reign (1359-1389) is discussed generally by Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsili, "Murad I," I.A. 8 (1960), 587-598. The same author also considers the rise of the Turkish nobility, led by the Candarli, in Ottoman service in Candarli Vezir Ailesi, (The Candarli ministerial family,) Ankara, 1974. ’The same subject is also discussed by Franz Taeschner and Paul Wittek, 'Die Vezirfamilie der Gandarlyzade (14.15 Jh) und ihre Denkmater," Der Islam 18 (1929). Murad's relationship with the ahi orders is studied by F. Taeschner, "War Murad I. Grossmeister oder Mitglied des Achibundes " Oriens, 6 (1953), 23-31. His conquests in Rumeli are des- criBed by Apostolos E. Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Nation,,1204-l461, New Brunswick, N.J., 1970; Alexandre Burmov., "Turkler Edirne'yi ne vakit aldular " (When Did the Turks Capture Edirne ), Belleten 13 (1949), 97-106; M. Munir Aktepe, 'XIV vs. XV asirlarda Rumeli'nin Turkler tarafindan iskanma dair" (On the Settlement of Rumelia by the Turks in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries), Turkiyat Mecmuasi, 10 (1953), 299-313; P. Charanis, "On the Date of the Occupa- tion of Gallipoli by the Turks," szantinoslavia, 16 (1955), 113-117, Halill Inalcik, "Edirne'filn FetHi (I36I)," in Edirne, Ankara, 1956, pp. 137-159; English tr. in Archivum Ottomanicum, 1971; P. Charanis, "The Strife Among the’Palae- ologi and the Ottoman Turks, 1370-1402," Byzantion, 16 (1942-_ 1943), 286-314; 17 (1949), 104-118. By far the best single study of Ottoman conquests is that of Halil Inalcik, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," Studia Islamica, 11, 103-129. See also D. Angelov, "Certain aspects de la conquete des peuples balkaniques par les Tures," Byzantinoslavia, 17 (1956), 220-275. The Battle of Kosova is analyzed in M.Braun, Kosova, Leipzig,l937; A d'Avril, La Bataille de Kosovo, Rhapsodie ‘ Serbe, Paris,l968; Ali Haydar, Kosova Meydan Murarebesi (The 58 not known, to the Mamluk Sultan Barkuk (1383-1399)* cautioning him.af the Mongolian advancement towards their empires. ‘Murad warned of great danger not only for the Ottomans but also for the Mamluks.4 Unfortunately, this action marked the beginning of the decline in good terms between the two empires. Although Barkuk was concerned about the moves of Timur toward Mamluk territories, he was more suspicious of Ottoman ambitions toward his country. His doubts came true when the new Ottoman sultan Bayezid I (l389-1402)** Battle of Kosova), Istanbul, 1328/1910; and Mukerrem, Kosova, 1389, Istanbul, 1931. *The information about the life of Barkuk is treated by Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, iv. 541-556 and v. 1-71 (wherein the introduction, p.v-viii. the Arab manuscripts are quoted). His complete biography is given in the Manhal al-safi. M.S. Cairo 1113, p.316-337 . Sources which deal fuIly with the Circassian Mamluks and contain information regarding Barkuk's life are on p.31. **The most exhaustive and useful study of the reign of Bayezit I (1389-1402) is Mukrimin Halil Yinanc, "Ba ezid 1," IA. II, 369-392; that of Halil Inalcik, "Bayezid I,‘ EL2,1, 1117-1119 is short but authoritative. Bayezit's relation- ships with the Byzantines are described in P. Charanis, "The Strife among the Palaeolo i and the Ottoman Turks, 1370- 1402," Byzantion, 16 (1942), 2 6-314. The Battle of Nicopolid'has Eden the subject of numerous studies of which the most useful are Aziz Suryal Atiya, The Crusade of Nicopolis, London, 1934, and E. Cling, Diéfschlacht‘bei Nicopolis in 1396, Berlin, 1906. Bayezit's other European conquests are discussed in R.J. Loenertz, "Pour l'histoire du Peloponese au XIV siecle," REB, I, 152-186; A. Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Moree, Paris, 1932; A. Gegaj, Albania et l'invasion turgue, Paris, 1937; Max Silberschmidt, Das orientalische Problem zur Zeit der Entstehung des Tfiffiischen Reiches nach Venezianischen Quellen, Leipzig, 1923; Franz Babinger,7Beitrage zur Fruhgescfiichte der Turkenherrschaft in Rmmelien, Munich, 1944; and G. Beckmann, Der Kampf Kaiser Siggnnds gegen die werdende weltmacht der Osmanen, 1392-1437, ta, 2: 59 in 1391 attacked the border territory of Kayseri whose emir whose name and for reasons which have not been recorded, was under the protection of the Mamluks. But Bayezid I soon realized that his army would be alone in the area against future attacks by Timur. Apparently haping to re-establish friendly terms which would more likely in- sure Mamluk support against any Mongol advancement, Bayezid 1, according to Ibn Iyas, sent an apology* to Barkuk, along with expensive gifts.6 Bayezid I also flattered Barkuk by asking Barkuk to send him one of his **Continued from previous page. Bayezit's invasion of Anatolia is described by M. Yasar Yucel, "Kastamonu'nun ilk fethine kadar Osmanli-Gander Munasebetleri, 1361-1392" (Ottoman Relations with the Candar Principality Until the First Conquest of Kastamonu), Tarih Arastirmalart Dergisi, I, (1963), 133-144; and B.P. Saxena, Memoirs of Bayezid, AIlahabad, 1939. Tamerlane's resulting invasion is folIowed in M.M. Alexandrescu-Dersca, La Campagne de Timur en Anatolie, Bucharest, 1942. His relationships with the’Ottomans' enemies in eastern Europe are studies by Zeki Velidi Togan, "Timur's Osteuropapolitik," ZDMG, 108, (1958), 279-29 . The Battle of Ankara (1402) is studied by T. Uilmaz Oztuna, 1402 Ankara Muharebesi (The 1402 Battle of Ankara), Istanbul, 1946, and Gustav’Roloff, "Die Schlacht bei Angora," Historische Zeitschrift, 161 (1943), 244-262. The problems invoived in’Bayezit's imprisonment and subsequent death are resolved by Fuad Kiprulu, Yildirim Bayezid'in Esareti ve Intihari (The Imprisonment and Suicide of Lightning Bayezid) Belletin, I (1936), 591-603, and the same author's "Yildirim Bayezidrin Intihari Meselesi" (The Problem of Bayezid's Suicide), Belletin, 7, (1943), 591-599. See also Jean Aubin, "Comment ggmfggan pernait les villes," Studia Islamica, 19 (1963), *A copy of the apology does not exist although it is mentioned not only by Ibn Iyas but also by el-Sairafi. Because it is described only in Egyptian sources and not in Turkish sources, and because Ibn Iyas and el-Sairafi themselves were native Egyptians their description of the letter may be biased against the Ottomans. 60 famous professional doctors for reasons unexplained by Ibn Iyas,8 but probably for himself or members of his family or court. Barkuk answered this request by sending his special doctor Shams el-din Mohammad Ibn Sagser, as 9 Barkuk and Bayezid I well as fine medicine and drugs. emphasized their now courteous relations in other ways. For example, in 1394 Bayezid I, most likely in order to 'affirm his respect and true friendship to the Mamluks sent an envoy and gifts, both left unidentified by the source, to the Abbasid Caliph in Egypt el-Mutawakil Ala Allah. At the same time he asked the Caliph for permission to adopt the title "Sultan" which carried more prestige than the title of "emir" used by his three predecessors.10 It appears to the researcher that Bayezid felt his recent conquest of the sizeable territory of Asia Minor justi- fied the adoption of the new and more reputed title. In addition, the fact that he sought this change with the blessings of the Caliph, the representative of Islam, in- dicates that Bayezid was attempting to show the Mamluks as well as the Ottomans that as a leader he was a protector of the Islamic faith. Brockelmann, an important historian of the Middle East, indicates that Barkuk as guardian of the Caliph could do nothing but accept this official religious sanction since he needed the good favor of the Ottoman sultan as his sole ally against the Mongols.11 61 During the reign of Sultan Farage of the Mamluks (l400-l412)* relations became increasingly hostile. Bayezid I continued to lead occasional attacks against areas under the protection of the Mamluks. In the spring of 1396 at the Battle of Buda his army defeated the Crusaders, French volunteers and noble families from England, Scotland, Flanders, Lombardy, Savoy, Bohemia, and all parts of Germany and Austria, who were under the proclamation of Pope Boniface IX to march against the Ottomans.12 Bayezid then returned to Anatolia in victory and subsequently occupied the border city of Konya, pre- viously part of the state of Karman. He seized other cities in the eastern part of the state also, although the entire state of Harman was not fully incorporated into the Ottoman Empire until seventy years later.13 In 1398 Bayezid also put an end to the government of Sultan Qadi Burhan al-Din of Sivas, a city northeast of Karamania along the Halys River.14 His forces then entered the territory of the Mamluks in the upper valley of the Euphrates, occupy- ing several cities including Malatya, Darenda, and Elbistan.15 Thus Bayezid was simultaneously waging war on the most powerful Muslim empire in the area at the time-- *Good sources regarding the life of Farag are: Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, v. 72-105 and 108-125; his bio- graphy is given in detail in el-Manhal al-Safi, Cairo, MS.1113, part III 16. See also p.731. 62 the Mamluk Empire--and encroaching upon the Mongolian leader Timur and his influence in eastern Anatolia as far as Erzinjan. I . Bayezid I again apparently regretted his moves . against the Mamluks for he next sent an embassy to Sultan Farage which, according to the research by Sir John Glubb, asked Farage to be Bayezid's ally against the Mongols.17 Bayezid was likely prompted to make this move because Timur was advancing toward Ottoman territories and recently took the city of Sivas that had been a short time before occupied by Bayezid. Farage, after consulting with his advisors, refused.18 Possibly with the desire to retaliate against this shun by Farage and to gain strength against the Mongol, Bayezid I next took control of the smaller and less powerful states of Anatolia and Rumelia.19 Throughout his reign of thirteen years, Bayezid I gradually increased the Ottoman empire, often at the expense of the Mamluk territories. As a result he also found himself in the forefront of a worldwide challenge. With these new actions, which no doubt caused a greater gap in the Ottoman-Mamluk association, Bayezid I paved the way for Timur to crush both powers. As part of Timur's expansionistic design he first in 1387 made his campaign in Asia Minor, subduing the cities of Bayezid I, Erzaroum, Erzinjan, Mush, Akhat, and Van.20 Then he entered the city of Baghdad and occupied the palace of the sultan Ahmed Jalaiv, who fled to Asia Minor and subsequently 63 21 Although the extent of asked support from Bayezid I. any support Bayezid might have given Sultan Ahmed is not known, he must have provided the ruler with some sort of protection, for Timur sent Bayezid a letter written in Arabic and undated demanding the surrender of Sultan Ahmed, and warned him against providing shelter and disobeying 22 Bayezid refused, and the tone of his 23 Timur's command. letter to Timur was very disrespectful. Meanwhile, Timur had dispatched an ambassador to Barkuk, the Mamluk sultan, asking about the possibility of forming a treaty and commercial ties between his empire and Barkuk's.24 .It appears to the researcher that Timur was attempting to keep a temporary peace with the Mamluks for the purpose of crushing their empire only after he had finished using his strength against the Ottomans. In August 1400 Timur began his march into Asia Minor by storm- 25 ing the city of Sivas. A dispute then developed between Timur and the sultan of Egypt over the detention of the 26 27 Mongolian ambassador by the Mamluks who according to Ahmed Ibn Arabshah, was thrown in chains. Timur apparently used this as justification to invade the Mamluk territories. In 28 October 1400 he took Aleppo, followed by Ham, Hims, and Balabak, and eventually Damascus in March of 1401.29 Timur had apparently not secured a strong hold on Baghdad in 1393, for in June of 1401 he turned against Sultan Ahmad once again. On June 20 he took the city 64 completely, killing many citizens in retaliation for the 30 On death of many of his own officers in the sieze. July 20 of the following year he faced the Ottomans at the Battle of Angora at which the Ottomans were defeated and their Sultan Bayezid I was captured.31 The Ottoman ruler was held captive by Timur for nine months, until his death by apoplexy Feb. 26, 1403.32 During his captivity, Bayezid was put in a cage and publicly displayed by the 33 His son, Musa, however, was allowed to take 34 Mongols. his father's body upon Bayezid's death to Brusa. Following Bayezid's death there were several wars between his sons, Ahmed, Mehmed, Musa, and Suleyman* over *The definitive article on the Interregnum.(1402-1413) is Paul Wittek. "De la defaite d'Ankara a la prise de Constant- inople," REI, 12 (1938), 1-34. More recent research has been incorporated into studies of the individual Ottoman participations: M.C. Sehabeddin Tekindag, Muse Celebi, I.A. VIII, 661-666; Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsili, "Mehmed I," I.A. VII, 496-506; M.C. Sebabeddin Tekindag, "Mustafa Celebi," I.A. VIII, 687-689; and M. Tayyib Gokbilgin, "Suleyman Celebi," I.A. XI, 179-182. In addition, for the subsequent rei of Mehmet I (1413-1420), see Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsili, "Ce ebi Sultan Mehmed" in kizi Selcuk Hatun," Belletin 21 (1957), 253-260; Franz Babinger, "Schejch Bedr ed-Din, der Sohn des Richtern von Simavas..." Kadisi-Oglu Seyh Bedreddin, Istanbul, 1340/1924; Hans J. Kissling, "Badr aI-Din, b.KaHi Samawna," EL2, vol. 1, l'Empire Ottomane redi ee par an auteur anonyme Grec," Belletin 21, pp. 161-17 ; J.W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeolo 3, 1391-1525, New Brunswick, N.J., 1969; and H.J. Kisinng, ”Uas Menaqybname Scheich Bedr ed-dins des gghnes des Richters von Swmavna," ZDMG, 100 (1950), 112-176 65 who would succeed the throne. Finally, Mehmed secured the power,35 and reigned as Sultan Mehmed I from 1413- l421.*~ A congratulatory letter written in Arabic and dated Dol Haja 817 (February, 1414) carried by the envoy Eanih Kul of Brusa from Mehmed to the new Mamluk Sultan Shiekh al-Mueyyad (1412-1421)** indicates, with an apology for its delay, that there had been no head of power in the Ottoman empire during the eight years while the brothers 38 struggled against one another. The letter also asked that friendly relations between the Mamluks and the Ottomans 39 In return, Shiekh al-Mueyyad sent the envoy be renewed. Kurtubi el-Kasiki to the Ottoman sultan, carrying a letter also written in Arabic and dated in the month of Shaban, 818 (October, 1418) stating his congratulations and feelings of happiness on Mehmed I's accession to the throne. In its conclusion he also stated his desire to continue an *In addition to the sources mentioned for the interregnum which also contains valuable information about Mehmed I, the following sources provides a comprehensive information: The Ancient Ottoman chronicles Ashik Pasha Zade and Tawarikki Ali Othman, edited by Giese; Urudj Bey, ed. Babinger and the later historians, especially Ali, Kunk al-Akkbar. Of the Byzantine writers this period is treated by Phrantzes, Ducas and Chalcondylas. Further: von Hammer, G.O.R. i. 331, ssq, l Zinkeisen, Gesch des Osmr Reiches. Hamburg §§40,3%, 3883500 and JOrga, Gesch des Osm Reiches. i, 361- **There is a manuscript written by Aini Ahmed entitled el-Saif el-Muhanad Fi Seret el-Malik e1 Mueyyad. This manuscript was editedbofbcourse, in Arabic and it is available in the Univer- sity of Michigan Library. In addition to this other sourceS‘ dealing with the period of el-Mueyyed are: Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen. v. 129-156; Ibn Iyas ii. 2-10; Ibn Taghribirdi, 66 40 It seemed, exchange of letters between both powers. then, that better relations between the Mamluk and Ottoman powers were emerging during the early years of the fifteenth century. Perhaps the Ottomans realized that their ties with the Mamluks could not be underestimated and this prompted their first moves toward re-establishing a good relationship. Another exchange of letters occurred between Mehmed and al-Mueyyad. The Ottoman envoy was Hair el-Din Bey, and the letter he carried dated in the month of Shawal, 822 (October 1419) emphasized the strength of the mutual friendship between the two powers, comparing it to the mortar between two bricks. It also described the Ottoman victories over unidentified infidels.42 Al-Mueyyad's reply, carried by the envoy Ibrahim.Hagi Halil Bey, was a short letter (dated in the month of Safar, 824 (February, 1421) which also affirmed friendship and supported the Ottoman's actions against the unidentified infidels.43 The amiable relations between the Ottoman and Mamluk governments appear to have developed during the time of the next rulers, the Mamluk Sultan Barsbay (1422-1438)* ed. Popper VI/i/iii. 168-176; Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Manhal a1- safi, Arab. MS. Vienna, Mixt. 329-, vol. 382-91; for the Asia Minor dynasties see E. de Zambaur, Manuel de Genealogie et de Chronologie, Hanover, 1927, p. 157, sq. 41. * There is no specific sources dealing with the life of Barsb however, the following may provide good information. Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. 164-214; Muir, Mamluk or Slave D eat of E‘ t, 137-148; Al-Manhal al-Safi,7Cairo, MS 1113, I v. 357-313; Ebn Iyas (Bulak) passim. 44 for further information see p. 3 2. 67 and the Ottoman Sultan Murad 11 (1421-1451)*. An ex- change of envoys occurred. ‘Murad II sent his represent- ative to congratulate Barsbay on his successes against pirates who had begun to occupy islands off the Syrian and Egyptian coasts. In August of 1422 a cargo ship was captured and stolen from.the harbor of Alexandria by a *The reign of Murad 11 (1412-1451) is brilliantly studied by Halil Inalcik, "Murad II," IA, VIII, 598-516. See also Ducas, Istoria Turco-Bizantina (1341-1462), ed Vasile Green, Bucharest, 1958; G. Beckmann,*Der Kampf Kaiser Sigmunds gegen die werdemde Weltmacht der Osmanen 1392-1437, Gotha, 1902; Mehmed Cemil, Candarls Halil Pasa, Istanbul, 1933; Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsili, "Candarli," IA, 111 351-357 and Candarls Vezir Ailesi (The Candarli Ministerial Family); Istanbul, 1974, describe fhe power exercised by the n6bil- ity through the Candarli family. Murat's relations with the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria are included in A. Darag, L'Egypte sous 1e Regne de Barsbay, 1422-1438. Damascus, 1961. On European relations leading up to the Crusade of Varna see Halil Inalcik, "1444 Buhrani' (The Crisis of 1444), in his Fatili Devri Uzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar,_I (Studies and Documents on the Period of Mehmet II The Conqueror), Ahkara, 1954, p. 1-53; and David Angyal, "Le Traite de Paix de Sze ed avec les Turcs (1444), Revue de Hon rie (1911), 233-2 8, 374-392. On the Crusade of Varna tee and the Ottoman victory (1444) see Nicholas Iorga, Notices et Extraits pour Servir a i'Histoir des Croisades au’XV Siec1e, 6 v01s., BuEharest,’1899-l915, and the same author'shLa Campagne des Croises sur 1e Danube, Paris, 1927. Also Oskar Halecki, The Crusade of5Varna: A Discussion of Controversial Problems, New thk, 1943, to be used with the review 6f J. Brofiberg, Speculum, 20 (1945). Franz Babinger, "Von Amurath zu Amurath. Vor- und Nachspiel der Schlacht bei Varna (1444)," Oriens, 3 (1950), 229-265, 4 (1951) 80 J. Dabroski, "La PoIogne et 1'expedition de Varna en 1444," Revue des Etudes, Slaves, 10 (1930), 37-75; Huber, "Die Kriege zwischen Ungarn und die Turken (1440-1444)," Archiv fur Osterreichen Geschichte,» 68 (1886), 157-207. Necati salim (Tacan), Turk Ordusu'num Eski Seferleri'nden bir Imha Murarebesi, Varna 1444" (Among the 01d Battles of the Turkish Army, A Battle ofbAnnihilation, Varna, 1444),Istanbul, 1931; an Adnan Erzi, "Il Murad'in Varna muharebesi kakkunda fethnamesi" (A Bulletin of Victory of Murat II Concerning the Battle of Varna), Belletin 14 (1950) 595-647. 68 number of pirates, believed to be Frankish in origin. In May of 1424 two Muslim.cargo vessels were also cap- tured, off the coast of Damietta.46 The Mamluks made several attempts to find the captors of their vessels, and in May of 1426 sent over one hundred ships down the Nile toward Cyprus, to which they believed the captors had fled. In July 1426 at Chiorokoitia, three or four miles southwest of Larnaca, Barsbay's army met with the army of Cyprus, under the leadership of King Janus, the Mamluks were victorious, taking the king as well as over one thousand other prisoners, who were subsequently paraded through the streets of Cairo.47 (Cont'd.from previous page) Ottoman efforts to conquer Albania, and the resistance led by Scanderbeg, are described in A. Gegaj, L' Albanie et 1' Invasion Turque au XV Siecle Paris, 1937; Halil Inalcik, "Timariotes Chretiens en Albanie as XV Siecle," Mitteilungen des Osterreichischen Staatsarchiv, 4 (1952), "Arnavutlukta Osmanli Hakimiyeti n1n Yerlesmesi ve Iskender Bey Isyani' nin Mensei" (The Establishment of Ottoman Rule in Albania, and the Origins of the Revolt of Scanderbeg)", Fatih ve Istanbul, Mecmuasi, I, 153- 191, and "Iskender Bey, F. S. No Ii, Georeg Castrioti Scanderbeg, 1405- 1468, New York, 1947; and C. ‘Marinesco, Alphonse*V, Roi d' Aragon et de Naples et de 1' Albanie de Scancderbeg, Paris, 1923. The second*’ battle of Kosova is déscribed in Necati Salim (Tacan), Ikinci Kosova Meydan Murarebesi (1448), Istanbul, 1932. On Murat' s subsequent éffOrt to besiege COnstantinople, see Zafer Taslikhoglu, "II Murad' in Istanbul muhasarasi hakkinda bir eser" (A Work on Murat II' s Siege of Istanbul), Tarih Dergisi, VIII, 209-226. His initial efforts to establish contacts with the Tartar hams of the Crimea are presented in Fevzi Kurtoglu, "Ilk Kirim.Hanlarinin Mektuplari' (The Letters of The First Crimean Hans), Belletin l (1937), 641- 655. Europe' 3 reaction to the Turkish Question is discussed by Hans J. Kissling, "Die Turkenfrage als europaisches Problem," Sudostdeutsches Archiv. 7 (1964) 39- 57 and the same author's "Militarishhe—politische Problematiken zur Turkenfrage im 15. Jahrhundert, "Bohemia:Jahrbuch des Collegium Carolinum, 5 (1964), 108-136’45. 69 Barsbay responded to Murad II's congratulations to the above events by sending his envoy to Murad with. mutual salutations, and seeking to know about current conditions in the Ottoman empire as well as their foreign relations with the Balkan states.48 By this time Murad II had made a lasting peace in 1424 with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425) and turned his attention to other regions 49 where he met with further success. In Asia he drove from.power most of the small rulers who had been restored earlier by Timur.50 This was probably an easy task given the comparatively large size of the growing Ottoman force. The strongest of these small Asian states was Karaman, and the Ottomans were able to reduce it to a position of vassal- age.51 In Europe Murad II completed the subjugation of Serbia and Bosnia, conquested Salonica (Thessalonica) and its districts, and converted Morea into a tributary state.52 All of these efforts were expanding the Ottoman domain, prompting Murad II to send letters relating his successes to Barsbay as well as to other foreign rulers. This policy of exchanging news through letters be- tween Barsbay and Murad II continued. Two other undated letters were sent from.Murad to Barsbay. One announced his capture of Salonica from the Venetians and consoled the Mamluks on the death of the former sultan, al-Mueyyad.53 Another asks for Barsbay's consultation in regards to con- 54 flicts between the Ottomans and the Greeks. To both of 70 these letters Barsbay sent a reply. In one undated he expressed his support of the Ottoman policies in Salonica and stated his gratitude for the condolences sent by the h.55 A second undated Ottomans at al-Mueyyad's deat letter advised Murad not to take further action against the Greeks but to fOIIOW’the example of the prophet Muhammed as when he made peace with an infidel in Mecca.56 Further encouragement for the sultans to be friend- ly with one another were demands made on both sides by Shah Rukh, the Mongol Timur's son.* Shah Rukh demanded the right to furnish the Ka'aba with a precious holy curtain, a practice customarily performed by Islamic rulers to show their political power as well as their religious faith. It would seem that Shah Rukh, like Bayezid I (see p.60) be- fore him when Bayezid asked the Caliph to sanction his new title, was trying to show the people that he had power in the region. Barsbay replied that he would respond to such an act by selling the curtain and giving the proceeds to 57 which seems to mean that he felt Shah Rukh's the poor, request was unacceptable. Shah Rukh sent an envoy with a princely robe commanding that Barsbay receive investiture in it as a vassal, but Barsbay tore it up. A quote by Muir** said: "Tell thy master," said the sultan to Shah * For further information, see p.56 . Muir does not indicate the exact source of this direct quotation. His work, however, is based on the research of Dr.Gustav Weil who for his Geschichte der Chalifen consulted 71 . Rukh's envoy, "that we smile at his demand; and if, to avenge thy disgrace, he appear not in the coming year, we shall hold him the weakest of mankind."58 el-Makrizi in his fourth volume identified the envoy of Shah Rukh as Safa, and mentioned that Shah Rukh also demanded that the Imam of the mosque in Mecca mention his name after the daily prayers and that his name be imprinted upon the currency. According to el-Makrizi the envoy was beaten and thrown into a pool of water.59 After hearing that Shah Rukh had made a.similar- 1y imperious demand on Murad II, Barsbay took the occasion for proposing the formation of a defensive alliance with Murad against the Mongols.60 Frequent communications of an amicable nature and exchanges of costly gifts also passed during the subsequent ‘Mmmluk reigns of Jakmak (1438-1453)* and Inal (1453-1461)**. such contemporary Arabic and Turkish language sources as: Abulfeda (1273-1331) Noweiry (1280-1332) Ibn Batuta (1302-1377) el-Makrizi (1358-1441) Abul-Mahasin (1409-1470) Ibn Iyas (1448-1524) * For sources regarding the reign of Jakmak see the following: Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, v. 215- 248; Muir, Mameluke or Slave D ast of*E t, p. 149:155; Manhal al- Safi Cairo, MS.1113, i,fo,474-§98; Ibn Iyas (Bulék), passimfaé Also for further information see p.31. **Because Farage reigned almost in period closed to Jakmak ~ the above source is valuable. Also the following are valuable for both rulers: Ibn Taghribardi, al-Manhal al-Safi, s.v. Inal; Ibn Iyas, ii. 39-65; Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, Vol. v, where oriental and western réferences are given. 63 72 In 1438 Jakmak sent a special letter dated in Jomad elowla, 842 (October 1438) to Murad II with news of the death of Barsbay and how Jakmak became the guardian of Barsbay's son Yousif who was just 14 years old at his father's death. It also tells the news of the course of internal events which eventually put Yousif under the influence of his young friends and created disputes in the country. The bad developments encouraged the Caliph e1 Moatadid be ellah Caliphat ellah fi ardehi to summon the great sheiks, cadis, and imams for consultation and discussion of the future of the country. The result of the conventions was the choice of Jakmak as the sultan of Egypt. In the last part of the letter Jakmak explains his accession to the throne and his order to his Mamluk followers to act with neighborly poli- cies toward the Ottomans. He also entreated Murad II to facilitate the return of one of several merchants detained 61 (Details of this latter situation are by the Ottomans. not known, but perhaps the merchant was a favorite of Jakmak and was held for bad behavior or custom violations). Murad 11 did not hesitate to return an undated letter to Jakmak, again with rare gifts. He congratulated Jakmak on his accession, and announced the good news that he had made his first attempt to gain from the Hungarians the fortress of Belgrade, which was the gate leading to central Europe. The tone of the correspondence expresses honor and respect which indicates amity between the two leaders. For example, one of the phrases says: Our 73 sultanate was decorated by the coronation of the best of mankind whom.my god created, who possess the best moral "64 In another phrase Murad and religious characteristics. II describes himself as "a son of Jakmak."65 In a letter from Jakmak to Murad, dated in Dol jahaj, 843 (May, 1439) there was indication that Jakmak was happy about the news of Ottoman conquests against the Christians. He expressed that "both states could be as two spirits in one body or as the power of two forearms in one. Accompanying the letter was a gift of a copy of the Kuran which had been written by the hand of Caliph Osman Iban Afan.66 It would seem that the gift of the religious book was a strong sign of respect from one Islamic ruler to the other. To prove to the Mamluks that the Ottomans were prospering in accomplishing the work God had given them to perform, especially their victory at the Battle of Varna against the Christians in 1444, Murad II sent a letter along with five white slave wmmen and expensive clothes 67 He also sent fifty M’amluks’”68 who, although as gifts. unidentified, may have been freed prisoners or a group of slaves returned to the Mamluk sultan. *In a duplicate transcript of this manuscript edited by Ahmed Ibn Mehmed al-Shalabi in 1053 and published by the library of the faculties of Al-Azhar and which is preserv- ed now in the library of the University of Michigan, there is no mention of the fifty Mamluks, p. 123. 74 During the reign of Murad 11's successor, Mehmed 11* (1451-1481) repeated such embassies. Rich gifts were exchanged between Jakmak and Mehmed II. When Jakmak *The definitive studies of the reign of Mehmet II the Con- queror have been made by Halil Inalcik, "Mehmed II," IA, VLL, 506-535, and Fatih Devri Uzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar (Studies and Documents on fhe'Period 6f'the Conqueror), Ankara, 1954, Salahaddin Tansel, Osmanli Kaynaklarina gore Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Siyasi ve Askeri Faaliyeti (The Political and Military Activities of”SuItan'Mehmet the Con queror According to Ottoman SOurces), Ankara, 1953 (repr. Istanbul, 1971), provides detailed information on his mili- tary activities. Franz Babinger's immense work, Mehmed II, der Eroberer und Seine Zeit, weltensturmer einer Zeitenwende, Munich, 1953 (2nd ea: Munich, 1959). (Translated’into Ffench as Mahomet Le Conquerant et son Temps. Une peur de Monde au tournant de l'Histdire, Paris, 1954, and into Italian as Moometto il Conquistatore e il suo Tempo, Turin, 1957; English tr. byPWL Hickman in preparation), must be used with caution due to the author's over reliance on European sources and failure to use information in some Ottoman sources (see the review by Halil Inalcik, "Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time", Speculum, 25 (1960), 408-427; a complete list of reviews of this work is found in F. Babinger, Aufsatze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Sudosteuropas und der Levante, 2'vols.’Munich, 1962-1966, I 37-39 and passim). A detailed chronological study of the reign is provided by Ismail Hami Danismend, Fatik'in Hayati ve Fetih Takvimi (The Life of the Conqueror and Calendar of Conquest), Ziparts Istanbul, 1953-1955. His conquests in the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Sea are studied in I.H. Ertaylan, Fatih ve Futuhati (The Conqueror and His Conquests), 2 vol., Istanbfil, 1953, Ankara, 1966. THE conquest obenstantinople is discussed in Sir Stephen Runciman. The Fall of Constantinople, Cambridge, 1956; B.Lewis, R.Betts, N. Rubenstein, anlei Wittek, The Fall of Constantinople, London, 1955; A.D. Mordtmann, Bela erun und Eroberung Constantinopels durch die Turken in Jahre I455 nach Originalguellen Bearbeitet, Stuttgart, 1858; and Feridum Dirimtekin, IStanbuliungFEthi (The Conquest of Istanbul), Istanbul, 1949. Also G. Schlumberger La Siege, La Prise et 1e Sac de Constantinople par les Turcs en 1453, Paris, 1914, and’later printings; and Sir Edin Fears, The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks, London, 1903; but these are prejudiced and one-sided. see the contemporary description by Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, tr. Charles Riggs, Princeton, 1964. *Méhmeth effbrt. to rebuild and repopulate the city 75 learned that Mehmed II became the new sultan and shortly thereafter sent soldiers into the east of Anatolia to punish peOple committing crimes of highway robbery, plunder, and murder, Jakmak quickly sent Mehmed a letter * Continued from previous page is described by Halil Inalcik, "The Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildin s of the City," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, no. 23 (1970), p. 213- 49; and A.M. Schneider, "Die Bevolkerung Konstantino- pels im.xv Jahrhundert," Nachr. der Akad. der Wiss, in Gottingen, 1949. The cultural and scientific development of the empire during Mehmet II's reign is described in Suheryl Unver, Fatih, Kulliyesi ve zamani ilim hayalti (The Conqueror, His College, and the Scientific Life of His Time), Istanbul, I946; Emil Jacobs, "Mehemmed II. der Eroberer, Seine Beziehungun Renaissance und Seine Buchersammling," Oriens, 2 (1949), 6- 30; L. Thusasne, Gentile Bellivi et le Sultan Mohammad I1, Paris, 188; Ahmed Refik, Fatih Sultan Mehmet veiRessam -Bellini 1470-1480, Istanbul: 1325/1909; and J. von KZraEacek, "Abendlandische Kunstler zu Konstantinope im XV, und XVI. Jahrhundert. 1. Italienische Kunstler am.Hofe Muhammeds II des Eroberers," Denkschriften der Akad, der- Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos.-Hist. Klasse, 92 (1918)? The Conqueror's administrative and economic policies are discussed in Omer Lutfi Barkan, "Les deportations comme methode de peuplement et de colonisation dans l'Empire Ottoman" Revue de la Faculte des Sceinces Economiques de l'Universite drIstafibul, 9 (1949-1950), 67-131; Halil Inalcik, "15. asir Turkiye iktisadi ve ictimai tarih kaynak- lari" (Sources on Turkey's Economic and Social History in the Fifteenth Century), Istanbul University, Iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuasi, 15 (1955), 51-75; N. Beldiceanu, "RecherChes sur la reforme fonciere de Mehmed II," Acta Historica, 4 (1965), 27-39; Bistra A. Cvetkova, "Sur certains reformes du regime foncier du temps de Mbhmed II” JESHO, 6 (1963), 104-120; and Mustafa A. Mehmet, "De certains aspects de la societe ottomane a la lumiere de la legislation (Kanunname) du sultan Mahomet II (1451-1481)," Studia et acta Orientalia, 2 (1959), 127-160. Source collections concerning hislegislation are: Franz Babinger, Sultanische Urkunden zur Geschichte der Osmanischen Wirtschaft und Staatsverwaltung am.Ausgang der HerrsChaft Mehmeds, ll, dés Eroberers,_l. Teil, Das Qanunname-i Sultani ber MudschEb-i Orf-i Osmani, Munich, 76 (undated) thanking him for his dealings with the criminals, and requesting a continuation of the corres- pondence about the goings-on in each country.69 Like Murad II, Mehmed II responded by recognizing Jakmak "as a father", which indicates a strong respect held by the former for the latter, and thanking Jakmak for con- cern over the Ottomans. He also requested that their correspondence continue.7O It appears that Jakmak had succeeded in cultivat- ing a strong friendship with the Ottomans, more so than his predecessors. This harmony was continued by his successor, Inal e1 ashraf seif elder, who decorated the city of Cairo in celebration and festivity for several days in 1453 after an embassy from Mehmed II brought the news of the conquest of ConstantinOple.72 *Continued from previous page. 1955; N. Beldiceanu, ed. Les Actes des Premiers Sultans conserves dans les Manuscrits'Turcs de la Bibliotheque Nationale a Paris, vol. I. Abtes‘de Mehmed 11 et de Bayezid II duJMS. fonds Turc Ancien 39(Paris andithe Hague, 1960), vol. II. Reglements Miniers 1390-1512. Paris and the Hague 1964. Dr. Halil Inalcik, Dr. Robert Anhegger, eds. Kanunname-i Sultani ber Muceb-i Orf-i Osmani: II Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine ait vasakname ve Kanunnameler Prohibition Regulations and Laws Concerning the Periods o ‘Mehmet II and Ba ezit II), Ankara, 1956. 0mer Lutfi— Barkan, XV, ve nc1 a31r1arda Osmanli Imparatorlugunda zirai ekonominin‘hukuki ve mali esaslars. Kanunnameler, I. STheLegal and Financial Bases of the Agricultural Ebonomy o t e ttoman Empire in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth cen- turies, The Law Codes), Istanbul, 1945; and NicoaralBeldiceanu, Code de lois coutumieres de Mehmed II, Kitah-i Oavanin-i Orfivve-i Osmani, Paris 19677 71. 77 Later there were signs that the Ottomans were again not anxious for the friendship of the Mamluks. Relations grew particularly strained between Bayezid 11*, who succeeded Mehmed II in 1481, and Khushkadam (1461-1467)** and Kaitby (l467-1496)*** the Mamluk sultans following Inal. *The definitive study of the ‘political and military sides of the reign of Sultan Bayezi II 13 provided by Selahattin Tansel, Sultan II, Bayezid' in Siyasi Hayats (The Political Life of Sultan Bayezid II). Istanbul, 1966. The reign is also discussed generally by V. J. Parry, "Bayezid II, " E12, 1, 1119- 1121, and Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsili, "II Bayezid, " I.A., II 392-398. Regarding the revolt of Cem Sultan, see E.H. Ertaylan, Sultan Cem, Istanbul, 1951: L. Thuasne, D' em Sultan, Paris, avid Baysun, "Cem", IA, III, 69-81, C. S. Tekindag, "II Bayezid' in Tahta cikisi sirasinda Istanbul' da vukua gelen hadiseler" (Events That Took Place in Istanbul While Bayezii II Took the Throne). Tarih Dergisi, 14 (1959), 85- 96; S. Tansel, "Yeni Vesikalar-Karsisinda Sultan II. Bayezid" (Bayezid II in the light of New Documents), Belletin 27 (1963), 195- 236. Sidney N. Fisher, "Civil Strife ii the Ottoman Empire, 1481-1503", Journal of MOdern History, 13 (1941), 448-466. Serafeddin Turan, "Barak Reis‘ in sehzade Cem Meselesi ile Ilgili olarak Savoiya gonderilmesi" (The Sending of Barak Reis to Savoy Re arding the Problem of Sultan Cem) Belletin, 26 (1962), 29- 555; and Ismailfmkki Uzuncarsili, "Cem.Sultan' s dair bes orijinal vesika" (Five Original Documents concerning Cem Sultan), Belletin, 24 (19 O) 457- 483. Beyezii' s relations with Europe and the Mamluks are studied in Sidney N. Fisher, The Foreign Relations of Turkey, 1481- 1512, Urbana, Ill. 1948, R.S. Schwoebelj The ShadOw of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turk, 1453-I517, NEW York, 1967; H. Pfefferman, DiePZusammenarbeit Her Reniassance papste mit den Turken, Winterthur, 1946;‘Hans S. Riesling, Sultan Bayezid 11' s Bezichungen zu Markgraf Francesco von Gonzaga, MuniEh, ’1965; V. J. Parry, "The 0ftoman'Empire (1481-1520)," New Cambridge Modern History I (1957), 395-410; Tayyip Gokbilgin, "KorvihhMathias (Matyas) in Bayezid II ile mektuplari tercumeleri ve 1503 (909) Osmanli Macar Muahedesinin Turkee metmi" (Translation of the Letters Between Mathias Corvinus and Bayezi II, and the Turkish Text of the 1503 Turkish-Hungarian treaty), Belletin 22 (1958). 369- 390. V. Corovie, "Der Friedensvertrag 78 There was an unsuccessful attempt on the Ottoman throne by the Sultan Bayezid II's brother, Jem. Kaitby wel- comed Jem to Egypt following the attempt, and made matters worse by permitting Jem to return freely to Anatolia.76 Jem tried a second coup, but was beaten again. Jem then became the guest of the Grand Master of Rhodes, who was pressed by Bayezid and the Pope, as well as Kaitby, to give the Ottoman brother up.* Continued from previous page. zwischen dem Sultan Bayezid II und dem Konig Ladislasi" ZDMG, 90 (1936, N.F. 15), 52-59; C. Cogo, La Guerra di Venezia contro i Turchi (1409-1501), Venice, 1888; Victor Mena e, "The Mission of an Ottoman Secret Agent in France in 1 86" JRAS (1965), 112-132; M.C. Sehabeddin Tekindag, "II Bayezid Devrinde Cukurova da Nufuz Mucadelesi, Ilk Osmanli Memluklu Savaslari, 1485-1491" (The Struggle for Influence in Cilicia Durin the Time of Bayezii II--Ottoman -Mam1uk Battles, 1485-1491 . Belletin 21, (1967) 345-373, Berkuk Devrinde'Memluk SultanliE (The Mamluk Sultanate during the time of Barkuk), IStanbul, 1961, "Son 0§manli- Karaman‘Munasebetleri" (The Last Relationship Between the Ottomans and Karaman), Tarih Dergisi, 17-18, (1963). H.A. von Burski, Kermol Re'is: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Turkischen Flotte, Bonn, 1928; Ali Riza seyfi, KemEI Reis ve Baha Oiuc, Istanbul, 1326-1907; and F. Kurdogifi, Gelibolu ve Yoresi Tarihi (The History of Gallipoli and Its Environs), Istanbul, 1938, study Ottoman naval development during Bayezid's reign.73 **See Ibn Iyas, Bulak, 1311, 11. 70-84, Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, v. 240-315; Muir, The Mamluks or Slave D asty of Egypt, p. 163-171. For further information see p, LIE ***See Ibn Iyas, Badai al-Zuhur, Bulak,13/l112,ii, 90-291; Ibn Taghriberdi, Hawadith al-Duhur, Berling M.S. NO 9562 at the end; Abu 'I-Baka Ibn El-Difran, al-Kawl al-mustazraf fi Safar Mawlana al-Malik a1-Ashraf(Vioggio in Palestina e Storia di Kaid Ba, etc.) ed. R.V. Lanzone, lith. Torino 1878. Weil Gesch. derKhalifen. v. 326-359; J.V. Hammer Gesch des osman Reiches (pest 1827-35), ii, 175 sqq 290-302. 'For further information see p. 3275 * The story of Jem will be discussed later. 79 Hostile feelings of the Ottoman sultan toward Kaitby for the hospitable receptions of Jem.by Egypt were apparently accentuated by another situation. The two powers became involved in the affairs of rival princes in Anatolia, with the Ottomans and the Mamluks each supporting opposite sides. Anatolia had been in a state of disunion, never united in its territories under the rule of a single power, for many centuries. Attempts by the Ottomans and'Mmmluks to unite the territories of southern Anatolia and northern Syria were contested. Rulers of the territories often pitted the Ottomans and Mamluks against one another by such acts as switching allegiance when necessary to gain safety under the current- ly stronger force. Many small clashes turned into size- able confrontations. A large number of armies from various territories, for example, at one point united 'with the Mamluk Kaitby in hopes of crushing the government in Istanbul. However, when Bayezid's forces became successful in a number of victories the Anatolian rulers began to retract their allegiance to Kaitby. The armies began to join with the Ottomans who were appearing to be the stronger power. Such vacillations in relationships and support appear to the researcher to be among the in- cidents which led to full war between the Ottomans and Mamluks. A specific example of the sort of incidents mentioned above occurred when a border territory ruler, 80 Alaeddevlet of Dulkadar played to the sympathies of both the Ottoman and the Mamluk states. He was given support and reinstated to the throne with the help of Sultan Mehmed II during the final year of the Ottoman ruler's reign. Alaeddevlet's brother and rival, Shah Budak was at this time favored by the Mamluks. The objective of Mehmed, according to the historian Toynbee, however, was not only to support Alaeddevlet against his brother but also to annex a territory that was nearby (and not intend- ing to go beyond Dulkadar, says Toynbee.)77 Soon after, Mehmed's son Bayezid inherited the responsibility of the Ottomans obligations and involvement with the principality. According to Von Hammer, Bayezid, in spite of his peaceful tendencies, apparently felt inclined to establish a strong policy of support in face of Mamluk interest in the area of Dulkadar, as demonstrated in their support of Shah Budak.78 The two empires, Ottoman and Mamluk, finally reached a point of direct hostility no longer venting their differences indirectly via the border territories and their governments. On the Ottoman side, Bayezid II, like his father before him, sent a military force to support Alaeddevlet with the interior motive of taking revenge on Kaitby of Egypt for his unfriendliness and support of 79 Jem. This force attacked Malta and Anteb, which were Mamluk protectorates, and brought many prisoners of noble rank back to Istanbul.80 Thereby, Kaitby on the Mamluk 81 side, decided to retaliate by sending a military force in 1483 under the leadership of a commander named Temzar to combat with Alaeddevlet and his Ottoman allies.81 Apparently foreseeing the possible dangerous results to both sides from war, however, Kaitby sent an Egyptian ambassador named Janibey to Istanbul in 1485 in order to 82 It was too late, seek peace between the two powers. however, for the mediator Janibey to succeed in his peace efforts for Kaitby, because the rival forces resumed struggle over the cities of Adana and Tarsus. Another in- cident, relatively small but nevertheless having its own effect of giving Bayezid additional justification for his actions of growing unfriendliness toward the Mamluks occurred when followers of Kaitby robbed an embassy bear- ing precious gifts, including a diamond dagger, to the Ottoman sultan. Kaitby eventually returned the dagger to Bayezid sending with it other gifts and friendly messages, 83 Bayezid undoubtedly but his envoy was ill-received. used this incident as further reason to pursue fighting on a larger scale. Leading up to the first major head-on confronta- tion between both states, the Ottomans retook Adana and Tarsus, under the commander Karaguz together with the two 84 lesser commanders Musa and Ferhad. They also subdued the beys of warsak who were fighting the Karamanians as advocated by the Mamluks and enjoyed the booty of the 85 newly-captured territories. This spurred the Egyptians 82 to advance against the Ottomans, under the leadership of Uzbey and Temmerruz Bey. The Mamluks marched to- - wards the north and met with the Ottoman army near the City of Adana for the first direct confrontation. They won the battle, the lesser commander of the Ottoman army, Ferhad and Musa, were killed and the rest of the Ottoman army was captured.86 The Egyptians also won the next confrontation of the struggle. Although they had not taken Adana and Tarsus in the previous battle, Bayezid II understandably wanted the Egyptians completely cleared from.the region. He ordered Hersek Ahmed Pasha, beylerbey of Anatolia to march against the Mamluks. Under Hersek were Karaguz Pasha and Khirzbeyoglu Mehmed Bey. The latter commanders were uncooperative with their superior, possibly because of professional jealousy and, in a battle near Adana with the Egyptians, both withdrew along with two additional officers. Hersek Ahmed was forced to enter the battle himself. He fought beside two hundred janissaries but was eventually surrounded and captured by the Egyptians.87 This second defeat of the Ottomans, which may have been prevented had the desertion by Karaguz and Khirzbeyoglu not taken place, was considered to be the most devastating defeat to date by the Mamluks upon the Ottomans. However, it proved to be no more than the loss of a minor border conflict as the Egyptian army never proceeded past Adana and Tarsus. 83 Adding insult to injury, the Egyptians brought Hersek Ahmed in shackles to Cairo, where a great vic- tory celebration was held and where Hersek Ahmed was 88 forced to kiss the sultan Kaitby's foot. The Ottoman 89 commander was imprisoned for a year. Upon Hersek Ahmed's release, the Egyptians apparently hoped to re- 90 The defeats at establish good terms with Bayezid. Adana, however, had seemingly motivated the Ottomans to strengthen their forces for a new campaign. An Ottoman campaign against the Egyptians began in the spring of 1487. Under the command of the Grand Vizir Duad Pasha with the assistance of Ali Pasha the beylerby of Rumelia, a huge land force of four thousand janissaries united with the Anatolian army marched toward Karamania, where they were welcomed by Alaeddvelet and joined by the warriors of Dulkadar. They proceeded to the city of Aleppo but found that the Mamluks had withdrawn. Duad Pasha unable to lead his troops, who were suffering in the climate of the region, began the lesser task of reconquering the Turgud and warsak tribes. Overwhelmed by the size of the Ottoman force, the Warsak beys immediately surrendered, while the Turgud commander escaped and fled to Aleppo. This first Ottoman success ended their campaign for the year and Duad returned his tr00ps to Turkey.91 In spite of the Ottomans great preparation for serious attack against the Mamluks in revenge for two defeats, the war to this point still seemed piecemeal and 84 without any clear resolution. The border tribes remained indecisive and, apparently, unsatisfied. The fickle Alaeddevlet once more changed alliance, now turn- ing to the Egyptians and giving his daughter in marriage to the son of the Mamluk general Uzby. As a result, Budak, Alaeddevelet's brother and rival, played the same game of taking advantage Of changing situations. He severed his ties with the Egyptians, fled the Mamluk territory of Damascus, and went to Istanbul to pledge support to Bayezid.92 A huge strong Ottoman force, which included the Sipahis, the feudal cavalry of Rumeli and Anatolia, to- gether with a large contingent of Janissaries, advanced toward the south under the command of the vizir Ali Pasha.93 The Mamluks, reinforced by troOps drawn from different regions of the empire, advanced towards Adana, the spot where the battle took place. After successful attempts in the beginning by the Ottomans, the war ended with the defeat of the Ottoman army. This defeat apparently resulted in the desertion by Alaeddevlet to the Mamluk side. His brother Budak Bey fled to Istanbul, hopeful that Bayezid would restore him to the throne of Albistan.94 Again, proffers of peace were sent from.one capi- tal to another, this time originating with Kaitby and refused by the Ottomans. 1489, however, was a year of 85 relative peace between the Ottomans and the Mamluks.- While he rejected ambassadors sent by Kaitby, Bayezid 95 would not make an attack against Egypt. Instead he hoped that good terms might now have an opportunity to be renewed between the brothers Budak and Alaeddevlet. For one thing, Bayezid probably concluded he would not like to continue support of the dependent Alaeddevelt. For another thing, Egypt's economy seemed to be under some strains . According to the contemporary writer Ibn Iyas in the words of Kaitby: Ibn Osman (Bayezid) would not give up his fighting the Egyptian army, the conditions in Aleppo had deteriorated, the merchants had prevented what Egypt used to get of different kinds of mer- chandise, the Jalban Mamluks (soldiers) wanted more salaries and if I did not spend on them.what they wanted they would ransack Cairo, plunder the houses and burn them. And if the soldiers came back after fighting with the Ottomans, they would not go back to fighting until I spent much money on them and swore thgg the treasuries were not out of money. These words by Kaitby indicate to the researcher that the Mamluk economy was clearly having problems. Peaceful relations would be good for both sides. However, the ensuing course of events was devastat- ing for both sides. First, Hersek Ahmed was put in charge of the expeditionary forces which Bayezid readied for a 97 renewed march on the Egyptians in Anatolia. He set out in 1490 to retrieve the city of Kaysari which Alaeddevelt 86 andlkbey were besieging. Hersek Ahmed was captured again, however, and sent for a second time to Egypt as prisoner.9g MeanWhile, a famine in Anatolia kept Uzbey from continuing his attacks and prevented the Ottomans from.marching. With little advancement being made by either side, it was advantageous to both the Ottomans and the Mamluks to seek a true peace in Anatolia. Tunis also advocated a peace between the two powers. Having been recently attacked by Spain the Tunisians sought the support of both the Ottoman and Mamluk sultans. An ambassador from.Tunis came to Cairo, and then proceeded to Istanbul, accompanied by a Mamluk envoy with an offer of settlement. After lengthy bargaining a treaty was finally signed in 1491.99 Adana, Tarsus, and a for- tress on the frontier were ceded to Egypt, (although they were to remain pious Moslem centers belonging ultimately to Mecca and Medina). Hersekoglu and other Ottoman prison- ers were released, and support by both parties was promised to Tunis.100 The war had brought no conclusive gains for either side. Both the Ottomans and the Mamluks suffered heavy losses in men and money, and neither sustained dominance over the other. Egypt had re-affirmed possession of the Adana-Tarsus area but continued to receive only wavering allegiance from the frontier tribes.101 After the signature of the 1491 peace treaty, Kaitby and Bayezid II renewed amiable terms with one another. 87 The Mamluk government was greatly preoccupied with inter- nal economic affairs as described in the preceding pages. When Kansuh el-Gawri* succeeded to the Egyptian throne following Kaitby, he continued to be friendly to Bayezid II. The Ottoman sultan sent a letter dated in the month of Safar, 908 (August, 1502), of congratulations and ex- pensive gifts to the new Egyptian sultan.102 Kansuh el-Gawri reciprocated and, in his message, undated, apolo- gized for Kaitby's indirect ways of seeking peace with the Ottomans. He also warned Bayezid II of suspicious movements *For further information see Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen. v. 384-416; v. Hammer, Gesch, des Osmanischen Reiches, Fest 1827 sqq. ii, 462 sqq. (in both the principal Oriental manuscript sources as well as the contemporary chronicles and consular reports of the west are given). Ibn Iyas deals with the reign of sultan al-Ghuri in the Buda'l a1- Zuhur (see Ibn Iyas); but only the end is printed‘in the Cairo edition the years 906-922 are contained in the Paris manuscript, Bibl. Nat. de Slane, Cat. No. 1824 (years 906- 913) and in the St. Petersburg manuscript, Rosen, Les Manuscripts arabes des l'Inst. des Langues orient,'N3L 46 (the years 913-922). The full'biography of Ibn al-Hanbali has not previously been utilized; see Ibn al-Hanbali's Durr al-Habab fi Tarikh A'yan Halal, MS. Vienaa, Flugel, Die arab ...Handschr. der HofbibI}, ii. No. 1184 (Ch. Brockelmann, Gesth. d? arab.iLitt. iib368) , f. 1763 sqq.; J.J. Marcell Hist. de lTEgvpte depuis la conquete des Arabes, etc. Paris 1834, p. 407- I; W. Nuir, The Mamluk Slave Dynastj, London, 1896, p.187-201. On his building operations or dEtailed particulars will be given in the coming work on inscriptions in Aleppo in the sections "citadels and city-wall"; on his buildings in Damascus see M. Sobernheim, Die Inschriften der Zitadelle von Damaskus, No. 24-26 in Der ISlam, xii. (1921); on commerce infihis time see B. Moritz,’Ein Firman des Sultans Selim in the Festscher. Ed. Sachau...gewidmet. Berlin 1915, p. 425-27. On his wars withPortugal see S. Ruge, Gesch.des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen (Samml. Oacken, ii 9) and H. schafer, Gesch. Portugdls, iii. Hamburg, 1850, p. 200, sqq. R.S. Whiteway,Rise of Portuguese Power in India. London, 1899. For his coins see Or. Coins. of the Cat. Brit. Mus. iv. 214-216 (104). See also p. 32. 88 of tribes in eastern Anatolia, dangerous for both the 103 Further indications Ottoman and the Mamluk states. of the desire for Open and cooperative relations can be seen when Bayezid II sent his envoy in the month of Rabi el-awal 916 (June, 1510), to el-Gawri requesting forgiveness for the governor of Tribli, who committed some crimes during his administration.105 To this request el-Gawri responded with forgiveness of the Tribli governor, and a warning to Bayezid II now of dangerous movements of the tribes of e1<1lzilbash from the east]:06 In summary, the relationship between the Ottoman and Mamluk empires prior to the conquest, progressed through.many various stages ranging from.friendship to hostility. It cannot be denied, however, that when balanced the majority of these stages were more often characterized by hostile than amiable feelings. A clear evidence of this can be seen in an observation of the five years prior to the 1491 peace treaty. Bayezid 11's and Kaitby's governments were constantly at odds, con- frontations occurring frequently from 1485-1491. In addi- tion, even though a new period of relative peace was em- barked upon in the period of 1491-1516, official correspond- ence shows that old sources of disagreement and rivalry resurfaced during the reign of Bayezid's successor, and the Ottoman-Mamluk fighting was renewed. With an explana- tion of the possible motives behind the Ottoman's eventual invasion of Egypt, which will be provided in Chapter Three, 89 one can possibly comprehend the reasons for the fluctu- ating relationship between the two empires prior to the conquest. 10. ENDNOTES H.A. Gibbons. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, A History of the Osmanlis up to the Death 0: Bd‘ezid I. iLondon: 2nd ed., Frank Gass and Co. Ltd.,1968, p.16. Paul‘Wittek,The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, New York; Burt Franklin, 1971, p.44. H.A.R. Gibb. "Timur" Encyclopedia of Britannica, vol. 22. First published,—l768. London: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1972, p. 4. Also Hilda H. Hookham, "Timur" The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18, 15th edi, London: Encyclo- pediaBritannica, Inc., 1979, p. 425. Stanford Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey,’VoI} 1} Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of'the_0ttoman Empire, 1280-1808. Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 306. Ibn el-Sairafi. Nuzhat el-Nufus wal Abdan Fi Twarih Ahl el-Zaman. A.anuscript in Dar el-Kutub, Cairo, No. 116 . M. Sobernheim.. "Barsbay" The Encyglopedia of Islam. A Dictionary of the Geography, Ethnography and Biography of thewMuhammaden Peoples. Prepared by a number of leading Orientdlists. Edited by M. Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset and R. Hartman, Vol. I, Leyden: Lane, E.J. Brill, Ltd., 1913, p.667. Ibn Iyas, Muhammad Ibn Ahmed, Bada'l az-zuhur Fi waga'l ad-duhur. Cairo: Matabi el-Shab, 1960, p. 260. Stanford Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. I, p. 307-8. Ibn Iyas. Bada'l az-zuhur Fi waqa'l ad-duhur, p. 260. Ibid. Muhamad Mostafa. "Nehaet e1 Salatin el-Mamaleek Fi Misir." Egyptian Historical Magazine, Vol. 4, 1951, p. 200. 90 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 91 (See also Edward S. Creasy. History of the Ottoman Turks. Beirut: Khayats,l961,34, and Carl BrockeIman . The History of the Islamic People, New York: G.P. Putnam's 947, p. 270). C. Brogkglman. The History of the Islamic People, p. . H.A. Gibbons. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, London: Frank Gess & Cb.,’1968, p. 211, andnEdward S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, p. 35. Lord Eversley. The Turkish Empire: Its Growth and Decay, London, T. Fisher thin Ltd., 1917} p. 48. (See also Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, p. 187 . Gibbons. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire,p. 190. M.A. Cook. The History Of’the Ottoman Empire to 1730 (London: CambridgedUn1versity Press, ‘1976), 25. Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300- 1600, Trans. by Norman Itzkowitz andTColiniImber, London: weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973, p. 16. Abdulrahman, Sharaf. Tarih i-Deulet i-Osmaniyye (Istanbul: 1931), p. 97-98. Aini qu al-Juman Fi Tawarih ahl-Zaman Cairo: Dar el-Kutub el-Masriah, No. 1584, H (The first part of Vol. 25), p. 78. Muhammad, Freed Bey. Tarih Al-Dollah el-Aliah al- Osmaniah. (Mohammad Efendi Matba'ah: 1896), p. 49. M. Sobernheim. "Faradj" Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927, p. 56. Sir John Glubb. Soldiers of Fortune, The Story of the Mamluks . New Yorkz’Stein and Day/Publishers, 1973, p.7281} Ibid. unknown author. Tarih el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah Manuscript in Dar eI-Kutub, cairo: Undated, No. 42, p. 18. See also, Abdulrahman Sharaf, Tarih i-Devlet i-Osmaniyye, Istanbul, 1931, p. 93-97. E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, The Tartar Dominion 1265-1502, Cambridge:AtThe UniversityPress, 1956, p.9188. Ibid., p. 191. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 92 Feridun Bey Ahmed. Munshaat II-Muluk wal Salatin, Vol. I Constantinople, 1858, no mention of the publiSher, p. 120-121. Ibid., p. 121. E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia, p. 191. Ibid., p. 191.. Also see Ahmed Ibn Arabshah, Tamerlane or Timur, The Great Amir, MSS. Trans. by J.H. Sanders, Lahore: Progressive BOoks, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 117. E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, p. 196. Ahmed Ibn Arabshah. Tamerlane or Timur The Great Amir, p. 126. Ibid., p. 127. Ibid., p. 132. E.G. Browne, p. 197. E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, p. 197. Ahmed Ibn8Arabshah, p. 184. Greasy, p. 48. E.G. Browne, p. 19 . Gibbons. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, p. 256, E.G. Browne, p. 199. Gibbons,p. 255. Abdulrahman Sharaf. Tarih i-Devlet i- Osmaniyye, p. 105. Ibn Iyas, p. 291. Ahmed’Ibn ArabShah, p. 184. Gibbons,p. 256. Ahmed Ibn Arabshah, p. 187. P. Wittek. "De La de'faite d'Ankara", Revue des Etudes Islami ues, Vol. 12, 1938, p. 15-16. Lord Evers1ey, The Turkish Empire--It's Growth and Decay, London, 1917, p. 60. S. Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 307. J.H. Kramers. "Muhammad", The Encyc10pedia of Islam, Vol. III, 1936, p. 658. Halil Inalick. The Ottoman Empire,_p. 17-18. Abdulrahman Sharaf, p. 116-125. J.F. von Hammer-Purgstall Historie de L'Empire Ottomane, Vol. I, Paris: Imprimerie de Bethune et Plon—1844, p. 142-158. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 93 Feridun Bey, p. 145. Ibid., p. 145-146. M. Sobernheim. "Al-Muaiyad" The Encylopedia of Islam, Vol. III, 1936, p. 615. Feridun Bey, p.164-165. Ibid., p. 165-166. M. Sobernheim. "Barsbey" The Encylopedia of Islam, Vol. I, 1913, p. 667. Stanforgoghaw. History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol. I, p. . W. Muir. The Mamluks or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt, 1260-1517, Amsterdam Oriantal Press, 1968, p. 140. Ibn Iyas Bada'l az-zuhur Fi waqa'l Duhur, p. 328. w. Muir 141, GlubF, p. 3211-322. Feridun Bey, p. 202. S. Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol. I, p. 47. Halil InaliCk Ottoman Empire, p. 18. Abdulrahman Sharef, p. 142. Ibid. Ibid., p. 140-150. Feridun Bey, p. 198-200. Ibid., p. 203-205. Ibid., p. 200-201. Ibid., p. 205-206. Ibn Tagri Birdi, el-Manhal el-Safi, Vol. VI, MSS. Cairo: Dar e1-Kutub,7No. 1209, p. 722-724. W. Muir. The Mamluks or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt, p.145. el-Makrizi, Taqi a1-Din. Kitab as-suluk li-Ma'rifat dual a1-Mu1uk, p. 479. Ibid., 497. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 94 Feridun, p. 207-8. M. Sobernheim. "Cakmak" Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. I, 1913, p. 826. - M. Sobernheim, "Inal" Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927, p. 478. Feridun, p. 210. Ibid., p. 211. Ibid., p. 212-214. el-Sakawi, el-Tabr el-Masbuk zail el-Suluk, Manuscript in Aya SefiaLibrary,FIstanbu1,‘No. 3113, p. 19-191. Ibid. Feridun, p. 265-66. Ibid., p. 266-268. Stanford Shaw, p. 308-310. Ibn Iyas, p. 350. Ibn Tagri Birdi. Histo of E t (Part 6, 1453-1461 A.D.), Trans. 5y Wiifiam.Popper, University of California Publication in Semitic Philology, p. 38-39, F. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror. Stanford Shaw. p. 310-11. M. Sobernheim, "Khushkadam" Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927, p. 977. M. Sobernheim. "Kaitbey" The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927, p. 664. Ibn Iyas. p. 350, Ibn Tagri Birdi, Histor of E t (Part 6, 1453-1461 A.D.), Trans.‘B?‘Wi¥1i§fi7§%§pér, University of California Publication in Semitic Philology, p. 38-39, F. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror. A.J. Togggee. A Study of History, Vol. I, Oxcord, 1935, p. . von Joseph Hammer-Purgestall, p. 366. Tarkhan, Ibrahim Ali. Misr Fi Asr Dowlat a1 Mamalikp 1382-1517, Cairo: el-NafidaH'aI-Mesriah, 1959, p. 168. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 95 Ibid., p. 169. Hammer, p. 367. Tarkhan, p. 169. Sydney Nettleton Fisher, The Foreign Relation of Turkey 1481-1512, Urbana: University of IIIinois Press, 1948, p.727. Kreutal R.F. Der Fromme Sultan Bayezid, Austria: Verlagstryia Graz wren K01n,71978, p.739. Ibn Iyas, p. 525, Tarkhan, p. 169. Ibn Iyas, p. 525, Tarkhan 169, W. Muir, p. 177. R.F. Kreutel. Der Fromme Sultan Bayezid, p. 39. Hammer, p. 367, SIN, Fisher, p. 37. S.N. Fisher, p. 37. Ibid., p. 37. Omar Farook, Tarih Abul Farook, Vol. I. Istanbul: Matbaat Amdi, 1947, p. 190, Hammer, p. 367. Tansei Sehattin, Sultan II: Bayezit in Si%asi Ha¥ati, Istanbul: MilIi Egitim Basimevi, , p. . Omar Farook.p. 191-4. S.N. Fisher, p. 38. Tarkhan, p. 170. S.N. Fisher, p. 38. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., Tarkhan, p. 170. Ibid., p. 38. Ibn Iyas, p. 559. Harmer, p. 369. 'W. Muir, p. 178. Ibn Iyas, p. 557. gpgg., p. 564. Hammer, p. 370. Tarkhan, p. 172. Tarkhan, p. 172. Tansel, p. 113-114. Muhamad Fireed Bey. Tarih el-Dawlah el-Aliah el-Osmania. Istanbul: Muhammad Efendi Matbaah, 1896, p. 70. Tansel, p. 114, Manner, p. 370. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 96 Richard Knolles. The General Histories of the Turks, London: 1687, p. 450. S.N. Fisher, p. 42. Feridun Bey, p. 347-349. Ibid., p. 349-350. M. Sobernheim. "Kansuh" The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927, p. 721. Feridun, p. 354-355. Ibid., p. 355-356. CHAPTER III REASONS FOR THE CONQUEST During the early years of the reign of Sultan Selim I (1512-1520), there occurred a gradual change in the Ottoman Empire's strategy of expansion. The invasions upon the West ceased, and moves were directed to the East, toward the Mamluk Empire in particular. Prior to this turnabout, the Ottoman Empire had enlarged its domain at the expense of European-held territories. The Ottomans strengthened their armies with recruitments of Christian youth known as Janissaries, a group which eventually became the mainspring of the Ottoman war machine. While the Ottomans won their victories in the West under the name of Islam, the other Arab states no doubt looked on with appre- ciation and astonishment. However, why the Ottomans actually changed their direction for the conquest of new lands from.West to East, is a point for careful consideration. The following questions arise: Did the Ottoman sultans wish to punish the Mamluk sultans for frequently welcoming their exiled princes and for supplying them with means to attempt uprisings in Asia Minor? 97 98 Did the Ottoman empire feel that by expand- ing southwards down both shores of the Red Sea and of the Persian Gulf they could stand up against the Portuguese (who had diverted the Indian trade route through Egypt to their new cape route around Africa? Did the Ottoman sultans desire to build a vast empire which would surround the Mediterranean Sea and make it into a lake of the Ottomans? Did the Ottoman Empire arrive at a degree of satisfaction with its conquests in Europe and was not able to find another direction to go but East? Did the difference of religious beliefs between the Ottoman Empire as orthodox sunnis and the Safavids of Persia as Shiites motivate the Ottomans to advance towards the East in order to protect the Meslem world? Did the Ottoman-Mamluk rivalry over the tribal states of East Anatolia play a role in the Ottoman desire to conquer Egypt? It may be that all of the motives suggested above combined to cause the Ottomans to turn toward the East and the Mamluk Empire in particular. It appears, however, that some were major motives; others were minor or even ques- tionable as motives. Each is examined in the following pages. The major motives may be described as the revenge motive, the economic motive, and the political motive. Others will be examined as minor or supporting motives. One motive that encouraged the Ottomans to march against the Mamluks may be described as the revenge motive. The desire by the Ottoman sultans to punish the Mamluk sultans for harboring and supporting their exiled princes was apparently a principal reason behind the Ottoman 99 invasion of Egypt. To understand this factor one must study its historical background, as well as when and in what ' way it promoted the Ottomans' actions. As was mentioned in Chapter One, there were no con- firmed laws in the early years of the Ottoman Empire which could be followed in regards to the succession to the throne. When the sultan died, the most powerful son by the support of God would be the heir.1 This situation led to the rise of serious conflicts among the princes and, consequently, some of the rival princes were executed under the law of fratricide. This law was made by the Sultan'Mehmed II and was included in his kanunname. It says, "For the welfare of the state, the one of my sons to whom God grants the sultan- ate may lawfully put his brothers to death."* This law was *For a discussion of the Ottoman kunan-names see F.Kraelitz- Greifenhorst, "Kanunname Sultan Mehmeds des Eroberers," Mitteilungen zur osmanischen Geschicthe 1 (1921-22), 13-48. Babinger published the text of the'kanun-name in facismile together with an introduction in "Sultanische Urkunden zur Geschichte der Osmanischen Wirtschaft und Staatsverwaltung am Ausgang der Herrschaft Mehmeds II, des Eroberers. I. Teil: Das Qanun-name-i sultani ber mudscheb-i orfi osmani (- Sudo- steuropaische Arbeiten 59; Munich, 1956). For a transcrip- tion of the text, see Robert Anhe er and Halil Inalcik Kanunname-i sultani ber muceb-i or i osmani (Ankara, 1956 as TTK: XI, seri, no. 5). More recently, cf. Nicoara Beldiceanu (ed.). Code de Lois coutemieres des Mehmed II: Kitabi-qavanin- i orfiyye-i osmani (Wiesbadan, 1967). For the latter consult also the review of V.L. Menage in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London), 32 (1969), 165-167. The regulations of secular criminal law (kanun) and their relation to the religious law are discussed by Uriel Heyd, "Kanun and Shari's in Old Ottoman Criminal Justice," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities III (1969), 1-18. A posthumous publication by the same author is Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, ed. V.L. Menage (Oxford,’1973),3 100 practiced until the time of Mehmed IV (1623-40) when the law of succession changed in favor of the oldest son in the family.2 But up until then the rival Ottoman princes had no choice but to face death or to seek refuge in the countries of neighbors such as the Safavids or the Mamluks. And apparently by welcoming them these neighbors paved the way to serious tension and, in the case of the Ottoman- Mamluk relationship, severe disagreements between the two governments. Four cases in particular show this strain between the Ottoman and Mamluk states as a result of the latter's treatment of exiled Ottoman princes. Apparently, the Ottoman leaders eventually decided that without the exterm- ination of the Mamluk sultans cases like these would not be ended and the Ottoman Empire would face a continual threat of civil war. The first case goes back to the time when the four sons of Bayezid I (Isa, Mehmed, Suleyman and Muse) joined in civil war after the defeat of Bayezid I at the battle of Ankara in 1402. They struggled for the sultanate until 1413, which ended by the emergence of Mehmed I as the un- contested sultan, who defeated his brothers and reunited the family possessions.4 One of Suleyman's sons, named Orhan, occasionally showed disloyalty to his uncle Mehmed I. Orhan's son Suleyman and daughter Fatma Shahrazed, were brought up secretly fearing that if sultan Mehmed knew of 101 them, he might execute them in order to save his throne. After the death of their father, Orhan and two princes" escaped secretly to Cairo as refugees, to the Mamluk sultan Barsbay, who received them with kindness and put them up in his royal house. When Murad II learned of their escape, he immediately sent envoys and letters requesting Barsbay to send the two back, but Barsbay refused. Instead he designated special teachers whose main jobs were to take care of and teach the two Ottoman royalty. Later Barsbay married the princess and added her to his royal harem.5 Without a doubt these acts strained the relationship between Barsbay and Murad, which was in some respects good, as we have seen in the previous chapter. But Barsbay's refusal of Murad's request to return the two royal boys seemed to create a decline in their diplomatic relationship. Later the Mamluk sultans did not hesitate to supply Ottoman refugees with arms to use against their fatherland as we can see in the next case. The second case is the story of the Prince Jem, the brother of Bayezid II, who aspired to the throne and, when defeated, found with Kaitby of the Mamluks, a princely re- fuge and the means of pilgrimage to Mecca. Jem's treatment by the Mamluks, was not limited to hospitality and favors for an exiled Ottoman prince; the Mamluks supplied Jem ‘with the means to retaliate against the Ottoman sultan, an act which most likely angered the Ottomans. 102 After the death of Mehmed II in 1481, a struggle for the throne between his sons Jem and Bayezid followed.* This disputed succession resulted in favor of Bayezid. He gained the possession of the capital and the armies and emphatically declined the proposal of his brother to divide the power. Jem raised large armies, and possessed the power to capture Brusa in 1481, but was repeatedly beaten.6 These defeats directed his way south to take refuge within the Mamluk territory. He crossed the mount- ains of Tarsus, and entered the city of Aleppo where he asked the governor to report to Kaitby his wish to make a refuge for himself and three hundred soldiers. Kaitby agreed, and agreed to receive him in Cairo whenever Jem desired. It was July 14, 1481.7 When Bayezid II received news of the harboring of Jem by the Mamluks, he ordered Alaeddevlet to arrest Jem on sight. The opportunity was lost when Jem fled to Egypt on September 15, 1481. Kaitby received the Ottoman with honors and treated him.as a son.8 From Cairo Jem sent his brother Sultan Bayezid a letter suggesting he grant Jem the rule of some regions of the Ottoman Empire. Bayezid refused, and implored Jem to accept 100,000 ducats per year. Jem likewise refused his brother's offer.9 * . Sources regarding the conflict between Jem and Bayezid II are listed on p. 77. 103 Later in that same year Jem left Egypt and, accompanied by his family, undertook a pilgrimage to 10 When he returned to Cairo his dreams of the Mecca. Ottoman throne apparently resumed. Supporters. such as Kastm Bey and Gedik Ahmed Pasha in Anatolia, and other Ottoman opponents of the Sultan, persuaded Jem to try once more to win at least one part of the Ottoman Empire.11 By now, however, he probably knew he could not regain any- thing without outside support. Jem therefore, made a request to Kaitby, asking for support in his fight against his brother, Bayezid II. Kaitby, in May 6, 1482, summoned his princes to discuss Jem's request. All of the members 12 with the notion probably that any of this council agreed, disturbance that might occur in Anatolia would end in favor of the Mamluks. Jem was equipped with several thousand soldiers, forty thousand ducats, and Kaitby's orders for the governors of Aleppo and Damascus to lend additional support. With the assistance of Kaitby and his supporters in Anatolia, Jem invaded Ottoman territory, aiming for Kenya. He was defeated by Bayezid's army under the leadership of Ali Pasha. Jem then decided to move his forces to Ankara. After he held the city for several days, troops from Amasya and loyal to Bayezid arrived and routed Jam's forces. Finally, Jem ceased his operations in Anatolia, and he took refuge on 23rd of July, 1482, in Rhodes, with the expectation that the Knights of St. John would allow him to harbor 104 13 However, the cavaliers quickly made an safely there. agreement with Bayezid II to keep Jem in their custody in return for 40,000 ducats per year.14 In 1483 they sent him to France, where he was held for seven years. In 1489 the Knights ceded Jem to Pope Innocent VIII and he was transferred to Rome. In 1495 Charles VII of France invaded Italy. Jem was taken with the French, and, at Naboly in 1496, he died.15 Of concern to this research in regards to Jem.was his connection with Kaitby. This connection opened once more hostilities between the Ottomans and the Mamluks. As a result there were six great campaigns which exhausted the power of both sides.* A third case differs from the previous two in that in this situation the Mamluks did not supply the Ottoman refugees with military means to retaliate against their home government. It does, however, show again the repeated tendency of the Ottoman exiled princes to seek and expect to receive refuge by the Mamluks, and the Mamluks tendency to receive, protect, and take care of the escaped royalty at whatever the price might be. These tendencies apparently eroded Ottoman patience and goodwill toward Egypt. Korkud, one of Bayezid II's sons, was given Saruhan (Manisa) to govern, according to the Ottoman custom that the prince be given an opportunity to practice the art of *See p. 81-84. 105 ruling. While in Manisa he frequently asked his father to issue him more money. It was these frequent requests that probably motivated Bayezid to replace Korkud by his brother Alem Shah. Korkud was transferred to the 16 Korkud was not pleased with governorship of Anatalya. his action, for he wrote his father a letter explaining _ his beliefs in theology and religion, and explaining the unruliness in the province assigned to him, His main problem, he said, was that he needed financial help. Bayezid agreed, and issued 2,502,755 ducats per year.17 Korkud's relationship with his father became very poor when Korkud wrote to the Porte asking to be reinstated in Manisa. The sultan, possibly under the influence of Korkud's brother, Alem, did not agree . Aggravating the problem was the Sultan's refusal of a request by Korkud to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. Undoubtedly feeling like an outcast in his own country, he sailed from.Anatalya in May 1509, to seek aid from the Mamluk sultan in Egypt. He arrived in the city of Damiata on May 25, 1509. Ibn Iyas relates the story of Kurkud's arrival and his welcome reception by the Mamluk sultan el-Gawri. In the month of Safar of the year 910 (May 25, 1509) news came from.Damiata say- ing that one of the sons of the Ottoman sultan named Korkud had arrived in Damiata. When sultan el-Gawri heard of this he immediately named Ikby, the prince of Akus, Isdmar e1 Mbhmedar, and Nanik el-Kasin, to receive Korkud. Accompanying them were special sailboats decorated with excellent illuminations. . . When Korkud arrived at the district of Shobra in Cairo, el-Gawri 106 ordered all rooms in el-Brabkiah of Bolak to be cleared and to be occupied by Korkud and his followers. Both sheflks should stand on both sides of his way to greet him.at his arrival.13 Ibn Iyas also details activities organized by the Egyptian government in honor of the presence of Korkud in Egypt.19 Three months after Korkud's arrival in Egypt el-Gawri sent Allan eldwadar to Bayezid II with a letter telling him of Korkud's presence in Egypt and assuring him of his good condition. In the same year Bayezid II sent his ambassador to Egypt to observe the steps the Mamluk 20 and probably sultan was undertaking to finance his son, to tell el-Gawri that any military support given to Korkud would strain their relationship and be considered an attack on the Ottoman Empire. Egypt at this time was experiencing disastrous war with the Portuguese, and the Mamluk fleet had just been 21 It was not likely, therefore, that the Mamluk destroyed. sultan planned to furnish Korkud with military aid nor to bring Egypt face to face with another enemy. el-Gawri apparently tried to please Korkud without jeopardizing him- self further with Bayezid. In an undated letter to Bayezid, el-Gawri assured him that Korkud was in good condition while finally under- taking his pilgrimage to Mecca. He asked Bayezid to forgive his son and to assign him some Ottoman territories of his own to govern.22 Bayezid agreed, and sent a reply to el- Gawri thanking him.for the treatment of his son.23 107 Eventually, negotiations between el-Gawri and Bayezid over Korkud were successful. The exile set out for Anatalya but, when he was attacked by the Knights of Rhodes, he 24 landed at Alexandretta, (in Turkish, Iskenderun). A few months later by the order of his father, Korkud was trans- ferred from Anatalya to M'ansia.25 Korkud's situation changed totally when Selim I (1512-1520)* became the sultan of the Ottoman Empire. *The reign of Selim 1 (1512-1520) is studied in detail by Seliahattin Tansel, Yavuz Sultan Selim (Sultan Selim the Grim) Ankara, 1969; and Sinasi Altundag, "selim I," IA. X, 423-434. The events surrounding his accession are described by M. Cagatay Ulucay, "Uavuz Sultan Selim Nasil Padisah Oldu " (How did Sultan Selim the Grim.Become Ruler ) Tarih Der isi, 6 (1954), 53-90; 7 (1954), 117-142; 8 (1955) 185-200. éfie best general account of his Eastern relations is G.W.F. Strip- ling, The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, 1511-1575, Urbana, Ill. 1942 (repr. 1968). His réIations and struggles with the Safavids are described by E. Eberhard, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safeviden im 16. Jahr.nach arabiSchen HandSEfififten, Freiburg, 1970; H. SOhrweide,’"Der Sieg der Safeviden in Persien und seine Ruckwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens im.16. Jahrhundert." Der Islam, 41 (1965), 95-223; V. Minorsky, La Perse au XV siecle entre la Turquie et Venise, Paris, 1933; RLMZ Savory, "The Principal Offices of’the safewid State during the Reign of Ismail I (1501-1525)," BSOAS, 23 (1960), 91-105; Tahsin Yazici, "Sah Ismail," IA, XI, 275-279; Jean Aubin, "Etudes Safavides, I. Sah Ismail et les notables de l'Iraq persan," JESHO, II (1959), 37-81; L. Lockhart, "The Persian army in the Safavi period," Der Islamp 24 (1959), 89- 98; Zeki Velidi Togan, "Sur 1'ori ine des safavides," Melanges Louis Massignonp, 3 (195 ), 345-357; A.J. Toynbee, "The SChism.in théilranic world and the Incorporation of the Arabic Society into the Iranic." A Study of History I, (1934), 347-402; and W. Hinz, "Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens hm 15. und l6. Jahrhundert, "ZDMG, 100 (1950), 177-204. Relations with the Dulgadir state are studied in J.H. Mordtmann and M.H. Yinancs, Dulkadirlilar," IA. III, 654-662. The Battle of Caldiran and its results are analyzed in M. Tayyi , . ”Caldiran," IA, III, 329-331; J.R. walsh, "Ca1diran,' EIZ,II, g38g9and Tah§in Yazizi, "Safeviler," (The Safevids), 15: IX, 108 Selim not only had five of his sons-in-law strangled, but reportedly contributed to the death of his father, Bayezid II?6 Korkud therefore, sent him a letter undated and in 27 probably Ottoman language, voicing his support and loyalty, judged that this was the only hope for survival. Although Selim's reply had no intention of making anything against Korkud,28 he acted hospitably fora while but then, as was the usual habit of the Ottoman sultans, he sent his commander 29 Sinan Pasha, who strangled Korkud on March 13, 1513. It seems that Selim may have felt that Korkud would take a second *Continued from previous page Selim's conquest of the Arab world is described by H. Jansky "Beitrage zur Osmanische Geschictschreibung uber Agypten," Der Islam, 21 (1933), p. 269-279; and the same author's "Die ErOberung Syrien durch Sultan Selim I," Mitteilungen zur Osmanischen GeschichteL 2 (1926), 173-231, and'"Die Chronik des Ibn Tulun AIS Geschichtes-quelle uber den Feldzug Sultan Selimis I gegen die Mamluken," Der Islam, 18 (1929). 24-33; W.H. Salmon, An Account of the Ottoman Conquest of Egypt, London, 1939; Marie-Therese Speiser,7Das selimname des Sa'di b. "abd al-Mute'al, Zurich, 1946; H. Masse, "selim Ier en Syrie, diapres’Ie Selim Name," Melanges Rene Dussaud, 2 (1939), 779- 782. Halil Edhem, Sultan Selim‘s aegyptischer Feldzug. Weimar, 1916; Stanford J. Shaw, The’FinanciaI'and Adminis- trative Organization and Deve10pment of Ottoman Egypt, 1517- 1798, Princeton, NTJ. 1962; and StanfOrd J. Shaw, "The Land Law of Ottoman Egypt (960/1553): A Contribution to the Study of Landholding in the Early Years of Ottoman Rule in Egypt,‘ Der Islam, 38 (1962), 106-137. On the question of whether the caliphate was transferred to the sultan, see C.A. Nallino, Notes sur la nature du "Califat" en general et sur la pretenqu "califat Ottoman."’ Rome, 1919; and Carl H. Bekcer, "BarthoIde Studien uber KEIif und Sultan," Der Islam, 6 (1915), 386-412.30 109 refuge in Egypt, but one which would be completely different ' than the first. He knew how past Mamluk sultans had taken advantage of exiled Ottoman princes by supporting them for' their own interests. A fourth case was that of the refuge in Egypt of Ahmed (another of Bayezid II's sons) and Ahmed's sons Suleyman, Aladdin, and Kasim, Ahmed's case was similar to the previous three in that the Ottoman refugees in all instances chose Egypt as their haven and were greeted by the Mamluk sultan with honor and welcome. Ahmed and two of his sons, Suleyman and Aladdin, did not gain military support from Egypt as the relationship be- tween the two states at the time was not unduly strained and peace had been established. Kasim, however, gained full military support from el-Gawri, who realized that Selim I was rising to a position which would enable him to dominate not only vast territories in southeast Europe but also the east- ern Mediterranean and its rich trade route to India. When Sultan Bayezid II was near his death he called for his son Ahmed with the intention of naming him as his successor. However, by the insistence and support of the Janasseries, Selim was the successful heir. The Janassaries forced Bayezid to approve Selim as his successor rather than Ahmed.31 With this disappointment, Ahmed was defeated and fled to the Mamluk territory in Syria, where he was received with courtly honors.32 Immediately, Selim sent his envoy, Ali Shaweesh, to Khair Bey who was governor of Aleppo and 110 supposedly a strong supporter of el-Gawri. 'Khair Bey, however, on hearing the envoy's message regarding Ahmed's situation and Selimis desire that the Mamluks not harbor his brother, acted in a suspicious way. He now appeared very loyal to Selim, telling him that his message was being forwarded to el-Gawri and that whatever el-Gawri decided, it would be of no matter, and that nothing would happen without Selimis suggestions and view of the problem.33 The tone of Khair Bey's letter suggests two things: it demonstrates Khair Bey's expressed loyalty to Selim (which consequently suggests he would not support Selimfs exiled brother Ahmed), and it shows that Khair Bey considered himself an independent power that could behave in foreign affairs in Syria regard- less of the desires of the central government in Cairo. It appears that Khair Bey was playing on both sides. Ahmed apparently gave up all hope of military support from the Mamluks and, afraid to return to his homeland because of fear of reprisal, he married one of his daughters to Shah Ismail of Persia and allied with them.34 When he returned, supported by Ismail Shah together with his own supporters, Ahmed was advancing toward the heart of Anatolia; meanwhile Selim reinforced his army and on 24th of April, 1513, a pitched battle was fought at Brusa in which Ahmed was complete- ly defeated and taken prisoner. He (Ahmed) was strangled, some hours after the battle.35 Ahmed's sons, Suleyman and Alladin, escaped to Egypt, on January 13, 1513, and January 17, 1513, respectively. 111 Although they were received by el-Gawri, the Mamluk sultan refrained from giving them military support, an act he prob- ably feared would provoke Selim to anger at a time when relative peace was being enjoyed. The two princes did not live long, however, so consequences of el-Gawri's lack of military support to them can never be known. Both died in April 1513 as a result of an outbreak of the plague.36 Selim was undoubtedly pleased at the news of the death of the two princes. The Ottoman sultan's military preparations and his continual bad faith toward the Mamluks, however, eventually made el-Gawri seemingly change his mind regarding military support to any refugees from the Ottoman government. el-Gawri took advantage of the presence in Egypt of Kasim, Ahmed's third son, who had fled Turkey on his father's death. As the relationship between Selim I and e1- Gawri became more strained,* Kasim was well-received and was given promises of military support by the Mamluk government.37 Kasim.stayed a short time in Cairo; he then accompanied el- Gawri to Aleppo, where fighting between el-Gawri and Selim was in its preparatory stages. In Aleppo, el-Gawri gave Kasim royal gifts and a robe of honor apparently hoping that if the Ottoman soldiers learned that one of the Ottoman princes was being protected and supported by the Mamluk government, they might abandon Selim and work in favor of Kasim.38 But * See the relationship between el-Gawri and Selim I, p.151-160. 112 el-Gawri's dream.did not come true. He was defeated in the Battle of Marg Dabig (1516), and Kasim returned with el- Gawri and his followers to Egypt.' Kasim.later took part in the Battles of el-Redania and Warden against Selim, Even- tually, when Selim destroyed the Mamluks, Kasim escaped from Egypt but was, a short time later, arrested and executed.39 In sum, when the Ottoman-Mamluk relations were at low points, the Mamluks were not above taking advantage of the situation of exiled Ottoman princes, supporting them and favoring them, thereby aggravating civil crises inside the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, such acts by the Mamluks caused reductions in Ottoman military strength, kept the Ottomans busy with themselves, limited Ottoman strength and ability in expansion, and created a good balance of power in the Ottoman-Mamluk relationship. The Ottoman sultans apparent- ly felt that the support of the royal Ottoman refugees by the Mamluks was antagonizing and underhanded. This would most likely have created mistrust between the two powers. It appears to be one reason why Selim and the Ottomans decided to act, first severing ties with the Mamluk sultans, and even- tually overrunning their lands. A second motive which apparently impelled the Ottomans to turn toward military confrontation with the Mamluks, was economic in nature. The Ottoman Empire had, as one of its aims, control of all trade routes of land and sea connecting east and west. To understand this aim and how the invasion 113 of Egypt became a part in the overall design, one must exam: ine the historical background of the commercial competition between the Portuguese and the Ottomans on one side as well as the competition between the Portuguese and the Mamluks on the other. While the Ottoman sultans were fixing their control over new land and sea frontiers relatively close to their own homeland, several great maritime discoveries occurred elsewhere and were announced to the world. Christopher Columbus (1451-1506)*, an Italian mariner, had set out from Palos near Cadiz on August 3, 1492, in three small ships and reached the Bahama Islands. On October 12 of the same year, he eventually went on to discover what is now known as Cuba and San Domingo. Two later voyages brought him to the New world (North America).40 *For further information see the following sources: C. Fernandez Duro, Colon y Pinzon (1883); Salvador de Madariagap Christppher Columbus, new ed. (1949); R. H. Major (edi), select Letters of Christopher Columbus (Hakluyt Society, 2nd ed.1870), standard collection of the most important chapters on the life and discoveries of Columbus; Samuel Elliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, 2 vols. (1942), and Christopher'Cqumbu , Mariner (1955), two of the finest biographies of Columbus in the English language; MI. Fernandez de Navarrete (ed. ). Coleccion de los viajes y descubrimentos que hicieron por mar los espanoles, 5 v61. (1825-37); Milton A. Rugoff’(ed{7, The Great Tiavellersp, 2 vols. (1960), general text on the most_import- ant explorers, including Columbus; Earl P. Hanson, South from the Spanish Main; South American Seen Through the Eyes of'its Discoverers (1967) an anthOlogy.42 114 Following Columbus' voyages the number of geograph- ical discoveries grew rapidly. In 1497, Vasco da Gama* set out from Portugal with four ships to reach India. He rounded the Cape of Good Hope and worked northward along 41 the east coast of Africa, coming soon to an area of Mamluk territory where the route to India was well known. Despite the Mamluk jealousy of the intruder, da Gama was able to secure a pilot and reached the coast of India at Calcutta.43 *There is no autobiography of Vasco de Gama Portuguese chron- iclers wrote at length about his voyage of 1497-99, and some of them must have access to secret documents since destroyed. The only one translated into English is that of Gaspar Correa (c. 1490-1565) from his Lendas da India; see The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama, and His Viceroyalty, ea; by Lord Stanley of Alderley (1869, reprinted 1963). The only first- hand account of the first voyage has also been printed in English in E.G. Ravenstein (ed.), A Journal (by an unknown writer) of the First Voyage of Vasca da Gama, 497-1499 (1898, reprinted 1963). A later and more definitive edition has been printed in Portuguese in Abel Fortoura da Costa (ed.) Roteiro da Primeira Via em de Vasco da Gama, 1497-1499 por Alvaro Velho, 3rd ed. 1969). The story of the voyage of 1497-99 is breezily told in Henry H. Hart, Sea Road to the Indies (1950). An outstanding syntheses of the background of Vasco dE-Gama's achievements 8 found in John H. Parry, The Age of Reconnais- sance; Discovery, Exploration and Settlement,‘1450-1650, 2nd 'Ed, (1966). For‘brief1accounts together with English trans- lations of extracts from early documents, see John H. Parry (ed.). The European Reconnaissance: Selected Documents (1968). The uniqfiETfiEfifi§EfipE_Edpy_3f_Efie:Ehfee‘Rofeiros (Hailing directions) of Vasco da Gama's Arab pilot, Ahmad ibn Madjid, has not been fully translated and printed in English, but see A.G.R. Tibbetts, Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean Before the Coming of thé‘PdfffiEfiEde (19f1). For Ehe definitive s a on o e a text, see T.A. Chumovsky (ed). Tres Roteiros deconhecidos de Ahmad ibn Madjid (1960).44 115 The Portuguese now had an ocean route to the East. Such commercial activities of the western nations finding new trade routes resulted in the decline of the Mediterranean Sea as the primary place for commercial enterprise. Prior to these discoveries Egypt had become, by the fifteenth century, a very wealthy place due to its place as a crossroad of trade between Asian and European countries, and due to its agricultural growth. I agree with the opinion of Fisher when he cites: The steady growth of this trade in the fifteenth century, together with the natural productivity of the Nile Valley and the skilled artisan manufacturers of Egypt, gave the Mamluk-Arab society a brilliance unrivaled in any other Arab land.45 However, following the discoveries by the Western European explorers, the high position of Egypt deteriorated and the country undoubtedly became tempting for the Ottoman Empire to take advantage of and invade. The author, Balls, recorded some Observances of the change of the trade route: In the reign of el-Ghuri (el-Gawri), who came to the throne in 1510 at the age of 60, trouble was brewing fast. The Portuguese were diverting the Indian trade from Egypt to their new cape route around Africa, and refused to be beaten by force. Sea powers of the western nations had thus begun to exercise the influence on Egypt's fortunes which it still exerts. Lastly, Selim I of Turkey came to the Ottoman throne and began to mass his troops near the Egyptian frontier, ostensibly for an attack on Persia.45 116 The Portuguese did not stop at their discovery 'of the Cape of Good Hope. Within a decade they succeeded in taking almost all trade routes that had previously been con- trolled by the Mamluks. Alboquerque, the admiral of the Portuguese Indian fleet, ruthlessly determined to drive the Mamluks from power, to seize all their key points and estab- lish the Portuguese in the Straits of Hormuze and Aden.47 He, in the beginning, met no opposition, apparently because the Mamluks were mostly soldiers and cavalrymen, not sailors. A1- 30 they had no war experience in sea fights. In addition, they had no suitable wood for building ships and the materials. Workman and engineers had to be imported. But when the Portu- guese in 1505 threatened Jeddah, the port city of Hijaz, el-Gawri became nervous and consequently gave the order to build a fleet under the Admiral Hussein the Kord.48 His main objective apparently was to fortify the port of Jeddah, the key to the Holy Cities of Islam, against the threatening moves by the Portuguese. While the Mamluks were constructing their fleet, the Portuguese captured Soctra in 1506, an island in the Gulf of Aden which controlled the entrance of ships to the straits of Bab el-Mandab, the southern border of the Red Sea.49 In response to this dangerous situation el-Gawri ordered his fleet in Jeddah to set out to combat the Portuguese. Various engagements took place with successful fighting in behalf of el-Gawri's fleet. In one fight in the battle of Ghoul, Lorenze the son of Almeida, lost his life,50 but in 117 1509 the Mamluk fleet was destroyed by the Portuguese, in. 51 However, the Portuguese, in order to the Battle of Diu. satisfy themselves, planned the blockade of the Red Sea, and decided to blockade the trade route through the Persian Gulf. In 1511 Alboquerque captured Malacca, the entrepot of 52 Thereby imports from India and the spices for the Arabs. Far East almost ceased, and cotton and muslim materials were virtually unobtainable. Gradually, most of the traffic in spices and other products of India and Arabia was diverted from Syrian and Egyptian ports.**In 1513 Alboquerque attacked Aden, in which the commercial movements between Egypt and India became totally paralyzed.53 Not only Egypt was affected by the Portuguese blockade but also the Italians, particularly the Venetians, for they lost the high profit of their commercial activities in the East. They, according to Winius,* made unsuccessful efforts *Winius, the author of The Foundation of the Portuguese Empire, 1415-1580, was surprised‘by the phrase used Byfthe Signoria "Rapid’and secret remedies' as the Signoria tried to propose that means be found to discourage the return of the Portuguese to Indian waters. The author believes that if the news of this phrase leaked out to the Christian world, no one could main- tain that Venice necessarily supported the downfall of a fellow Catholic power at the hands of the Infidel. (55) To me it seems that Winius had forgotten that each society any time, anywhere, even in our present time concern with economic values rather than other elements such as racism or religions. Example of this competition can be seen among the big powers of today regarding profits and interest in the Third World. **See p. 1173. 117a or same. 1 no 302 Houm one ocauuom mo muowoaom .nn .meHEmz ago 3.5 anon. Ham “momaom 89.32 568 e. 88 e. use... 85.328 a. \ \s .38.:9283. , \..\.\.\ \ 1 $3 \0 - —§ . , V 3.9.8 . =8 .- \. .. x .b 4 Q. a 3a. ”3.3.. v4“ -\D/ £85 .3338 En; \ 4 AK. c8933 83758 m. 1 if ‘0\ a 3".-. c e \ \ .W ._ x. (32. 43 ox \flmaou . ‘. o 0‘ I)“. i a»; 3:..— 35 an»; 84.» g 2 3 ‘ and) 24mg 2432— “I... 2— unaghua ma... 2n. 5 e353... .33. 32303.4 «0...: swam-snows. e (.O<¢( is... 3:1: 5 3.0 2 o. 3.: 3...: . 92 no: .26.: C05 CNN.” a. one: to.- 118 to form a league against the Portuguese. In December 1502 a commission of fifteen notables was appointed in order to consider what mdght be done to the Portuguese. An ambassador chosen by the Signoria was sent to Egypt to voice the Com- mission's concern over what the Portuguese were doing to the Oriental trade. The ambassador suggested to the Egyptians that duties on spices and Indian goods be lowered to make the Venetian competitive with rival prices of the Portuguese in European markets.54 el-Gawri also sent notice to the Pope Julius II and to some of the western nations, complaining about the acts of the Portuguese and warning them that if they would not agree to make severe proceedings against the Portuguese, the Christians living in his territories would receive bad treat- ments and the Holy places in Jerusalem would be burned. In spite of these threats, the western nations neglected his requests.56 The Venetians, however, in addition to the previous suggestions to el-Gawri, added the proposal to dig a canal be- 57 But because of tween the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. internal problems el-Gawri did not execute these suggestions. Consequently, Genoa, in order not to lose its markets one after another, took a short cut by buying its commercial needs from Portugal. Under these worsening conditions and serious decline in goodwill with Portugal, el-Gawri thought of a new source to help build a new and strong fleet. He turned to his old 119 enemy the Ottoman empire, asking for materials. Apparently because the Ottomans knew what was going on between the Mamluks and the Portuguese, and because the latter was a new rival to the Ottomans in the Middle East, Bayezid 11 without hesitation promised to furnish el-Gawri with timber for thirty vessels carrying three hundred iron guns, one hundred fifty masts, three thousand oars, and other apparatus.58 When the Knights of St. John, who held the Island of Rhodes, learned of these promises, however, they attacked the Egyptian vessels which were delivered to load the promised timber in the Gulf of Ayas and captured them, taking them back to Rhodes. Hearing of this disappointment, el-Gawri, in retaliation ordered the arrest of Europeans in Alexandria and Damiata, as well as the Christian clergymen in Jerusalem. Twenty monks were forced to write letters to the European governments demanding the return of the Egyptian ships with the captured arms. el-Gawri also warned the Christians of closing the church in Jerusalem; he finally did close it in January 1511.59 The aids which arrived safe in Egypt were mentioned by Ibn Iyas.60 Feeling that he was able to confront the Portuguese el- Gawri sent his last military expedition in 1514, under the leadership of Hussien the Kurd to Jeddah and from there to India. But the Mamluk engagement in war with the Ottoman Empire in Syria had exhausted their strength, and their hOpes 61 of beating the Portuguese failed. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the Portuguese captured all sea passages which surrounded the 120 Arab world on the side of the Indian Ocean. Thereby, the Portuguese freed themselves from the high taxes which they used to pay to the Mamluks as custom duties and.became the masters over the keys of the trade-routes in the Indian Ocean. The Ottoman Empire competed with the Portuguese in areas of the Mediterranean Sea. It was not in their interest, either, to let the Portuguese extend their control over the trade-route in.the East. Sultan Selim, after his victorious campaign gainst Persia, ordered Biri Pasha to undertake the building of a new fleet by which he could make the Mediterranean Ottoman Lake, eliminate European influence (especially that of Venice and Genoa) and punish the pirates who occasionally caused a break in the peace of the commercial movement in the Mediterranean Sea. Selimis high concern with the sea struggle was apparent when he called Piri Pasha one morning to the palace: I have not slept all night, said Selim. Enable me to sleep. So long as that race of Scorpions, the Genose, the Venetians, the Christians of Rhodes, the Neopolitans, the Sicilians, and the Spanish, cover with impun- ity the sea with their vessels, I do not reign over Asia and Europe, of which this sea is the cincture. I am prisoner in an empire in which they occupy the routes and gates. I must have a navy proportioned to the greatness of my possessions.62 It is most probable that the Ottoman plan to oppose the Portuguese apparently would have been useless, however, without taking control of Egypt. By controlling Egypt, the Ottoman Empire would lift the Portuguese blockade upon ports 121 in the Arabian peninsula, thereby reopening the trade routes which had been closed in the face of the Mamluk Arabs. In addition the Ottoman Sultan Selim I may have realized that the prosperity of Egypt depended on its control of the trade routes between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Doubtless, the Ottoman Empire by conquering Egypt would make high profits and would be able to maintain in Egypt a high degree of luxury. Through the Egyptian ports passed the jewels and spices of the East. Its merchants grew prosperous on the very active trade of which Egypt was the center. Also, Egypt links the three continents (Asia, Egypt and Africa), a fact which was of interest to the Ottomans. After the con- quest of Egypt in order to revive commercial activities, the Ottoman Empire in 1535, gave the French merchants certain privileges, hoping that these merchants would use Egypt as a connection for trade with.Asian countries instead of using 63 Even before the new trade route via the Cape of Good Hope. the conquest, in order to challenge the Portuguese influence in India, in 1453 the Ottoman Empire granted certain privileges regarding commercial activities to Genoa and Venice.64 Also, in the beginning of the sixteenth century the Portuguese suggested a project of united naval operations including Spain, Portugal, and France. Its main goal was to divide the shores of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean against the Ottoman Empire, but it failed because France dissented from this project.65 122 In light of the facts above, one cannot disregard an economic motive behind the Ottoman move against Egypt in the sixteenth century. Although Selim.I knew that by con- quering Egypt he might inherit the feud which had arisen be- tween the Mamluks and the Portuguese, he probably considered that a hold over Egypt would be beneficial as a commercial connection and would bring a great boost to the Ottoman treasury. In the chapter dealing with results of the con- quest, we will see whether the conquest was of help in this regard or whether it only worsened economic life in Egypt. Another motive behind Ottoman plans to march against Egypt was political in nature. As was mentioned above, the Ottoman sultans did have a dream.of building a vast empire surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, making the body of water like a lake of their own. It appears to be another major motive behind their invasion of Egypt. Suggesting this Ottoman expansionist dream and its existence as a motive behind the Ottoman move on Egypt, was the very political personality of Sultan Selim I and the positions of the surrounding powers to the west and the East, which colored Selimfs choices when directing the Ottoman expansion. By tracing his background from.his days as governor in East Anatolia to his succession as Ottoman sultan, we can see the effects which apparently in- fluenced his political beliefs and his strong inclination to- ward fighting. East Anatolia was a battlefield, part of it in struggle between the Ottomans and Persia and part of it wrestled by the Ottomans from the subordinate principalities 123 of the Mamluk Empire. Selim lived in the area for about thirty years serving as governor of Trabzon and was undoubt- edly influenced by war and political crisis which were parts of life in the region. Selim, since his birth in 1470, was known as Yavuz the Grim because of his drastic behavior, temper, dash, and 66 In 1483, he was appointed governor of swift movement. Trabzon. During his rule there, frequent skirmishes and battles occurred between his father and Kaitby, the Mamluk sultan.* Selim was also in the area during the crisis of Jem who was supported by Kaitby, and during many frequent disputes over the subordinate principalities of the Mamluks in Anatolia.** In Trabzon, Selim made close observation of the Safawi's movements in East Anatolia, the place where the Safawis occasionally tried to spread their religious beliefs by using force. They invaded neighboring territories on the Ottoman border and were responsible fer much destruction there during the revolt by Shah Kuli, one of the followers of Ismail Safaw.*** These sorts of incidents and observation of them undoubtedly effected the spirit of young Selim, causing him to ponder what would be best for him to do to restrain these crises in East Anatolia. He decided to send to Istanbul and members of the Divan a letter explaining the bad conditions *See Chapter II, p. 81-84. ** See Chapter II, p. 101-10 4. ** . *See Chapter II, p. 135. 124 in East Anatolia and asking them to take the matter seriously, 67 Feeling that the members helping him to solve the crisis. of the Divan were ignoring his request, he sent his father a letter asking the same. His father, too, was not res- ponsive.68 Therefore, Selim left Trabzon and from there sent a letter to Istanbul, saying that after being a governor for thirty years in Trabzon, he could not do less. He prom- ised that if he were given the rule of Silistra in Rumeli he would execute all orders and demands made by the central government.69 The Porte, the head of the Divan, was not in- different and conveyed to Selim's father what had gone be- tween himself and his son, thereby Sultan Bayezid 11 then sent his son Selim one of his scholars, Nur el-Din Sari Korz, in order to advise Selim to return to Trabzon. Characteristic- ally obstinate, Selim refused to listen to his father's envoy. Nur el-Din, in his report to the sultan, described the stub- born attitude of Selim, his disregard of what the sultan might do, and his insistence on being away from Trabizon 70 When Selim later real- regardless of the sultan's orders. ized that his predicament was not getting better, he sent an- other letter to the Divan, seeking favor and explaining his side. He insisted that he was right to stay with his son, Suleyman, in Kefe in the Crimea and that his father was not acting justly for his demands were not being responded to while his brother Ahmed was being promised the sultanate and was given rule of the divisions of Kebo Kalke and Rumeli.71 125 It apparently became evident to Selim that he could not change his father's policies or ideas without using force. With his own men and those of Khan Rumili he created an army and advanced to Edirne to negotiate with his father. Hearing of this news, his father, sending some of his special government officials, tried to advise his son of his return to Kefe, but his efforts were useless. When Selim was very close to the city of el-Tonah, the leader of the infantry sent by Bayezid arrived. He carried with him a Sultanic firman (decree) which granted to Selim the governorship of Kefe, and an annual salary from the products of kili and akirman in case the revenues of kefe was not sufficient. But Selim did not bow in submission to his father's temptations. He in- stead swore by God and the Holy Book of the Kuran, that he 72 Fearing Selim, would not return before he reached el-Tonah. his father immediately sent his firmans to the generals of the brigades telling them.to gather in Edirne lest Selim marched on it. Meanwhile, Selim sent a letter to his father telling him that he was not rebelling against him, but that he wanted to negotiate with him, Although Bayezid may have desired to meet his son, the ministers prevented any letter of permission to get to Selim, Selim, perhaps feeling that he would gain nothing, unwillingly yielded a.short time later and accepted his appointment as a governor of Samandarah.73 Feeling that his health condition was serious, Bayezid 11 sent for his oldest son, Ahmed, who was the favorite of his father. Bayezid designated him for succession to the throne. 126 By doing this, he brought his three sons (Ahmed, Selim and Korkud) into rivalry. The great men of the Divan preferred Ahmed to be the heir while the Janissaries believed that Selim was far better than Ahmed. Selim, with the support of the Janissaries determined to hurry along the death of his father and to secure the throne for himself. The Janissaries were dissatisfied with the long inaction of Sultan Bayezid II and hoped for new conquests and loot under Selim. Bayezid eventually found that he could not rely on any section of his army. He submitted and on April 24, 1512, he was forced to abdicate.* In brief, when Selim I ascended the throne in 1512, he was a man with many useful political experiences in his past. He had lived for about thirty years among three rival states (the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluk Empire and the Safawi), he was contemporary with the political conflict between his father and his uncle Jem and he was familiar with important diplomatic correspondence between the Porte, his father, the great members of the Divan, and himself. He was undoubtedly very aware of conditions of neighboring forces and their plans. That he was wary of events in East Anatolia resulting in good results for the Ottoman is evidenced by the frequent requests he made to his father and the Porte to pay attention and make strong demands against Ismail before things worsened. *See p. 109. 127 When Selim became sultan he found the Ottoman Empire in control of all of Anatolia and of the South Balkans. Therefore, he had a choice between one of two matters. Either he could keep the Ottoman strategy which was drawn up and executed by Mehmed II and continued in the time of his father Bayezid II, or he could plan a new strategy which would constitute a new form of expansion. we do not know if his father ever considered the latter, but we do know that Selim's personality was different from.Bayezid, his father. While his father did not add new territories to the Ottoman Empire, except for his subjection of Herzegovina, whiCh had been a tributary state under his predecessor, Selim approx- imately doubled the extent of the Ottoman Empire in eight years.74 Also, while his father was a man of religious and peaceful characteristics, Selim.was a man of indomitable will, a.man of war with greed for expansion of his empire, and a man of ruthlessness. An example of his character was the way he treated the Shiites within his empire. In 1514, according to Edward G. Browne, he gave secret orders to his subordinates to fall upon them and all in one day, without warning, he executed some forty thousand partisans of Shah Ismail in Anatolia.75 Although this number may have been exaggerated, it carries behind it some sort of the truth regarding the cruelty of Sultan Selim. In addition, one by one he executed his brothers who were his rivals for the throne. Lamartine says of Selim: 128 Men who owe their usurper sovereignty to accomplices can maintain it but by satiating or by slaying the authors of their criminal rise. Whoever mounts a throne by crime can sustain himself but by blood. Such was the situation of Selim the day following the natural death of the parricide of his father.76 Their leader's personality* together with his political know- ledge of the scope of strength and weaknesses of his neighbor countries was without a doubt one of the effective factors which drove the wheel of Ottoman expansion towards the east and consequently to the Mamluk Empire as one of its victims. Besides his strong and influencing personality, Selim possessed a political outlook and understanding that contri- buted to the overall political motive behind the Ottoman in- vasion of Egypt. The leader apparently examined the Ottoman strategy in accordance with the position of contemporary powers in the West and in the East before going ahead with any new‘moves. In the West, according to some scholars such as John B. Harrison and Richard E. Sullivan and others, the fifteenth century was a time of transition. Europe was molded by three *One of the letters sent to Shah Ismail from Selim before the Ottomans marched on Persia brings further understanding of what type of personality Selim possessed: "I Sovereign Chief of the Ottoman" says Selim I, "1, master of the heroes of the ages, who combine in my person the power of Feridun, the lory of Alexander the Great, the Justice and the Clemency 0% Chosroes; the exterminator of idolaters, the destroyer of the enemies of the true faith, the terror of the tyrants and of the Pharaohs 77 of this age, I whose hand breaks the sceptre of the strongest..." 129 major developments. Politically, the feudal system gave way to the national state as the dominant unit of organiza- tion. Spain, Portugal, France and England succeeded in achieving political unity within the population of each country uniting under powerful national monarchs. (Only Germany and Italy did not create powerful national states; we cannot deny, however, the vital role these countries played in the advancements of cultural and scientific develop- ments which contributed to Europe's changing shape). Econo- mically, there were great geographical discoveries being made by Europeans which resulted in changes in their view of the world as well as growth in their economic power. The "New World" had been discovered, and trade routes to India via the Cape of Good Hope had been found.* The age of discovery created the stage for capitalistic economy and resulted in the expansion of European commerce and the strengthening of royal absolutism. Culturally, the fifteenth century was marked by a renaissance in humanism, literature, art and science.78 In the art of navigation, for example, Europeans made marked advances including the development of scientific sea charts or portolans, based on the observation and experi- ence which seamen provided.79 The above developments undoubtedly contributed to the rise of a new form of military system. The military system based on feudal foundation was no longer a possible one in *See p. 114. 130 the new powerful system in Europe. Therefore, the need for organized soldiers under the leadership of a central adminis- tration was necessary. Thus the armed forces were the ruler's forces, no longer mere feudal levies. They were paid professionals, often trained to parade, to dress ranks and keep discipline. The weapons were of an extraordinary variety. This development made armies to handle warfare as an art. In addition, this development was not only confined to land. The first modern navies were also being produced. The naval organization, naval supply, and the dispatch and handling of ships, all required more orderly centralized methods than an army. They could not tolerate the survival of rugged feudal individualism, indiscipline, and lack of plan- ning. So the naval supremacy passed out of the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, where it rested briefly with Spain, and then passed to the northern maritime powers of England, Holland, and France.80 4 In the East, the political system.of the Middle East collapsed and had never recovered from the invasion of the Mongols and the devastation of Hulagu Khan. The Arabs had not, in the time of their greatness, succeeded in building up a sound social system, nor did they show any ability to set up a political system which could survive, even a temporary disaster, as the Turks had succeeded in doing after the in- vasion of their country by Timur.81 Although Egypt survived the destructive invasion of the Mongol, on the other hand, it fell a victim to the rule of the Mamluks whose political 131 system was of a feudal military form, a small group of pro- fessional soldiers who were ethnically entirely different from the subjects.82 This kind of system seemingly was not suitable to the military life which had been organized by the European powers and the Ottomans by that time. In view of the differences between the powers in the East and West, then, it would seem that Selim acted wisely in his decision to shift Ottoman expansion toward the East. It appeared to be the less formidable foe. The Ottoman expansion toward the West was becoming questionable; victories could not be counted on because of the swift advancements in scien- tific and military tactics achieved by Europeans. Also, as the State of Shah Ismail was at the formative stage, not yet stable, it was wise that Selim chose to concentrate his atten- tion to easily crush the newly arisen force, in order to not repeat the mistake which Bayezid I did when Timur invaded the Ottoman Empire and defeated its army, in the Battle of Angora.* Lastly, the development of the artillery as important weaponry of the Ottomans while it was neglected by the Mamluks, would contribute to the crushing defeat of the latter by the Ottomans.83 The struggle between Shah Ismail of Persia and Selim I of the Ottomans, regarding differences in religious beliefs, cannot be accepted as one of the primary causes or reasons which motivated the Ottoman Empire to invade the Mamluk Empire. It could, however, be considered a secondary motive, which * See p. 62. 132 supported or justified the possible causes for the Ottoman advancement which were described in the preceding pages. In regards to this struggle over religious differences, Arnold Toynbee points out: ... After the post Abbasid interregnum, in which the Syriac society went into dissolu- tion, two new societies, both affiliated to the Syriac, arose in different parts of the derelict Syriac domain. we have called these two sister societies the Arabic and the Iranic respectively. . . In this respect, the history of the relations between the Iranic and the Arabic society has taken a markedly different turn. For, as early as the first quarter of the sixteenth century of the Christian Era, about two hundred and fifty years after the emergence of the two Islamic societies from the post Abbasid interregnum the Iranic society took the offensive right against the Arabic society and won a decisive victory. This Iranic offensive was taken and this Iranic victory was won, by one particular state among those into which the Iranic society had come to be articulated; and this state was the Ottoman Empire. . . The con- quest of the Arabic world was virtually forced upon the Osmanlis in consequences of a religious schism within the bosom of the Iranic society to which the Osmanlis themselves belonged; and that this schism arose through the unexpected and revolutionary resuscitation of Shiism as a 84 militant political force by Ismail Shah Safawi. . According to Toynbee, then, motivating the Ottomans to direct their activities towards the Mamluks was the rise of the Safawis and a religious division within the Persian society to which the Ottomans belonged. Toynbee feels that the Otto- man Empire as part of this society, was forced to stand in the face of this revolutionary religious movement and was conse- quently forced to face the Mamluks as a result of the contin- uing conflict between the two Iranian forces, the Ottoman 133 Empire and the Ismail Safawi. On this point I disagree with Toynbee in his emphasis on Ismail rather than Selim I as the turning force in the course of Islamic history. Ismail appears to have had no imperialistic dreams compared to that which Selim I had been shown in this study to have possessed.* If Ismail had possessed such intentions, he most likely would have taken advantage of the weakness of the peace-loving Bayezid II by advancing into Anatolia, or perhaps by declaring war on his neighbor the Mamluk Empire, because of their differ- ences in religious beliefs as Sunnis. In other words, if Selim was in disagreement with Ismail, because of their differ- ences in religious beliefs, as according to Toynbee's view, he would not have stopped his advancement after partial success- ful campaigns all his military activities to direct them.toward the Mamluks, who held the same religious beliefs as the Otto- mans. Instead, would he not have made the Mamluks an ally against the common enemy, the Safawis? Considering this, we cannot say that Ismail had much more ambition in imperialistic dreams than Selim I. Selim I apparently did not mind fighting either the Shiites or the Sunnis as long as he could satisfy his desire to conquer. The conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Safawis may have had political and religious motives of its own. we cannot say, however, that the Ottoman invasion of the Mamluk *See p.122 134 Empire was merely a result of the continuing severe conflict between the two states of the Ottomans and the Persians, regardless of other main motives. However, we can say that Selim took the Opportunity of being close to the Mamluk territory and having defeated the Safawis to then execute his plan of invading the Mamluks. Selim's conflict with the Safawis had its own reasons which are not totally related to his conflict with the Mamluks. Ismail Shah, after he succeeded in forming Persia piece by piece, into a country and in making Shiism the official religion in his kingdom,86 had begun a career of conquest that lasted from 1500-1512. Successively, Ismail Shah in the first decade of the sixteenth century, conquered most of Kurdistan, north of MeSOpotamia, and Baghdad. Several events occurred which undoubtedly then made Selim think seriously about the danger of the rise of Ismail's power. In the political sphere Ismail had taken advantage of the pacifist tendencies of Bayezid II by making two invasions, in 1505 and 1507, across the Ottoman frontier in the direction of Sebin Karahisar. Ismail's aim was to isolate Alaedevelet of Dulkadr in his efforts to bestride the Euphrates and occupy Diyar Bakir. To prove his intention that he had no plan of invading either the Ottoman or the Mamluk territories, he sent two ambassadors, one named Culibech, to Bayezid of the Ottomans and the other named ZaccarebeCh to el-Gawri of the Mamluks, swearing by his head and other oaths, that he would do them no harm, and he only wished to destroy his enemy 87 Alaeldevlet. Alaeldevlet was defeated in the upper valleys 135 of the Tigris and the Euphrates were absorbed,88 and thereby had come close to the Ottomans and the Mamluks. Even though these territories were claimed by both the Ottaman and Mamluk Empires, there is no clear evidence to show Ismail's inten- tion to invade the Ottoman territories. If Ismail had thought to do this, he would not have busied himself during the years 1509-1512 in marginal wars on the eastern front and remained apparently satisfied with the successful campaigns that he completed after becoming the real heir of Timur‘s 89 empire. Another issue which undoubtedly stirred the feel- ings of Selim, was his belief that Ismail was acting behind 90 Selim.thought the spread of Shiism in the Ottoman domain. that Ismail made use of his father, Bayezid's, tolerant atti- tude to encourage his political agent Shah Kuli, to break into an open rebellion.* Toynbee supports this belief that Ismail wanted to spread his religious beliefs in Anatolia by the use of force.91 To this researcher it seems that although it can- not be denied that Ismail Shah probably desired to spread the Shiism, it does not really mean that he was behind the movement in Anatolia. There is no clear evidence that supports the idea that Ismail had any role in the rebellion which Shah Kuli undertook. Besides, Ismail during this time of the year 1511 *In the spring of 1511, amongst the adherents of the Savawis, and under the leadership of Shah Kuli, a great revolt broke out in Tekke. He (Shah Kuli) preached the end of the Ottoman domination, declaring that Ismail Shah was the incarnation of the Godhead, and he himself the guided one who would restore the rule of a truebeliever.92 136 was heavily engaged in the eastern frontier in Khurasan.93 Ismail, by defeating his last enemy to the north in 1514, the Usbeks under Sheibani Khan, at the Battle of Merr,94 undoubtedly became something different in the eyes of the Ottoman Sultan. Selim probably considered the large expansion of territories accomplished by Ismail. To the east of Persia lay only weak India and to the south only the Indian Ocean. Sultan Selim I decided to invade Persia. Two other events likely prompted this decision. These two events were the asylum which Persia gave the sons of Ahmed, his nephews and competitors for the throne of the Ottomans,95 and the attempt of Ismail Shah to bring Egypt into a leage 96 The latter event is of great import- against the Ottomans. ance as it affected seriously, the Ottoman relations with the Safawis and with the Mamluks. This alliance stirred Selim's anger because it occurred between two different nations with different religious beliefs. Although the Safawis and the Mamluks became allies, there was no evidence to show that their alliance was practical for both did not honor their agreement to support one another. 'Another important piece of evidence which indicates that Selim did not intend to expand his holdings deep into Persian land, rather than towards the Mamluk territories, regardless of their disagreements over religious beliefs was Selimis immediate halt after his successful campaigns against Persia, and his turn towards the Mamluks. Selim marched via Kenya and Sivas into Persian territory which was laid waste by 137 Ismail's orders. In August 1514, Selim defeated Ismail's army at the Battle of Caldiran, and later he entered Tabriz 97 From this point there is no evidence to show in triumph. that Selim did proceed further into Persian territory. This indicates his main concern was not a religious expansion, but a territorial expansion even in Sunni territories. Also, by examining letters exchanged between Selim I and el-Gawri, it appears to the researcher that Selim's tendencies, without a doubt, were towards the Mamluk Empire. After the Battle of Caldiran in 1514, Selim marched upon the principalities of East Anatolia (which were regarded by the Mamluks as their protectorates) and occupied by them one after another. Allaedevlet, now one of the strongest supporters of the Mamluks, was killed by Selim in 1516.98 Then Selim sent a letter written in Arabic to el-Gawri explaining that he planned to defeat and clear the eastern territories from the Qizilbash, and asked el-Gawri not to pay attention if the Qizilbash asked for military support.99 There was no reply from el-Gawri which indicates his anger and discomfort regarding this and what had happened to his ally Allaedevlet. In another letter written in Arabic to el-Gawri in 1516, Selim tried to justify his attacks on the Qizilbash as merely a fulfillment of the 100 Probably order of Islam to fight infidels and wrongdoers. knowing the real intentions of Selim to move toward the Mamluks, el-Gawri sent the Ottoman sultan a letter in order to mediate between Selim.and the Qizilbash. It seems to the researcher that el-Gawri was attempting to examine the Ottoman sultan for 138 his real plans. el-Gawri explained in the letter that be- cause most of the subjects in east Anatolia were Sunni Muslims and because Ismail Safawi had been defeated, it would not be a good idea to go beyond this defeat.101 It appears, however, that Selim had already decided to go no further into Persia after the battle of Caldrin, and his army was already on its way towards the Mamluks. In a letter to el—Gawri, Selim threatened the Mamluk Empire as it was his main target. In his letter he said: In the beginning our concern was to defeat the infidel Qizilbash in order to revive Islam in those territories. But after, it was clear to us that your behavior was not good, when you asked to mediate between me. and the apostates. I am coming to teach 10 you a lesson for you are worse than them- So, in summary, the difference in religious beliefs held by the Sunnis and the Shiites, contributed to the overall motiva- tion for the Ottomans to march upon the Mamluks in that religious causesbrought the Ottoman advancing toward the east and once there, they took advantage of being close to the ‘Mamluk territories to begin their attack upon them. Another factor which could be considered a secondary reason for the final Mamluk-Ottoman confrontation, was the continual and growing dispute concernihg the border states of east Anatolia. The regions of southeast Anatolia, particularly those on the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Mamluk Empire on the other side were of great importance for both powers. Mbst of these regions were under the protection of the Mamluks prior to the conquest. They were particularly 139 concerned, therefore, about maintaining their control over these areas bordering the Ottoman and the Persian states. The Ottomans also looked to these areas as a place to insure the strength of their boundaries. Both sides made concen- trated efforts in order to bring these regions under their influence, appointing governors who functioned much like vessels, and apparently regarding the regions as buffer zones between themselves and their rivals. The efforts finally contributed to serious conflict and real confrontation between the larger powers. A region which caused serious strain in the Mamluk- Ottoman relationship prior to the conquest, was Dulkader. The conflict arising from the larger powers' desires to con- trol this area, was described in detail in the previous chapter. we have also seen how this principality played off both the Mamluks and the Ottomans, changing allegiance depending on which of the two offered the better chance for security. This sort of practice continued in the time of Sultan Selim I. When Selim marched with his troops upon the Safawis, Alaedevlet did not support him for he was one of the Mamluk's clients. Selim, upon his return after his victorious battle of Caldrin over the Persians, gave an order to the Porte Sinan Pasha to attack Alaedevlet.* The attack of the porte upon Alaedevlet resulted in the defeat of the latter. He was replaced by Ali Shah Sawar, *See p. 156. 140 a client of the Ottomans. This defeat of Alaedevlet destroyed the Mamluk political influence in the Dulkader principality. It consequently motivated el-Gawri to send an envoy to Selim with a diplomatic letter, notifying Selim that his action was ill-received. It also told Selim that the father of the new governor Shah Sawar was previously a troublemaker and perpetra- tor of hostilities between Rome and the Muslim.states; the father had been killed in Cairo for such actions. The letter to Selim also advised that the political situation in Dulkader be restroed to its previous system. Selim's response was an angry letter to el-Gawri. Instead of following el-Gawri's demands he insisted that he would never change his mind regard- ing what he had done. Details regarding these letters will be discussed in Chapter Four in connection with the events lead- ing up to the conquests of Egypt by the Ottomans. In summary, there appear to be numerous motives which contributed to the Ottoman desire to conquer the Mamluk Empire. These were summarized and categorized by the researcher as: (1) the revenge motive, the desire of the Ottomans to punish the Mamluks for harboring their own rivaling princes and to thwart the continual stuggles by the Ottoman princes for the throne; (2) the economic motive, or the desire of the Ottomans to gain land and wealth by expanding southwards down both shores of the Red Sea and of the Persian Gulf, and by standing up against the Portuguese who had diverted the Indian trade route through Egypt to their new cape route around Africa; (3) the pplitical motives, consisting of the war-like personality of 141 of Selim I and his dream to rule over a vast empire; (4) the religious motive, or apparent desire by the Ottomans to spread their specific religious beliefs; and (5) the border state control motive, the will of the Ottomans to stop the continual Mamluk-Ottoman skirmishes over control of smaller bordering territories. By comparing these motives, it seems to the researcher, that the first three of the motives listed above can be viewed as major motives. The revenge and the economic motives described in the preceding pages, can equally be seen as intertwined and related to the primary motive of_Selimis imperialistic dream, He needed to acquire more goods and more capital in order to give his government and his armies strength to attain a hold over a large portion of the world. The last two motives can be considered as minor or secondary motives, in fact justifications for the more significant motive of Selimis desire to control a large and powerful reaLm. The religious factors were simply additional reasons that fed the Ottoman's eventual plan to march upon Egypt. The border states disputes were also part of a larger struggle over balance of power between Persia, the Mamluks and the Ottomans, and the latter's attempt to stop these disputes was not merely a wish to bring peace to East Anatolia, but a dream to gradu- ally add land to a growing empire and gradually to bring its influence closer to the larger and more desirable territories of the Mamluk Empire. Similar encroachments can be seen throughout history and even today. For example, the Russian 142 invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 can be viewed as its desire to tip the balance of power in the Middle East in its favor, particularly in light of the strength the United States gained in the area during the reign of Egypt's Sadat. Selim's move toward control in East Anatolia was a similar attempt progressively to gain hold over a larger area. ENDNOTES Halil, Inalick. The Ottoman Empire, the Classical Age 1300-1600. Trans. by Norman ItZkowitz and Colin Imber. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973, p. 59. M.A. Cook. A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976, p.748. F. Babinger. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Trans ‘from the German by Ralph Manheim, edited with preface by William C. Hickman, Princeton University Press, 1978, p. 441. Muhammad Fareed Bey. Tarih el-Dowiah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah Istanbul. Muhammed Efendi Matbaah. 61896, p. 51-52.‘ Abdulrahman Sharef, Tarih-i Devlet-i Osmaniyye Istanbul 1931, p. 116-124. Stanford Shaw; Histor of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. 1, Empire of the Gasis: The Rise and’Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808. Cambridge University Press,i1976, p. 37-39. Ibn Tagri Birdi. Hawadith el-Duhur Theil el-Suluk. Manu- script in IstanbuI Aye Sofia Library No. 3185, p.361. Muhammad Fareed Bey Tarih el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah, p. 68-87, Abdulrahman'SharEI, p. 189-190. Ibn Iyas Muhammad Ibn Ahmed. Bada'l az-zuhur fi Waqa'l ad-duhur. Cairo: Matabi el-Shab,_1960, p.7504. Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall. Historie de l'empire Ottomane, Vol. 1, Paris, Imprimerie de Bethune et plon, 1844, p. 351. S. Creasy, Histopy of the Ottoman Turks Beirut: Khayats, 1961, p. 115. Ismail Hikmet, Sultan Cem. Istanbul: Milli Egitim.Basimeri, 1951, p. 109. Unknown author. Tarih el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah, Manuscript in Dar eI-Kutub, Cairo: unsete53'ue. 42 p. 110 Ibn Iyas, p. 505, Ismail Hikmet, Sultan Cem, p. . Muhammed Fareed Bey, p. 79. 143 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 144 S. Creasy. History_of the Ottoman Empire, p. 115. Hammer, p. 352. Abdulrahman Sharef, p. 190. Muhammed Fareed Bey, p. 69. Hammer, p. 352. Ismail Hakki Vzuncarsili, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. II, Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1964, p. 167. Hammer, p. 352-3, S. Creasy, p. 116. Ibid., p. 354-5. Muhammed Fareed Bey, p. 79. S. Creasy, p. 119-120, Ismail Hakki, p. 172. Hammer, p. 357-368. Muhammed Fareed Bey, p. 79-80, S. Creasy, p. 120. S.N. Fisher. The Foreign Relations of Turkey 1481-1512, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1948, p. 106. Istanbul, TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi (Archives) E. No. 6357. (This is a document which registered the jeziah (taxes) levied upon the regions of Sakis, Anatolia, and Romuli). Ibn Iyas, p. 779-780. Ibid., p. 780-81. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi, E. 6944 (This document is an offi- cial account regarding the embassy sent by Selim to Egypt to observe what sorts of means were being used to support his son financially). S.N. Fisher. The Foreign Relations of Turkey, p. 106. Feridun Bey. Munshaat Il-Muluk wal-Salatin, Vol. I, ConstantinOple, 1858, No mention of the publisher, pp. 357-358. Ibid., p. 357-58. S.N. Fisher. Foreign Relations of Turkey, p. 106. Ibid. Muhammed Fareed Bey, p. 72-73. Stanford Shaw, The History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 80. Feridun Bey, p. 373-74. Ibid., p. 374. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 145 A. DeLamartine. History of Turkey, Trans. from the French, Vol. II, New York: D. Appleton and Co.,' 1857, p. 2671. Ismail Hakki, Uzuncarsili Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. II, p. 251. Stanford Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 311. Unknown author. Tarih el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah. Manuscript in Dar el-Kutub, Cairo: Undated p. 32. Halil Inalick, The Ottoman Empirey p. 32. Muhammed Fareedeey, p. 73. w. Muir. The Mamluks or Slave Dynasty of Egypt 1260-1517. Amsterdam OrientaliPress, 1968, p. 197. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi, E. No. 7143. S. N. Fisher. The Foreign Relation of Turkey, p. 110. De Lamartine. History of Turkey, p. 262-3, S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman-Turks, p. 130. Ibn Iyas, p. 866. Ibid., p. 1015-1016. gpgq., p. 1028. 121d., p. 1058, 1073, 1127-29. Frederick Charles Danvers. The Portuguese in India, Vol. I, p. 38-45. A. Torayah Sharaf. AiShortinstory of Geographical Discovery, London: George G. Harrap and Co. Ltd., 1967, p.176-77. R. Coupland. East Africa and Its Invaders, Oxford: At The Clarendon Press;_2nd’ed., 1958, p. 42. Elspeth Huxley. In the Wake of da Game. London: Skeffington and Son, Limited, 2nd ed., 1955, p. 23-24. A. Torayah Sharaf. A Short History of Geographical Discovery,L p. 166-67, JOhn B. Harrison and Richard’ETisullivan, A Short History of Western CivilizationLan ed., New York: Alfred'AT Knapf{—1966, p. 333. The Editors, "Christopher Columbus", The Encylopedia Britannica Vol. 4, London: EncycIOpedia Britannica, W2. R. Coupland. East Africa and its Invaders, p. 42. Torayah Sharaf. A ShortiHistory ofiGeographical Discovery, p. 169. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 146 Eila Muriel Joyce Campbell. "Gama, Vasco Da" The EncyclOpedia Britannica, Vol. 7, London: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. , 1979, p. 862. Sydney Nettleton, Fisher. The Middle East, A History New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 2nd ed., 1968, p. 143. w.L. Balls. Egypt of the Egyptians, New York: C. Scriber, 1916, p. 67. A. Torayah Sharaf. A Short History of Geographical Discovery,, p. 170, Andrew C. Hess. "The Evolution of'the Ottoman Seaborne in the Age of the Oceanic Discoveries 1453- 1525. " American Historical Review 1970, p. 1905. G.W.F. Stripling. The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, Urbana: The University Of Illinois Press, 1942, p. 30. Ibn Iyas, p. 736. G.W.F. Stripling. The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, p. 30. J;W. Jeudwine. Studies in Empire and Trade, London: Longmans, Green and Co. ,‘1923, p. 130. Sir John Glubb. Soldiers of Fortune, The Story of the Mamluks, New York. iStein andeay Publishers, 1973, p. 418. R. Coupland. East Africa and Its Invaders, p.47. A. C. Hess,"The Evqution of the Ottoman Seaborne In The Age of the Oceanic Discoveries, p. 1909. Afonso, Albaquerque. The Commentaries of the Great Afonso Alba uer ue. Vol. III, Translatedifrom.the Portuguese Edition of 1774 by Walter De Gray Birch, London: Printed for the Hakluya Society, 1880, p. 126-128. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 14. Bailey, W. Diffie and George D. Winius. Foundations of the Portu ese Em ire 1415-1580 . ‘Minneapolis: University of Mifinesota Press, I977, p. 230-31. Ibid., p. 231. Ibid. Ibid. Ibn Iyas, p. 787. Mahmud Rizq Saleem el-Ashraf Kansuh el-Gawri, Cairo: El-Dar el-Masria, p. 120. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 147 Ibn Iyas, p. 806. Mahmud Rizq Saleem, el-Ashraf Kansuh el-Gawri, p. 121. Ibn Iyas, p. 810. Mahmud Rizq Saleem, el-Ashraf Kansuh el-Gawri, p. 117. Lamartine, p. 277. Dorothy M. Vaughan. Europe and the Turks: A Pattern of Alliance, Liverpodl: Wilmer Brother & Co.,‘lst ed., 1954, p. 122. A.C. WOod. A History of the Levant Company, London: Frank Cass and Company, Ltd., 2nd ed., 1964, p. 8. 0.6.3. Crawford. The Fung Kingdom of Sennar, Gloucestor, 1751, p. 321. Monjem Pasha Ahmed Dedah. Sahaif el-Akbar Fi Waqei el- Asar, Vol. 2, Istanbul: A Manuscript in TopKapi Sarayi, A. No. 2954, p. 1177. (The following documents are diplomatic letters exchanged be- tween governmental leaders). 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 13. E. 6185. Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 8 E. 6185. Turkey, Istanbul. TOpKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 7 E. 6185. Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi E. 6322. Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 5 E. 6185. Turkey, Istanbul. TapKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 17 E. 6185. Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi E. 6265. S. N. Fisher. The Foreign Relation of Turkey 1481-1512, Urbana, University of Illindis’Press, 1948, p. 31-42. Edward G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia, Vol. IV. Cambridge: At theiUniversity Press, 1953, p. 20. Stanley Lane-Poole, The Story of Turkey, p. 155. Lamartine. History of Turkey, Vol. 2, p. 255. Ibid., p. 268. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 148 John B. Harrison and Richard E. Sullivan. A Short History of Western Civilization, p. 31 - Crane Briton, John B. ChristOpher, Robert Lee Wolff, A History of Civilization, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Ific., 1960, p. 393-435. East Gordon. Historical Geography of Europe, London: 2nd ed., Matheun and Co. Ltd., 1943, p. 320. Crane Briton, John B. Christopher, Robert Lee Wolff. A History of Civilization, p. 519-21. M. Philips,Price. History of Turkey,_London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1911, p. 47. Sir John Glubb. Soldiers of Fortune, The Story of the Mamluks , p . 453 . Ibid., p. 432. G. W'.F. Stripling, The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, p. 45. Arnold J. Toynbee. A Study of History, Vol. 1, Oxford: University Press, 2nd ed., 1935, p. 347-8. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, undated, p. 123. ALS.M.H., al-Tabatabai. Shiite Islam, New York: State University of New York Pres , 1975, p. 66. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, p. 108. Ibid., p. 109-110. Ibid., p. 111-118. Stanley Lane-Poole. The Story_of Turkey, New York: G. P. Putnam.'s Sons, 1888, .p. 155. Arnold J. Toynbee. A Study of History, Vol. I, p. 365. M.A. Cook. A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730, Cambridge: Gambridge University Press,’l976, p. 65. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travels in PersiaI p. 118. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, p. 55. 149 95. Lamartine. History of Turkey, p. 264. Stanley Lane- Poole. The Story of Tufkey, p. 155. 96. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia in the Fifteenth and SiXteenth Centuries,_ p. 1214122. 97. E.S. Creasy. History of the Ottoman Turks, p. 139. E.G. Browne. Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, pp. 75-76. Ibn Iyas, p. 934. 98. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travelers in Persia, p. 123, Ibn Iyas, p. 970. 99. Feridun, p. 411-413. lOO.Ibid., p. 419-421. 101.jpgg., p. 423-424. 102.;pgg., p. 426-427. CHAPTER 4 THE COURSE OF THE CONQUEST In this chapter the events of the conquest will be described and analyzed in chronological order. First the relationship between Sultan Selim I and Sultan Kansuh el- Gawri will be considered, then the battle of Marg Dabig and the defeat of the Mamluks in Cairo will be examined. The following questions will be addressed in this chapter: - What sort of a relationship developed between el-Gawri and Selim? Was it characterized by honesty and openness or was it a continuation of the bad feelings between the Mamluks and the Ottoman sultans before them? - Which if either of the two leaders, was the more stubborn in terms of ignoring opportun- ities for renewed peace? Which, if either of them, took advantages to gain power over the other? - Did the relationship of el-Gawri and Selim lead to the eventual confrontation between the Ottomans and the Mamluks? If so, which leader was the more responsible? 150 151 - Who started the first march upon the other in the final confrontation? - What form did the conquest take in its early stages? Was it small border struggles, or a siege upon the capital? - What factors contributed to the victories by either side? Can they be attributed to the number of troops? loyalty of the soldiers? sOphistication and numbers of weapons? strong leadership? - What factors contributed to the final destruc- tion of the Mamluk Empire by the Ottomans? Was it acts by traitors? size and power of the Ottoman forces? 'weaknesses in the Mamluk government? internal crises in the Mamluk society? - Did the Mamluks' reluctance to strike first against the Ottomans contribute to their final downfall? - was the course of the conflict consistent for the Ottomans or did the struggle change between easy and difficult maneuvers? The Relationship Between Sultan Selim I and Sultan Kansuh el- 9931 A close examination of the relationship between the Ottoman Sultan Selim I and the Egyptian el-Gawri, will pro- vide further understanding of the Ottoman-Mamluk relationship 152 which was described in Chapter Two. A study of the two leaders and their feelings and actions toward one another will also provide insights to help us determine who started the war and who first marched upon the other. The following pages also contain details about the activities of Selim giving us an even clearer picture of his personality, his ambitions, and his imperialistic motives of expansion which he set forth in a careful and well organized plan. Like the ever-changing relationship between the two empires in the decades preceding the invasion, the relationship between Selim I and el-Gawri fluctuated con- siderably. By examining the correspondence exchanged between the two, one can see that their association was sometimes amiable and at other times colored by suspicion and caution. Finally, it deteriorated to tension, with both parties threat- ening one another. In the end it was war. The tone of their correspondence was markedly different from those letters which el-Gawri exchanged with Bayezid 11. Secret correspondences marked with loyalty and friendship were, however, exchanged between Selim I and Khair Bey the Mamluk governor of Aleppo. In 1511 a secret letter accompanied by costly gifts was sent by Selim to Khair Bey, its purpose being to emphasize their friendship. In reply, Khair Bey thanked Selim, and stated that both countries should not be considered separate states. He noted that he was ready to attempt to achieve anything Selim asked. In part of the letter Khair Bey writes: 153 . . our countries are just one empire . to your Majesty, I am your servant who awaits to hear any of your decrees or orders, to fulfill whatever wishes you desire; I hear and obey.1 This letter and others from Khair Bey were sent without mention or acknowledgement of the central government of Egypt. Upon learning of the correspondence and considering Khair Bey's actions as treasonous, Siby., the governor of Damascus, warned el-Gawri of Khair Bey. Citing disloyalty and partiality towards the Ottomans, he suggested that Khair Bey be killed.2 el-Gawri, however, was busy in preparation for his first military expedition (which he sent to Aleppo to watch over conditions resulting from conflicts between Selim.and Shah Ismail). The sultan disregarded the advice of Siby.3 Meanwhile, Selim's army had been advancing from Edirne intending to attack the Persians. Upon el-Gawri's dispatch of his new expedition, the Ottoman porte sent an envoy to el-Gawri to make sure that the Egyptian forces were not planning to join the Persians against the Ottomans and that there was no alliance between the.two. el-Gawri then ordered Khair Bey to reply to the Ottoman ruler. While the Ottoman forces were on their way to Persia, Khair Bey sent ' a message to them which stated his disapproval of any kind of support or alliance between the Egyptians and the Persians, and assured the Ottomans of the continuation of their friend- ship regardless of the current conflict between the Ottomans and the Persians. In addition, Khair Bey exemplified his 154 loyalty to the Ottoman sultan by providing him with news about spies from the east with information that Shah Ismail's forces were located in a place called Karkan and that the Persian army was not strong.4 The tone of Khair Bey's letter to Istanbul did not indicate an alliance between the Mamluks and the Persians. el-Gawri, however, continued to be very disturbed and suspicious of the Persians and the Ottomans, fearing that either power that might be victorious over the other would be a potential threat to the future of the Mamluks. Hearing about the Ottoman and Persian prepara- tions for war against one another, el-Gawri said, "I myself, will go to Aleppo in order to make a close observation of the two powers, the Safawis and Ibn Osman (Selim), believing that either one who wins the victory would march upon our country."5 Selim caught up with Ismail's forces in eastern Anatolia and won a decisive victory at Caldiran on August 23, 1514.6 The victory not only weakened and led to the eventual ruin of the Persians, it added the mountain regions from 7 Selim was Erzurum to Diyarkabir to the Ottoman Empire. motivated to send royal letters to the princes of the East- ern territories, to the governor of Edirne and Selimis son Suleyman, and to el-Gawri of Egypt. Khair Bey took the res- ponsibility of responding to Selim's letter. In his corres- pondence he told Selim how pleased el-Gawri and the Mamluks were with the Ottoman's victories.8 In reality, however, el- Gawri and his administration were displeased by the news of 155 the Ottoman gains over the Persians, and were wary. Khair Bey appears at this point, more than ever as a deceiver, dis- loyal to el-Gawri. The contemporary eye-witness Ibn Iyas gives this viewpoint of el-Gawri and his administration's attitude toward Selim's victory: When Selim’s envoy arrived in Egypt to tell el-Gawri about the decisive victory over the Safawis, el-Gawri gave him costly gifts and boarded him in the castle. el-Gawri did not, however, order the customary celebration and decoration of Cairo. No one could under- :Eand this irregularity nor the reasons behind However, few could believe that el-Gawri was actually pleased about the Ottoman victory. Letters and words of congratula- tions and adulation continued to be exchanged as long as there was no real confrontation between the two parties. When Selim succeeded in another victory over el- Karhani, the governor of Mardin, he sent his envoy Hassan Bey to el-Gawri with more reports of good news for the Ottomans.10 el-Gawri was undoubtedly disturbed by this news and reluctant- ly sent a letter with his envoy Jamal el-Din el-Kaitan in- forming Selim that his news was received with pleasure and happiness. In the same letter el-Gawri informed Selim.that he had given his envoy some money with which to buy certain 11 It seems ~woods necessary for important interests in Cairo. that el-Gawri had something else in mind when requesting the wood. If, for example, he desired the wood for the building of a fleet to move against Portugal, he would have mentioned that explicitly in the letter, for Portugal was an enemy 156 common to both Egypt and the Ottoman Empire at that time. It is possible that el-Gawri, sensing danger in the move- ment of the Ottomans and the proximity of their territories, felt it was time to build up a strong fleet in protection from.the audience. He was alerting the Ottomans of his in- tentions and capability to stand up against them. el-Gawri probably correctly realized that the Ottomans were not satis- fied with their victories over the Persians. That the Ottomans had also recently destroyed the principality of Alaedevelete, a close ally of the Mamluks, was a fact un- doubtedly heavy on el-Gawri's mind. The Ottoman ambassador had recently arrived in Cairo and had presented the Egyptian sultan with Alaedevelete's head.12 Shortly thereafter the tone in the letters exchanged by Selim I and el-Gawri developed into that of cruelty and obstinacy. When el-Gawri sent his ambassador to Selim asking for his reasons behind closing the trade routes in east Anatolia, Selim replied: If you disagree with what I have done. and you persist with your disagreement, what my god has destined will ome true. The matter is in God's hands.lg Despite the tone of preceding paragraphs in the letter which indicates that it was not the Ottoman's objective to compli- cate the relations between the two powers, and despite the fact that the letter contained no indication of Ottoman designs on Egyptian territories, el-Gawri now began to sus- pect the intentions of Selim, According to the Mamluk's 157 undercover investigator, intelligence reports declared that the Ottomans were amassing forces on the Syrian border. War now seemed to be inevitable. It does not appear that Selim intended to continue his warfare with the Persians, and not with the Mamluks as his letters to the Egyptians had hinted. His victory over the Persians and the principality of Dulkadir brought his new borders adjacent to the borders of the Mamluks. Selim apparently saw a good opportunity in an internal crisis in the Mamluk government to aggravate hard feelings between him- self and the Egyptians. Young Mamluks began to mutiny with demands for the abolition of extra taxes, for the payment of their late salaries, and for the end to arbitrary confisca- tion of their money and belongings. el-Gawri appeared almost at the point of giving up his position saying, "I never wanted to be sultan. Let me go somewhere else. Choose an- other sultan."14 According to Ibn Iyas the young Mamluks took advantage of these unstable conditions and began looting in Cairo. Finally, the emirs begged el-Gawri to satisfy the protestors' demands and asked him.to change his mind about resigning. Agreeing to their requests, el-Gawri made a speech in which he reprimanded the young Mamluks, saying, "Do not be angry. The enemy, the Ottomans, are ready to attack us. Ibn Osman (Selim) is declaring war upon us. It is necessary for us to prepare a new military expedition."15 Selim.and el-Gawri openly made clear their distrust of one another. Their mutual concern over Persia, which was no 158 longer a large threat, could no longer be used as a point of friendship between them. Both governments began to prepare openly for war. For the Mamluks el-Gawri did not hesitate, according to the contemporary writer Ibn Iyas, to make an alliance with the Shah Ismail of Persia.* He secretly sent the Persians a number of elephants.16 el-Gawri's second step in preparation for war was to gather and organize all of his forces. Every Mamluk that could bear arms was equipped and marched toward Syria, leav- ing only a few thousand of the very old or young or sick to guard Egypt itself. Outfitting such an expedition took longer than anticipated, however. Led by Kansuh el-Gawri, the troops set out from Cairo on May 17, 1516, a full sixteen days later than their projected departure date. Meanwhile the Turks had advanced nearer to Egypt.17 Kansuh and his men were met with receptions of mixed feelings as they began their march through the Mamluk north- ern territories. Palestine and Syria, for example, showed a display of loyalty to the Mamluk regime by receiving the sultan's representative with celebrations and honors. In Damascus, however, during a jubilant ceremony in honor of the * . While there is no extant evidence to show that a formal pact was made between el-Gawri and the Persians at this time it does seem probable. Ibn Iyas was a writer who lived in E ypt at that time, and el-Gawri would have been prompted to mafie suchu: move when recognizing Selim's intent to march upon the Maml s. 159 sultan's expeditionary force, a degree of indifference and, perhaps, a lack of respect for their leaders was shown by the Mamluk people. For instance, when Kansuh was showered in praise with gold and silver coins, he was nearly pushed from his horse by his slave tr00ps scrambling for the'money.18 From Damascus, Kansuh's forces went to Homs, and from.there to Hamah, and finally, Aleppo where he arrived on July 10, 1516. Selim had sent an embassy which met Kansuh el-Gawri. Headed by Rukneddin and Karaja Pasha, the embassy informed Kansuh el-Gawri of the bad behavior of the Qizilbash (supporters of the Persians) and their bloody destruction in parts of the country. According to Selim, these individuals were "worse than Christians". The embassy explained that it was the responsibility of the sultan to fight these people. el-Gawri was told of Selimfs prepara- tion of an army. The embassy also implored el-Gawri to pray ‘with them, and to tell the peOple of the Holy Cities to pray, to ask God's help in executing the law of Islam.and in defeating the Qizilbash.19 In another letter from Selim to el-Gawri, Selim responded to the latter's request for building supplies and carpenters. Selim began the letter with flattering words, calling el-Gawri "protector of Islam” and "Of the holy cities", but told him that while he could have the supplies, “werkers could not be sent. Selim needed them to build one hundred ships of his own.20 160 The response of el-Gawri to Selimis messages was not one of complete agreement with Selimis actions. He argued that Selim should not fight against the Qizilbash any longer because most of them were fellow Sunnis and that Selim should be satisfied with his victories now. el- Gawri informed Selim that he would be coming with his troops to the eastern front in order to mediate between Selim.and the Safawis.21 The Battle of Marg Dabig and the Defeat of the Mamluks in 92.122. The events which followed should have, if history followed past events, taken a different course. The Ottomans had lost all previous battles between the two states. The Mamluks appeared to have Persia on their side. The Ottomans were not, however, to lose this time. Rather, it was soon to become the leading power in the Middle East. It was a battle for world power. Selim must have realized this (as well as the precarious position the Ottomans were in with the'Mamluks so close at hand). He apparently also had decided that time was important, and a victory necessary before the Persians and the Mamluks actually took steps to combine forces. The Ottoman troops under Selim and Sinan Pasha marched east toward Malatya. They were planning to wait for the next move by the Persians, who were in the province of Diyarbekir, northeast of Syria, which the Ottomans had seized from the Persians in 1515, and the next move of the 161 Mamluks, now in Aleppo.22 Selim did not enter the town, however, which was still under the control of Kansuh el- Gawri, apparently still hoping to prevent war. By the end of July the Mamluks had left Aleppo. Upon hearing this news, a council of the Ottomans a few days laterf decided that war with the Mamluks was inevit- able. They gave up their campaign against the Persians and on August 5, marched toward Aleppo and the Mamluks. At the same time a special messenger from.the Egyptians, the dawadar (secretary) Mughulbey Sikkin, came with hopes of opening communication lines between the two enemies. In- sulted by the fact that a military man was being sent as an envoy and perhaps remembering the recent harsh treatment of his own embassy by the Mamluks, Selim had the Egyptians' entourage killed. A high official of Selimfs court, Yunus Pasha, convinced his sultan not to murder Mughulbay. In- stead the Memluk envoy was sent home on a lame mule, his hair and beard shorn, and his head covered with a night cap.23 Kansuh knew that the insult meant that a battle was just around the corner. Kurtbay was sent by el-Gawri to scout the surround- ing countryside. He found that the people of the territories north of Aleppo were hostile towards the Mamluks. Their governor, Yunus Bey, had already pledged support to Selim, Selim, according to Kurtbey, had set out from Antep and con- tinued to march upon other fortresses such as Kuri, Divirgiv, Darende, and Malatya. All routes out of Anatolia were now in Selim's possession.24 162 North of Aleppo there was a place called Marj Dabig,25 at which both powers met and recorded the most important battle in the history of both states, and a battle which marked a turning point in the history of the Middle East. Diplomatic letters and attempted peace missions during the past few years had failed to re- establish friendship between the two empires. The exact numbers of the troops on both sides cannot be definitely determined. The French historian De La Martine cites that the Mamluk troops numbered approximately 50,000.26 Stanley Lane-Poole writes of the leaders of the Mamluk army numbering fifteen princes and el-Gawri's special forces totaling between 5,000 to 14,000.27 Poole does not attempt to estimate the combined number of both forces, citing the lack of any mention of such a figure in his sources as his justification. According to contemporary writers on the battle, such as Ibn Iyas and Ibn Zunbul, the figures.mentioned by Poole seem to be the best estimation. Ibn Iyas wrote that el-Gawri's special forces were about 5,000 in number, and also mentioned that there were other forces of the Mamluks from different sections of the society who joined the 28 battle. Ibn Zunbul's estimation of 13,000 is also very close to what Poole cites as the Mamluk numbers. His estima- 29 Estimations of the tion of the Ottomans is 150,000. Ottoman tr00ps may show the biased opinions of historians. Matrakzi Nasuh, in his manuscript Fethname, mentioned that the Ottoman troops were about 60,000 and the Mamluk troops 163 were 80,000.30 Nasuh, however, was an Ottoman himself and it seems to the researcher that this fact should be kept in mind. Perhaps his estimation is biased. It appears to this researcher that these larger figures are great over- estimations and the smaller figures cited by the contemporary sources, such as Ibn Iyas and Ibn Zunbul, are much more accurate. At dawn on August 24, 1516, the decisive battle between the two powers began. According to a description by Ibn Iyas, el-Gawri was riding a horse and on his right side rode the caliph, el-Mutawkil a1 allah, accompanied by a number of nobles bearing approximately forty copies of the Koran carried in yellow silk bags,31 apparently indicating the Mamluks hope that God was on their side. Ibn Iyas also mentioned that behind el-Gawri was the Mamluk commander, Sunbul, the four kadis, and the prince Zurdkash, the chief steward of the weapon-makers. The right wing was under the leadership of Siby, the governor of Syria, and the left wing was under the leadership of Khair Bey, the governor of Aleppo. In the middle the heart of the force was led by Sudun el-Ajami.32 As for the Ottoman army, the right wing 'was headed by Sinan Pasha, and the left wing led by Yunus Pasha. The heart of the Ottoman troops were led by Selim himself accompanied by his special force, the Janissaries.33 In the first stage of the battle the Mamluks were victorious and, according to Mamluk sources, about 20,000 164 soldiers of the Ottomans were killed. The Mamluk sources also state that Selim at this point, attempted to retreat 34 The Ottoman sources and proposed a peace settlement. make no mention of these details which indicates that the Mamluk figure of Ottomans killed may be biased, and their account of Selimis attempted retreat untrue. At this critical point, an incident occurred which caused dissension and division in the Mamluk army. Khair Bey the governor of Aleppo, began to commit treason against the Mamluks, by spreading a rumor through the forces that el-Gawri made an order to his Julban soldiers to stop 35’ According to Ibn fighting until new orders were prepared. Iyas and Ibn Zunbul, the news spread like wildfire and the result was confusion among the trooPs. The confusion and rumor of the order to stOp fighting prompted some of the other soldiers to confront el-Gawri, saying, "We are fighting against the army while you stand there looking at us with innocent eyes. Why don't you make an order to your special Mamluks to go to the battle site instead of us."36 They were apparently displeased about the supposed indecisiveness of their leader. Also adding discouragement and frustration among the soldiers was the death in the battle, of Sudan el- Ajami, the commander of the middle forces, and death of Siby, who led the right wing. This led to the desertion of many soldiers, as well as the soldiers of the left wing who 37 departed with Khair Bey. Before leaving, Khair Bey started a second rumor that el-Gawri had given word that the Mamluks 165 were on the verge of defeat and that the sultan had said, "Escape, escape! Selim surrounds us and we are defeated." The result was the collapse of the strength of the Mamluk army, which forced el-Gawri to stand alone with a small number of men to struggle against the Ottomans. According to the contemporary sources, el-Gawri called in vain for his troops to return, and a moment which affected him deeply, was when Zurdkash, the chief steward of the weapon-makers came with the rolled-up Mamluk flag and urged him to flee to safety. It was at this moment, according to Ibn Iyas, that el-Gawri became paralyzed and fell from his horse and died.39 Details regarding el-Gawri's death have been debated by historians. Ibn Iyas adds to his account that the Mamluk sultan's body was never found, as if it was swallowed by the 40 earth. Von Hammer, supported by De Lamartine, says that el-Gawri was surrounded by a large group of sipahis as he was hurled from his horse by a Savus who cut off the Mamluk leader's head and took it to Selim attached by its wheat 41 beard to the pommel of his saddle. According to his version, the behavior was ill-received by Selim.who was indigent at the outrage to old age, to the throne, and to heroism, and had the Savus put to death.42 In another story given by Ibn Zunbul, however, one of the Mamluk princes named Allan wanted to sever el-Gawri's head from.his body so it could be buried and hidden from the Ottomans to prevent its display by the victors. Ibn Zunbul says Allan carried out this plan.43 166 Ibn Tulun says that the head of el-Gawri was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul and the body was buried on the battle- field.44 There is also a manuscript by an unknown author in the library of TopKapi Sarayi which mentions an Ottoman individual named Alakuz Bey who found the body of el-Gawri on the battlefield and brought its severed head to Selim.45 The words spread by Khair Bey which eventually led to the destruction of the Mamluk army and the death of el- Gawri were, according to this researcher, falsehoods perpet- rated by a traitor. The statements made by Khair Bey regard- ing el-Gawri and his leadership were totally opposite from what the Mamluk sultan's words and actions indicate him to have been. According to Ibn Iyas, el-Gawri spoke to the troops which were left with him.after the desertion by Khair Bey and the others saying, "This is the time, if you have any morality to stay and fight. This is the time for support and the time for bravery. . . . Ask God for help. .".46 This indicates to the researcher that el-Gawri had not been trying to mislead his men and was fully intending to fight the Ottomans. In addition, to prove this, he stood even with reduced forces against the enemy and was eventually killed. And if his reaction to the unfurled flag presented to him by Zurdkash is true, this is further evidence of his intentions to fulfill his obligations to achieve what he was responsible for--in this case, victory over the Ottomans-~as the leader of the Mamluk Empire. 167 The battle of Marj Dabig resulted, then, in the death of the Mamluk sultan el-Gawri as well as the death of many important Mamluk commanders including Sudan, Siby, Barbars, Ikby, Traby and Temzar. In addition, the Ottomans enjoyed the spoils of their victory. Selim himself cap- tured el-Gawri's command post and took money, weapons, and other items. His Ottoman commanders took the command post of the Mamluk leaders who had been killed or fled.“7 The remaining Mamluk troops first went to Aleppo. . They were met by closed gates at the city, however, and not allowed in because of the bad reputation the troops had made for themselves there previously, because of crimes and dis- ruptive behavior. They then went to Damascus, according to Ibn Iyas, with the hopes of merely surviving.48 As for Selim and his men, they peacefully entered Aleppo, and in contrast to the reception given the defeated Mamluks, were not opposed. Selimis name was soon mentioned in the daily prayers,49 an indication that the people regarded him.as the rightful leader. When the name of Selim was mentioned by the Imam as the servant of the Holy Cities, according to el-Bakri, the author of the manuscript el menah el-Rahmania Fi eldualah e1- Osmaniah, Selim then took off his vestment and put it on the Imam.50 It appears to the researcher that this was a further gesture of goodwill and a sign that Selim.felt happy in his victories over the Mamluks ES‘WEII as the Persians and that his plans for expansion were going well. 168 Khair Bey, who previously contributed to the defeat of the Mamluk army, meanwhile made a secret agreement with another Mamluk, Janbirdi al-Gazali, the governor of Gaza, to ‘work on behalf of the Ottomans. This agreement was a plan that al-Gazali should make his way to Egypt accomapnied by the Mamluk soldiers, and Khair Bey would work with Selim and once the Mamluks were defeated he would be deputy governor 51 While Khair Bey made his way to the Ottomans in of Egypt. Aleppo, Janbirdi al-Gazali joined the remaining Mamluks in Damascus. In Damascus, the Mamluks were not popular, al- though they were allowed to remain in the city. They de- clared Jarbirdi al-Gazali their governor. The situation for the Mamluks in Damascus was not favorable for them, and they lacked the military strength to face the Ottomans again. Janbirdi then took the troops and headed toward Egypt and left Nasir el-din Ibn Hanash in Damascus as governor in his place.52 In Egypt, the Mamluks apparently realized the sur- mounting dangers presented by the proximity of the Ottomans and believed that they quickly needed to build their forces and appoint a new sultan.On October 11, 1516, Toman Bey* was 153 chosen as the successor of el-Gawr and, according to *In addition to the sources which deal with the Mamluk period as a whole, the following sources have good information re- garding the life of Toman Bey. Stanley Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, 4th ed. (1968). I.M. Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages (1967). P.M; Holt, Egypt and the'Fertile Crescent, 1516-1922. W. Muir, The Mamluks 169 Ibn Iyas, was told by the people that he was the only 54 choice and must accept their will. It seems to the researcher that the throne was coveted by few people at this time. First, Toman Bey had to be persuaded to accept the position. Also, before accepting it he made the people promise not to be dishonest, nor to betray him, nor to plot against him, and he called upon them to accept his words 55 and actions. Toman Bey's hesitations can certainly be viewed as understandable considering the disloyalty and defeat el-Gawri, the previous sultan had suffered. As for Selim, he meanwhile had advanced to Damascus and entered the city on September 27, 1516. The rest of the regions of Syria did not hesitate to follow the actions of their capital, Aleppo, and Selim continued to be welcomed.56 *Continued from previous page. or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt. Sir John Glubb, Soldiers of Fortune, The Story of the Mamluks, Yusif b. Tagfiribirdi e1- Nudium al- zahara Fi’Muluk Misr we 11 Kahira, ed. Popper Berkeley I909. Ahmad al-Makrizi, al-Suluk'linflarifat Duwal al-Muluk (Part 1). Transl. E. Blochet, Paris, 1908; (part 2) Historic des Sultans tMamlouks de 1' E te, transl. E. Quatremere Paris, tie rest still in M. S. s G. A..L. ii 38, Abn '1- -Fida, Tarikk, Istanbul, 1286, al- Nuwairi, Nihayat el- Arab fi Funkin al- Adab, vol. 1 sqq. Cairo, 1342; Omar b. aI-Habib, Durat al-Aslak fi Dawlat al-Atrak (Full list of con- tents by H.E. weyers in Orientalia,ii. Amsterdam 1846). Ibn Hadjar a1-Aska1ini,Inba al- Ghumr bi Abna aL -Umr, only in M .S. (s.Brocke1mann, ii, 70); Ibn Iyas, Ta rkkfiMisr, 1311- 1312 (for the years 906- 922 only in M. S. s Brockelmann, ii, 295); igggagi, Kitab al- Tibr al-masbuk fi Dhail al- Suluk, Bulak 170 In Egypt, Toman Bey began to prepare himself in order to face the Ottomans who were signalling their dangerous presence in the area by their movements nearby. Toman Bey immediately appointed Sudun el-Shahabi as general commander of the army in place of Sudun el-Ajami who was killed in the battle of Marj Dabig. He also appointed Janbirdi a1- Gazali as governor of Syria and its districts, in place of Siby Who had also been killed in battle.58 Ibn Zunbul believed that Selim had no desire at this point to advance against and occupy Egypt now that he had acquired a hold over Syria, but Selim was influenced by Khair Bey, the governor of Aleppo, who attempted to encourage Selim.to do so by saying to the sultan: Let us go to Egypt and take it, by cutting this Circassian race and expelling them from Egypt. I assure you, with the help of God, we will be successful.59 Ibn Zunbul presents two important things. First, he shows clearly the treasonous actions of Khair Bey towards the Egyptian side. He also indicates at least a notion being considered in the Ottoman Empire, about the possibility of invading the Mamluk Empire. It is concerning this latter point, however, that the present researcher is in disagree- ment with Ibn Zunbul. It is my opinion that Selim did, in fact, plan to invade Egypt in spite of the fact that Khair Bey's letter seems to suggest the Ottoman sultan needed coax- ing. Evidence for this belief is in the form of a letter sent to Toman Bey from Selim. First, the tone of the letter 171 suggests pride by the Ottoman sultan in his latest con- 60 quests and in the strength of his army. He does not sound like a man who needs prodding to continue his at- tempts at conquering new lands. Second, the letter indi- cates the ruler's desire to be a super-power and that any difficulties to stOp him will be met with success. The letter may be translated: God revealed to me that I would someday be ruler over lands east and west like Alexander the Great. . . You (Toman Bey) are no mere than a slave that can be bought and sold. You have no right to be sultan and all powerful. . . I have descended from a line of twenty kings. I became successor to the throne with the approval of the Kadis and the Caliph. If you want to be spared from our take- over of power, make an order to put our name on your currency, and for the imams in the mosques to mention our names in the daily prayers, and we may let you be. . . . If you don't do these things, I will enter Egypt and kill every Cir— cassian, even the babies in the womb.61 To the present researcher this letter does not sig- nify any new and heretofore unconsidered plan by Selim. As we have seen in previous chapters, there were numerous reasons that contributed to the Ottoman invasion of Egypt, and it can be deduced that Selim already intended to march against the Mamluk Empire. It is my belief that Selim was simply setting the stage for further justification to march against the Mamluks, and that he hoped his orders would be ignored. Indeed, the Mamluks did not bOW'tO his threats. According to Ibn Zunbul, Selim's embassy (three persons) 172 which delivered this latest letter, were killed by the Mamluks.62 Hearing of this, Selim.crdered his commanders to begin their moves toward Egypt.- First, the Ottomans marched upon Gaza, where they met with the Mamluk army, under the leadership of Janbirdi al-Gazali. The Mamluk leader apparently felt ill-equipped to face the strong Ottoman army and according to the Ottoman sources, fled back to Cairo,63 while the Arabic sources such as Ibn Zunbul mention that he was captured.64 Whatever the sources say, al-Gazali was freed by one way or another. Sultan Selim, in his later letters announcing his conquest of Egypt, described this incident to his son Suleyman,* as an indication of loyalty to el-Gazali as he led his troops in retreat.65 It seems from the tone of this letter that al- Gazali contributed to the Ottoman victory at Gaza; further indication that the Mamluk commander acted in favor of the Ottomans that day is the fact that he was later the most in- fluential person upon Selim regarding the execution of Toman Bey.66 Toman Bey, upon hearing of the defeat of al-Gazali, was undoubtedly disappointed and disturbed and was forced to prepare his armies for Egypt with no doubt be next. Al- though he tried to face the Ottoman enthusiastically, his army, apparently feeling helpless, took the matter carelessly. * See the appendix on p. 226. 173 They returned this pay to Toman Bey, perhaps because they thought it too little for what they were to do. Toman Bey then asked his people to nominate another sultan with whom 67 In addition, Toman Bey heard some they could cooperate. of his soldiers saying, "If you are a real sultan you should follow the same path followed by your ancestors. If you want to resign, may God envoke evil upon you. Another sul- tan will replace you."68 These actions by his soldiers most likely brought pain to Toman Bey, but he responded as if he had not heard them, probably in an attempt not to draw additional atten- tion to the division and disorder among some of his troops. Instead he bravely tried to motivate his soldiers to defend Cairo by facing the Ottoman army outside of Cairo at el- Salehia.69 The soldiers, however, refused to go that dis- tance from the city and insisted they not proceed beyond the 70 nearby el-Redania. There, Toman Bey had a ditch dug all along the front lines in order to protect el-Redania, and 71 tried to organize his men and military equipment. In spite of his preparation, some of his soldiers still did not take the matter seriously, and stayed at el-Redania only 72 during the day, returning to Cairo at night. A second_ attempt by Toman Bey to take his soldiers to el-Salehia, to take the battle further from the capital, also failed.73 This poor attitude by the Mamluk soldiers, it seems, helped the Ottoman army penetrate Egypt step by step. On January 23, 1517? the Ottoman army advanced through Belbes and its *See p.173a. .23 .3333...” end use Exam Queens} .235: of mo endow one .ocaenoe mo eweeeeom .nesao ence new "momsom I - ... ,I. . . ...? £1. ..//2 .. . ... g .\ In, (. kl/ )5...» ~ } ,/-. a see: \emefl. , , o. ”.00 3%} \oseéueo it...“ I. ......- " .- .....de F... 9 ....O‘ . 9+0 ’ I h .. 3:3”... ...... ...wii&~. .- u . e 7 92235 x 3.3.... e ..§...../ 1 .2... .. .... ...... ....- ...... dung-n12...“ ...... ‘ . §,\ . 553 4< e 3...wa ....\ .3. 255325.. .23.. ...(Zn. 15.3 ... ..E 3. is. is :83. n 5.8 2.. 58.8 . a; .8: 32.8: ,. , ...... 4_.-... \. ./nuuuH..-Q . 3.8. . 331... ...f... .-.. )K\\. :8... . t cos-(bk. 9.1.: 1 4334". an... .3 .r. ...-AU \ x .o e 2 .. .V‘gkfica‘ Iota o. .. .. .n ...... .... (32.5.4 fl . . . an. 0.3.. w ...... _r1 .... 3.513 . . 33231.88. .. mar-niu broaden“... i 8...! 83 3 .. («g z353: Sofie.» . WZQ-hgmno m0 Shaw—n u>_._.13) LEA-,3 ALfi-Jlijjg 1111‘ 43“): C‘J’l: 992‘ 6.))th c—U’ 155D C‘JEJC’; Jib/‘JJ $19 wC-f-‘t {4,1 (pageyja, $11.05;) as; .t. t, .qu. . 1.2.315;- W .m .14; fl; 5914“ E.,. 11,3 «,1- -xJ-bt d;- é.‘ 619.53: 3:31» “JPN Mr‘3’: 1,6 4‘5 (LEE-1 JU (“1:99 9:15 «41‘ «U 1.3334943- 15.))“ ”(.315 4153.) L—JJC “53‘ 6:41“ 41“ r“ err-r53": “3%)?! 92"» 95“" 1.1:. 31.1., ué'c} 13:131.);123 65s.: 1..., )1 , . J... 393,31 1.1.1341 r1; ,4; by. at» sea eyes» ... ‘1‘: w; ,wa 9:35 (5799(6an an em 3 51‘“ 135-‘3‘ «19 OEK-‘z-J JG $2315: *3 1‘3“? ' 45:23.33”. new 6": 0-9) ‘79" c‘: 2‘ rL-B‘ m: J‘ (44° 5“ G‘s-“e r9159» #93941?) as; fibe- sy: fi-Ia-fL—fiu “Q3L~'L.J‘bJKJ./$ (3M 993.33.5th JK—i’: («51‘ y» 6.35 OWL-:29 LS LKCJIL: 0.5 E5 0.970599: .5)" ‘3‘“: ease-ms- .5 Lee:- ens was: 45'- as sets owe—s- a 34,-L1, 4.2351554 é.) ,1: fest. we J1.) (WK. 12.-’19 (.L‘. ,1 “(3,115). '1s1a1iux.j,...,_; ,5 31m t.Lieiah 4,0191: ru;..1\.\ j 5,151; .3351 53:9 “uing-s GUM-31.3: nil-5 41129.1: Jug-*4 d'li- 9311:: '5‘ L“: 0L;- rxJJ ‘3 sn’i 'vxfibt-efi‘ 1:33 “.3 L119! swat); 1542:: 3159);); 9:13: 9.9: 'r 1.. “a: e“: d“~‘—‘: on J33» :94: art} ~35)“ 4: L-:3 ‘9” ew‘: 9:0 9,713,946 9:49 4 9‘)“ 9‘ fl“! 6’ E“- {J-v: owe-x. 93°.» «$13K» ~31“; 40.: :l-v': J35 4?» (W Q‘EQJAQ‘? 0.2 V" 2‘56 “3.3.41.9! rlé‘ eKJErN-l‘ (411‘ C99)“: ($3M ,L_..C\ ¢H313= 15,); .1_:; ,4»:- JL;\ 02"” no, 4,4, .11} 1.14 1,11,; u_5..3,\,.,... 04.31.1111,}, 8,31»); Uta”; ”1“- 3.1.1» .p¢1_1;5, an w.L.-gab,- 1-.» 5t, .14 ,5: , ‘édL-z‘ b}- on 3.59.. gnLLL. .11 wk“ 94“" '-‘ 9:“ 3'53 20:43 “9‘49“ flat": vfidlf efi.‘ 45: .7. 1, (5,3 M «1.3.0 ,\, “1433‘ 13.-suc- asl...» £313un 5;, fur. JLal\1ésJ\,.w Lat, 31“.. “f. ,5, J.) N, asset 1. $419,312.45 9.25334 *4“ Can/3 Cd‘s) “Jr-U315, $.91 ”#35:“! J‘ “In-‘4‘ 9.9+} C54:- am we '5'“—:"J ...!- «Cf‘fi ab;- 33w} are: :4- 1.. A.” 31‘: 93‘). Jr”: 41:" ‘ .49 953‘ L91 :51: :JJ, c.3- dirt 433.315“ u’l-rvfi 615‘ O:- 513‘ c) 433431‘4h": 13:3 u): y); J‘f-‘Y‘ JA’: 051,, N1 .111, ... , J's-rump, Jun ... , 4.131; a, r" 1,1, J. 9313,131‘5‘31 ““9"" «SJ 43:: 49 J33 r5" r5“: u‘b" 41:‘ clélww JV 911:2: 3:3 61.3,: Us fauna. 21.. ML 8" .o,.-. Mpfsum ,4,sz ' 51‘5"" MH .HCDL” 333.3%} 5‘: Source: Feridun Bey Ahmed Munshaat Il-Muluk wal Salatin, Vol. I, Constantinople, 1858. 9'48 APPENDIX C '53-; a w 91’.» he 7’ ° " 12.: ’ ' .. ‘ fir: :1; Q, ’23.. ’2: 5g. . , 14 9A A?“ A as A to 0.391! ‘35th 'K R ‘\\I\ N“ An 2946*, .. 9g °A 4“ MA . - mit M146? . v1 U ‘M. A“ ‘M “but: .. o- d we. AM «a: 50M») -' M -‘\ we we. «vi .. uni-1.. «A \s. , \-C\ \M' «M wow: ~ . . .- e, . . .. y“ \..\ 49%»W' \A a \~e\ Ms! \M 31.23%? .. 8A .\ "s’, \ch \~(\ . 59593” 3.); u ‘ w v“ \«Lt (.q .999); .. UL A V“ WM V ‘1 may? ' 9‘ £0 ’.< \\'% \0 9A \09\ . 6v\dv./ , o\ < -¢ ’5: W4 \A\ yes 'gULégth' 9'1. 01 ’1, \\~'\ .\\~€ we .Zubéo’h' ’L\ A \\\O \\°\ \Nl; 7532.9” s 1. Us .\\'I.¢ \\\o (.M WLVK - '\- to \M we “.1. Mug. '\- < «L \M \\\A m. 935?»?- M f \\ \w \W\ \M wage:- n \'\ we \W \W hawk. 15 \K \«t we Mo 3056?. a; .x “a we: was [,‘IWéW o‘o “q a . we we: m4. 2939,13»- M “ ‘( \th .~ “Assn \«Adb’fiéggt o (A c5. _, 5w: - «W «94923..» .. ...-Q: mt \m «53:13:»; mangle. 236 e ' . - . \ 237 81‘ .5 by! f‘) flfié’291r‘d‘ @WJ/‘W3 (I; ”.05" {’CS’) 9m.» w my V: 3.5251,»? ~é» V» /. 2...», a), we»: 5‘5» 8}: ”we? Ken 39’» ‘1’):93‘)‘ \ a; ’3'. r f M ~. e \ N? “v," 9 s; Q’s ’3: “a ‘45 ' fi- ' on" '40? a)? if, ' ’ V- 0' VS“ ' 1“ ‘\O'\ (gétgaqége ‘ ' I A\ l'.’ _V'\ \ V¢-\ «A. $§,‘éfiw u v 0 WM v-\\ «A ,3 - _ . )erI‘JV '14: H. A09 VA\ v-\\ ,fiéwwfl' 14;. .A ast Mi v A\ ”WV '1“ (3 as " ? ‘. ‘- . A , A45. [3.1 z“1{,’>w - SOURCE: Unknown author. Tarihk a1 Dowlah el-Aliah’ el-Osmaniah, A Manuscript in Dar eI-Kutub el-Masriah, No. 42. APPENDIX D flwfdf 2. .,'.- 4.210,: ,3 Ux’JJJw’FJ ”1.2.29 ’L/ ”2,4513: 25,22." w’ :42 ’JW’IMdW/‘AJ’UM HLQ’JMI/JJ) [wag/3234,3203”, 22fo25. )1); ’1 2:2 Magi-’13)" Wu ’J' UchJIM‘JJNJU £2,262 ’ 2: 321,3, “3,2,22,32,25, ’13J’2 VLU2LMHJ/r VJ’IldJW'J’f-JJ W/Z': A1256 ,3" 2"“ 2:7/131/‘3/AH3L )1/ ’ ywuwywa’lwf‘” 91534212 V, ,diiuw-Jfa {2:17 WWW, 25’0" MMfl/gflflu/IT‘I ,3/ 12’059" 22-23 .3’2/ /’x’ J22"? ”7””? #4220147? ’2 "0’ ¢‘@’ fey/4.276 42,-2,022.26»?wa 299*”;er /,4/42 1,22 222/222552212“ 23, (.2103 0313/ MJ/dyflw’ufl’w . 7 , ' .31.,32-2/22leéuaur2a22l/3'2232waa . «£202. 25 wowwggl ”2,322.33,pr fi/VUI/IF’OWX €91 5"; 1:“ “‘ O .242. JO; UNJVIJ/u/dlwéf‘] _ ,1 Hype/W352" I..l'a. ’ . _._../ 2423430294 22215:: 2.22a'f21290,,",¢_,.,,:a: SOURCE: Monjem Pasha Ahmed Dedah. Sahaif e1 Akbar Fi Wager el-Asar, Istanbul: Topkapi Sa arayi KutubEhane (EiBrary), No.. 2.954 5: 238 APPENDIX E ”’2", fixijpwybbeuUL—dl Inf-@2927: 2.2ng 43312.2 35334.1... %.n4gg*~w ‘-:;amu~m.JLhAJH)qu-bJésl 933,0 2,12ng .sz3.) 2.579 "53:92.5 129: i . u .2 .3-.:_.22.:,_.~2 S ‘ 2 Nu»! '5~" 2223«be“:¢2225~ .. 22.-0’54} 212.2341w-»fi2yb;2u2~u33 ir~022393L~2J358j~W¢4M s—grwdjjw\q QJJJL :fiss' .1._',~.w,\j-fiu‘fifi'fiu.L *U )w.ML5'--30Juw:. L-Ji if? 2:" ..‘,,, .,:,.2.A&...;"€9 0 ”av €w~""-33'L$U€~12~U'JI‘D° “Ah—2‘ ” 0 Lip K3241,» 3*" 2- .2115.” :22) @ét":: . {22* CL JCT/J . l [...-f.) ...:- ... :2} ...):q ;:)L;‘J)VJ 55.qu ’Jfi ’3 dz,» . .I O. " ’ . I “a... C 33.03:") "an"? '.3;'.:” [:7 1,2", :;.{’.‘(::3___ ,1; ”I; 21.! 2):} 3 .0. . {‘23 g33v-45 5Q; ”22:..qu lxbga-a. ”a” ...}-.. .... ":r \a' SOURCE: E1-Bakri,Muhammed Ibn Abi e1-Surur,E1—Menah e1 Rahmaniah F1 el- Dowlah el-Osmaniah,Ca1ro: Dar e-utu e- srla, o. 239 BIBLIOGRAPHY B IBLIOGRAPHY Archival Materials Istanbul, TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi (Archives), E. No. 6357. (This is a document which registered the jeziah (taxes) levied upon the regions of Sakis, Anatolia, and Romili). TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi (Archives), E. 6944. (This document is an official account regarding the embassy sent by Selim to Egypt to observe what sorts of means were being used to support his son financially). (The following documents are diplomatic letters exchanged between governmental leaders) Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 13 E.6185 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 8 E.6185 Turkey, Istanbul. TapKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 7 E. 6185 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi E..6322 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 5 E. 6185 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi No. 17 E. 6185 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi E. 6265 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi (Archives) E. 7143 Turkey, Istanbul. TopKapi Sarayi Arsivi (Archives) E. 5552 Egypt, Cairo. Dar el-Kutub No. 1908 (A legal document of an endowment issued by Rustim.Pasha who occu ied the post of visier two times in 1544 and 155 dur- ing the reign of Suleyman). Manuscripts Al-Aini Badr al-Din Mahmud Ibn Ahmed. I d al-Juman Fi Tawarih ahl-zaman. Cairo: Dar e - utub eleflasriah, No. 1584.H. 240 241 Al-Amir Yashbak al-zahiri; Cairo: Dar el-Kutub, No. 2952. Al-Nahrawli, Kotub el-Din. el-Bark el-Yamani Fi el-Fath el-Osman. Cairo: Dar el-Kutub, No. 2414. Al-Sakhawi, Muhammed Ibn Abd al-Rahman, Kitab al-tibr a1- Masbook Fi Theil A1 Suluk. Istanbul Aya Sofia Library, No. 3113. Al-Sayrafi. Ali Ibn Dawud. Nuzhat el-Nuf s wal Abdan Fi Tawarikh az-zaman. Cairo: Dar e1:Kutub, No. 116. . Inba al-Hasr Bi Abna a1 Asr. Cairo: Timur Library, *No. 2285,also this manuscript is microfilmed in Mahad el-Maktotat el-Masriah (The Institute of the Arabic Manuscript s),Cairo, No. 66. el-Bakri, Muhammed Ibn Abi el-Surur. el-Menah el-Rahmaniah Fi el-Dowlah el-Osmaniah. Cairo: Dar eiikutub e1- Masriah,‘No.’H.’1929. . el-Raudah Ma'anusah Fi Akbar Misr el-Mahrusah. Cairo Dar e14Kutub,’No. 2261. Feridun Bey Ahmed. 'Munshaat Il-Mnluk wal Salatin. Istanbul: TopiKapi Sarayi,R. 1960. Ibn Tagri Birdi, Abu el-Mahasin el-Manhal el-Safi. Vol. VI, Cairo: Dar el-Kutub, No. 1209. . Hawadith el-Duhur Theil el-Suluk, Istanbul: Aya Sofia Library, No. 3185. Ibn Zunbul, Ahmed Ibn Muhammed. ‘Wakat el Sultan Selim.Khan Fi Fotoh Mirs Ma el-Sultan eI—Gawfi. CaifBT-MEEEH" 'EI-MEEEoEat eI-MEsriaE (The Institute of the Arabic Manuscripts), No. 124. . Jalal Zadah Nashanji Mustafa. ‘Ma'ather SelimrKhan Tab Tharah. Istanbul: TopKapi Sarayi KutuBEHana (IiBrary), H No. 1415. Knolles, Richard. The General Histories of the Turks, From the first beginning of that nation to the rising of the Ottoman familyéi London, printedby A. Islip, 1610. M.S{UT‘Microfilms No. 20370 (Carton 763), Short-title catalogue No. 15051. Matrakzi, Nasuh. Fethname-i Diyar-i Arab. Turkey Istanbul: Nur OsmaniLibrary No. 4087. Monjem.Pasha Ahmed Dedah. Sahaif el-Akbar Fi wggai e1 Asar, Two volumes, Istanbul,TopKapi Sarayi—Kutubkhane (LibraIY). A. No. 2954. 242 Unknown author. Tarikh el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah. Cairo, Dar e1-Kutub,’Undated No. 12. Unknown author. Tarih-i Osmanyyi. Istanbul, TopKapi Sarayi Kutubkhan. *No. RT 1099. Primary Published Books Abdulrahman Sharaf. Tarih-i Develt-i Osmanyye. Turkey, Istanbul, 1931. Abu el-Farook, Omar Tarih-i osmanyyis, lst ed. Istanbul, Matba'at Amedi, 1907. Afonso, Alboquerque. The commentaries of the Great Afonso Alboquergue. Vol. III, translated from the Portu- guese edition of 1774 by Walter De Gray Birch, London: Printed for the Hakluya Society, 1880. Al-Aini Badr al-Din Muhammed. al-Sayf al-Muhammad Fi Sirat al-Malik al-Mnayyad. Edited and annotatedbe Faheemeuhammed Shaltut, investigated by Muhammed IMustafa Nyadah, Cairo: Dar el-Kitab el-Arabi, 1967. Al-Jabarti Abdul Rahman. Ajaib al-Athar Fi Tarajim wa'l Akbar. Vol. I, Beirut: Dar eleFaris, undated} Al-Nahrawali, Kotub el-Din. el-Bark el-Yamani Fi el-Fath el-Osmani. A.manuscript edited 5y Hamad el-Jasir, Ryadh, Dar el-Yamamah, lst ed., 1967. Al-Sakhawi Muhammed Ibn Abdulrahman. Kitab al-tibr a1- Masbook Fi Theil Al-Suluk. Edited from.the original ‘manuscript in‘1053 (1643) by Muhammed Ahmed Cilibi. Cairo, undated, Maktabat el-Koliat el-Azhariah. Al-Sayrafi, Ali Ibn Dawud. Nuzhat el-Nufus wal Abdun Fi Tawarikh az-zaman. cairo: Dar elékfitub‘Matba'dfi, 1.9/0. . Inba al-Hasr Bi Abna Al Asr. Edited and annotated by Hassan Habashi, Cairo, Dar al-Fikr Al-Arabi, 1970. Al-Suyuti. Jalal ad-Din, Tarih el- Kulafa Omra el-Mnmineen el-Kaimeen ba Amr eIJLah. Cairo: eliflafbadah e1- Muneeriah, 1932. Charles Grey, Esq. A Narrative of Italian Travels in 'Persia in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, London: Printed fOr the Hakluya Sociéty, undated. 243 De Lamartine, A. History of Turkey, Translated from the French. ThreeIVolumes. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1957. Crichton, Andrew. The History of Arabia, Ancient and Modern. Two Volumes, New York: Harper and Brother Publishers, 1868. el-Makrizi Taqi al-Din Ahmed. Ikathat el-Omah be Kashf el- Komah. Cairo: 1940. el-Suluk L Ma'arifat a1 el-Muluk. Cairo: Dar e1- Kutub Press,*1970. Feridun Bey Ahmed. Munsha'at Il-Muluk wal Salatin. Two volumes. Constantinople, 1858. No mention of the publisher. Hammer, Purgstall, Joseph von. Historie De L'Empire Ottomane. Tw04volumes, Paris imprimerie‘De Bethune Et Plon, 184 . Ibn Aja Muhammed Ibn Mahmud (1417-1476). Tarikh Al-Amir Yashbak al-Zahiri. Annotated by Dr. AbduI Kadir Ahmed Toliamat. Cairo: Al-Madani Matba'ah, 1973. Ibn Arabshah Ahmed. Tamerlane or Timur The Great Amir. MSS Trans. by J.H.gSanders. Lahure: Progressive Books, 2nd ed., 1976. Ibn Iyas, Muhammed Ibn Ahmed. Bada'l az-zuhur Fi waga'l ad- duhur. Cairo: Matabi e1-Shab, 1960. Ibn Khaldun Abdulrahman. The Muqadimah, An Introduction to Histor . Trans. by Franz RosenthaI: Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 2nd, 1967. Ibn Tagri Birdi Abu el-Mahasin. Histo of E at (Part 6, 1453-1461 A.D.). Trans. 5y BIIIIam kapper, University of California Publication in Semitic Philology. Al-Nujum al-Zahirah Fi Akbar Misir wal Kahirah. V618. 14, 15. ’Edited by Ibrahim.A1i Tarkhan, el- Hai'ah el-Masriah el-Amah, 1971. Ibn Tulun, Shams a1-Din (1485-1546), Mufakahat al-Khillan Fi Hawadith az-zaman. Annotated“by‘MuhammedlMustafa Part 2, Cairo: Dar Ihiah el-Kutub el-Arabiah 1964. Muhammed Fareed Bey. Tarikh el-Dowlah el-Aliah el-Osmaniah. Istanbul: Muhammedefendi'Matbarah, 1896. 244 Mustafa Ali's description of Cairo of 1599. Edited by Andreas Tietze, Wien, verlag Der Osterreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 1975. Secondary Sources A. BOOKS Abdulahman el-Rafai and Said Ashur. Misr Fi al-usur aldwusta. Dar el-Nahda al-Arabiah, lst ed.,—1970. Aldridge, James. Cairo. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1st ed., 1969 Ali Ibrahim Hassan. el-Tarikh el-Islami el-Am. Cairo: Maktabat el-Sunnah elaMuhammadiah, 3rd ed., 1963. Allan J.,Wolse1ey Haig T., Dodwell E.H. The Cambridge Shorter History of India. S. Chand and Co., 1969. Allen, W.E.D.‘ Problems of Turkish Power In The Sixteenth Century,London: Central Asian Research center, 1963. al-Tabatabi, A.S.M.H. Shiite Islam. New York: State Univer- sity of New York Press, 1975. Arnakis, George G. The Near East In Modern Times, Vol. I. The Ottoman E Dire and The Balkan States to I900, New York: Jenkins .ublishing 00., 1964. Arnold, Sir Thomas W. The Caliphate. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1965. Babinger, F. Mehmed The Conqueror and His Time. Trans. from the German bleal h Manhéim, edited with preface by William.C. Hickman, Princeton University Press, 1978. Balls, w.L. Egypt of the Egyptians, New York: C. Scriber, 1918. Braudel Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. ‘Vol. II, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1973. Briton, Crane, Christopher John B.,‘Wo1ff Robert Lee. 'A History of Civilization, Vol. I, 2nd ed., New Jersey: Prentice4Ha11, Inc., 1960. BrockelmannqCarl. History of the Islamic People. Trans. by Joel Carmichael and‘MOshelPeflman. Nedeork: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947. 245 Browne, E.G. A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III. The Taytar Dominion 1265-1502. Cambridge: At the UniVersity Press, 1956. Burke, Wilkinson. Francis In All His Glory. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux, lat ed., 1972. Budge, Wallis. The Nile. Negro University Press, 12th ed., 1912. The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. 3, Cambridge, The Univer- sity Press,*1907. Cook, M.A. The History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. LondOn:'Cambridge UniverSity’Press, 1976. Coupland, R. East Africa and Its Invaders. Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1958. Crawford, O.G.S. The Fung Kingdom of Sennar, Glousecter, 1751. Creasy, Edward S. History of the Ottoman Turks, Beirut: Khayats,1961. Danvers, Frederick Charles. The Portuguese In India, Vol. 1. Frank Cass and Co. Ltd., 1966. Davis, William Stearns. A Short History of the Near East, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923. Diffie, Bailey W. and Winius George D. Foundation of the Portuguese Empire, l415-1580.bMinneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977. East Gordon. Historical Geography of Europe, London: 2nd ed. Matheun and Co. Ltd., 1943. Eversley, G.J.S. The Turkish Empire: Its Growth and Decay, London:*T} Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1917. Farifat, D. The Grande Turke. New York: Minton, Balch and Company, 1929. Fisher, S.N. The Foreign Relations of Turkey, 1481-1512. UrbanaUniversity of Illinois Press, 1948. The Middle East, A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 2nd ed}, 19687 Fisher, W.B. The Middle East and North.Africa,26th ed. LondOn: Europe Publications Limited, 1979. 246 Gibb, H.A.R. and Browne Harold. Islamic Society and the West, Vol. I, Oxford University Press, 1950. Glubb, Sir John. Soldiers of Fortune, The Story of the Mamluks, New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1973. Glubb, Sir John. A Short History of the Arab Peoples, New York, Stein and Day Publishers, 1969. Halide, Edib. Conflict of East and West In Turkey, Lahore: 2nd ed., STMZbAshraf, 1935. Harrison, John B. and Sullivan, Richard E. A Short History of Western Civilization, 2nd ed., NewaOrk: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. Hitti, Philip K. The History of the Arab PeoplggLondon: Macmillan and Company, Limited,*2nd ed., 1947. Syria A Short History, New York: The Macmillan anddCompany, 1959. / The Arab A Short History, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943. Holt, P.M., Lambton, A.S., Lewis B. The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1979. Huxley, Elspeth. In the Wake of Da Gama. London: Skeffington and Son Limited, 2nd ed., 1955. Inalick, Halil. The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300- 1600. Trans. by Norman Itchowitz and Colin Imber: Eondon: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsili, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. II, Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimei, 1964. Ismail Hikmet. Sultan Cem. Istanbul: Bu eser Is Ban Kasi {grafindarbastirilmistir, Milli Egitim Basmeri, 51. Jeudwine JPW. Studies in Empire and Trade. London: Longmans, Green and Co.,ll923. Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries, The Rise and Fall of the-TurkisblEmpire, New”York:‘Williameorrow and Company, Inc., 1977. Kbrtepeter, C.M. Ottoman Imperialism.During the Reformation Europe and the Caucases. New York? New York Uni- versity‘Press, 1972. Kreutal, R.F. Der Fromme Sultan Bayezid. Austria verlagstryia Graz Wren Koln, 1978. 247 Lane-Poole, Stanley. A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, London: Methuen and Company, 5th ed., 1936. The Story,of Turkey, London: T. Fisher, Unwin, 1888. Lewis, Bernard. Studies in Classical and Ottoman Islam (7th -16th Centuries) London: variorum Reprints, 1976. Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire. Norman: Universify of Oklahoma—Press, 2nd, 1968. Mansfield, Peter. The Arabs. London: lst ed., Cox and wyman Ltd., 1976. Margoliouth, D.S. Cairo, Jerusalem and Damascus, Three Chief Cities of the Egyptian sultans, New York: Dodd, Headland COmpany, 1907. Muhammed Anis. el-Dowlah el-Osmaniah wal Sharq el-Arabi. Cairo:‘Dar et-Jeel L a1 Tebaah. Muir, William. The Mamduk or the Slave Dynasty of Egypt, Amsterdam Oriental Press, I968. The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall, Beirut: The Khayats, 1963. Mutawlli Ahmad Fuad. al-Fath al-Uthmani 1i1-sham.wa-Misr. Cairo: Dar el-nahda el-Arabiah, 1976. Price, M. Philips. History of Turkey, London: George Allen and UnwinbLtd., 191T. Rafiq Abd aigggrim. Bilad a1-Sham.wa Misr. Damascus, 2nd ed. Roger, E.M. Suleyman The Magnificent,1520-1566. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944. Se dawi, Nazir Hassan. Swar wa Mazalim.Fi asr al-Mamalik, Cairo: Maktabat el-Nahda 1966. Safran Nadav. Egypt in Search of Political Community, HarvardUniversityPress,‘l961. Salim Mahmud Risq. al-Ashraf Kansuh el-Gawri. Cairo: el-Dar el-Masriah. Sartain, E.M. Jalal al-Din a1 Suyuti, Vol. I. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1975. 248 Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turke , Vol. 1. Empire of the Gaiis, The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808.' Cambridge University Press, 1976. The Financial and Administrative Organization and Development of Ottoman Egypt. *Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. Shilibi Ahmed. Maosuat el-Tarikh el-Islami wal hadarah e1- Islamiah. cairo: Maktabat el-Nahda e14Masriah, 3rd ed., 1977. Stewart Desmond. Cairo. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. 1968. Stripling, G.W.F. The Ottoman Turks and the Arabs, Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1942. Sugar, P.F. Southeastern Europe Under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804. University oflwaSEington Press, 1977. Tarkhan, Ibrahim.A1i. Misr Fi asr Dowlat al-Mamalik. Cairo: Maktabat el-Nahda e1:Masriah, 1909. Torayah Sharaf A. A Short History of Geographical Discovery, London: Georg G. Harrap and co. Ltd., 1967. Toynbee, Arnold J. A Study of History, Vol. 1, Oxford: UniversityPress, 2nd ed., 1935. Vatikoitis, P.J. The Mbdern History of Egypp, New York: FrederiEk A.lPraeger‘Publishers,71969. Vaughan, Dorothy M. Europe and the Turks, A Pattern of Alliance, Liverpool: Wilmer Brother andCCo., lst ed.,b1954. Vucinich, Wayne 8. The Ottoman Empire, Its Record and Legacy, Princeton: D2 Van NOstrand“Company, Inc., 1965. Wittek, Paul. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, New York: Burt-Fianklin,l971. WOod, A.C. A History of the Levant Compapy,_London: Frank Cass andCompany, Ltd., 2nd7ed., 1964. Yale, William. The Near East. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press,1968. Zeine, Zeine N. Arab-Turkish Relations and the Emergence of Arab Nationalism, Beirut, published by Khayat's I958. 249 B. ARTICLES Ayalon, David. "Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. XVI, 1953: XVII, 1954. . "The Historian al-Jabarti and His Background," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, June, 1960. Becker, C.H. "Egypt", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, London: Luzac and Co., 1927. Bonelli, L. "Una Collezione di Firmani Ottomani Riguardanti l'Egitto dal 1597-1904", Oriente Moderno, XV, 1935. Campbell, E.M.J. "Gama, Vasco Da", The Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 7, London, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1979. Gibb, H.A.R. "Timur", Encyclopedia of Britannica, Vol. 22. ,London: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1972. Hess, Andrew S. "The Evolution of the Seaborn Empire in the Age of Oceanic Discoveries," American Historical Review, 1970. Hill, Richard Leslie. "Egypt", Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 8, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968. Holt, P.M. "The Beylicate in Ottoman Egypt," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, , , . . "Al-Jabarti's Introduction to the History of Ottoman Egypt", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,—XXV, 1, 1962. Hookham, Hilda H. "Timur", The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18,915th ed., London: Encyc.opedia Britannica, Inc., 197 . ' Jansky, Herbert. "Beitrage zur Osmanischen Geschicht- sschreibung Uber Aegypten," Der Islam XXI, 1933. Kramers, J.H. "Muhammad", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. III, 1936. . "Suleiman I", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. IV, 1934. Lewis, Bernard. "The Ottoman Archives as a Source of the History of the Arab Lands," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, October, 1951. 250 Little, Donald P. "Mamluks", The New Eneyclopedia Britannica, Vol. II, 15th ed., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1974. Muhammed Mustafa. "Nehaet e1-Sa1atin el-Mamaleek Fi Misr." Egyptian Historical Magazine, Vol. 4, 1951. Raymond, Andre. "Essai de geographic des quartiers de residence aristocratique au Caire, au XVIII siecle," Journal of Economic and Social History of The Orient, IV, pt. 1,51963. Shaw, Stanford J. "The Land Law of Ottoman Egypt ( 960/1553) A Contribution to the Study of Landholding in the Early Years of Ottoman Rule in Egypt," Der Islam, Band 38, October, 1963. Sobernheim, M. "Barsbay", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. I, Leyden Lane, E.J. Brill, ltd., 1913. "Faradj", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927. "Cakmak", The Eneyclgpedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927. "Inal", The Encyclopedia of Islam. Vol. II, 1727. .92"Khurshkadam", The Encyclopedia of Islam. Vol. II, 1 7. "Kaitbey", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. II, 1927. "Kansuh", The Encyclopedia of Islam. Vol. II, 1927. . él-Muaiyad", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. III, 193 . "Mamluks", The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. III, 1936. Wittek, Paul. "De La de 'faite d'Ankara", Revue des Etudes Islamiques, Vol. 12, 1938. 251 C. PERIODICALS The following periodicals contain innumerable articles that contributed both directly and indirectly to the researcher's understanding of the topic of this study, and are recommended to the reader as data sources for Middle East history. AHR American Historical Review AHS African Historical Studies AI Ars Islamica And. al-Andalus AO Acta Orientalia ArO Archiv orientalni ArOtt Archivum Ottomanicum BEO Bulletin d'etudes orientales BGA Bibliotjeca geographorum.Arabicarum BIE Bulletin de l'Institut d'Egypte BIFAO Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies (London University). BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift CH Current History CIA Corpus Inscriptionum.Arabicarum CSSH Comparative Studies in Society and History DI Der Islam EHR English Historical Review/Economic Historical Review E1 The Encyclopedia of Islam, 4 vols., supp. Leiden, 1913-42. E1 The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Leiden, 1954- GAL Brockelmann, C. Geschichte der arabischem.Litteratur. 2nd ed., 2 vols., Leiden, 1943-1949. GALS Brockelmann, C. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur Supplement, 3 vols., Leiden, 1937-1942. GAS HO IC IEJ IJAHS IJMES IQ IS JA JAH JAL JAOS JCH JESHO JJS JNES JRAS JSS MEED MEF MEJ MESA 252 Sezgin, F. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, Leiden, 1967- Gibb Memorial Series Spuéer, B. (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden, 195 . ' Islamic Culture Israel Exploration Journal International Journal of African Historical Studies International Journal of Middle East Studies Islamic Quarterly Islamic Studies Journal asistique Journal of African History Journal of Arab Literature Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Contemporary History Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Modern African Studies Journal of Modern History Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. - Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of WOrld History Middle East Economic Digest Middle East Forum Middle East Journal Bulletin Middle East Studies Association MIDEO MIFAO OM Ois PO REI REJ RHC RIMA ROC RSO SEI SI Sped. WI Wo ZDMG 253 Melanges de l'Institut Dominicain d'Etudes Oreintales de Caire. Memoires de l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale Muslim.World Oriente moderno Oriens Patrologia Orientalis Revue de l'Academie Arabe de Dames Revue des etudes islamiques Revue des etudes juives Revue historique Recueil des historians des croisades Revue de l'Institut des Manuscripts Arabes Revue de monde musulman Revue de l'Orient chretien Rivista degli studi orientali Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam Studia Islamica Speculum. - Die welt des Islams Die Welt des Orients Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft