What do you think?
Rate this book
The Middle East in the Middle Ages: The Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250-1382
For over two hundred and fifty years the Mamluks ruled one of the great territorial Empires of the Middle Ages, centered on Egypt and Syria and controlling, at times, most of the Middle East.
Irwin now provides the first scholarly history of this period in any Western language. He makes clear the unique political system of the Mamluks, in which the governing class consisted of a white slave elite. At the zenith of their power, the Mamluks were the only regime to inflict a series of defeats on the Mongols and were able to eliminate the last vestiges of the Crusader states from the Middle East.
The Mamluk sultanate, during which both Islamic Architecture and technology flourished, was an important epoch in the development of Islam. It was also a period of great growth in trade between Europe and Asia and the flow of scholarship from the Arab world to Renaissance Europe.
Irwin now provides the first scholarly history of this period in any Western language. He makes clear the unique political system of the Mamluks, in which the governing class consisted of a white slave elite. At the zenith of their power, the Mamluks were the only regime to inflict a series of defeats on the Mongols and were able to eliminate the last vestiges of the Crusader states from the Middle East.
The Mamluk sultanate, during which both Islamic Architecture and technology flourished, was an important epoch in the development of Islam. It was also a period of great growth in trade between Europe and Asia and the flow of scholarship from the Arab world to Renaissance Europe.
- GenresHistory
192 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 1986
About the author
Robert Irwin
107 books138 followersRobert Graham Irwin was a British historian, novelist, and writer on Arabic literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 28, 2019
Super helpful introduction to the political history and structures of the Bahri Mamluk sultanate. It was a truly unique system, featuring intense factional infighting amidst a power-hungry meritocracy. Despite an astonishingly high number of revolutions per minute, the Mamluk system was astonishingly stable, apparently for two reasons: first, the Mamluk elite was, rather unusually for the time, actually educated for two purposes, administration and war, which ensured their competence in office and guaranteed their ability to keep it; and second, those who struggled for the throne were never interested in dispersing the centralised power of this autocratic police state but only wished to transfer it into their own hands. The result seems to have been that ordinary people got on with their (highly regulated) lives while frequent putsches erupted at the very top.
There seems to be very little work done on this period in English, but the footnotes indicate a wealth of Arabic chroniclers for whom I'm hoping to find English translations.
There seems to be very little work done on this period in English, but the footnotes indicate a wealth of Arabic chroniclers for whom I'm hoping to find English translations.
May 6, 2023
The Mamluks were military slaves who took over a multinational empire from Saladin's Ayyubid dynasty. They defeated the Mongols' expansion into the Middle East, ended the last Crusader states on the mainland, and stayed in power for hundreds of years. So it's surprising that this 1986 book is one of the few available generalist histories (in English, at least). Maybe that's because, since the Mamluks were of multiple ethnic origins, no-one today sees them as their illustrious forebears.
The later Mamluk rulers were largely Circassian, but,
in the period covered by the book, they were largely Kipchak Turks. Irwin describes one regime whose senior officers also included a Circassian, a Mongol, and another who was either Prussian or Greek. Like the minor German princes who were parachuted in to rule second-rank 19th century European countries, the Mamluks were accepted as a ruling stratum because of a useful core skill: in their case, war. A ninth century Arab writer said that the Turks "have become in warfare what the Greeks are in philosophy."
Although Mamluk Sultans would typically try to ensure succession by one of their sons, this outcome was not customary. Rather, factions would intrigue and fight for power in a kind of social Darwinism. Killing by strangulation was considered respectful: other methods included crucifiction and bisection. One new Sultan ate the raw liver of his predecessor.
Although the book largely describes the struggles over internal succession and against external threats, the wider society of the empire is also described, and an international context is acknowledged. Some Sultans would not venture onto the narrow streets of Cairo for fear of the harafish (lumpenproletariat). The author is humble enough to recognise that the violence of the Mamluk rulers was no worse than, for example, that of the near-contemporary Lord High Constable of England, John Tiptoft. Occasionally there is also a surprising but welcome contemporary cultural reference. For example, because of his serial conversions between different religions, the Ilkhan ruler Oljaitu is said to resemble the Universal Soldier of Buffy Sainte-Marie's song!
The later Mamluk rulers were largely Circassian, but,
in the period covered by the book, they were largely Kipchak Turks. Irwin describes one regime whose senior officers also included a Circassian, a Mongol, and another who was either Prussian or Greek. Like the minor German princes who were parachuted in to rule second-rank 19th century European countries, the Mamluks were accepted as a ruling stratum because of a useful core skill: in their case, war. A ninth century Arab writer said that the Turks "have become in warfare what the Greeks are in philosophy."
Although Mamluk Sultans would typically try to ensure succession by one of their sons, this outcome was not customary. Rather, factions would intrigue and fight for power in a kind of social Darwinism. Killing by strangulation was considered respectful: other methods included crucifiction and bisection. One new Sultan ate the raw liver of his predecessor.
Although the book largely describes the struggles over internal succession and against external threats, the wider society of the empire is also described, and an international context is acknowledged. Some Sultans would not venture onto the narrow streets of Cairo for fear of the harafish (lumpenproletariat). The author is humble enough to recognise that the violence of the Mamluk rulers was no worse than, for example, that of the near-contemporary Lord High Constable of England, John Tiptoft. Occasionally there is also a surprising but welcome contemporary cultural reference. For example, because of his serial conversions between different religions, the Ilkhan ruler Oljaitu is said to resemble the Universal Soldier of Buffy Sainte-Marie's song!
June 25, 2013
A short introduction.
Perhaps I expected inclusion of society & culture because of what else I've read by Robert Irwin (he's wonderful on Arabic literature), but this is political history only. For instance, he refers to furusiyya, the knightly arts, when a sultan is a devotee, but never discusses this feature of Mamluk life.
What he is concerned to do is explain the violent politics -- or rather, explain the paradox of a very stable system (without much disruption on the streets, either) but extreme insecurity at the top. He makes an argument different than I've read before: indeed he says historians have mistakenly used the loyalties of barracks-fellows, mamluks once owned by, and emancipated by, the one master, as "the key to Mamluk politics". Instead of the operation of loyalties he sees "selfish interest... rational choices." He says the mamluk system makes a test case in political science, and that's the focus of the book.
Perhaps I expected inclusion of society & culture because of what else I've read by Robert Irwin (he's wonderful on Arabic literature), but this is political history only. For instance, he refers to furusiyya, the knightly arts, when a sultan is a devotee, but never discusses this feature of Mamluk life.
What he is concerned to do is explain the violent politics -- or rather, explain the paradox of a very stable system (without much disruption on the streets, either) but extreme insecurity at the top. He makes an argument different than I've read before: indeed he says historians have mistakenly used the loyalties of barracks-fellows, mamluks once owned by, and emancipated by, the one master, as "the key to Mamluk politics". Instead of the operation of loyalties he sees "selfish interest... rational choices." He says the mamluk system makes a test case in political science, and that's the focus of the book.
February 26, 2014
Concise and clearly oriented to the Western reader, "The Middle East in the Middle Ages" seeks to catch readers up on recent (pre-1986) Mamluk scholarship. The author relies heavily on written material; lists of Arabic and non-Arabic primary sources appear at the end of the book. While Irwin does briefly mention the existence of archaeological and numismatic evidence, he unfortunately does not draw heavily on these sources. The writing is clear and the footnotes do not detract from the readability of the text.
May 30, 2012
A little dryer than I usually like. Irwin writes with intelligence and wit, but this is aimed at a more academic audience. Which is a shame, because the material being covered is fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews