A gift for Sultan Muhammad Ibn Tughluq of India

[Jens Nordlunde]

In ‘The Travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325-1354’, vol. III, pp742, Ibn Battuta writes about a meeting with Sultan Muhammad Ibn Tughluq.

Account of the Sultan’s arrival and our meeting with him. On the fourth of Shawwal [8th June 1334] the Sultan alighted at a castle called Tilbat, seven miles from the capital [Delhi], and the vizier ordered us to go out to him. We set out, each man with his present of horses, camels, fruits of Khurasan, Egyptian swords, mamluks and sheep brought from the land of the Turks, and came to the gate of the castle where all the newcomers were assembled. They were then introduced before the Sultan in order of precedence and were given robes of linen, embroidered in gold.

It is interesting to notice the gifts they were bringing, horses and camels were common and usually used for gifts. The Turkish sheep were not breed in India, no, they were brought from Turkey. But the strangest gifts were the Egyptian swords and the mamluks. Although the mamluks were not unknown in India at the time, as the Sultan had them in his army, I do however, not think many knows this – but the swords. We often hear about Persian swords and famous swords from Damascus and other places, but only very rarely do we hear about Egyptian swords. They must however have been of a special quality, or they would not have dared to present them to the Sultan.

From early times there have been an export of blades and other things to Egypt, from countries like Persia Syria, India and others, but I don’t remember to have read about an export of blades from Egypt, at a greater scale, other that to the south, do you?

Battuta could of course also have brought the Egyptian swords with him for gifts, as he was born in Tangier in 1304, from where he started his travels in 1324 – only this would mean that he had travelled with the swords for ten years before giving it/them as gifts. This does not sound very likely to me, I think it sounds more likely that he bought the swords for this occasion – which indicates, that Egyptian swords were known and appreciated, at least in north India.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

From early times there have been an export of blades and other things to Egypt, from countries like Persia Syria, India and others, but I don’t remember to have read about an export of blades from Egypt, at a greater scale, other that to the south, do you?

Its very interesting, however I think there is also a possibility that the swords were from Egypt, but not Egyptian made - they could've been simply considered to be nessesary add-ons to mamluks (like "action figure comes with a gun") ?

Probably it was wrong for me to offer my opinion (cause I don't know much about the makers of mamluks swords), so I really hope someone clarifies this question for us.

[M.carter]

Well they are briefly mentioned in the Furussiya manual as of good quality "suyuff hadeetha", and also in "Islamic Weapons Maghrib to Moghul". I believe that after 1517 when the Ottomans conquered Egypt, sword making in Egypt started to produce Turkish style Kilijs (same goes for Syria). The egyptian swords in "Islamic Weapons Maghrib to Moghul" are Kilij style. As to what they looked like before that (Ibn Battuta's time) I bet no one really knows. In "Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths", most of Sultan Qaytbay of the Burji Mamluks swords are straight, double edged, these are most probably made in Egypt. Some of them are curved though. There are also many other Mamluk swords in the book, but it is not listed as to where these were made (Syria, Egypt or Turkey).

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rivkin,

No it was not wrong of you to offer your oppinion, and in a way there can be some truce in it. Most mamluks were of low rank, but there were some which held a high/very high rank in the Sultans army, so they would have had very elaborate swords - only they might not have been Egyptian swords, not even the type, and a sword given to the Sultan of India for a gift, must have been something very special, or you may end up in jail or some place less pleasent - when it came to gifts, they did not joke much those days.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Rivkin,

No it was not wrong of you to offer your oppinion, and in a way there can be some truce in it. Most mamluks were of low rank, but there were some which held a high/very high rank in the Sultans army, so they would have had very elaborate swords - only they might not have been Egyptian swords, not even the type, and a sword given to the Sultan of India for a gift, must have been something very special, or you may end up in jail or some place less pleasent - when it came to gifts, they did not joke much those days.

Heh, this is funny. When Hulegu Khan was marching throught the Jazira, one of the Ayyubid emirs (forgot his name) gave him a gift of slippers. This made Hulegu Khan furious and said "How dare you! do you see me barefooted!". The Emir said "No your highness, but these shoes bear my face on their on their soles, so that every time you step with them, you step on my face"

And this is a true story confirmed by several historians.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Rivkin,

No it was not wrong of you to offer your oppinion, and in a way there can be some truce in it. Most mamluks were of low rank, but there were some which held a high/very high rank in the Sultans army, so they would have had very elaborate swords - only they might not have been Egyptian swords, not even the type, and a sword given to the Sultan of India for a gift, must have been something very special, or you may end up in jail or some place less pleasent - when it came to gifts, they did not joke much those days.

I have to strongly disagree. The records of slave auctions suggest that (taking one dinar to be approximately equal to 13 dirhams, and taking in mind that the weight of dinars and dirhams varied greatly over time, especially during the economical crisis of late years):

The cheapest slaves were pagans (kafir) captured in masses during military campaings - like the lowest class of slaves, hindus. Their price was 2-10 dirhams.

Quality Black male slave would cost about 100-300 dirhams (depending on skills, endurance, age etc.)

In the beauty market non-whites costed far less than whites, especially beautiful blonde boys and girls - the range was from 10 to 300 dirhams for a black woman to 10,000 dirhams for exceptional (mostly white blonde) beaties, with the majority of really attractive black women being sold for 500-1000 dirhams .

Eunuchs costed 4 times more than normal males, because only 25% on average survived castration.

Now to the military slaves - average turkish soldier costed 500 dirhams in Mosul, a little more in Cairo. Good turk fighter costed 1000 dirhams.

The price for very good soldiers was about 10,000 dirhams. Later the prices started to grow - caucasian mamluks wanted to have caucasians under their command, which dictate sometimes completely exorbitant prices, but 10,000 dirhams seems to be a good estimate for quality "mamluk-commander".

Concerning their weaponry, during napoleonic campaigns, the body of a mamluk (with his weaponry) was bringing to founder 15,000 francs (something like three year salary for a ranking officer).

In short I seriously doubt that sultan's mamluks (which were of better quality than mamluks of local leadership), every one of them costing like 250 hindus would carry inferior quality swords.

P.S. why they were so expensive ? Couple of things you had to pass to be a Mamluk:

Riding a horse in between of two lines of targets. Chopping the targets down. Horse should go as fast as to come in between of 3 targets in 1.5 seconds. All targets should be destroyed.
Similar test in archery.

References: as usual, would start with Nasidze, Lewis, "Muslim Slave System
in Medieval India" by Lal etc.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

I have to strongly disagree. The records of slave auctions suggest that (taking one dinar to be approximately equal to 13 dirhams, and taking in mind that the weight of dinars and dirhams varied greatly over time, especially during the economical crisis of late years):

The cheapest slaves were pagans (kafir) captured in masses during military campaings - like the lowest class of slaves, hindus. Their price was 2-10 dirhams.

Quality Black male slave would cost about 100-300 dirhams (depending on skills, endurance, age etc.)

In the beauty market non-whites costed far less than whites, especially beautiful blonde boys and girls - the range was from 10 to 300 dirhams for a black woman to 10,000 dirhams for exceptional (mostly white blonde) beaties, with the majority of really attractive black women being sold for 500-1000 dirhams .

Eunuchs costed 4 times more than normal males, because only 25% on average survived castration.

Now to the military slaves - average turkish soldier costed 500 dirhams in Mosul, a little more in Cairo. Good turk fighter costed 1000 dirhams.

The price for very good soldiers was about 10,000 dirhams. Later the prices started to grow - caucasian mamluks wanted to have caucasians under their command, which dictate sometimes completely exorbitant prices, but 10,000 dirhams seems to be a good estimate for quality "mamluk-commander".

Concerning their weaponry, during napoleonic campaigns, the body of a mamluk (with his weaponry) was bringing to founder 15,000 francs (something like three year salary for a ranking officer).

In short I seriously doubt that sultan's mamluks (which were of better quality than mamluks of local leadership), every one of them costing like 250 hindus would carry inferior quality swords.

P.S. why they were so expensive ? Couple of things you had to pass to be a Mamluk:

Riding a horse in between of two lines of targets. Chopping the targets down. Horse should go as fast as to come in between of 3 targets in 1.5 seconds. All targets should be destroyed.
Similar test in archery.

References: as usual, would start with Nasidze, Lewis, "Muslim Slave System
in Medieval India" by Lal etc.

Hello Rivkin,

Werent Turkish slaves first bought as slaves then trained in the sultans tibaq (barracks)? Or were they bought as professional warriors. As I have surely read that they were bought at a very young age, at 4 or 5 and sent to the barracks to train in the arts of war until the age of 20 then freed and enter the Sultans army.

I have read about the thing about chopping up targets, its in the furussiya manual, that must have been very hard. They also trained using the dabbus(mace) and nishab (crossbow).

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by M.carter

Hello Rivkin,

Werent Turkish slaves first bought as slaves then trained in the sultans tibaq (barracks)? Or were they bought as professional warriors. As I have surely read that they were bought at a very young age, at 4 or 5 and sent to the barracks to train in the arts of war until the age of 20 then freed and enter the Sultans army.

This was the most desired case. However (Rustam's memoir) in reality children from 4 to 14 were considered. Adult fighters also were present on the market - some of the mamluks were resold before being freed, however in the early age of the system a lot of accomplished fighters from abroad have been purchased - to be both soldiers and trainers.

On mamluk training - "Training of the Mamluk Faris" seems to be probably the most comprehensive book, together with "Archery of Saracens" and so on.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I did not suggest that the mamluks were armed with inferior quality swords, what I did suggest however was, that the swords most of the mamluks were armed with, however good quality, hardly were of a quality fit for a gift to the Sultan. The Egyptian sword given to the Sultan must have been something very special.

Robert Elgood in ‘The Arms and Armour of Arabia’ pp 103-9, tells about the big international trade with iron/steel and blades. Blades trade stretched from Spain to China via the caravan routes or via Basra and the Gulf, or through Egypt and the Red Sea, and a very big part of the iron/steel for these blades was coming from India. This could mean that the ‘Egyptian sword’, given to the Sultan, could have been made of Indian steel, but Egyptian swords sold in India, or coming by caravan from Egypt, would hardly have been sold as having a blade made in Egypt of Indian steel, and authors from the time and before fame the Indian blades for being the best. So why was the Sultan presented with one or more ‘Egyptian sword(s)’?

BTW maybe 'the slave trade and slave soldiers' should have a thread of their own, as I think it could be a big one, and the only thing I wanted was to know if anyone knew about the 'Egyptian swords'.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems to me that Jens original observation and note on 'Egyptian' swords is well placed, and the detailed observations on the Mamluks are correct as well. I think that early narratives often used broadly descriptive terms that lead to considerable confusion for later historians. For example, in North Africa, 'Turks' can be applied to not only Ottomans, but also Syrians, Egyptians, as well as Caucasians or nearly anyone considered foreign in some cases. To the Europeans in medieval times, the Moors were typically regarded as anyone of Muslim faith. It may be as well that the term 'Egyptian' for the swords received may have been presumed since the Mamluks were regarded as of Egyptian origin, and Muslims typically referred to swords by a term describing where the sword is from, not necessarily where it was made.

It is worthy of note however, the following description of Egyptian swords:
"...and at the bottom end of the market , Egyptian swords could be had for just 10 dirhams. Thus the most expensive Yemeni swords could cost more than a hundred times as much as the cheapest Egyptian. The difference lay not in rich ornament or jewel encrusted hilts but in the quality of the blades. A soldier of the early Abbasid period, on 60 dirhams a month could easily afford the Egyptian model but would have to save at least 10 months salary to buy a Yemeni one".
"The Armies of the Caliphs"
Hugh Kennedy, London, 2001 p.174-75
* ref: "The Crusades and Islamic Warfare: A Re-evaluation"
M. Shatzmiller, "Der Islam" 69, 1992, p.34-5

It would seem that Egyptian swords were not highly regarded within the Dar al Islam, thus Jens' observation on the worthiness of such inferior quality weapons intended as a diplomatic gift seems well placed.
It is important to note also that although the Mamluks, in general, were presumed of elite status, there was a distinct heirarchy that did render a degree of 'rank and file' among parts of the overall units. While the reigning Sultans own Mamluks were as described, elite, there were less prestigious 'mustakdamun' , who were 'qaranis' or Mamluks of former rulers or 'sayfiyah' recruited by present sultan or from previously disbanded units.
This is described by Dr. David Nicolle in "The Mamluks 1250-1517" (Osprey 259, p.16), who notes further, "...under the later Circassian Sultans, it was the qaranis rather than the new rulers Mamluks who were sent on arduous campaigns while at the same time getting lower pay".

Since Mamluks at original inception certainly were of elite status in the Sultans own, and were given their original kit, they were required to replace or maintain such items at thier own expense. If they had been 'downgraded' as described above, it would seem they may be more inclined to replace their weapons in accord with budget. These and other similar categories that did present a defined 'rank and file' within auspices of Mamluk title certainly may have only been able to afford 'Egyptian' swords.

Best regards,
Jim

[Aqtai]

I have recently aquired Unsal Yucel's 'Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths' (it arrived in the post yesterday ). Although I had seen an Arabic version of it in Cairo many years ago.

Anyway Yucel has several pictures of 15th century swords made by smiths with the title or surname 'Al-Misri' which means 'The Egyptian'. This would indicate that the makers of these swords were Egyptian or at least had Egyptian ancestry.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Jim,
You may be right about what people regarded as Egypt can have been in a very broad sense, but Battuta came from Tangier, so I doubt that he would use the word in such a broad sense – but you never know.

There are however a few things, which bothers me, a lot of the Egyptian swords, must have been made of Indian steel, as the import from India was big. If so, why were the Egyptian swords known as being at the lower end of the ‘top ten’ list, and the Indian swords at the top, if the same steel was used?

Maybe the answer is to be found in Robert Elgood’s book mentioned above, on page 104. Here he quotes an old author: ‘Adab al-Harb (1211-1236) lists the swords of all the places he has heard of: Chini, Rusi, Khazari, Rumi, Firangi, Yamani, Bilamani, Shahi, Ala I, Hindi and Kashmiri, and comments that all the examples are famous swords but amongst them the Hindi sword is best and most lustrous.’ So, maybe the Egyptian sword was good, but not as good as the Indian.

Hi Aqtai,
Thank you for showing the pictures of the swords, made only about one hundred years after Battuta’s stay in India, the Egyptian swords they gave to the Sultan could very well have been of this type.

[M.carter]

Yes Aqtai, these are the swords I was talking about. Thanks for posting the Scans. As noted in the Furussiya manual and Al-Kindi's letters, only three swords were considered of excellent grade, while the rest not that good. The 'ateeqa' (ancient, by that he means excellent) swords were those made in Yemen, India and the Qil'i. The swords in between were first the Damascene, then the Egyptian, then the Persian. The swords that were considered bad in Dar-Al-Islam were the Baghdadian and those made in Basra. All the swords are listed from best to worst Yemeni-Qal'i-Indian-Damascene-Egyptian-Persian-Baghdadi-Basri. Dr.Uncal Yuncel writes that swords made in the maghreb were also of excellent quality, something not listed in either furussiya manual or by AL-Kindi.

As you can see, according to primary sources Egyptian swords were in between, not excellent, but not bad either, just good.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mike(?), Aqtai,

This is most interesting, but also a bit confusing. Depending on which books you read the blades from the different places were valued differently (only Indian blades were great valued all the time) - or could it be that the valuation was made within several hundred years?

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Mike(?), Aqtai,

This is most interesting, but also a bit confusing. Depending on which books you read the blades from the different places were valued differently (only Indian blades were great valued all the time) - or could it be that the valuation was made within several hundred years?

I suppose because different places were famous at different times. As Mike pointed out, Egypt was never famous as a centre of swordmaking, but Egyptian swordmakers obviously could make functional and practical swords. According to the above mentioned book, After the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517 a lot of Egyptian swordmakers moved (or were forcibly taken) to Istanbul and continued to produce swords for Ottoman Sultans among others. In the Middle-East Damascus was famously the great centre of sword-making, however I believe that Damascus virtually ceased to be a centre of sword production after it was sacked by Timur-Lenk in the early 15th century.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Aqtai

I suppose because different places were famous at different times. As Mike pointed out, Egypt was never famous as a centre of swordmaking, but Egyptian swordmakers obviously could make functional and practical swords. According to the above mentioned book, After the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517 a lot of Egyptian swordmakers moved (or were forcibly taken) to Istanbul and continued to produce swords for Ottoman Sultans among others. In the Middle-East Damascus was famously the great centre of sword-making, however I believe that Damascus virtually ceased to be a centre of sword production after it was sacked by Timur-Lenk in the early 15th century.

I agree with Aqtai here. Damascus was the centre of sword making in the Islamic world, the matter that led swordmaking to decease was when Timur-Lenk sacked it in the 15th century and took all swordsmiths and craftsmen to Bukhara and Samarkand by force.