Islamic bow for I.D. and comment

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Treaty of the military art Mamelouk, containing the schools of platoon, rider, infantryman, archer and crossbowman. A large number of colored and rather well-drawn figures are inserted in the text. Like all Arab works on the same subject, this treatise contains a large number of technical terms and terms of command.

Beginning: الحمد لله ذى العظمة المتعالى بالقدرة عن الصفات و الامثال. This ms. Was executed in 875 of the Hegira (1470 AD), for a great personage of the court of the Sultans Mameluk, whose name was carefully removed from the frontispiece, which is very ornate. However, the last words contained in the central medallion, namely: عزه الله تعالى, which indicates that the last name was that of a sultan. Gold, The ruler of Egypt at that time was Qaitbai. Between the folios currently rated 1 and 2, several sheets are missing.

Some years ago I read a fascinating book called The Knights of Islam, The Wars of the Mamluks (2007) by James Waterson which may be of interest.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Victrix

Some years ago I read a fascinating book called The Knights of Islam, The Wars of the Mamluks (2007) by James Waterson which may be of interest.

APPARENTLY THERE IS A FREE DOWNLOAD...CHECKING.. WRITE UP STATES~

The Mamluks were, at one distinct point in history, the greatest body of fighting men in the world and the quintessence of the mounted warrior. They were slave soldiers, imported as boys into the Islamic Empire from the pagan Steppes, but they became its savior, bringing defeat to the Mongols and forming the machine of jihad that ultimately destroyed the Crusader Kingdoms of Palestine and Syria. They entered the Islamic world as unlettered automatons and through a total application to the craft of the warrior they became more than soldiers. After a bloody seizure of power from their masters, the descendants of Saladin, they developed a martial code and an honor system based on barracks brotherhood, a sophisticated military society that harnessed the state's energies for total war and produced a series of treatises on warfare that more than compare to SunZi's Art of War in their complexity, beauty of language and comprehensive coverage of the bloody business of war. Their story embraces many of the great themes of medieval military endeavor. The Crusaders and the deadly contest between Islam and Christendom, the Mongols and their vision of World Dominion, Tamerlane the Scourge of God and the rise of the Ottoman Empire whose new slave soldiers, the Janissaries, would be the Mamluks' final nemesis.

Another review says~ In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Quote"
Reviewed by
John Dunn
The Knights of Islam: The Wars of the Mamluks. By James Waterson. St.Paul, Minn.: MBI Publishing, 2007. ISBN 978-1-85367-734-2.

"Slave-soldiers?" " Owned Men?" However you translate Mamluk, James Waterson's account of their long history deserves your consideration. He takes you from their beginnings, when Arab leaders purchased Central Asian boys for conversion, both to Islam and as bodyguards, all the way to the end of their story – early 19th Century Egypt. During the 1000 plus years separating these events, Mamluks not only play a critical role in domestic politics, but also figure prominently in thwarting both European Crusaders and several Mongol invasions of the Middle East.
These latter events show the Mamluks at their best, when their tremendous skills as horsemen and warriors allowed for history-altering victories like Ayn Jalut (1260), or the fall of Acre (1291). Waterson shows how Mamluk armies, almost exclusively cavalry, managed to be both good horse archers, and excellent shock troops. He also illustrates their significant skills at siege warfare, and use of "catapults."
Even after their apogee in the 1200s, Mamluks figure prominently in the military affairs of North East Africa and the Near East. The Knights of Islam details this, especially the 1300s-1500s, when Mamluk armies, though in decline, were still capable of defeating the Ottoman Empire when directed by smart leaders like Kayitbay. Waterson continues their story, even after the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1516, for Mamluks influenced that nation's history into the 1800s, while they also influenced Ottoman military culture.
Although wars and battles figure prominently, as they should in any account of Mamluks, Waterson does not leave out politics, economic matters, recruitment, or training. This reader liked his explanation of Furusiyya – a set of training lessons that began when Mamluks reached [End Page 227] 13/14, and included horsemanship plus weapons handling. He also makes very clear the most serious flaw within this system – internal rivalries between household forces of rival Mamluk leaders, often so intense that they played into the hands of foreign enemies.
These details and many more, are well covered in The Knights of Islam. Waterson's clear writing is enhanced by a strong command of the secondary literature, and good use of translated primary sources. His text is nicely organized, supported by a glossary, maps, a time-line, plus a first-rate collection of color photos, and a useful bibliography.
Specialists may argue on a few issues, pointing out that Egypt's Muhammad Ali can not be shortened to "Ali," or asking the photo editor to reconsider plate 37, which is dated to the "1880s," even though the British soldiers clearly have Wolseley pattern sun helmets. Most readers, however, should find the Knights of Islam interesting. It could benefit parties focused on Medieval, Islamic, Egyptian, or military history." Unquote.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

The Mamluks were, at one distinct point in history, the greatest body of fighting men in the world and the quintessence of the mounted warrior............... the Ottoman Empire whose new slave soldiers, the Janissaries, would be the Mamluks' final nemesis.

Actually I believe it was not the Janissaries that finally defeated the Mamluks, it was Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Ottoman Albanian general who defeated the Egyptian Mamluks in the early 1800s. After the withdrawal of the French occupiers of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha devised a plan to murder the whole remaining lot of them by luring Mamluk leaders to a celebration and ambushing them, the rest were eventually hunted down and killed, supposedly very few got away. Muhammad Ali Pasha declared himself the "khedive" of Egypt and interesting enough it was Europeans who controlled Egypt until the early 1900s.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Actually I believe it was not the Janissaries that finally defeated the Mamluks, it was Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Ottoman Albanian general who defeated the Egyptian Mamluks in the early 1800s. After the withdrawal of the French occupiers of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha devised a plan to murder the whole remaining lot of them by luring Mamluk leaders to a celebration and ambushing them, the rest were eventually hunted down and killed, supposedly very few got away. Muhammad Ali Pasha declared himself the "khedive" of Egypt and interesting enough it was Europeans who controlled Egypt until the early 1900s.

Yes correct but he used his Janissaries to do the deed ...The Mamluks were surrounded and shot to pieces. Only one got away and of the few others that were not at that wipe out... They were mostly hunted down and killed.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Yes correct but he used his Janissaries to do the deed ...The Mamluks were surrounded and shot to pieces. Only one got away and of the few others that were not at that wipe out... They were mostly hunted down and killed.

According to everything that I have read he used his Albanian troops, he then basically took control over Egypt and the Ottoman government could do nothing to stop him.

Wikipedia.
"The French withdrawal left a power vacuum in Egypt. Mamluk power had been weakened, but not destroyed, and Ottoman forces clashed with the Mamluks for power. During this period of turmoil Muhammad Ali used his loyal Albanian troops to work with both sides, gaining power and prestige for himself......The Mamluks still posed the greatest threat to Muhammad Ali. They controlled Egypt for more than 600 years, and over that time they extended their rule systematically south along the Nile River to Upper Egypt. Muhammad Ali’s approach was to eliminate the Mamluk leadership, then move against the rank and file. Muhammad Ali invited the Mamluk leaders to a celebration at the Cairo Citadel in honor of his son, Tusun Pasha, who was to lead a military expedition into Arabia. The event was held on March 1, 1811. When the Mamluks had gathered at the Citadel, and were surrounded by Muhammad Ali's troops, he had his troops kill them. After the leaders were killed, Muhammad Ali dispatched his army throughout Egypt to rout the remainder of the Mamluk forces."

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Actually I believe it was not the Janissaries that finally defeated the Mamluks, it was Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Ottoman Albanian general who defeated the Egyptian Mamluks in the early 1800s. After the withdrawal of the French occupiers of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha devised a plan to murder the whole remaining lot of them by luring Mamluk leaders to a celebration and ambushing them, the rest were eventually hunted down and killed, supposedly very few got away. Muhammad Ali Pasha declared himself the "khedive" of Egypt and interesting enough it was Europeans who controlled Egypt until the early 1900s.

I am sorry, estcrh, but the Mamluk Sultanate was defeated and destroyed as such by Selim I in 1516, beign the Mamluks no match for the Ottoman artillery and janissaries. Since then, the Mamluks were the already defeated and decadent subjects of the Ottoman Empire which, in the time of the French invassion, also was in decadence (as all empires will be, and vanish, sic transit gloria mundi). They were defeated on the battlefield by the Ottomans, and not by treason. Muhammad Ali Pasha only recovered Egypt. And since the Mamluks were already unruly and useless, he killed their leaders in an ambush. As many christian kings and princes did in their time in Europe. From then he was only nominal subordinate of the Ottomans, given the fact that the aforementioned empire was in total decadence, as said.

Regards

P.D. Already downloaded the book from the estcrh's link. It is the same. Thank you very much to both of you.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

They were defeated on the battlefield by the Ottomans, and not by treason.

Gonzalo, I did not say that the Egyptian Mamluks were defeated by treason, I said that the Mamluks were not defeated in Egypt by the Janassaries, the treason was Ali taking control over Egypt and proclaiming himself as the "Khedive".

[estcrh]

The bow was found in Japan, an unusual place to find an Indo-Persian bow. It is covered with illustrations, cows or bulls and military men, I am thinking that this is a Persian portrait, any thoughts would be helpful.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by estcrh

The bow was found in Japan, an unusual place to find an Indo-Persian bow. It is covered with illustrations, cows or bulls and military men, I am thinking that this is a Persian portrait, any thoughts would be helpful.

I am not an expert on this field (or any other), but the portrait seems to be Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, though I can be mistaken. He conducted intense diplomatic activities. Maybe a diplomatic gift to Japan rulers? After all, he searched for allies on the whole world against the Russians, and the Japanese could be taken as natural allies at that moment.

Thank you for all your photographs, estcrh.

Regards

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ganzalo, I did not say that the Egyptian Mamluks were defeated by treason, I said that the Mamluks were not defeated in Egypt by the Janassaries, the treason was Ali taking control over Egypt and proclaiming himself as the "Khedive".

Ok, sorry for that, estcrh. But at that time the Mamluks were only the problematic and unruly subjects of the Ottomans, already defeated but kept by the Ottomans to manage Egypt for them. Not anymore the great Mamluks who defeated the Mongol armies. They were defeated by fireweapons and more modern tactics, since although they have some fireweapons, they didn´t learn how to use and produce them properly. That, and all the complexities involved in the decadence of their own sultanate in the 16th Century. The same happened to the so called "Tatars", Uzbeks, Kazaks, etc. with the Russian Empire, or to the Mongols with the Chinese-Manchu Empire. A mix of social, economic, historical and technological and military factors. Which, among other things, conducted to the decadence of archery.

Regards

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ganzalo, I did not say that the Egyptian Mamluks were defeated by treason, I said that the Mamluks were not defeated in Egypt by the Janassaries, the treason was Ali taking control over Egypt and proclaiming himself as the "Khedive".

Estcrh, you would enjoy reading James Waterson's book. It's a fascinating read and well worth the modest money. It has pride of place in my library. During their heyday the Mamluks were like the Samurai of the Islamic world, and second to none in their fighting skills to which their entire lives were devoted. As Gonzalo G mentioned, their weaknesses were a lack of willingness to adapt to new scientific advances and corruption as a result of power grabs.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

It woz Ali Pasha wot done it !!!