A gift for Sultan Muhammad Ibn Tughluq of India

Jens Nordlunde · 16th May 2005, 06:33 PM

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 · 17th May 2005, 04:59 AM

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

16th May 2005, 06:33 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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'. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 16th May 2005 at 07:05 PM.

17th May 2005, 04:59 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	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 Last edited by Jim McDougall; 17th May 2005 at 10:57 PM.