I concur, my point was that the Mamluk idea as a system still put prime emphasis on outstanding horsemenship and had these outstanding horsemen as the military and social elite to the detriment of an evolution of other components of arms. That was a tradition from the Middle Ages and Mamluk Egypt was among the last places it was swapped away.
Every outstanding soldier on the field has a lot of hard working people giving part of their earnings to put him there. What does he give in return?
Have fun reenacting.

Dear Bennison!

I am glad to hear (and see soon, I hope) about Mamluk reenactors.
Check out my website: http://mamluk.webnode.hu/
I try to portray a Mamluk horseman serving in the Ottoman army. I concentrate on actual skills on horseback, but it would be great to get know other "modern" Mamluks to talk about different topics.

For the armour: I would use lamellar armour (jawshan), the military treatises mention it. Even if they could use that chinese scale, it wouldn't have been a usual thing. And because there are really few Mamluk reenactors, we should portray usual equipment.

For the shield: as I have seen on many miniatures, the shield hangs on the left side (in case of a right handed person), not on the back. If You want to use it intensely in close combat, a steel shield would be better. In my opinion a wicker kalkan is good at stopping arrows, and light enough to wear it while using the bow. I make my own kalkan at the moment, I am very curious, what will it do against some 80-90# horn bows. I have to put it to the test, but now I feel that it won't stand swords and sabers.

For neck protection use a helmet with mail or lamellar aventail. You can see a mail-and-plate style solution for neck protection on my armour.


Best regards
Tibor

Thanks a lot you guys.

Very cool page, Tibor!

Mark, I meant to re-enact a Mamluk of the Caliphate, because from what I can tell they were supremely better equipped.

Baybars was great, and Qutuz as well... First Mamluk to lead a victory against the Mongols (Ain Julut). Qutuz was assassinated by Baybars, if I remember correctly...

well rattan shields at the very least were the standard fare of korean and chinese forces they seemed to think rattan / wicker shieklds were good enough and these men with either sabre or spear and hield were often the leading edge of the formation. so they must have worked and they were also to a lesser extent resistant to bullets.

also arnt most of those kalkan also faced with leather? leather would help resist arrows immensely especially if it was faced on both sides,

and if your going to be a 14th century mamluk id go with cane, metal shields im willing to bet are probably around alot later, at least the 15th century if not the 16th century onwards... id hazard a guess to say the metal kalkan was a later development to copy the wicker ones.

Gentlemen:

I don't think this thread has been inactive quite long enough for this to count as "resurrecting it from the dead," but if so, I guess I'm a necromancer!

Since there has been a fair amount of fairly in-depth discussion of the Mamluks, I was wondering if anyone could recommend reading material to serve as an introduction to the Mamluk era, and Baibars? All too frequently, when I search for information on remote places and peoples, I end up with less than I'm looking for.

As a side note, I once saw a Kazakhfilm production of the life of Baibars, but lost it when my hard drive crashed. (Their iteration of Baibars was very, very Kazakh, perhaps unsurprisingly.)

The best modern history of mamluks and the Mamluks I have read is James Waterson, The Knights of Islam: The Wars of the Mamluks.

I'm reading ibn Mundiq, The Book of Contemplation. This is before the Mamluk state, but there are plenty of mamluks around, and frequent mention of them. This could be an interesting book for background detail on mamluks, and is also useful for an inside view of local 12th century politics.

For a more coherent look at local politics, including the crusader states as well as the others, Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes covers the period AD1100-1300. Not too much detail on the Mamluks, but great for the wider background. Lots of detail on wars between the various Moslem states that are largely ignored in Western-oriented histories of the Crusades. The book reads very much like a bunch of Arab sources turned into a single coherent narrative, and I think this is what the author did. It isn't a modern history; think of it as a modern rewrite of contemporary history. For a less re-written version, perhaps Arab Historians of the Crusades is good (I haven't read it, and don't know if it covers the Mamluks).

Outstanding! Thanks so much, Timo.

Mamluks and Islamic cavalry interest me very much. I am especially interested in the earlier Bahri period of their history. As far as reenacting them goes, these websites/facebook pages seem interesting and I haven't seen much else like them, "Faris Reenactment Bazaar" and "International Mamluk Yurt":
Interesting things to consider:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Faris-Reenactme...4360851648

http://www.facebook.com/InternationalMamlukYurt

Join the Yurt, Alexander! You're 100% welcome to do so!

It is one of my projects with a Muslim friend of mine, I'm one of the founding members. My friend is also the owner/operator of the Faris Reenactment Basar as well. As he is in Inodnesia, he has access to the world's most massive supply of fabrics, and can create any garment you want. He can also make excellent period footwear, and has a contracted armourer (with some pretty impressive abilities) and weapons-smith (who has good prices on blunted buhurts weapons). I won't say any more, because I don't want to break any rules...

Try also looking up "Saray al Mamluk". This is another of his pages.

We started the Yurt because we eventually want to create an International Mamluk HMB/Buhurts team, and have Mamluk reenactors participate in Skill-at-Arms horsemanship tournaments. So far we have three fighters. So a bit of a ways to go. :)

Sorry for another post, just to put up a question for anyone willing to ask. (Id be thankfull for any answer, especially from people, who do actual mounted combat reenactment and have come across playing with similar shows of horsemanship) :) :

If you watch the videos of bullfighting/russian horse combat reenactment and others few posts above, can there be paralel drawn between what is shown here and what you practice, or what treatises you use as your refence in training describe? (Regarding mamluk reenactment, but also others, if someone interested in different era pops in)
I only have access to some translations, but its quite short, so Im afraid its only excerp of it and doesnt cover more minute details, that are maybe exhaustibly described in mamluk training, on the other hand, many complete sources accesible through internet, mainly modern cavalry manuals are very vague and rather useless in what Im trying to gather information about right now: What were all the possibilies of a horseman, especially regarding his horsemanship and capabilities of his horse in a situation, where he was to confront resisting enemy, either infantry or cavalry. (To specify, Im looking for quite vivid and particular examples and descriptions, rather than vague generalizations, actual videos of more or less free sparring would be the best I could wish, though I havent seen many of these, if any at all.)

I wont quote whole post, but most is exactly what I think, like different standards for training raw recruits and training a unit of accomplished horsemen and fighters to act as a unit, or that horse control beats being good swordsman.

My questions are aimed at one on one situation, or generally any situation where horse has abundant space to maneuver, I dont want to touch the already beaten enough topic of unit of cavalry attacking densely packed infantry, or something similar. :lol: It really concerns only small engagements, or individual fighting capability of a horseman, preferably 15th-16th cent men at arms, mamluk, or similar kinds of warriors.

Also I didnt want to present it as if fighting from a stationary horse was nice and easy for a man on a horse, i just wanted to say my feeling is footman himself should also be aware of what a man even on a stationary horse is able to do and couldnt just jump in and kill him without problems without him ever having a chance to start to move away.

As to the russian video sure horse was safe but that goes both ways, I dont think a man on foot would survive unharmed too long if he tryed to cut a horse, maybe its just my feeling, but standing infront of a horse with a man cutting me from above, trying to injure a horse isnt such a bright concept, I might injure him, but Im open for an attack if I do it. Staying in front of horses head to hide behind might be the best position, or bending down, though it still doesnt seem like an allways win idea, I only had opportunity to asses it with quite calm horses, though if it was able to spin fast lie that rejoneo horse, or horses used in western riding, he could simply put me to the side he wishes in no time. Also, being hidden behind a horses head might make one much braver, than having to face opponents sword and unpredictable horse at the same time and judging which to tackle first. I was interested in this video because it shows a segment of combat rather than on technique with predefined outcome, like Ive seen before regarding foot vs horse. And horse actively kicking in front, maybe to prevent footman from getting to the offside of horsemans weapon and getting him out of the area where he couldnt be hit seemed interesting as well. Its breat job theyve done in training of that horse and this kind of sparring already seems to push limits of safety to the top level. :cool:

Once again maybe its only my bad idea about it, but people sometimes completely ommit the fact, that horse is fully capable of lateral movement and all in all, sure its bigger than a man, but still its very agile, I havent seen exactly such a horse with my own eyes, but looking at what that lusitano can do is enough for me. My view is steady footman can have great advantage against fully galloping horse, if he trained it enough to be able to perform some maneuver to dodge horse and riders weapon and injure a horse himself, as he is moving in very predictable manner, unless cavalryman has some further plan. On the other hand, steady cavalryman moving slowly into contact, speeding up and changing directions unpredictably might well be the equivalent of a man foot, just moving much faster. (Though I havent seen anything like this ever demonstrated, maybe pit a portuguese and spanish bullfighter against each other? :lol: )

Good you mentioned the fact, that on ultra short (and ultra long maybe?) distances a man can outrun a horse. :) Nevertheless was this ever tested in combat conditions? A man in trekking shoes and only light clothes on and being top class sprinter against average horse, which might not even be well motivated to run full speed from the start is different to someone with heavy armour and weapons in hands (at least for me holding anything in hands makes sprinting more difficult) with prospect of fighting for his life at the end of this sprint against a horse, that most propably was trained to boost his ability to accelerate from the spot better than an average one.
I was trying to dig some more information about it, yet the only situation Ive seen to account for it was trained and well equipped human sprinter against a horse, if you know of some tests shedding more light on how this would translate into fight Id be glad to see them. :)
But even if a man can truly catch a horse through first 10 metres, would it do any good for him? If they are both moving and some distance apart and he isnt able to catch a horseman completely unaware and stationary, would he run after him further? One more thing: I dont know if this has any validity, but man on a moving horse seems to be able to perform his attacks on much more stable platform, than someone trying to run against him and cut him at the same time. At least I cant hit anything properly with a sword and stay in balance at the same time, if Im running against my target, hitting it as I run by. (I mean cutting rather than thrusting) Once against, I dont want to say its a piece of cake to hit anything from a running horse, I rather try to say, that hitting things while moving at speed was the basic mode of attacking for a cavalryman, while on foot Id rather like to be more carefull with my footwork and so be by definion quite stationary.

All in all Im not trying to prove man on a horse had clear advantage, rather to disprove the opposite: that a man on foot would have the upper hand against well trained horse and well trained man. (Clearly superior to lets say average 19th century cavalryman, though even these seemed to be able to cut down infantrymen out of formation) And also to question the notion I accepted quite uncritically, before I started to dig into it, that once slowed down (bogged down in melee like its worded many times) horseman was dead meat, no matter how skilled, or trained specifically to fae such a situations. (It also sounds awfull to tell someone that if he gets surrounded by few men he is dead, even if it was true, giving him at least some technique to rely on is better than advice him to repent his sins already Id say :D )

Here is a very detailed, and lengthy description of the training of a Mamluk Cavalryman, particularly during the Bahri Period. See if you can read it right to the end... :D

Hassanein Rabie in his article "The Training of the Mamluk Faris" wrote:

The actual military training in the tibaq began when the mamluk reached his majority. There was a mu’allim (a furusiyya master, instructor, or expert) to impart military training to each group of mamluks. The furusiyya exercises comprised equitation, the lance game, archery, and fencing. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya (d. 751/1356) says that a mamluk who attained skill in these four branches had completed his furusiyya training and become a fully-fledged faris. Tuition in horsemanship lasted until the mamluk could sit firmly on a bareback horse (‘ala al-’ari). At first he practiced on horse models made of dry clay, stone, or wood. The mu’allim taught the mamluk how to jump over it correctly. Then a saddle was placed on the figure and the mamluk practiced jumping without and with full equipment. The training was completed by riding practice on a live horse. The live horse was first covered with a horse-cloth called jull, made of wool or bristle. The mamluk had to stand on the left side of the horse, the whip in his left hand, placing his right thumb on the jull and his right palm on the horse’s neck behind the mane. When the mamluk jumped, he hit the horse with his right hand on the right side of the neck. This was followed by training on a saddle-less horse, first at a canter, then at a trot, and lastly at a gallop. On a saddled horse the mamluk learnt, under the supervision of the riding­-master, how to hold the reins correctly, how to sit in the saddle steadily, how to step into the stirrups, how to amble, and how to turn. Some technical treatises on furusiyya provide us with important information on the different methods of jumping, riding, sitting, dismounting from the horse, holding the equipment, and using the stirrups, the knowledge of which was obligatory for every faris. It is worth mentioning that each faris had to know how to treat his horse in case of sickness. Badr al-Din Baktut al-Rammah al-Khazindari (d. 711/1311) states that, if a faris could not attend to his sick horse, his furusiyya skill was not complete. The sources contain ample information on different kinds of horse diseases and their treatment. Equally important was prowess in the lance game which, according to Muhammad ibn Ya’qub ibn Akhi Hizam (or Hazzam), represented the zenith of the furusiyya. Treatises on furusiyya contain the instructor’s advice about the lance exercises. Only perfectly fit horses were considered suitable for these exercises. The mamluk was advised to saddle the horse himself, and never to rely on anybody’s help. He was taught how to mount and dismount lance in hand, how to tilt the lance in attack and retreat and, especially, how to use it while holding the reins. The lance-master taught the would-be faris how to vary his behaviour, when meeting his enemy: how to parry (al-tabtil), how to disengage from battle (al-tasrih), how to extricate himself from difficulties (al-nashl), how to join battle (al-dukhul) and how to leave it (al-khuruj), and how to thrust (al-ta’n). The birjas figured prominently in mamluk training. It was a wooden target consisting of seven segments, one placed on the other with the seventh reaching the height of the horse, and topped by a metal ring fixed to a piece of wood. The horse-borne mamluk approached the birjas in order to hurl the spear­head into the metal ring. If he succeeded, it was the piece of wood fixed to the metal ring that came down; if he failed, his lance would fall to the ground. The birjas was not the only target in the lance game. Najm al-Din al-Ahdab al-Rammah (d. 694/1294) mentions cornets or cones which used to be scat­tered on the ground, to be collected by the mounted mamluk with the spear­head of his lance. The same author refers also to metal rings, twelve in number, fixed to a piece of metal, which had all to be caught in one attempt; to a ball placed on a person’s head and to be speared by the lance; and to many other procedures of a similar kinds. Written instructions for the use of the lance were laid down by some furusiyya masters under the collective title bunud (sing. band), which here means ‘lance exercises’. Baktut says that these bunud gave strength to body and thigh and taught the faris how to place his foot in the stirrup and how to hold weapons of any kind. The author of the Nihayat al-Su’l wa ‘l-Umniya states that these bunud gave flexibility to the members of the body, enabling the faris to hurry, to attack, to circle, and to flee. Some furusiyya masters traced a number of these bunud back to the early Islamic era, attributing some of them to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and others, after whom they were named. They said that there had been 150 of them in olden days. Najm al-Din al-Ahdab al-Rammah summarized the rules of attack in 72 bunud, in each of which he explains in detail how the lance should be held and tilted, when the opponent was attacked. These 72 bunud were reduced to 50 by an anony­mous lance-master who hoped thus to shorten the period of training. Later on, Baktut reduced the total number of bunud to only seven. Lest something should be missed by the muta’allim (the mamluk under training), Baktut added further details to the instructions contained in al-Ahdab’s bunud. The would-be faris, having mastered horsemanship and the lance game, was sent for further training in the hippodrome (maydan, pl. mayadin). The training in the hippodrome was cavalry training proper, i.e. coaching in team­work. The mamluks did group exercises, learning how to enter, come out, turn right or left, advance or retreat together and to know, in any fight, their own place as well as that of their fellows. Lajin al-Husami al-Tarabulsi (d. 738/1337-8) compiled a furusiyya treatise on the different forms which the performance of the mamluk could take in the maydan. It seems that Lajin’s treatise was the original which later furusiyya masters utilized with some variations. In entering the maydan, each mamluk had to hold his lance in the middle with his right hand, when riding behind his fellow. There were many ways of holding the lance on entering the maydan, but it had to be uniform for all the mamluks riding in a single formation. Lajin al-Husami gives full details of the exercises performed in the hippodrome. The mamluks entered the maydan in a broken line, each of the two groups headed by a muqaddam, who was the chief of the tibaq, so that two muqaddams were riding side by side in the centre (Plate II, a). Then the mamluks rode in different formations, e.g. , beginning in two straight parallel lines (Plate II, b-c) and then turning to form two concentric circles or two separate circles (Plate II, d-e), until they rode in two opposing lines for each pair of mamluks to engage in single combat (Plate III, a). The exercise over, they returned in a zigzag (Plate III, b) to reassume their original formation in the shape of a broken line. This was followed by a show of birjas (Plate III, c), after which the mamluks performed further riding exercises in varying formations (Plate IV). The Bahri Mamluk Sultans constructed a considerable number of hippo­dromes over and above al-maydan al-Salihi, which they had inherited from the Ayyubids. This maydan, built by Sultan al-Salih Ayyub in 643/1243, served the Mamluk Sultans during the first years of their rule in Egypt. The best-known mayddin of the Bahri Mamluk Sultans were al-maydan az-Zahiri and al-maydan al-qabaq, built by al-Zahir Baybars; al-maydan Birkat al-Fil, built by Sultan Kitbugha; and, finally, three hippodromes constructed by Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, i.e., al-maydan al-Nasiri, al-maydan al-mahari, and al-maydan Siryaqus. The hippodromes gradually deteriorated during the Circassian period, when hardly any addition was made to their number. Sultan Qansuh al-Ghawri is the only Circassian sultan said, in the available sources, to have constructed a maydan (in Cairo). Beside the lance game a mamluk had to be proficient in archery. Taybugha al-Baklamishi al-Yunani (d. 797/1394) enjoins every archer to enter the archery training yard, as if he were entering a mosque, i.e., in veneration. For the worshipful mood to be complete Taybugha exhorts him to keep calm and, preferably, to pray two rak’as and only then to prepare his bow and arrows. When his turn came, the archer was to roll up his sleeves, tie the edges of his garment around his waist, and begin the training under the supervision of his master. In teaching beginners, the archery master used to take two flexible bows of the kind called kabad, holding one himself and putting the other into the hands of the mamluk. The master began by teaching the mamluk how to get a firm grip of the bow. This took quite a long time. The aspiring archer was then taught how to measure the distances between the fingertips, when the fingers were outstretched, and how to lock the fingers on the string and arrow (‘aqd, pl. ‘uqud). The master let the mamluk handle the string of the bow first, without the arrow, for a few days. This exercise was followed by shooting with a featherless arrow. The bow was replaced by four others in succession, each heavier than the last; it was the fifth bow which could be used for actual fighting. The final training was carried out in the desert; but, before it could be undertaken, the archer had to achieve a certain degree of skill by shooting at a target called al-buttiyya. The only known master of archery to describe a buttiyya is Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allah Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari (d. 694/1295). He says that the buttiyya was a fixed target supported by four legs. The height of the buttiyya was level with the archer’s chest and therefore variable. It was made of an un­specified material, presumably leather, and filled with cotton. The archer was made to shoot at it from the distance of one dhira’ i.e. , 66. 5 cm. (Plate V). To facilitate the task of the marksman, Taybugha aI-Yunani compiled a poem of more than two hundred verses, containing all the instructions in archery. It seems that many of the mamluks in the tibaq learnt Taybugha’s poem by heart, to be recited and followed when training. The poem enumerates all the moves to be performed by a mamluk, explaining how to hold the bow, where to place the right leg and where the left, what distance to keep between them, when to stand and when to - sit, while taking aim. It teaches the grasp (qabda), the clench (qafla), the aim (i’timed), the nocking (tafwiq), and the release (iflat). The treatises on furusiyya provide innumerable data about most things which were of interest to the mamluk archer. They informed him of the different kinds of bows and arrows, and of the function of each part. They taught him how to avoid the dangers threatening the archer, such as the trembling of the hand or the string hitting the left thumb, the forearm, the chin, or the ear of the archer. They also told him how to avoid or deal with the blisters and wounds caused by stringing, clenching, drawing, and releasing, at the same time suggesting appropriate remedies. The use of the bow and arrow while riding a horse occupied much space in tibaq exercises. The practice consisted of two main movements: (a) shooting down at al-qiqaj (possibly a sand-filled basket), and (b) shooting up at al-qabaq. For the former, the archery master showed the mamluk how to hold the reins between the middle and the annular fingers, how to hold the bow with a firm grip, how to stand in the stirrups, while leaning forward, and how to shoot the arrow down without touching the horse’s ears. As for the qabaq, its literal meaning is ‘gourd’. Al-Maqrizi says that it consisted of a very high wooden beam erected on an empty plain. A wooden circle was fixed to the head of the beam. Standing up on horseback, the archers shot their arrows through an opening in the circle, in order to hit a target placed behind it. The illustration in al-Tabari’s treatise which pictures two faris shooting at a qabaq confirms al-Maqrizi’s data. Al-Tabari exhorts the horseman to approach the qabaq from its right side, leaning somewhat towards his left side, and to beware of touching the wooden beam with his knees. He adds that the length of the beam topped by the wooden circle called al-’alama, should be ten dhira’s (Plate VI). In an account of Sultan Khalil ibn Qalawun’s visit to a maydan on the outskirts of Cairo in 692/1293, in order to play qabaq, Ibn Taghri Birdi gives a different definition of the qabaq. He describes it as a high mast, to the head of which was fixed a gold or silver gourd (qar’a), inside which a pigeon was placed. The faris would advance towards the target and shoot at it, while he was in motion. The one who hit the target and sent the pigeon into flight would receive a robe of honour and the gourd as his prize. However, it seems that the qabaq described by Ibn Taghri Birdi was of the kind used on special occasions, in the presence of the sultan; while that referred to by al-Maqrizi was the one normally employed in the tibaq. Data as yet undiscovered in the Mamluk sources may one day confirm or refute this assumption. More information on the qabaq is found in Taybugha al-Yunani, who advises the mamluks to look upwards when shooting at the qabaq, to shoot from a short distance after passing it, and to follow the arrow with the eyes, until it has passed the wooden circle. He states that, in both the qiqaj and the qabaq, the mamluk must not begin shooting, until the distance between him and his predecessor is great enough to avoid injury, should he fall off his horse. No arrows must be collected before the end of the exercise. Fencing, at many stages, was also taught in the tibaq. First, the master brought out four different kinds of swords with different weights, varying from two to five pounds. Exercises began with light swords and ended with heavy ones. Clay was brought which, according to Baktut, had to mature like dough for three days and nights and was then kneaded until it became as soft as ointment (marham), according to specification. The clay was put on a small table, three dhira’s long, two dhira’s wide and one shibr (span) high. The mamluk, under the supervision of his master, approached the clay with the sword between his forefinger and thumb, bent down on his knees, and hit the clay (Plate VII). In another version, the mamluk approached the clay on the table from the right and then, left leg forward and right leg back, raised the sword to his cheek and hit the clay, bending his right leg and crouching on his left knee. The mamluk hit the clay with his sword 25 times on the first day, 50 times on the second, 75 on the third, and continued increasing the number of blows until he reached 1,000 hits in one day in one posture a feat which was considered to be a proof of attainment. The following stage of practice was to put on the clay a layer of felt which the mamluk tried to cut inch by inch, until he got down to the clay. The thickness of the felt was increased from five layers on the first day, until it reached more than one hundred layers by the end of the trainings. The anonymous author of the Kitab Majmu’ fi al-Rumh says that the clay practice should be followed by hitting a bar of lead, until the sword cut right through it. Here the lead bar seems to have been an alternative to the felt in sword training. To teach the mamluk under training how to be careful with his sword and how to assess and control the depth of the wound, according to whether he wanted to kill or only to injure his enemy, the fencing master made him cut sheets of paper which he placed on a cotton-filled pillow. Twenty reams of paper were then put on the pillow and the mamluk was required to cut through a certain number of reams at one blow. A sheet of iron was now placed underneath these reams, which were to be dealt with in the same way. The exercise was continued, until the mamluk could cut through a certain number of reams without the use of the iron sheet. The horseman was trained in fencing in a completely different way. At first, a green reed the height of the faris was fixed in the ground. The horseman approached it from the right, riding very fast, and cut about a span from it. He repeated the exercise a number of times, until only one dhira’ was left from the length of the reed (Plate VIII). The next exercise consisted in fixing five reeds to the ground on the right hand side of the faris, the distance between each reed being ten dhira’s. The faris approached on horseback, cutting each reed, piece by piece, as in the preceding exercise. The last exercise of this kind involved the placing of five reeds on the right hand and five more on the left hand for the faris to cut through, piece by piece. Only then did the master begin to teach the mamluk how to use the sword in battle when meeting the enemy, in case of attack and in case of retreat, and also how to use two swords at once. These skills were taught in consecutive exercises named al-muwashshah, al-mukhatif, al-mukhalif, etc., which led to full qualification in the art of fencing. Such was the tuition to be undergone by every mamluk before he left the tibaq. After he had finished all the prescribed exercises and proved his efficiency as a fully qualified soldier, the mamluk was handed his liberation paper and given a horse and equipment. His connection with the old barracks was not severed here. As Prof. Ayalon explains in detail, it continued in many ways, one of them being the system of pay parades, at which the mamluks received their pay according to their tibaq. It is worth mentioning that the level of military training in the tibaq declined in the course of time, especially under the Circassians. This decline was caused by internal economic factors running parallel with deterioration in the affairs of the Mamluk Sultanate. It also coincided with the slow but steady rise in the use of fire-arms.

Has anyone here ever read Dr. Shihab al-Sarraf's work? I've read his overview of Furusiyya literature published by the University of Chicago, but I have had trouble finding more of his work in English.