Hi all.

I am increasingly interested in the Mamluks, as a result of researching my family's Ayyubid ancestry. These guys kicked everybody's butts pretty consistently until the 16th century, and then they were just absorbed into the armies of someone else. They even rose from slaves to rule the place for a while. Very cool, very tough, and seriously overlooked these days.

So now I've gotten it into my head to reenact a Ruler's Mamluk, 14th-15th C., in full contact tournaments. Seems a logical choice, given my genealogy, and the seeming lack of precedent..

But to better match my 20-year-practiced movements of fighting with sword, I really would prefer a shorter curved sabre over a longer, straight two-edged blade. And this seemed to be the only sword Mamluks used during the time I wanted to reenact.

On top of that I would like to wear protective dress of an earlier type, instead of the plate-and-mail that Mamluks seemed to love so much from the mid-15th onwards. I can just imagine the bruises...

So it seemed I couldn't get away with both a sabre and the armour type together, until I found a museum pic that showed an early kilic blade, attributed to the 14th century. That would make it pretty much the earliest Kilic I have ever seen, and I've been looking. I've attached this pic.

And then... An old piece of art I found had armour of the approximate type and era I liked, with sections that appeared to be made up of upside-down Chinese Shan Wen Kia ("Mountain Pattern Scale"). Possible I suppose... Lots of trade going on in those days... Some pics of that too...

So I would like to ask anyone and everyone their opinions... First, Could I get away with a kilic/turk saber-like weapon using the attached photo and museum date as proof? What do you think the hilt would look like? And second, what do you think of my theory that the artwork showing the armoured Mamluk has him wearing the aforementioned Chinese style scale? Because a Mamluk style suit of that stuff would be pretty awesome and very powerful protection.

A third, less pressing question... Would you use a Rattan Kalkan for a Mamluk of this period, or a steel shield? As far as I can tell, both were used during this time.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

---

 Attachment: 73.57 KB



 Attachment: 93.35 KB



 Attachment: 51.55 KB
[ Download ]

I've always found the Mamluks interesting, actually found the whole middle east/eastern Mediterreanean during the early to late middle ages interesting. So many different cultures in a small geographic area.

Quote:

They even rose from slaves to rule the place for a while. Very cool, very tough, and seriously overlooked these days.

The only thing I'd say here is the reality of Mamluk "slaves" vs our modern connotations of slaves is far different. Mamluks were in high postions in government among the military, were supported by land grants, etc. etc.

I think "servants" is a better difinition than slaves, and the word "servants" as used in a middle ages connotation, similar to how the root word of many soldiers in the middle ages, even high ranking ones had "servant", though serving in the military was deemed an honor and privilege.

ETA - They were similar to the Ottoman Janissaries in this regard.

I don't see how the sword mentioned is included in the picture of chinese armor.

That sounds like a great idea Bennison. The Mamluks were without a doubt one of the greatest soldiers of their time. And we definitely need more Mamluk reenactors.

For choice of armour, lamellar would be perfectly suitable for the 14th century. But for the 15th century I would be more reserved. Remember that in the 15th century, the ruling Mamluk Sultans were of Circassian rather than Turkish stock. And mail was always a more common and traditional armour among Circassians, lamellar being associated with Central Asians. You could go for a compromise and reenact late 14th century. That way lamellar would be perfectly in place.

As far as swords go, straight double edged swords were likely the most common during the thirteenth century and they remained in use untill the end of the Mamluk state. But curved swords also pop out occasionally and were in use for most of Mamluk history (how frequently I dont know). The earliest curved swo rd I know of is from the late 13th century belonging to the Sultan Husam al-Din Lajin. I have attached a picture of this sword as well as some 15th century Mamluk curved swords.

---

 Attachment: 235.75 KB

Keep in mind that the hilting was likely Ottoman

 Attachment: 95.39 KB



 Attachment: 98.27 KB

Hi Gary. I still consider anyone who can be purchased as a slave. But I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say. To be honest, I was a Far East Asia guy, but the family connection (and a brief obsession with Mongol Hordes...) has definitely led me to the Middle East and Med. Very, very cool, and so underrepresented.

Michael Curl wrote:

I don't see how the sword mentioned is included in the picture of chinese armor.

Sorry mate. I might have jumped ahead a bit too quickly there. The sword and the armour are two different items.

With the sword, I hoped to find existing examples, so I could use a curved sabre in what is rapidly becoming a very strict Historical Medieval Battle. Ahmad is the man... I can't thank him enough.

And from the black and white drawing I attached, it appears that that Mamluk is wearing Shan Wen Kia scale armour, only with the scales upside-down compared to actual Chinese examples.

Ahmad, Thanks a lot mate! I had seen 9th century curved sabres, and then no more until the mid-to-late 15th. You've really helped me a lot.

Youre very welcome :) I look forward to seeing your kit

I do have one more question... Regarding shields.

For a late 14th century Mamluk, would a steel shield, or a rattan kalkan be more suitable?

I intend to mostly wear it on my back to protect that area, and I understand this was done while riding. I really would like to get the most accurate type historically, and I have people I know who can make them both really well.

What do you think is better? I understand that the rattan kalkans are expensive and need the threads replaced constantly, but if they are the more historical ones, I'm sure I can talk my Polish mate into giving me a good trade. :)

My knowledge of Mamluk era shields is very limited but I do recall David Nicolle mentioning that steel shields were adopted as a response to gunpowder weaponry. So they were probably a late 15th and 16th century thing.

While I am not a big fan of rattan kalkans I imagine they would be more accurate. How about daraqas/adargas? Any idea if they were used by the Mamluks?

Mamluks are close to the slavery customs practised in Eastern Eurasia where they were a rare luxury item. It was about families selling their own members to enahnce the survival of the sold members and of the remaining group. The stories of Japanese women sold for gamble debts and Chinese children sold for adoption have become some kind of topos. Less well known is that in this concept of slavery, being a slave had more mutual obligations, making slaves trusted guardians to fight for their master. In Western Eurasia wars made enslaved humans available on a much larger scale, leading to more wasteful concepts of human life and less trust and status. It was not just about people, but exporting a concept from Eastern Eurasia known in the place of slave origin in Central Eurasia to Western Eurasia where it was not the norm (there are also some slave fighters in Western Eurasian cultures, but not as systemized as in Eastern and Central Eurasia).

How are you linked to the Mamluks as one of their descendents? Some of my ancestors were professional musicians, that unfortunately doesn't give me much feeling for music. And how do Mamluks get Chinese mountain armour as anything than the rarest item available next to European knights with a Chinese dao and an English longbow archer with a Japanese bow?

I am not sure I agree with that. Yes the Mamluks were certainly at their best during the late 13th and early 14th century, but people often exaggerate the decline in their military capabilities. Despite a decline in training starting from the 14th century, the Mamluk army was still a highly effective professional force capable of defeating most armies of the time. When Timurlane invaded Syria in 1400, his undefeatable army was fought to a standstill by a small portion of the Mamluk army. Had there been more decisive leadership and the whole Mamluk army comitted he would have probably been soundly defeated.

Another sign that the Mamluk army was still highly effective was the conquest of Cyprus in 1426. Under Barsbay in particular the Mamluk army was reformed and restored to its glory. in my opinion the true beginning of decline occured after Barsbay's death in 1438. His successors were not nearly as competent as he was and the Mamluk army seemed to have lost much of its effectiveness. In the end, what truly signalled the fall of the Mamluks was their stubborn resistance against incorporating gunpowder weaponry on a large scale in their armies.

The Mamluks sat on horses and with all that could be accomplished by sitting on horses they were good at. They were a select small elite that lived in luxury compared to the common men. This puts economic and thus military capability constraints on the system they fight for. Most hampered were naval warfare and good infantry. In facing the first Mongols onslaught, they could count on their quality of training and equipment, but had to wait until the Mongol numbers fell due to logistic constraints. Tamerlane had a more typical Central Asian army with some Mongol influence that led a predatory life. It was an outstanding feat to defeat this incursion as the development of military technology and organization increasingly negated the benefits of their limited field of excellence. They were still outstanding horsemen, when they were defeated by the French (some of the worst European cavalry due to poor training - levée en masse - but good unit cooperation) and afterwards served as renown mercenaries in French service. The Turkish reconquest of Egypt and subsequent revolt show that the Mamluk concept of war and ggovernancewas no longer able to sustain.
To incorporate the whole idea, you need a bit of snobbery typical for an upstart who considers himself a meritocrat elevated by own capability and daring to this position. The slave system of Mamluks did originally include voluntary selling oneself in order to rise due to ability while being incorporated in a strong bond of lloyaltydue to the slavery purchase in order to control the mightiest element of the armed forces. Nizzam al-Mulk has some treaties about how a mixed army has to be composed of rival (ethnic) groups in order to ssuppressmutinies. The clans of the Mamluks were part of this concept of division and the had much bitter infighting about which "clan"/unit was to rule and have money to increase their ranks and status. This reflects a whole mindset inside the shiny armour, switching to hhereditaryMamluk status, the descendants of the clans still had their sshenanigansfor power that were not beneficial to the state as a whole - leading to them becoming an Ottoman subject despite the excellent defensive layout of their homebase Egypt.

It's about cost effectiveness of military tools. They take harm or get lost on the battlefield and the switch was about less expensive investements in men, animals, equipment and their logistics provided for not much worse military effect at a much lower cost.
There are even some contemporary treaties of later times studying the cost problems of militaries with heavy reliance on cavalry. The way out were much cheaper horses that did not provide the mount for such outstanding horsemen as before. The horsemen of old were superior, but the system of new bested them. Napoleon's remark on French and Mamluk horsemen reflects that with the Mamluks still clinging to being somewhat superior horsemen and not a special component of a system. Look at insurance and replacement costs of horses and you can track the decline of highly trained cavalry that were in a mutual relationship with these.

Burgundy versus the Swiss is a counterexample of combined arms being bested. The military business is a complex art of simplicity and sophistication with lots of cunning.

Thanks a lot, all!

I knew I'd get some good stuff from you guys.

Hi Kurt,

Actually, my ancestry is Ayyubid. Saladin himself.

I'm to participate in some Historical Medieval Battles, and I wanted to represent something a bit different to what seems the norm for now (14th C. Western European Knights), and some thing that even had a little relevance to me. I've seen Saracen Free-men at some battles, but never a Mamluk in action. I've seen them at historical Archery tournaments, but not in a pitched fight.

So I'm going to give it a go. To be honest, I'm worried about neck protection, but the sword types definitely play off to my strengths. And the range of movement of Mamluk armour is good, too. And the meritocratic snobbery will be no problem whatsoever, believe me...

I really think it is going to give everyone a pleasant (or unpleasant, depending on context) surprise.

Thanks again, everyone! I really appreciate it!

If your ancestry is Ayyubid and you start this hobby, work up the ladder, start with a Kurdish warrior and when you have suffciently mastered the art at arms, research into equipment and time period, you can be a Kurdish leader of a Mamluk clan.