^{page 448 note 1} On the ḥalqa see: Quatremère, , vol. i, part i, p. 7Google Scholar; p. 246; part ii, p. 158. C.I.A., ‘L'Égypte, ’, p. 458.Google ScholarLa Syrie, pp. xxxii–iv.Google ScholarZ.D.M.G., 1935, p. 219.Google ScholarFeudalism, p. 2Google Scholar; p. 3; pp. 5–10; p. 13; p. 16; p. 19, p. 21; p. 24; pp. 27–9; p. 31; p. 33; p. 40. Sauvaget, J., La Chroniqve de Damas d'Al-Jaza.ri, Paris, 1949, p. 46; p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 2} Gibb, H. A. R., ‘The Armies of Saladin’, Cahiers d'Histoire Égyptienne, Cairo, 1951, p. 305.Google Scholar

This article became available to the writer after the present paper was ready for publication, and therefore it is only sporadically referred to.

^{page 448 note 3} al-Athīr, Ibn, xi, p. 349Google Scholar; p. 369; xii, p. 33. Shāma, Abu, Kitāb ar-Rawḍatayn, ii, p. 179Google Scholar, 11. 17–18; p. 180,1. 4.

^{page 448 note 4} Sulūk (trsl. Quatremère), i, part 2, pp. 200–2.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 5} See n. 1 above, and n. 1, p. 449.

^{page 448 note 6} B.S.O.S., x, p. 872.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 7} Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 16.Google ScholarḌaw' aṣ-Ṣubb, p. 245, 11. 14–16.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 1} Sulūk, i, p. 122, 11. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} See, for instance, the information given for the year 646 (Sulūk, i, p. 330).Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 3} al-Furāt, Ibn, vii, p. 7, 11. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 4} Zetterstéen, , p. 158Google Scholar, 11. 5–6; p. 172, 1. 10; p. 220, 11. 10–13.

^{page 449 note 5} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 451, 1. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 6} Zetterstéen, , p. 164Google Scholar, 11. 10–14. cf. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. vi, p. L.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 7} Khitaṭ, i, p. 87Google Scholar, 11. 38–9.

^{page 449 note 8} Al-Mufaḍḍal b. Abī al-Faḍā'il, an-Nahj as-Sadīd (in Patrologia Orientalis), xx, pp. 221Google Scholar, 1. 5—222, 1. 2.

^{page 449 note 9} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 451Google Scholar, 11. 10–11.

^{page 449 note 10} Manhal, iiGoogle Scholar, fol. 16a, 11. 1–2.

^{page 449 note 11} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 250, 11. 4–5.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 12} Zetterstéen, , p. 219, 11. 14–15.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 13} Zetterstéen, , p. 167, 1. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 14} Zetterstéen, , p. 172, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 15} Zetterstéen, , p. 200, 11. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 16} Zetterstéen, , p. 219, 11. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 17} Zetterstéen, , p. 221, 11. 1–4.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 18} Sulūk, ii, p. 403, 11. 13–14.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 19} Nujūm (C), vi, p. 376Google Scholar, 11. 12–13; vii, p. 43, 1. 8. Manhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 3b, 1. 15. cf. also al-Furāt, Ibn, viii, pp. 136Google Scholar,1. 23–137,1. 1; ix, p. 245, 11. 3–8.

^{page 450 note 1} Zetterstéen, , p. 17Google Scholar, 11. 9–10; p. 161, 11. 5–6, 11. 14–16.

^{page 450 note 2} Zetterstéen, , p. 161, 11. 20–3.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 3} Zetterstéen, , p. 228Google Scholar, 11. 9–12. For details on the position of muqaddamū al-ḥalqa who were not mamluks, see Zetterstéen, , p. 220Google Scholar, 11. 10–13. Durar, iv, p. 381Google Scholar, 11. 9–10, and many other passages. On the muqaddamū al-ḥalqa in the early Mamluk period, and their civil and military functions, see Zetterstéen, , p. 24Google Scholar,11. 19–20; p. 30, 1. 5; p. 32, 11. 13–14; p. 33, 1. 10; p. 41,1. 13; p. 42, 1. 10; p. 43, 1. 8; p. 51, 1. 12; p. 54, 1. 12; p. 106, 1. 23; p. 107, 1. 13; p. 131, 1. 1; p. 144, 1. 14; p. 190, 11. 3–4; p. 218, 11. 9–10. Patrologia, xii, p. 166, 11. 6–7; xiv, p. 487, 1. 7; p. 534; p. 596,1. 5; xx, p. 41,11. 1–2. Ibn Kathīr, xiii, p. 264,11. 12–14; p. 290,11. 20–21; xiv, p. 212, 1. 5; p. 222,1. 27; p. 240,1. 12. Sulūk, i, p. 493,11. 1–2; p. 507; p. 518, 11. 5–6; p. 534, 11. 16–17; ii, p. 499,1. 3,1. 9. Nujūm (C), vi, p. 125,1. 9; vii, pp. 160,1. 17–161,1. 2; viii, p. 102, I. 15; p. 173,1. 1; p. 180,1. 26; p. 213,11. 12–13. Durar, iii, p. 229,1. 5. Ta'rīkh Bayrūt, p. 58, II. 14–15; p. 95,11. 6–15. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 112,1. 33; p. 209,11. 37–9. ṢubṢ, vii, p. 159,1. 15. In the early Mamluk period, one often encounters a military category designated by the term mufradīya or mafārida, sing, mufrad¯. Its nature is not known to us, and it is not clear whether it belonged to the halqa. or to another unit. It seems, however, that its members ranked as honoured privates or lower amirs. They are mentioned as fairly regular participants in various official ceremonies together with the amirs, the muqaddamū al-ḥalqa and others (Sulūk, i, pp. 507, 518, 520, 612).Google Scholar After a long interval, they suddenly reappear in 791 (al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 166)Google Scholar, then vanish again, cf. also Quatremère, vol. i, part 1, p. 187.

^{page 450 note 4} Sulūk, ii, p. 20Google Scholar,1. 20. cf. also Zetterstéen, , p. 132,11. 3–6.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 5} Sulūk, i, p. 673Google Scholar, 11. 16–17.

^{page 450 note 6} ‘The Wafidiya in the Mamluk Kingdom’, Islamic Culture, Jubilee Number, 1951, pp. 89–104Google Scholar, cf. also Quatremère, , vol. ii, part i, p. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 7} Zubda, p. 115.Google ScholarKhiṭaṭ, ii, p. 216.Google ScholarṢubḥ, iv, p. 16.Google ScholarḤusn al-Muḥāḍara, ii, p. 110, 11. 22–4.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 1} Sulūk, i, p. 838Google Scholar; p. 922, 1. 21; p. 930,1. 9; p. 932,1. 17; p. 949,1. 6; ii, p. 33,1. 6; p. 63, I. 10; p. 90,11. 16–19; p. 109,1. 11,1. 16; p. 139,1. 15; p. 236,1. 2. Nujŭm (P), vi, p. 255Google Scholar,1. 18. Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p. 169. A term of frequent occurrence in the sources is alzām, sing, lazīm (‘retinue, escort, troops attached to an amir’). The exact position of the alzām is not entirely clear. Thus, ‘mamatikuhum wa-ajnāduhum wa-alzāmuhum’ (Ibn al-Furāt, viii, p. 180, 1. 20), or ‘khawā wa-alzām’ (Sulūk, ii, p. 69Google Scholar, 11. 11–12). For additional material on this term, see Sulūk, i, p. 346Google Scholar, 11. 1–2; ii, p. 34,1. 6; p. 70,1. 1; p. 385,1. 2. An-Nahj as-Sadīd (in Patrologia Orientalis), xiv, p. 574Google Scholar, 11. 5–6. Abū al-Fīdā', iv, p. 81,1. 15; p. 96,1. 22. Nujūm (C), viii, p. 221Google Scholar, II. 4–5. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 243Google Scholar, 1. 3. al-Furāt, Ibn, vii, p. 101Google Scholar, 1. 17. Ta'rīkh Bayrūt, p. 165Google Scholar, 1. 6. Durar, i, p. 540Google Scholar,1. 4; iv, p. 288, 1. 11.

^{page 451 note 2} Sulūk, ii, p. 146Google Scholar, 1. 2. al-Furāt, Ibn, xi, p. 444Google Scholar, 1. 13; p. 451,11. 10–11. Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 250Google Scholar, 11. 4–5. See also Feudalism, , p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 3} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 477Google Scholar, 11. 14–15; p. 450, 11. 2–3. Duwal al-Islām, ii, p. 15, 11. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 4} See, for instance, al-Fidā, Abū', iv, p. 57Google Scholar, 1. 25. Nujūm (C), viii, p. 157Google Scholar, 1. 8; p. 158, 1. 6.

Sulūk, i, p. 512Google Scholar, 1. 13; p. 518, 1. 5; p. 527, 1. 9; p. 743, 1. 4; p. 768, n. 1; p. 846,1. 1; ii, p. 49, 1. 18; p. 146, 1. 2; p. 156, 1. 8; p. 356, 11. 5–6. Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p. 5, 1. 14; ix, p. 123, 1. 2; p. 186,1. 20; p. 348, 11. 7–8.

^{page 451 note 5} On the battlefield the Mamluk army was divided into three principal bodies: the centre (al-qalb), the right wing (al-maymana) and the left wing (al-maysara). The centre was the most important part, and in it the best troops were concentrated.

^{page 451 note 6} See especially Feudalism, pp. 23–5Google Scholar; p. 27, p. 68. History of the Land-tenure Relations in Egypt, Syria and Palestine in the late Middle Ages and Modern Times (in Hebrew: Toldoth ha-yeḥasīm ha-qarqa'iyīm be-miṣrāyim surīya ve-eretz yisrael be-sof yemey ha-beynāyim uvazzeman he-ḥadash), Jerusalem, 1940, pp. 20 ff.Google ScholarR.E.I., 1935, pp. 239–241.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 1} See references listed in preceding note.

^{page 452 note 2} Zetterstéen, , p. 45Google Scholar, 11. 16–19. The author of the text, unfortunately, does not return to the subject, in spite of a promise to do so.

^{page 452 note 3} Nujūm (C), viii, p. 95, 11. 12–15.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 1} Nujūm (C), viii, pp. 95–9.Google Scholar cf. also Khiṭaṭ, i, pp. 87, 1. 23–88, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 2} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 90Google Scholar, 11. 1–11; pp. 90, 1. 35–91, 1. 1. Ta'rīkh Bayrūt, pp. 95Google Scholar, 1. 9–96, 1. 2. Sulūk, ii, p. 146Google Scholar, 11. 5–6, 11. 13–17. For data on the rawk an-nāṣirī until 806 and on the decline of Egypt from that date onward, see Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 91Google Scholar, 11. 12–16. For additional data on the rawks, see Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 82Google Scholar, 1. 11; pp. 87–91; ii, pp. 206, 1. 39–207, 1. 3. Zetterstéen, , p. 164Google Scholar, 11. 10–14. Kathīr, Ibn, xiv, p. 69Google Scholar, 11. 18–22; p. 75, 11. 25–6; p. 865. Durar, i, p. 251.Google ScholarṢubḥ, iii, p. 302Google Scholar, 11. 15–17; p. 387, 11. 25–35; p. 436, 11. 6–7. An-Nahj as-Sadīd (in Patrologia Orientalis), xiv, p. 601Google Scholar, 11. 1–2; xx, p. 236, 11. 1–3; pp. 255, 1. 1–256, 1. 1. Sulūk, i, pp. 841–6Google Scholar; p. 858, 11. 16–18. p. 865, 11. 5–7; ii, pp. 146–7; pp. 149–150; pp. 154–7; pp. 174–5; pp. 176–7; p. 264, 11. 4–5. Zetterstéen, pp. 160, 1. 25–161, 1. 1. Manhal, v, fol. 55a, 11. 7–19.Google Scholaral-Fidā, Abū', iv, p. 37Google Scholar, 11. 1–3. Nujūm (C), ix, p. 36Google Scholar, 11. 1–2; pp. 42–55; p. 163, 11. 2–3; p. 177, 11. 4–19; p. 296, 11. 9–11. On incomes from feudal estates, see Sulūk, ii, p. 146Google Scholar, 11. 5–6. Khiḥaḥ, i, p. 88Google Scholar, 11. 15–20; pp. 90, 1. 36–91, 1. 1; p. 97, 11. 1–22; ii, pp. 216–17. For the rawk, cf. also: Quatremère, , vol. ii, part ii, p. 65.Google ScholarFeudalism, pp. 5–23Google Scholar; p. 27; p. 68. Sauvaget, , Jazari, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 3} Manhal, vGoogle Scholar, fol. 203b, 11. 3–4.

^{page 453 note 4} On dīwan al-badal see: La Syrie, p. xlv.Google ScholarFeudalism, p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 1} Khiṭat, ii, p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 2} Durar, iv, p. 361Google Scholar, 11. 6–10.

^{page 454 note 3} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 165.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 4} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 165.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 5} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 163.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 6} Nujūm and Ibn al-Furāt, in the chronicles for the year 791. cf. also references listed in n. 6, p. 455.

^{page 454 note 7} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 163.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 8} Zubda, p. 116.Google Scholar Ṭūmānbāy, unlike his predecessors, is said to have relieved the ḥalqa from guarding the Cairo citadel in the absence of the army's main body (lyās, Ibn, v, p. 48, 11. 1–10).Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 1} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 389.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 2} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 739.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 3} Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 739–740.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 4} Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 222.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 5} Sulūk (trsl. Quatremère), ii, part 1, p. 200.Google ScholarKhiṭaṭ, ii, p. 216,1. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 6} On the status of the ḥalqa during the Circassian period, see: Nujūm (P), v, p. 120Google Scholar, 11. 20–1; p. 407, 11. 20–1; vi, p. 55, 11. 18–20; pp. 70–1; p. 72, 1. 15; p. 385, 11. 3–5; pp. 388–9; pp. 391–2; p. 394, 11. 8–10; pp. 481–2; p. 483, 11. 13–14; pp. 738–9; p. 740, 11. 4–6. Ḥawādith, pp. 697Google Scholar, 1. 18–698, 1. 5. Manhal, viiiGoogle Scholar, fol. 441b. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 11Google Scholar, 11. 8–10; p. 150, 1. 12; p. 160, 11. 20–1; p. 163, 11. 5–10; p. 165, 11. 6–11; p. 350, 1.20; pp.362, 1.25–363, 1.3. Ibn lyās, ii, p. 22, 11. 10–13; p. 47, 11. 3–6; p. 101; p. 104; p. 110, 11. 2–3; (KM) iii, p. 20, 11. 4–14; pp. 24, 1. 21–25, 1. 1; pp. 40, 1. 24–41, 1. 4; p. 323, 11. 6–9; v, p. 26, 11. 6–12; p. 27,11. 1–5.

^{page 456 note 1} The term ‘an-nās’, however, is also found in its ordinary meaning, i.e. ‘the public, the i people’. The two meanings should not be confused; they occur in the sources with approximately equal frequency. For the second meaning, see, for instance: Sulūk, i, p. 789Google Scholar, 1. 6. Nujūm (P), v, p. 13Google Scholar, 1. 16; p. 16, 1. 19; p. 32, 1. 15; p. 40, 1. 1; p. 312, 1. 10; p. 322, 11. 12–13; p. 404; p. 407, 1. 16; p. 418, 1. 1; p. 522, 1. 8; vii, p. 684, 1. 5, 1. 7. Ibn lyas (KM), iii, p. 53, 1. 22; v, p. 75, 1. 14. Cf. also Z.D.M.G., 1935, pp. 217–18.Google Scholar Glossary to Ḥawādith, p. xxix.Google ScholarFeudalism, p. 10Google Scholar; p. 14; p. 20; p. 33; p. 38; p. 40; p. 54.

^{page 456 note 2} Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 51Google Scholar, 11. 10–12. Ḍaw' aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 258Google Scholar, 11. 19–21. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 216Google Scholar, 11. 18–24.

^{page 456 note 3} Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 216Google Scholar,11. 18–24. cf. also Nujūm (C), viii, p. 174Google Scholar, 1. 17. Ibn lyās, ii, p. 177, 1. 20; iv, p. 47, 11. 11–17; p. 195, 11. 2–3; p. 363, 1. 9; v, p. 26, 1. 1; p. 176, 1. 3; p. 347, 1. 15; p. 395, 1. 4; p. 402, 11. 9–10.

^{page 457 note 1} See, for instance, Zetterstéen, p. 157, 1. 22. Sulūk, i, p. 770.Google ScholarNujūm (C), ix, p. 262Google Scholar, 11. 6–8. Nujūm (P), v, p. 206Google Scholar, 11. 21–3; p. 301, 11. 13–14; vi, p. 145, 11. 1–2; p. 173, 11. 7–14; p. 393, 11. 9–10; p. 475, 1. 14; vii, p. 225, 11. 2–5; p. 625, 11. 16–18. Ḥawādith, p. 107Google Scholar, 11. 6–8; p. 318, 11.10–16. Manhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 147b, 11. 8–10; vii, fol. 354a, 11. 10–11. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 165, 11. 15–16; p. 173, 11. 16–17; p. 239, 11. 3–4; p. 275, 11. 14–20; p. 276, 11. 1–5; p. 477, 11. 15–16. Tibr, p. 354Google Scholar, 11. 9–11. Ibn lyās, ii, p. 40, 11. 4–5; p. 104, 11. 9–23; p. 143, 1. 11; iii, p. 23, 11. 8–12; iv, p. 354, 11. 17–19. Durar, i, p. 115Google Scholar, 1. 1; ii, pp. 50–1. Ḍaw' iii, pp. 100Google Scholar, 1. 17–101, 1. 6; p. 106,1. 29. The governors of the provinces of Alexandria, Kerak, Jerusalem, Ḥamā, etc., were sometimes non-mamluks as well (Ḥawādith, p. 603Google Scholar, 1. 14. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 297Google Scholar, 11. 9–11. Ḍaw', i, p. 66Google Scholar, 11. 19–21; p. 226, 11. 13–18; iii, pp. 100, 1. 27–101, 1. 6; p. 102, 11. 12–13; p. 106, 11. 26–7, 1. 29; p. 131, 11. 12–14).

^{page 457 note 2} Nujūm (P), v, pp. 159–160.Google Scholar

^{page 457 note 3} Sulūk, ii, p. 228Google Scholar, 11. 14–18. Ibn lyās, ii, p. 21, 11. 5–10; p. 137, 11. 2–4; v, p. 48, 11. 1–10. In the relevant chapter of our work on the Mamluk army we discussed in detail the curtailments and cuts in the payments to the ḥalqa and the awlād an-nās; see also: Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 118Google Scholar, 1. 9; p. 174, 11. 28–9; (KM) iii, p. 130, 11. 3–4; p. 266, 11. 11–12; p. 432, 11. 6–7. Qāḍī, Ibn Shuhba, fol. 18a, 11. 24–5.Google Scholaral-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 79Google Scholar, 11. 11–13; p. 219, 11. 11–13; p. 350, 11. 19–21; p. 379, 11. 8–9.

^{page 457 note 4} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 21Google Scholar, 11. 5–6; p. 212, 1. 11; iv, p. 150, 1. 13; v, p. 48, 11. 10–11.

^{page 457 note 5} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), vii, p. 140Google Scholar, 11. 4–5; p. 850, 11. 7–9. Ḥawādith, p. 175Google Scholar; 11. 10–13; p. 616, 1. 1; p. 681,1. 8. Ibn lyās, v, p. 43, 11. 3–4; as well as Feudalism, p. 29Google Scholar, and n. 10.

^{page 458 note 1} Ḥawādith, p. 175Google Scholar, in the notes.

^{page 458 note 2} See, for instance, Nujūm (C), vii, p. 236Google Scholar,1. 13. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 11Google Scholar, 11. 7–10; p. 854, 11. 5–6; vii, p. 339,11. 6–8. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, i, fol. 71b, 11. 1–2; fol. 89a, 11. 11–12. Durar, i, p. 27Google Scholar, 1. 17; ii, p. 91, 11. 6–7. Ḍaw', ii, pp. 97–8Google Scholar; iii, p. 120, 11. 1–2; v, p. 155, 11. 1–2; vii, p. 147; viii, pp. 171, 1. 28–172, 1. 6. The terms indicating that a civilian or an amir's son belonged to, or joined, the ḥalqa were: tazayyā bi-zīy al-jund, labisa zīy al-jund, kān bi-zīy al-jundīya, dakhala fī al-jundīya, etc. (Nujūm (C), vii, p. 27Google Scholar, 11. 15–16. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 292Google Scholar, 11. 1–2; p. 328, 1. 1; p. 853, 11. 20–1. Manhal, i, fol. 103a, 1. 22.Google Scholaral-Furāt, Ibu, ix, p. 283Google Scholar, 1. 17; p. 471, 11. 3–5. Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 105Google Scholar, 11. 1–6. Durar, i, p. 231Google Scholar, 11. 16–19; p. 239, 11. 17–19; ii, p. 86, 1. 10; iv, p. 280, 1. 7; p. 345, 11. 16–19; pp. 370, 1. 21–371, 1. 1; p. 489, 11. 9–10. Tibr, p. 48Google Scholar, 1. 15. Ḍaw', i, p. 146Google Scholar,1. 4; iii, p. 205,1. 18; v, p. 36; viii, p. 230,11. 18–20; x, p. 318, 11. 8–9).

^{page 458 note 3} Nujūm (P), v, pp. 159–160Google Scholar; vii, p. 293, notes. Ḥawādith, p. 142, 11. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 4} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 683.Google ScholarManhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 55a, 11. 2–13; fols. 179a, 1. 21—179b, 1. 2. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 15, 11. 11–14.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 5} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 14,11. 25–6, and many other passages.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 6} Ḥawādith, pp. 706Google Scholar, 1. 10–707, 1. 15. Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 66Google Scholar, 11. 12–16; p. 150, 11. 6–14; p. 152, 11. 21–4.

^{page 458 note 7} For material on the asyād and their status in the Mamluk kingdom, see Sulūk, ii, p. 490Google Scholar, 1. 13. Nujūm (P), v, pp. 216–17Google Scholar; p. 228, 11. 18–19; p. 229, 1. 3; p. 282, 1. 3; p. 320, 1. 21; p. 397, 11. 15–17; p. 505, 1. 12; vi, p. 266, 11. 2–3; p. 432, 11. 5–7; p. 514, 11. 7–8; p. 545, 11. 8–9; p. 772; vii, p. 320, 1. 1; p. 426, 1. 1; pp. 508–9; p. 511; p. 644, 11. 1–8; pp. 664–5; p. 678, 11. 8–9. Ḥawādith, p. 149Google Scholar, 1. 1; p. 305. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 56Google Scholar, 11. 15–18; p. 91,11. 18–21; p. 176, I. 21. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 15Google Scholar, 11. 1–2; p. 60, 1. 4; p. 79; p. 108, 1. 1; p. 113, 11. 6–10; iii, p. 188, 11. 10–12; p. 195, 1. 12; iv, p. 9, 1. 7; p. 399, 11. 15–23; p. 406, 1. 9. Ḍaw', iii, p. 53Google Scholar, 11. 8–10; p. 87, 11. 6–7; p. 124, U. 2–3; p. 201; p. 217; vi, p. 73; vii, p. 274. Zubda, p. 111Google Scholar, 11. 5–12. Ṣubḥ, xiii, p. 167Google Scholar, 11. 16–19. One of the surprising facts connected with the Circassians is that even the later rulers, who were well aware of the fate met by sultans' sons who were appointed to the sultanate by their fathers, grew no wiser from experience and followed the same policy, knowing full well that then own sons would be deposed. This fact arouses the amazement of Ibn Taghrībirdī, who can find no explanation for it. He says in one passage: ‘We have seen the same retribution meted out time and again from the day when Barqūq deposed al-Manṣūr Ḥājjī down to our own day. All are made to drink the same cup by the atābak, and the beverage contained therein is prepared by the mamlukg of their fathers. This matter has already been discussed by us in many places, but silence is more fitting’ (Nujūm (P), vii, p. 419Google Scholar, 11. 2–6). Elsewhere, he states that he fails to understand why the sultan appoints his son as successor at the last minute, knowing as he does with certainty that his son will be dealt with as he himself dealt with the son of the previous sultan (Nujūm (P), vii, p. 394Google Scholar, 11. 9–13. See also Nujūm (P), v, pp. 228–230Google Scholar; vii, pp. 394–6. Ḥawādith, p. 134, 11. 1–2).Google Scholar

^{page 459 note 1} Ḍaw' aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 265Google Scholar, 1. 15. ṢubṢ, iv, p. 24Google Scholar, 11. 6–16; p. 63, 11. 11–12; p. 64, 11. 3–9. 11. 9–15.

^{page 459 note 2} Zubda, p. 134Google Scholar, 11. 11–13.

^{page 459 note 3} Nujūm (C), viii, p. 261Google Scholar, 1. 11. Nujum (P), v, p. 229,1. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 459 note 4} See, for instance, Zetterstéen, , p. 132Google Scholar, 11. 3–6; p. 163, 1. 21; p. 168, 1. 23; p. 170, 1. 8; p. 177,1. 1. Sulūk, ii, p. 176,11. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 1} Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 216Google Scholar, 11. l–4, 11. 13–14. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 62Google Scholar, 11. 12–16. Kathir, Ibn, xiv, p. 318Google Scholar,11. 15–17.

In connexion with the repartition of fief incomes between the amir and his mamluks, in the proportion of two-thirds to one-third, it is interesting to note that Amir Qalamṭāy aẓ-Ẓāhirī Barqūq willed one-third of his possessions to his freed mamluks and his freed slave-women (Manhal, v, fol. 34a, 11. 18–19).Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 2} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 62Google Scholar, 1. 12. Ḍaw', iii, p. 36Google Scholar; p. 276, 1. 12; p. 284, 1. 13.

^{page 460 note 3} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 581Google Scholar, 11. 17–18; p. 597, 11. 18–19; p. 616, 11. 3–5; p. 772, 1. 1; p. 798, notes. Ḍaw' iii, p. 36Google Scholar; p. 276, 1. 12; p. 284, 1. 3; x, p. 205, 1. 28. Al-abwāb as-sulṭanīya are called in the sources also al-abw¯b ash-sharīfa or al-abwāb al-'āliya (al-Fidā, Abū', iv, p. 62Google Scholar, 11. 13–14; p. 79, 1. 3; p. 96, 1. 27. Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 46Google Scholar, 1. 5; p. 119, 1. 14; p. 130,1. 21. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 60Google Scholar, 11. 18–20). The houses of the amirs were also called al-buyūt al-karīma (Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 60Google Scholar, 11. 18–20).

^{page 460 note 4} cf. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 5} Khaldūn, Ibn, v, p. 472Google Scholar, 1. 19. Only additional data will make it possible to reach more definite conclusions on this point.

^{page 460 note 6} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 478, 11. 6–11.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 7} See, for instance, Manhal, ii, fol. 61a, 11. 17–21.Google ScholarAn-Nahj as-Sadīd (in Patrologia Orientalis), xiv, p. 535Google Scholar, 11. 2–4. cf. also section on the sayfīya in this chapter.

^{page 460 note 8} Zetterstéen, , p. 132Google Scholar, 11. 3–6.

^{page 461 note 1} Nujūm (P), v, p. 219, 11. 19–20.Google Scholar

^{page 461 note 2} Khiṭaṭ, i, pp. 87, 1. 37–88, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 461 note 3} Manhal, iii, fol. 132b, 11. 4–17.Google Scholar For additional information on this amir and his peculiar ways see Ḍaw', iii, pp. 277Google Scholar, 1. 13–278, 1. 15.

^{page 461 note 4} For rank, cf. Quatremère, , vol. ii, part i, p. 14Google Scholar; p. 15. Heraldry, p. 5Google Scholar; p. 26, p. 34, n. 4. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. v, p. xxvi.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 1} Ṣubḥ, iv, pp. 60Google Scholar, 1. 11–63, 1. 3; p. 61, 11. 12–15; pp. 61, 1. 20–62, 1. 5. Ḍaw' aḌ Ṣubḥ pp. 264–5.Google Scholar cf. La Syrie, p. ciii.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 2} Iyās, Ibn, v, pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 3} Sulūk, ii, p. 100Google Scholar, 11. 4–5. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 390, 11. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 4} Sulūk, i, p. 687.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 5} Durar, i, p. 388,1. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 6} Durar, iii, p. 258, 11. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 7} Manhal, iii, fol. 178b, 1. 17.Google ScholarNujūm (P), v, p. 135, 11. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 8} Nujūm (P), v, p. 301, 11. 11–13.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 9} Zubda, p. 132, 1. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 10} al-Fidā, Abū', iv, p. 57, 11. 28–9.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 11} Nujūm (P), v, p. 208Google Scholar, 1. 19. Manhal, i, fol. 193b, 11. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 12} Zubda, p. 148Google Scholar, 11. 12–14. Durar, iv, p. 438Google Scholar, 11. 12–13. Iyās, Ibn, i, p. 219Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 200.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 13} Nuj¯m (P), v, pp. 460–1.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 14} Nujūm (P), v, p. 63, 1. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 1} Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 442–3.Google ScholarManhal, viii, fol. 390b, 11. 6–9.Google Scholar For the expenses of other amirs, see Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 169Google Scholar, 11. 27–30. Manhal, ii, fol. 412, 11. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 2} Manhal, viii, fol. 367b, 11. 13–15.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 3} Iyās, Ibn, i, p. 208.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 4} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 5} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 6} Nujūm (P), v, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 7} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 8} Manhal, ii, fol. 33a, 11. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 9} Manhal, ii, fol. 33b, 11. 4–5.Google Scholar In another passage, the same historian reports that the mamluks owned by Taghrībirdī exceeded 300 (Nujūm (P), vi, p. 141Google Scholar, 11. 5–6), and that when he served as governor of Damascus, their number reached 970 (Manhal, ii, fol. 125b).Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 10} Ḥawādith, p. 659Google Scholar, 11. 17–18. This statement of Ibn Taghrībirdī should not, of course, be taken at its face value, but it contains undoubtedly a substantial grain of truth.

^{page 463 note 11} The historians of the Circassian period call the sultans of the first Mamluk period mulūk as-salaf or al-mulūk as-sālifa. To them they attribute all noble virtues, and set them in contrast to the sultans of their own day.

^{page 463 note 12} Ḥawādith, pp. 566, 1. 20–567Google Scholar, 1. 1. The term mulūk referred not only to sultans, but also to important amirs, cf. for instance, Nujūm (P), v, p. 611Google Scholar, 11. 10–13.

^{page 464 note 1} Ḥawādith, p. 142, 11. 17–18Google Scholar. Amir Baraka had an ustādār who was an Amir of a Thousand, ‘an unheard-of thing’ (Nujūm (P), v, p. 311, 11. 5–8).Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 2} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 118, 11. 1–3.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 3} Ḍaw', iii, p. 58, 1. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 4} Ḍaw', ii, p. 328, 11. 17–18.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 5} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 478.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 6} Nujūm (C), vii, p. 272, 11. 5–6, 11. 7–8Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 36, 1. 7Google Scholar. Manhal, ii, fol. 12b, 11. 12–13Google Scholar; fol. 62b, 11. 20–1. Ḥawādith, p. 389, 11. 10–12Google Scholar; p. 391, 11. 9–17; p. 577, 1. 22.

^{page 464 note 7} See now Gibb, op. cit.

^{page 464 note 8} The tulb was the military unit which the sultan or amir would lead during the military expedition, or during processions and parades. Al-Maqrīzī, (Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 86)Google Scholar alone among Mamluk sources defines this term, but his definition is unsuited to the actual usage of the term during the Mamluk period, cf. Quatremère, , vol. i, part i, pp. 34–5Google Scholar; part ii, pp. 271–2. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. vi, p. xxxixGoogle Scholar. Gibb, , op. cit., pp. 308–9.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 1} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 86, 11. 26–34Google Scholar. Gibb, , op. cit., p. 309, n. 31Google Scholar. The whole question of the ṭawāshiya in ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn's army is comprehensively dealt with by Gibb.

^{page 465 note 2} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 86, 11. 34–9Google Scholar; p. 87, 1. 1. The same list appears in Sulūk, i, p. 75, 11. 3–7Google Scholar, but is much more corrupt than that given in Khiṭaṭ. Both should be read together in order to obtain a correct picture. On the kinānīya (as well as kitāmīya?) mentioned together with the ṭawāshiya in the above list, see also Nujūm (C), vi, p. 17Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 150, 1. 12Google Scholar. For the etymology of the term ṭawāshī, see Blochet, 's view (Patrologia Orientalis, xii, p. 494, n. 4).Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 3} Nujūm (C), vi, p. 12, 1. 4Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 76, 11. 1–3Google Scholar. Khiṭat, ii, p. 120, 11. 13–15Google Scholar. ash-Shiḥna, Ibn, p. 225, 11. 10–14Google Scholar. Al-Mashriq, 1935, p. 212, 11. 14–18Google Scholar. Qawānīn ad-Dawāwīn, p. 356, 1. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 4} Al-Mashriq, 1935, p. 212, 11. 14–18Google Scholar. ash-Shiḥna, Ibn, p. 225, 11. 10–14.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 5} Khaldūn, Ibn, v, p. 424, 11. 22–5.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 6} Sulūk, i, p. 509, 11. 2–5.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 7} al-Furāt, Ibn, viii, p. 2, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 8} Sulūk, i, p. 722, 1. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 9} Ta'rīf, p. 89, 11. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 1} To put it in other words: if the ṭawāshiya are mamluks this means that Ṣalāh ad-Dīn had by far a greater number of mamluks than Najrn ad-Dīn as-ḥaliḥ Ayyūb, the founder of the Baḥrīya regiment, from which the Mamluk kingdom sprang up (see below, p. 474). The writer did not succeed in establishing the connexion between the ṭawāshiya and the ḥalqa, under Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn.

^{page 466 note 2} Feudalism, p. 3, n. 4Google Scholar. The whole question concerning the term' amirs' horsemen' is discussed in pp. 471–5.

^{page 466 note 3} al-Manṣūrī, Baybars, Zubdat al-Fikra, fol. 157a, 1. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 4} Ibid., fol. 158a, 11. 6–7.

^{page 466 note 5} Aẓ-Ẓahir, Muḥyi ad-Dīn ibn ‘Abd, Sīrat aẓ-Ẓahir Baybars, B.M. MS., Add. 23, 331, fol. 41a, 11. 3–5.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 6} Ibid., fol. 41b, 11. 15–17. See another interesting example: ibid., fol. 42a, 11. 7–9.

^{page 466 note 7} Ta'rīkh Bayrūt, pp. 96–98Google Scholar. cf. also p. 79, 11. 6–10; p. 89, 1. 11, 1. 14; pp. 92–4.

^{page 466 note 8} cf. references cited in the preceding note, as well as some of those given by Poliak, Feudalism, p. 3; R.E.I., 1935, p. 247, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 1} Ṣubḥ, vii, p. 159, 11. 15–16Google Scholar. The writer is not certain as to the meaning of ṭaw7amacr;shī in Kathīr, Ibn, xiv, p. 287, 1. 26Google Scholar, and Nujūm (P), vii, p. 487, 11. 23–5.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 2} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 205, 11. 5–6.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 3} Nujūm (P), v, p. 536, 1. 7Google Scholar; vi, p. 7, 1. 14. Ḍaw', iii, p. 11, 1. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 4} Zetterstéen, , p. 168, 1. 3Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 91, 1. 6Google Scholar; p. 523, 1. 22; vi, p. 803, 1. 5. Shuhba, Ibn Qādī, fol. 70b, 1. 25Google Scholar. Manhal, iv, fol. 110b, 1. 3Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 25, 1. 4Google Scholar; p. 48, 1. 22; p. 92, 1. 28; (KM) iii, p. 296, 1. 1; p. 314, n. 2; p. 374, 1. 23; iv, p. 105, 1. 6; p. 450, 1. 19.

^{page 467 note 5} Thus: ‘wa-lam yahṣul li-Lājīn hādhā imrat ‘ashara, wa-māta wa-huwa jundī’ (Manhal, v, fol. 56a, 11. 20–1)Google Scholar; cf. also: Zetterstéen, , p. 199, 1. 12Google Scholar. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 63, 1. 11Google Scholar. Faw7amacr;t al-Wafayāt, i, p. 99Google Scholar. Manhal, i, fol. 195b, 1. 1Google Scholar; fol. 196b, 11. 6–7; iii, fol. 18a, 11. 19–20. That jundīya referred to the rank of private may be inferred from the following examples: wa-intaqala Barqūq min al-jundīya ilā imrat ṭablkhāna daf'atan wāḥidalan (Manhal, ii, fol. 61a, 11. 21–2)Google Scholar and ‘wa-ṭālat ayyāmuhu fī al-jundīya ilā an ta'ammara ‘ashara’ (Manhal, v, fol. 16a, 11. 3–4)Google Scholar; cf. also Zetterstéen, , p. 101Google Scholar. Nujūm (C), ix, p. 297Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 100Google Scholar, 11. 17–18; p. 319, 11. 8–9; p. 325, 1. 2; p. 419, 11. 4–5. Nujūm (P), v, p. 304, 1. 19Google Scholar; pp. 332–3; p. 450, 11. 12–16; p. 575, 11. 20–2; vi, p. 536, 1. 20; p. 675, 1. 15; vii, p. 301, 1. 5. Manhal, ii, fol. 176b, 11. 11–12Google Scholar; viii, fol. 420b, 11. 14–15. Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, fol. 73b, 11. 3–4; fol. 78b, 1. 13Google Scholar. Durar, i, p. 216, 11. 1–2Google Scholar; p. 514, 1. 11. Ḍaw', iii, p. 60, 1. 26Google Scholar; vi, p. 215, 1. 22. We may point out here that jundī and jundīya, meaning ‘private soldier’ and ‘rank of private’ respectively, ought not to be confused with ajnād, meaning, as stated above, ‘soldiers of the ḥalqa’. For the term jundī, cf. C.I.A., ‘L'Égypte,’ p. 544Google Scholar. La Syrie, pp. xxxiv–vGoogle Scholar. Heraldry, p. 5Google Scholar. Glossary to Ḥawādith, p. xxv.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 6} Ta'rīf, pp. 73–4Google Scholar. Ṣubḥ, iv, pp. 14 ffGoogle Scholar. Ḍaw' aṣ-Ṣubh, pp. 244–5Google Scholar. Khiṭaṭ, i, pp. 95 ffGoogle Scholar; ii, pp. 215 ff. Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍara, ii, pp. 110–113Google Scholar. Zubda, pp. 111–116Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 386–7.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 7} Nujūm (P), v, p. 204, 1. 2Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 393, 1. 15Google Scholar. For muqaddam alf, taqdimat alf, cf.: Quatremère, , vol. i, part i, p. 26Google Scholar; p. 112. C.I.A., ‘L'Égypte,’ p. 410Google Scholar; p. 545. La Syrie, p. 38Google Scholar. Z.D.M.G., 1935, p. 214Google Scholar. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. v, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 8} ash-Shiḥna, Ibn, p. 259, 1. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 9} Zetterstéen, , p. 163, 1. 5Google Scholar. Sulūk, ii, p. 338, 11. 20–1Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), vii, p. 362, 1. 8Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 42, 1. 3Google Scholar; iv, p. 230, 11. 5–6; p. 398, 11. 7–8.

^{page 467 note 10} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 113, 1. 9Google Scholar; p. 137, 1. 21; p. 165, 1. 16; p. 195, 1. 5; v, p. 53, 1. 2; p. 76, 1. 4; p. 83, 1. 2. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 55, 11. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 1} Zetterstéen, , p. 157, 1. 21Google Scholar; p. 162, 1. 13. Sulūk, i, p. 681, 11. 12–15Google Scholar. Ḥawādith, p. 62, 11. 3–5Google Scholar. Tibr, p. 357, 1. 15Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 163, 1. 16Google Scholar; v, p. 37, 1. 23. Ḍaw', ii, p. 275, 1. 7Google Scholar; p. 276, 11. 5–6; (KM) iii, p. 382, 1. 25; vi, p. 212, 1. 10.

^{page 468 note 2} Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 10, 1. 7Google Scholar. Ḍaw' aṣ Ṣubḥ, p. 244, 1. 21Google Scholar; p. 261, 11. 5–6. Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍara, ii, p. 110Google Scholar. 1. 10, 1. 25. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 202, 1. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 3} Sulūk, ii, p. 326, 11. 8–9Google Scholar; p. 470, 1. 14. Nujūm (P), v, p. 47Google Scholar; p. 155, 1. 23; p. 278, 11. 1–2; p. 428, 1. 21; p. 429, 1. 20; p. 430, 1. 10; pp. 444, 1. 2–445, 1. 19; p. 520, 11. 12–15; p. 634, 1. 13; iv, p. 7, 1. 4; p. 228, 1. 20; p.-234, 11. 20–1; p. 249, 1. 16; p. 250, 1. 8; p. 278, 1. 8; p. 825, 1. 21; vii, p. 166, 1. 14; p. 391, 11. 12–13; p. 410, 1. 12; p. 722, 1. 16.

^{page 468 note 4} Sulūk, ii, p. 405, 1. 12Google Scholar. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 61, 1. 6, 1. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 5} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 264, 1. 15; p. 426, 1. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 6} Nujūm (P), v, p. 28Google Scholar; vi, p. 825, 1. 4, 1. 13. Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 89, 1. 6; iv, p. 63, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 7} Sulūk, ii, p. 237Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 5, 1. 22Google Scholar; p. 33, 1. 21. Ḥawādith, p. 452, 11. 16–22Google Scholar. Tibr, p. 122, 1. 11Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 60, 11. 21–2Google Scholar; p. 114, 1. 27. Ḍaw'. ii, p. 312, 1. 14Google Scholar; iii, p. 59, 1. 23; p. 196, 1. 7; p. 282, 1. 4; x, p. 279, 1. 12, 11. 28–9.

^{page 468 note 8} Ḍaw', vi, p. 218, 1. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 9} Ḍaw', ii, p. 267Google Scholar, 1. 17; p. 273, 1. 6; p. 311, 1. 11; p. 318, 11. 6–7; iii, p. 36; p. 41, 1. 25; p. 60, 1. 13; p. 66, 11. 27–8; p. 277, 1. 27; vi, p. 164, 1. 7; p. 194, 1. 24; p. 201; p. 214, 1. 19; p. 215, 1. 5; p. 224, 11. 3–4; x, p. 271, 1. 6; p. 275, 1. 3, 11. 6–8; p. 280, 1. 15; p. 288, 1. 7; p. 290, 1. 28; p. 345, 1. 21; xi, p. 150, 11. 7–8.

^{page 468 note 10} Sulūk, ii, p. 320, 11. 2–3Google Scholar. Nujūm (C), vii, p. 280, 1. 7Google Scholar. Ḍaw', ii, p. 312, 1. 13Google Scholar; p. 315, 1. 2; p. 316, 1. 28; iii, p. 8, 1. 3; p. 10; p. 28; p. 29, p. 67, 1. 6; p. 161, 1. 8; p. 295, 1. 15; iv, p. 10, 1. 16; vi, p. 195, 1. 24; p. 233, 1. 4.

^{page 468 note 11} This description is based on the material cited in note 6, p. 467, above; cf. also Ḍaw' aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 244, 11. 23–4.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 1} Sulūk, ii, p. 221, 1.15Google Scholar; cf. also p. 280, 11. 6–7. Nujūm (C), ix, p. 65, 11. 9–10.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 2} Ḍaw' aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 244, 11. 23–4.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 3} Nujūm (P), v, p. 457, 11. 15–18.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 4} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 237, 11. 1–10.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 5} Ḥawādith, p. 281, 11. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 6} Ḥawādith, p. 344, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 7} Ḥawādith, p. 452, 11. 21–2.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 8} Ḥawādith, p. 631, 11. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 9} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 30, 1. 14; p. 277, 1. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 10} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 358, 11. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 11} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 434, 1. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 12} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 2, 11. 13–14.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 13} Manhal, iii, fol. 155a, 1. 6Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 276Google Scholar, 1. 1. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 3, 1. 3Google Scholar; p. 87, 11. 4–6; p. 221, 1. 27; (KM) iii, p. 396, 1. 18; p. 440, 1. 17. Durar, i, p. 418, 1. 5Google Scholar; p. 424, 1. 12; iii, p. 255, 1. 8. Ḍaw', ii, p. 275, 1. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 14} Durar, i, p. 418Google Scholar, 1. 5. ash-Shiḥna, Ibn, p. 260, 1. 17Google Scholar. Ḍaw', iii, p. 26Google Scholar; p. 281, 1. 9; vi, p. 196, 1. 2.

^{page 469 note 15} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 16, 1. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 16} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 515, 11. 5–6Google Scholar. Ḍaw', x, p. 289, 1. 16Google Scholar. For ṭablkhāna and amīr ṭablkhāna, cf. Quatremère, , vol. i, part i, p. 129Google Scholar; p. 173. C.I.A., ‘L'Égypte,’ p. 543Google Scholar. La Syrie, p. xxxivGoogle Scholar; pp. xxxvii–viii; p. liv. Feudalism, p. 3Google Scholar; pp. 7–9; p. 13; p. 14; p. 21; p. 31; p. 54. Wiet, G., Syria, 1926, p. 160Google Scholar; p. 171; p. 175. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. vi, p. livGoogle Scholar. Glossary to Ḥawādith, p. xxx.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 17} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 128, 11. 1–3Google Scholar; p. 400, 11. 12–14. Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, fol. 85a, 1. 15Google Scholar. Durar, i, p. 201, 11. 16–17Google Scholar. Ḍaw', iv, p. 9, 1. 29; vi, p. 211, 1. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 18} See references listed in n., p., above.

^{page 469 note 19} Besides basic data cited in n., p., above, cf. also amīr khamsīn (al-Fidā', Abū, iv, p. 103, 1. 1Google Scholar; p. 106, 1. 24. Ḥawādith, p. 378, 11. 19–20)Google Scholar and amīr thamānīn (Nujūm (P), vi, p. 9, 11. 10–11, 11. 19–20Google Scholar; vii, p. 570, notes); those belonged, by definition, to the Amirs of Ṭablkhāna.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 1} Zubda, p. 113.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 2} Ṣubḥ, iv, pp. 8, 1.17–9, 1.4Google Scholar. On. aṭ-ṭablkhāna as-sulṭānīya. see Sulūk, ii, p. 521, n. 2Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 209, 1. 2Google Scholar; p. 221, 1. 23. ZW as-Subb, p. 244Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 338, 11. 8–10Google Scholar. See also Sulūk, ii, p. 326, 1. 11Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 9, 11. 10–11Google Scholar. Zubda, p. 113, 1. 8Google Scholar. On the kūsāt, see Patrologia Orientalis, xx, p. 153, 1. 4Google Scholar. Kathīr, Ibn, xiii, p. 347, 11. 7–9Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 136, 1. 2Google Scholar. Sibṭ, , p. 402, 1. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 3} Zetterstéen, , p. 177, 1. 13Google Scholar; p. 208, 1. 24. Sulūk, ii, p. 376, 1. 18Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), vii, p. 597Google Scholar, 11. 16–17. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 40, 1. 18Google Scholar; p. 44, 1. 6; p. 56, 1. 1; p. 58, 1. 26; p. 100, 1. 26; p. 108, 1. 6; p. 191, 1. 21. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 44, 1. 16Google Scholar. Ḍaw', iii, p. 296, 1. 6Google Scholar; vi, p. 198, 1. 27; x. p. 205, 1. 13; p. 289, 1. 17. For amir of Ten, cf. C.I.A., ‘L'Égypte,’ p. 543Google Scholar. Z.D.M.G., 1935, p. 214Google Scholar. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. vi, xliii.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 4} Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, fol. 71b, 1. 14; fol. 75b, 1. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 5} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 617, 11. 12–13Google Scholar. Ḍaw', vi, p. 221, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 6} Nujūm (P), v, p. 572,1. 7; vi, p. 16, 1. 17; p. 25, 1. 15Google Scholar; vii, p. 426, 1. 14. Ḥawādith, p. 358Google Scholar, 11. 17–19. Manhal, i, fol. 165a, 1. 18Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 61, 1. 21Google Scholar; p. 67, 1. 21; p. 135, 1. 7; p. 164, 1. 14. Tibr, p. 147, 1. 8Google Scholar. Ṣubḥ, viii, p. 221, 1. 1Google Scholar. Ḍaw', vi, p. 224, 1. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 7} Ṣubḥ, iv, pp. 16 ffGoogle Scholar. Ḍaw' aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 245, 11. 9–10Google Scholar. cf. C.I.A., ‘L'Égypte,’ p. 543.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 8} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), vi, p. 182Google Scholar; vii, p. 453, 1. 8; p. 597, 1. 15. Ḥawādith, p. 299, 11. 5–10Google Scholar; p. 554, 1. 10. Manhal, i, fol. 166, 1. 2Google Scholar; fol. 209, 1. 21; ii, fol. 113b; iii, fol. 109b, 1. 20.

^{page 471 note 1} Ta'rīkh Bayrūt, p. 142, 1. 14; p. 184, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 2} Ta'rīkh Bayrūt, p. 149, 1. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 3} Zubda, p. 113, 11. 4–18.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 4} Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 218, 11. 1–13.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 5} Iyās, Ibn, iv, pp. 30–4.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 6} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 105, 11. 5–7.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 7} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 5, 11. 8–9Google Scholar. Following are references on the places of residence of the amirs and of the army generally: Abū al-Fidā', iv, p. 67, 11. 24–5. Sulūk, i, pp. 341, 1. 18–342, 1. 1; p. 668, n. 1. Nujūm (C), vii, p. 72, n. 2; p. 191, 11. 3–4; ix, p. 121, 11. 11–12. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 8, 1. 12; pp. 523–4; vii, p. 416, 1. 18. Manhal, i, fol. 193a, 1. 3; iii, fol. 132b, 11. 1–4; iv, fol. 171a, 11. 3–4; viii, fol. 432b, 11. 6–7. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 343, 11. 5–8. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, fol. 91b, 11. 15–17. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 404, 11. 1–2. Khiṭat, i, p. 125,11. 19–21; p. 342, 11. 24–9; ii, p. 23, 11. 20–8; pp. 68 ff.; p. 73, 1. 33; p. 116, 11. 34–8; p. 131, 11. 3–6; pp. 133, 1. 28–134, 1. 24; p. 135, 11. 8–13; p. 205, 11. 5–8. Zubda., pp. 28, 1. 22–29, 1. 1.

^{page 471 note 8} al-Manṣūrī, Baybars, fol. 99a, 11. 7–10Google Scholar; 99b, 1. 13–100a, 1. 4; 114a, 11. 6–7; 122a, 1. 13; 183a, 11. 7–8; 245a, 11. 8–9, 11. 15–16; 259b, 11. 7–8.

^{page 472 note 1} See, for instance, Nujūm (C), vi, p. 362, 11. 13–14Google Scholar; vii, p. 88, 11. 7–8; p. 89, 1. 11; p. 99, 11. 12–13; p. 320, 11. 5–6; p. 350, 1. 6; viii, p. 13, 11. 12–14; ix, p. 11, 11. 17–18; p. 228, 1. 15; p. 282, 1. 1; p. 287, 1. 2. Ibn al-Furāt, viii, p. 37, 1. 7. Sulūk, i, p. 239, 1. 1; p. 415; 11. 7–8; ii, p. 185, 1. 4. Zetterstéen, p. 128, 1. 22; p. 173, 11. 3–4. Kathīr, Ibn, xiv, p. 312, 11. 3–5Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 580, 11. 11–12Google Scholar; p. 587, 1. 1; p. 681, 1. 6; p. 687, 1. 18; p. 702, 1. 8; p. 770, 1. 5; p. 794, 11. 8–9; ii, p. 47, 1. 8; p. 97, 1. 12. We could not ascertain which of these expressions is the earliest.

^{page 472 note 2} Kathīr, Ibn, xiii, p. 309, 1. 18Google Scholar. Zetterstéen, , p. 224,11. 19–20Google Scholar. al-Fidā', Abū, iv, p. 29, 11. 24–5Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 735, 11. 5–6Google Scholar. In Sulūk (ed. Ziada) we encounter, as early as the days of Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn, a sentence such as the following: ‘umarā’ mi'a ahada ‘ashara’, which, if taken at face value, might lead us to conclude that the office of amīr mi'a was already in existence at that early period. Such a conclusion would, however, be erroneous, for the text is here corrupt, and ought to read: ‘umarā'—mi'a wa-aḥada ‘ashara’. This has already been pointed out in this chapter, in connexion with the ṭawāshiya. As early as the year 680, the term amīr mi'a muqaddam alf (al-Furāt, Ibu, vii, p. 238, 1. 14)Google Scholar is encountered. We find, in the early Mamluk period, the following expressions which do not seem to recur during the later period: amīr bi-ṭablkhāna (Zetterstéen, , p. 46, 1. 17; p. 101, 1. 14; p. 166, 1. 25)Google Scholar; rakiba li-imrat ṭablkhāna (Zetterstéen, , p. 201, 1. 5, 1. 7Google Scholar; p. 202, 1. 21; p. 206, 1. 1, 1. 10; p. 214, 1. 24). In the year 661 we find the following: ‘wa-a'ṭā al-'Azīza ibn al-Malik al-Mughīth imrat mi'at fāris m-khala'a ‘alayhi wa-a'ṭāhu ṭablkhāna’ (Sulūk, i, p. 493, 11. 2–3)Google Scholar. Must we conclude from the above quotation that at that period the identity of Amir of Forty with Amir of Ṭablkhāna was not yet firmly fixed ? Ibn Taghrībirdī tends, indeed, to assume that the title of Amir of Ṭablkhāna was granted at the beginning of the Mamluk period to an Amir of a Thousand as well, since the ṭablkhāna played at his gate as well as at the gate of Amirs of Forty (Manhal, iii, fols. 181b, 1. 23–182a, 1. 8)Google Scholar. See, in this connexion, the interesting passage in aẓ-Ẓāhir, Ibn ‘Abd, fol. 57a, 11. 3–8Google Scholar. cf. also Manhal, ii, fol. 17a, 11. 1–6Google Scholar; v, fol. 12a, 11. 1–4. Nujūm (C), ix, p. 287, 11. 4–10, and references in n. 8, p. 471.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 1} See references listed in n. 6, p. 467, above. When later sources copy from earlier ones they use, of course, the word fāris (horseman).

^{page 473 note 2} See n. 4, p. 451, Above, and Nujūm, vi, pp. 386–7Google Scholar. Zubda, pp. 115–16Google Scholar. Ḥusn, ii, pp. 111–13.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 3} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 386, 11. 8–16.Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 1} The rise, decline, and disappearance of this regiment which played such a decisive role in wiping out the Ayyubid kingdom and in establishing the Mamluk kingdom in its stead is discussed by the present writer in ‘Le Régiment Baḥrīya dans ‘Armée Mamelouk’ (R.E.I., 1952, pp. 133–141)Google Scholar. We shall here only allude to a most interesting passage in Khaldūn'a, IbnKitāb al-'Ibar (vol. v, pp. 371, 1. 27–372, 1. 8)Google Scholar which stresses that though mamluks were bought by the Ayyubids in considerable quantities from the days of Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn onwards, it was as-Ṣālih Najm ad-Dīn Ayyūb who by far surpassed all his predecessors in this respect. This passage also mentions a very important factor which greatly facilitated the buying of mamluks on a grand scale by Najm ad-Dīn Ayyūb, viz. the attack of the Tatars on the steppes lying to their north-west (al-jānib al-gharbī min nāḥiyat ash-shimāl) which uprooted the Kipchakis, Russians, Alans, and others, many of whom were sold as slaves. This statement of Ibn Khaldūn is confirmed by Ibn Duqmāq, who says in his description of the rise of the Mamluk kingdom (ibtidā' ad-dawla ashsharīfa at-turkīya) that God has expelled them (the mamluks) from their vast and spacious countries of origin, and led them to Egypt, by a wisdom which is beyond the comprehension of man. God has decreed the appearance of the Tatars and their conquest of the eastern and northern countries (al-bilād al-mashrigīya wash-shimālīya), and their attacks on the Kipchakis. The Tatars killed the Kipchakis and captured and sold their offspring. These were carried by the merchants to far-off places (ilā al-āfāq), and when aṣ-Ṣalih Najm ad-Dīn Ayyūb became king he bought about a thousand mamluks (al-jawhar ath-thamīn fī ta'rīkh al-khulafā' was-salāṭīn, Oxford MS., Pocock, 352, fol. 35b, 11. 14–21)Google Scholar. Such ideal conditions for buying mamluks existed only at the end of the Ayyubid reign, and this was one of Najm ad-Dīn's greatest advantages over his predecessors. It is worth while to note here, in passing, that the very inception of the Mamluk kingdom is thus closely connected with the Mongols and their invasions.

^{page 475 note 1} Durar, i, p. 482, 11. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 2} In Qalāūn's time cases of accelerated promotion were still very infrequent, for this sultan was usually very slow and careful in promoting his amirs (Baybars al-Manṣūrī, fols. 99b, 1. 13–100a, 1. 4).

^{page 475 note 3} Manhal, i, fol. 197b, 11. 13–16Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 235, 11. 17–20.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 4} Nujūm (P), v, pp. 305–6.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 5} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), v, p. 295, 11. 9–10Google Scholar; p. 306, 11. 11–12; p. 333, 11. 17–20; p. 345, 11. 5–6; p. 355, 11. 7–14; vi, p. 432, II. 21–2; p. 785, 11. 21–2; vii, p. 825, 11. 14–16. Ḥawādith, p. 485, 11. 14–16.Google ScholarManhal, iv, fol. 172b, 1. 15Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 174, II. 5–6Google Scholar. These constitute but a few examples, cf. also the description of the office of atābak al-'asākir in Part III of this article.

^{page 476 note 1} See references listed in notes 2 and 6, below.

^{page 476 note 2} See the author's ‘The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom’, J.A.O.S., 1949, pp. 135–147Google Scholar. On the personality of al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh, see ibid., p. 142.

^{page 476 note 3} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 428, 11. 3–6Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 8, 11. 25–6.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 4} Manhal, v, fol. 18a, 11. 12–17.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 5} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 43, 11. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 6} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 428, 11. 10–12.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 7} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 430, 11. 14–18.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 8} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), vi, p. 430, 11. 14–15Google Scholar; vii, p. 377, 1. 15; p. 592, 11. 10–11; p. 687,1. 14; p. 688, 1. 1. Ḥawādith, p. 371, 11. 3–7Google Scholar; p. 379, 1. 4; p. 658, 11. 4–7; p. 660, 11. 8–9; p. 667, 11. 17–18; p. 716, 11. 10–14; p. 717, 11. 18–21; p. 718, 11. 4–7. Manhal, i, fol. 167a, 11.16–20Google Scholar; fol. 205a, 11. 17–19; ii, fols. 113b, 1. 22–114a, 1.2; iii, fol. 134, 11.12–19; viii, fol. 416b, 11. 3–8; fol. 429a, 11. 19–21. Tibr, p. 129, 1. 7Google Scholar; p. 189, 11. 15–16. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 70, 11. 5–6Google Scholar; p. 84, 11. 8–9. Ḍaw' ii, p. 324, 11. 11–12Google Scholar; iii, p. 33; p. 56, 1. 1; p. 60, 11. 18–19; II. 25–6; p. 76, 11. 26–8; p. 175, 11. 21–2; p. 210, 11. 5–7; p. 276, 11. 23–4; vi, p. 165, 11. 25–7; pp. 200, 1. 28–201, 1. 1; x, p. 268, 11. 25–7. The fact that al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh favoured the jins at-turk, the race despoiled of its ascendancy by the Circassians, also indicates that he was exceptional among Circassian sultans. He also favoured the sayfīya (see above). Both the turk and the sayfīya were underprivileged elements, but for entirely different reasons; the first because of racial considerations, and the second because of their low standing in the Mamluk hierarchy, as already pointed out. In both, al-Mu'ayyad saw pliable material which could be fitted into any mould that might suit his purposes. (Nujūm (P), vi, p. 430, 11. 14–18Google Scholar. Ḥawādith, pp. 378, 1. 19–379, 1. 13Google Scholar. Manhal, iii, fol. 168a, 11. 4–5.)Google Scholar