^{page 203 note 2} Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 14, 11. 8–16, 1. 11Google Scholar. Ḍaw' as-Ṣubḥ, pp. 244,1. 18–245, 1. 18Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 386–387Google Scholar. Zubda, p. 113, 11. 4–18; p. 116, 11. 7–19Google Scholar. Khiṭaṭ, i, pp. 91–5Google Scholar; ii, pp. 216–17. Ḥusn, ii, pp. 111–13Google Scholar. The following division of the Mamluk army given by al-'Asqālanī is worthy of note: al-'askar kāna qabla ad-dawla aẓ-ẓāhirīya (i.e. of Barqūq) thalāthat aqsām, al-awwal mamālīk as-sulṭān, wa-hum ‘alā ḍarbayn, mustakhdamīn wa-mamlūkīn; wa-li-kullin minhum jawāmik wa-rawātib ‘alā as-sulṭān, wa-min sharṭ al-mustakhdamīn hunā wa-hunāka an lā yakūnū min al-gism ath-thālith, wa-hum ajnād al-ḥalqa (Sulūk, [trsl. Quatremère], i, pt. 2, p. 161)Google Scholar. It is hard to translate this passage literally, as its language is very confused (the author uses musrtakhdamīn in two different meanings, and though he speaks of three units he mentions only two, the first of which is divided into two sub-units); but, in our opinion, its idea is quite clear: the Mamluk army was divided into three units: (a) mustakhdamūn; (b) mamlūkūn (i.e. mushtarawāt); (c) ḥalqa. The two first units, who were paid and maintained by the sultan, belonged to the same category (mamālīk as-sulṭān = mamālīk sulṭānīya) from which the third unit, the ḥalqa, was excluded. Also of interest is the division, quite erroneous for the most part but containing some glimpses of truth, offered by de Lannoy, who visited Egypt and Palestine at the beginning of the 15th century. He states that the Mamluk army was divided into four parts, as follows: (a) the khāṣṣakiya, who had distinguished themselves in the use of arms, and from among whom were selected the commanders of fortresses, the captains, and the governors of the towns, some received their pay from the dīwān of the sultan in ready cash, while the rest shared among themselves the profits from the villages and citadels; (b) the sayfīya, who were foot-soldiers and carried no arms but the sword (sayf); they received their pay from the diwan of their master; (c) qarāniṣa, who were held on call, received their foodstuffs outside the rations regularly allotted to the soldiery, and were given nothing over and above their expenses; when one of the regular mamluks died, one of the qarāniṣa would take his place; (d) the jalab, who were recent arrivals, knew no Turkish or Arabic (Moorish), displayed no bravery and had no opportunity to show then-strength and personal qualities (Archives de l'Orient Latin, vol. ii A, p. 90).Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} Quatremère, in his various comments to Sulūk. Sobernheim, Enc. of Is., art. ‘Mamlūks’ (a classification full of errors). Demombynes, in his introduction to La Syrie à l'époque des Mamelouks. Lane-Poole, , A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, pp. 242Google Scholar ff. Blochet, , Patrologia, xiv, p. 570, n. 3Google Scholar (an incorrect division). Wiet, G., Précis de l'Histoire d'Égypte, Cairo, 1932, vol. ii, L'Organisation militaire et administrative, pp. 237–249Google Scholar. W. Popper in his glossaries to Ibn Taghrībirdī's an-Nujūm az-Zāhira and Ḥawādith ad-Duhūr. The best classification hitherto given is that of Poliak, , Feudalism, p. 2Google Scholar, although it contains some serious inaccuracies. Its main fault is that it relies too extensively on the ‘encyclopaedic’ literature without sufficiently testing it in the light of the information supplied by the chronicles.

^{page 204 note 2} The amirs' soldiers were also called ṭawāshiya, but this designation is very rarely mentioned in the sources, and only for a brief period of time. See Part II of this article.

^{page 205 note 1} Ḍaw' as-Ṣubḥ, p. 245, 11. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} al-Furāt, Ibn, viii, p. 52, 11. 19–23.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 3} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 67, 11. 13–14.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 4} Ḥawādith, p. 444, 11. 18–23.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 5} The dispatching of Royal Mamluks to serve as garrison troops in various parts of the Mamluk kingdom is treated in greater detail in other chapters of the author's work on the Mamluk army. See also Appendix B, to appear in Part III of this article.

^{page 205 note 6} See Ayalon, D., ‘The Plague and Its Effects Upon the Mamluk Army’, J.R.A.S., 1946, pp. 67–73.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 218, 11. 7–8, 1. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Note that the muqaddamū al-mamālīk were not eunuchs. The head of the sultan's military schools was indeed a eunuch called muqaddam al-mamālīk as-sulṭānīya, but there existed other posts bearing identical titles and not occupied by eunuchs. Thus it is known that the commander of the Mamluk garrison of Mecca was also called muqaddam al-mamālīk as-sulṭānīya (one of a series of many titles pertaining to this post), though he was not a eunuch; see the chapter dealing with the Mecca garrison. As for the muqqadamū al-mamālīk as-sulṭānīya who were the commanders of the Royal Mamluks, it is clearly seen that they were not eunuchs from their distinctly Mamluk names (Jarkas, Mughulṭāy, Bakilmish), their titles (Sayf ad-Dīn), their offices (amīr akhūr, ustādār, ra's nawba), their high ranks (Amir of a Thousand). The writer deals with the eunuchs in a special chapter of his work on the Mamluk army. There he discusses, inter alia, their names, titles, offices, and ranks. Of. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 58Google Scholar, 11. 13–14, 11. 16–17. Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, fol. 47b, 1. 7. Manhal, viii, fol. 259b, 11. 10–13Google Scholar; as well as from the fact that they had sons (Manhal, iii, fol. 17a, 11. 16–23. Ḍaw', iii, p. 100, 11. 2–6. Nujūm (P), v, p. 486, 1. 12; p. 633, 11. 10–12)Google Scholar. For additional data on the muqaddamū al-mamālīk indicating that they were the commanders of the Eoyal Mamluks both in official reviews and in the battlefield, see: Sulūk, i, p. 286Google Scholar; p. 612, 1.5; p. 935, 11. 16–18. Nujūm (C), viii, p. 162, 11. 13–15Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, vii, p. 7, 11. 15–18Google Scholar; ix, p. 163, 11. 11–12. al-Fidā‘, Abū, iii, p. 167, 11. 14–15Google Scholar. Khiṭaṭ, ii, pp. 111, 1. 39–112, 1. 1; p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 3} In Ayalon, D., L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, The Israel Oriental Society (Oriental Notes and Studies), Jerusalem, 1951.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 4} Cf. ibid., pp. 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 59, 63. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. vi, p. xxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Nujūm(P), vi, p. 709, 11. 14–15; vii, p. 423, 1. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 2} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 641, 1. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 3} Nujum (P), vii, p. 262, 1. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 4} Cf. also Manhal, viii, fol. 434b, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 5} Nujūm (P), v, p. 157, 11. 6–7; vi, p. 641, 1. 13; vii, p. 262, 1. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 6} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 235, 1. 10; vii, p. 462Google Scholar, notes. Iyās, Ibu, iii, p. 168, 1. 10; iv, p. 241, n. 4Google Scholar; the editor here remarks that this spelling occurs frequently in the text in question; v, p. 5, 1. 6.

^{page 207 note 7} The term mamālīk sulṭānīya itself had not yet become stabilized. The term is encountered as early as 636 (Sulūk, i, p. 281, 1. 11Google Scholar; p. 286; p. 343, 11. 7–8), viz. in the Ayyubid period, but this may be an anachronism on the part of the later Mamluk historian, since Ayyubid sources do not appear to employ this designation. For additional material on mamālīk sulṭānīya, see: Zetterstéen, , p. 164Google Scholar, II. 12–13. Sulūk, ii, p. 34, 1. 12Google Scholar. Nujūm (C), viii, p. 172, 11. 3–4Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 112, 1. 5; p. 149, 1. 19; p. 213, 1. 16; pp. 230–1; p. 235Google Scholar; p. 320, 1. 22; p. 321, 1. 1; p. 396, 11.11–13; p. 582, 1. 21; vi, p. 38,1. 2. Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 129, 1.11Google Scholar. Ḍaw', i, pp. 65, 1. 26–66, 1. 1Google Scholar. Ibn Khaldūn frequently refers to the mamluks by the name of mawālī, thus: ‘Bay bars min mawālī Aydakīn al-Bunduqdārī mawlā aṣ-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb’ (Khaldūn, Ibn, v, p. 381, 11. 6–7)Google Scholar, and similarly many other passages (Khaldūn, Ibn, v, p. 143, 1. 12Google Scholar; p. 358,1. 5; p. 361, 11. 2–4; p. 384, 1. 5; p. 394, 1. 28; p. 395, 1. 1; p. 409, 1. 10, 1. 20; p. 411, 1. 11, 1. 24; p. 451, 1. 15; p. 452, 1. 12; p. 422, 1. 16).

^{page 207 note 8} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 457Google Scholar, 1. 3, 1. 9, 1. 14; p. 509, note. Ḥawādith, p. 191Google Scholar, 1. 20; p. 301, 1. 6. Tibr, p. 314Google Scholar, 11. 2–3. Ḍaw', iii, p. 43, 1. 28Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 342, 1. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 9} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 191Google Scholar, 1. 9, 1. 14, 1. 17; p. 192, 1. 17; p. 198, 1. 13; p. 205, 1. 14. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 6, 1. 12Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 214, 1. 17Google Scholar; iii, p. 142, 1. 19, 1. 20; p. 150, 1. 1, 1. 3, 1. 4, 1. 5; p. 161, 11. 13–14; p. 314, 11.16–18; iv, p. 443, 11. 14–16. The first one is preferred by Ibn Taghrībirdī, while Ibn Iyās uses the second almost exclusively. For identity of ajlāb and musktarawāt, cf. Nujūm (P), vii, p. 123Google Scholar, 1. 2, also notes, as well as Ḥawādith, p. 479Google Scholar, 11. 7–15. Zunbul, Ibn, pp. 13, 1. 24–14, 1. 2Google Scholar. That the ajlāb or julbān were mamluks owned by the ruling sultan may also be inferred from al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 6, 1. 12Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 65Google Scholar, 1. 17; p. 77, 11. 2–3; p. 137, 1. 8; iv, p. 404, 1. 13, 1. 14, 1. 15; v, p. 22, 1. 19; p. 29, 1. 17.

^{page 207 note 10} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 15,1. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 11} Ḥawādith, p. 534, 11. 11–17.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 12} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 203, 11. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 13} Khaldūn, Ibn, v, p. 457, 1. 14, 1. 18; p. 458, 1. 1, 11. 8–9, 1. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 14} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 6,1. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 1} Nujūm (P), v, p. 219, 1. 23Google Scholar; p. 401, 11. 9–10; vi, p. 757; pp. 768–9; vii, p. 189, 11. 6–7; p. 190, 11. 1–2; p. 457 and note; p. 527, 11. 7–8; p. 530, 11. 1–2; p. 776, 1. 3. Ḥawādith, p. 21, 11. 14–15Google Scholar; pp. 37, 1. 8–38, 1. 3; p. 205, 1. 1; p. 273, 1. 3; p. 301, 1. 6; p. 532,1. 1. Manhal, ii, fol. 31b, 11. 19–20Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 43, 11. 4–5Google Scholar. On very rare occasions, ajlāb is used to designate amirs' mamluks as well (Manhal, i, fol. 193b, 1. 3Google Scholar; v, fol. 49a, 11. 16–17).

^{page 208 note 2} Ḥawādith, p. 460, 1. 14Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, p. 400, 1. 8Google Scholar; v, pp. 35, 1. 23–36, 1. 1; p. 48, 1. 11. Cf. also Patrologia, XX, p. 41, 1. 2Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 433, 1. 12Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 723, 11. 3–9Google Scholar; vii, p. 797, 11. 10–11. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 250, 1. 21Google Scholar. Tibr, p. 279, 1. 13Google Scholar; p. 293, 11. 24–5; p. 310, 1. 7. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 170Google Scholar; p. 178, 11. 1–2; p. 184, 1. 21; p. 221; iii, p. 121, 1. 14, 1. 16; p. 267,1. 4, 1. 6; p. 281, 11. 6–7. Ḍaw', iii, p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 3} Zetterstéen, , p. 26, 11. 24–5Google Scholar. al-Furāt, Ibn, viii, p. 170, 11. 11–12Google Scholar. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 317, 11. 28–9Google Scholar. Cf. also Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 218, 11. 7–8, with 1. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 4} Cf. also references in following footnotes, as well as the description of the sultan's first years of rule in the Mamluk chronicles.

^{page 208 note 5} Nujūm (C), viii, pp. 48, 1. 16–49, 1. 7Google Scholar; p. 277, 11. 4–7. Sulūk, ii, p. 81Google Scholar. Nujūm (P), v, p. 457Google Scholar; p. 459, 11. 1–2. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 107, 11. 18–23Google Scholar; p. 108, 11. 19–21; p. 115, 11. 14–16. Khaldūn, Ibn, v, pp. 461–2Google Scholar; p. 462, 11. 27–9; p. 486, 11. 22–3. Ḍaw', x, p. 280, 11. 5–6Google Scholar. See also references given in note 2, p. 210 below.

^{page 209 note 1} Material on this subject has been gathered in L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, pp. 5, 19–20.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} The following references contain information on the julbān as the dwellers in the barracks of the citadel, and on the driving out of the mamluks of the immediately preceding sultan (these took up their abode in Cairo): Nujūm, vi, p. 514, 11. 11–13Google Scholar; vii, pp. 12–18 (and also the previous pages from the beginning of the volume); p. 193, 1. 7; p. 452, 11. 1–5; p. 467, 11. 4–10; pp. 491, 1. 10–492, 1. 3; p. 745, 11. 12–15; p. 836, 1. 14. Ḥawādith, p. 191, 11. 20–3Google Scholar; pp. 203, 1. 14–206, 1. 3; pp. 239, 1. 18–240, 1. 1; p. 251; p. 443, 1. 15. Manhal, ii, fol. 193a, 11. 1–2Google Scholar; viii, fol. 451b, 11. 12–14 (and also the description preceding these lines). al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 302, 11. 6–18Google Scholar. Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, fol. 79b, 11. 22–5Google Scholar. Tibr, p. 41, 11. 7–8Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, iii, p. 341, 11. 1–2Google Scholar; p. 391, 11. 1–2; p. 397, 11. 15–18; iv, p. 41, 11. 15–17; p. 359, 11. 6–8; p. 428, 11. 14–22; p. 484, 11. 5–6; v, p. 48, 11. 19–20; p. 63, 1. 15.

^{page 209 note 3} See my ‘The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom’, J.A.O.S., 1949, pp. 135–147.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} Sulūk, ii, p. 94Google Scholar. Nujūm (C), ix, p. 27Google Scholar, 11. 12–15.

^{page 210 note 2} Mamluk sources furnish extremely abundant material on the methods followed by the new sultan, on his accession to the throne, in order to establish his rule. Because these methods produced most profound effects upon the relative strengths of the mushtarawāt and the mamluks of the former sultans, a selection of references larger than the usual is here given. Zetterstéen, , p. 151Google Scholar. Patrologia, xiv, pp. 596Google Scholar, 1. 5–597, 1. 5. al-Fidā', Abū, iv, p. 34, 11. 28–9Google Scholar. Sulūk, i, p. 384, 11. 7–8Google Scholar; p. 658, 11. 5–6; p. 671, 1. 14; p. 792, 1. 6; p. 808, pp. 826–7; p. 833, 11. 10–13; ii, p. 20; p. 77; p. 118; p. 119; p. 207; p. 230, note; p. 405, 1. 11; p. 455, 11. 4–10. Nujūm (C), vii, p. 84, 11. 1–6; pp. 99–101Google Scholar; p. 269, 11. 14–15; ix, p. 13, 1. 13; p. 16, 11. 1–2; p. 34, 11. 10–11. Nujūm (P), v, pp. 42–3Google Scholar; p. 46; pp. 55–6; p. 117, 11. 4–6; p. 150, 11. 14–16; p. 153, 1. 5; p. 155, 11. 4–8; pp. 206–7; p. 295, 11. 8–9; pp. 295–6; p. 319; pp. 373–4; p. 380, 11. 15–18; p. 403, 11. 8–10; p. 448, 11. 10–12; pp. 454–5; p. 456, 11. 11–13; p. 457, 11. 6–8; p. 459, 11. 1–2; pp. 469–470; p. 470, 11. 3–5; p. 489,11. 8–9; p. 492,11. 17–18; p. 567, 11. 13–15; p. 587, 11. 1–4; p. 588; vi, 2, 239, 11. 15–21; pp. 264–5; pp. 312–13; p. 333; p. 343; p. 354; p. 363, 11. 2–5; p. 373; p. 384, 11. 4–5; p. 507, 11. 4–9; p. 537; p. 621, 11. 22–3; vii, pp. 6–9; p. 31, 11. 12–13; p. 51, 11. 13–16; pp. 72, 1. 20–73, 1. 2; p. 77, 11. 13–15; p. 105; p. 147, 11. 5–7; p. 337, 11. 4–5; p. 388, 11. 1–2; pp. 558, 1. 19–559, 1. 7; p. 662, 11. 3–17; p. 664, 11. 2–3; pp. 718–19. Ḥawādith, p. 175Google Scholar, 11. 10–13; p. 237, 11. 19–21; p. 238, 11. 3–4, 11. 6–8; pp. 439, 1. 13–440, 1. 4; p. 444, 11. 11–17; pp. 445–6; p. 607, 11. 18–22; p. 618, 11. 8–22; p. 619, 11. 10–20; p. 627, 11. 11–19. Manhal, v, fol. 46b, 11. 12–16Google Scholar; fol. 54b, 11. 1–25. Shuhba, Ibn Qādī, fol. 39b, 11. 7–10Google Scholar; fol. 55a, I. 24. Khaldūn, Ibn, v, p. 409, 11. 8–9Google Scholar; pp. 457–9; p. 486, 11. 22–3. al-Furāt, Ibn, viii, p. 98, 11. 9–12Google Scholar; p. 150, 11. 5–7; pp. 166, 1. 26–167, 1. 2; p. 170, 1. 8; pp. 173–4; p. 195, 11. 22–3; p. 223, 11. 7–8, 11. 9–11; p. 229, 11. 18–20; ix, p. 56, 11. 3–5; pp. 96–101; p. 106; p. 107, 11. 18–23; p. 108, 11. 9–21; p. 117, 11. 3–7; p. 115, 11. 14–16; pp. 125–6; p. 130, 1. 3; p. 131; p. 143, 11. 13–25; p. 185, 11. 9–10; p. 192, 1. 4; p. 194, 11. 4–7, 11. 12–15; p. 290,11. 12–13; pp. 299–301; p. 370, 11. 16–17. Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 5, 1. 15; p. 10; p. 12, 11. 2–6; p. 13, 11. 21–3; p. 16; p. 25, 11. 20–1; p. 35, 1. 4; pp. 37–8; p. 41, 11. 14–19; p. 52, 11. 18–20; p. 72, 11. 6–7; p. 73, 11. 2–4; p. 74, 11. 2–3; p. 76, 11. 20–1; pp. 84–5; p. 86, 11. 9–10; p. 99, 1. 25; p. 152; p. 190, 11. 1–4, 11.16–19; iii, p.4, 11. 11–21; p. 6, 1.17; p. 19, 11. 1–6; p. 153, 11.4–5, 11.12–16; p. 154, 11. 17–20; p. 155, 11. 7–8; p. 199, 11. 16–20; p. 281, 11. 17–20; p. 290; pp. 309, 1. 20–310, 1. 2; p. 327, 11. 12–15; p. 431, 11. 2–3; p. 466, 11. 9–16. Durar, i, pp. 482, 1. 21–483, 1. 1Google Scholar. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 309, 11. 3–5Google Scholar; p. 310, 11. 5–7. When the sources wish to indicate that the sultan fostered or favoured a certain mamluk, they make use of the term ‘ansha'a’: Zetterstéen, , p. 101, 11. 17–20Google Scholar. Sulūk, p. 797, 1. 4Google Scholar; p. 858, 1.13. Nujūm (C), vi, p. 319, 1. 14Google Scholar; vii, p. 242, 1. 8. Nujūm (P), v, p. 305, 1. 1Google Scholar. Manhal, i, fol. 163a, 11. 11–12Google Scholar; fol. 164b, 11. 1–4; fol. 191b, 11. 10–11, 11. 18–19; fol. 194a, 11. 20–2; fol. 196b, 11. 13–14; fol. 210a, 1. 3; ii, fol. 8b, 11. 15–16; fol. 11b, 11. 2–3; fol. 25a, 11. 8–9; fol. 40a, 11. 3–4; fol. 50a, 1. 8; fol. 111b, 11. 12–13; fol. 133b, 11. 15–16; fols. 138a, 1. 23–138b, 1. 1; iii, fol. 189b, 11. 10–11. Ḍaw', iii, 276, 1. 17; p. 284, 1. 4; p. 296, 1. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 3} Ḥawādith, p. 551, 11. 20–2.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} See Appendix B, to appear in Part III of this article.

^{page 211 note 2} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 641, 11. 2–5Google Scholar. See also errata on p. lii in same vol. of Nujūm.

^{page 211 note 3} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 643, 11. 2–4.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 4} Ḥawādith, pp. 531, 1. 14–533, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 5} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 25, 11. 8–14.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 6} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 452, 11. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 7} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 550, 11. 4–11.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 8} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 559, 11. 8–11.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 9} Ḥawādith, p. 348, 11. 22–3.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 57, 1. 23Google Scholar; pp. 64, 1. 28–65, 1. 17; p. 69, 1. 24.

^{page 212 note 2} Nujūm (P), vii, pp. 735, 1.11–736, 1. 2; p. 760, 11. 5–7Google Scholar. Ḥawādith, p. 554, 11.13–14Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 82, 11. 25–6Google Scholar. Ḍaw', ii, p. 329, 11. 7–15.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 822Google Scholar, 11. 5–8; p. 828, 11. 15–17; p. 839, 11. 13–17.

^{page 212 note 4} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 10, 11. 17–21Google Scholar; pp. 175–180; p. 469, 11. 13–15; p. 473, 11. 15–17; p. 507, 11. 1–4; p. 509, 11. 10–11 and note; pp. 525, 1. 6–527, 1. 5; p. 744, 11. 3–4; p. 320, 11. 11–20. Manhal, viii, fols. 495–9Google Scholar; fol. 496a, 11. 3–5. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 102, 11. 21–4Google Scholar. Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, fol. 115a, 11. 6–7Google Scholar. Tibr, p. 311Google Scholar; p. 346, 11. 1–4. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 141, 11. 23–7Google Scholar; p. 144; p. 188; p. 214, 11. 16–18; p. 215, 11. 22–1; p. 280, 11. 6–7; iii (KM), p. 79,11. 1–4; p. 150, 11. 1–6; p. 190, 11. 8–10; p. 192, 11. 2–4; pp. 196, 1.19–197, 1.9; iv, p. 313; p. 315, 11.15–18; pp. 385–6; p. 463, 11. 14–19; v, p. 6, 11. 14–16.

^{page 212 note 5} Ḥawādith, p. 583, 11. 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 6} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 475, 11. 1–3, 11. 12–15Google Scholar; p. 476, 11. 1–9.

^{page 212 note 7} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 123, 11. 1–9Google Scholar. Ḥawādith, p. 460, 11. 12–21Google Scholar. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 99, 11. 1–3Google Scholar, and many other references.

^{page 212 note 8} Nujūm (P), vii, pp. 857–869.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 9} Ḥawādith, p. 188, 11. 15–20Google Scholar; p. 339, 11. 1–9. Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, pp. 331, 1. 23–332, 1. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 10} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 469, 11. 4–6.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 11} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 494, 11. 1–11.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 12} Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 152,11. 17–21.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 1} Ḥawādith, p. 343Google Scholar, 11. 9–10; see also pp. 494, 1. 16–495, 1. 17.

^{page 213 note 2} Ḥawādith, p. 497Google Scholar, 11. 1–13.

^{page 213 note 3} Nujūm (P), vii, pp. 518Google Scholar, 1. 15–519, 1. 2.

^{page 213 note 4} Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 229, 11. 23–4. Ḥawādith, p. 278Google Scholar, 11. 5–17.

^{page 213 note 5} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 72, 11. 5–7; pp. 90, 1. 17–91, 1. 6; p. 213, 11. 13–15; iv, p. 98, 11. 1–4. See also Nujūm (P), vii, p. 471Google Scholar, notes; pp. 528, 1. 17–529, 1. 16. Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 137, 11. 8–10; (KM), iii, pp. 93, 1. 24–94, 1. 2. For additional material on the absolute hegemony and unceasing wantonness of the ajlāb, see Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 757–8Google Scholar; vii, p. 716, 11. 1–4; p. 717, 11. 1–12; pp. 761, 1. 2–762, 1. 4. Ḥawādith, p. 191Google Scholar, 11. 18–23; p. 219, 11. 12–18; p. 221, 11. 9–10; p. 223, 11. 1–23; p. 231, 11. 7–15; p. 273, 11. 3–4; p. 301, 11. 6–9; pp. 307, 1. 23–308, 1. 9; p. 324, 11. 16–20; p. 338, 11. 13–15; p. 409, 11. 16–24; pp. 495–6; p. 608, 11. 1–5; p. 659, 11. 19–20. Tibr, p. 97Google Scholar, 11. 22–5. Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 47, 11. 24–6; p. 54, 11. 1–3; p. 56, 11. 4–6; p. 57, 11. 13–23. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, pp. 92, 1. 17–93, 1. 2; p. 95, 1. 5; p. 200, 11. 1–3; p. 214, 11. 6–7; p. 237, 11. 4–7; p. 315, 11. 1–5; p. 341, 11. 16–20; p. 363; pp. 365, 1. 14–366, 1. 2; p. 378, 11. 1–5; pp. 378, 1. 23–379, 1. 8; p. 427, 11. 20–1; iv, p. 7, 11. 6–8; p. 26; p. 123, 11. 18–23; p. 127, 11. 13–22; p. 156, 11. 2–9; p. 166, 11. 10–18; p. 241, 11. 16–20; p. 277, 11. 22–3; p. 400, 11. 1–15; p. 432, 11. 4–16; p. 464, 11. 18–19; p. 465, 11. 15–22; p. 482, 11. 19–23; p. 484, 11. 15–21.

^{page 213 note 6} Ibn Iyās, ii, pp. 228,1. 15–229, 1. 1. On the depredations and escapades of the julbān see also Mostapha, M., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte Ägyptens’, Z.D.M.G., 1935, pp. 221–3.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 7} On the khāṣṣakīya see: Quatremère, , Histoire des Sultans Mamelouks par Makrizi, Paris, 1837–1842, vol. i, part i, p. 11Google Scholar; part ii, p. 158. Van Berchem, M., Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum, Premièe Partie, Égypte, Paris, 1903, p. 287, p. 543.Google ScholarGaudefroy-Demombynes, , La Syrie à l'Éipoque des Mamelouks, Paris, 1923, p. xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; p. 1; p.c. Mayer, L. A., Saracenic Heraldry, Oxford, 1933, p. 5, p. 11, p. 60Google Scholar, n. 1, p. 63, etc. Poliak, A. N., Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and the Lebanon, London, 1939, p. 2, p. 6.Google ScholarWiet, G., L'Égypte Arabe, Paris, 1937, p. 569.Google ScholarSauvaget, J., ‘Décrets Mamelouks de Syrie’, Bulletin d'Études Orientales, 1933, p. 24, p. 25.Google ScholarMostapha, M., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte Ägyptens’, Z.D.M.G., 1935, pp. 212–14.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 8} Zetterstéen, , p. 14Google Scholar, 1. 7; p. 22, 1. 4; p. 25; p. 27, 1. 11; p. 30, 1. 7; p. 135, 1. 2; p. 164, 1.23. Zetterstéen calls attention to this spelling in his annotations, p. 1, and cites further examples. Patrologia, xiv, p. 463Google Scholar, 11. 5–6. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 28, 1. 8; p. 54, 1. 10; p. 250, 11. 5–6; p. 270, 1. 4. Ibn al-Furāt and Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba (fol. 95a, 1. 22; fol. 114b, 1. 8) are the latest instances of the use of this spelling.

^{page 213 note 9} Sulūk (tad. Quatremère), ii, pt. 1, p. 159. See also Nujūm (C), vii, p. 179Google Scholar, n. 4. Sulūk, i, p. 644, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 10} Zubda, pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 1} See, for instance, Manhal, iiGoogle Scholar, fol. 139b, 11. 4–7; fol. 46a, margin. Ḍaw', ii, p. 324Google Scholar, 11. 27–8; p. 328. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 113Google Scholar, 1. 1. Nujūm (P), vii, p. 35Google Scholar, 11. 16–17; p. 398,11. 8–11; p. 590; p. 691, 11. 8–10; p. 824, 11. 3–10. Ḥawādith, p. 154Google Scholar, 11. 17–21; p. 378, 11. 11–13. Ḍaw', v, p. 168.Google Scholar See also Ḍaw', ii, p. 267Google Scholar; p. 270; p. 273; p. 311, p. 312; p. 315; p. 318; p. 319; p. 324; p. 328; iii, p. 2; p. 6; p. 7; p. 10; p. 12; p. 23; p. 35; p. 36; p. 39; p. 42; p. 44; p. 53; p. 56; p. 60; p. 62; p. 63; p. 64; p. 66; p. 175; p. 230; p. 273; p. 277; p. 280; p. 284; p. 285; iv, p. 214; p. 219; p. 298; vii, p. 235.

^{page 214 note 2} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 7Google Scholar; p. 511; p. 512. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 7Google Scholar, 11. 7–9. Ibn Iyās, v, p. 21, 1. 23.

^{page 214 note 3} See, for instance, Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 162, 1. 20; (KM), iii, p. 245, 11. 9–13. Ṣubḥ, vii, p. 324Google Scholar, 1. 6. Ḍaw', iii, p. 91Google Scholar, 11. 13–16, and many other passages.

^{page 214 note 4} Nujūm (P), vii, pp. 74–5; p. 703.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 5} On the sāqīs see: C.I.A., l'Égypte, p. 36Google Scholar. Saracenic Heraldry, p. 11Google Scholar and n. 1; p. 5; p. 29; p. 31; p. 33, etc. On the dawādārs: Quatremère, vol. i, part i, p. 118.Google ScholarC.I.A., l'Égypte, p. 363.Google ScholarLa Syrie, pp. lvii–lviii.Google ScholarHeraldry, p. 4Google Scholar; p. 5; p. 12; p. 60, n. 1; p. 65; p. 77; p. 87, n. 1; p. 127, etc. On the khāzindārs: La Syrie, p. lxi.Google ScholarHeraldry, p. 60Google Scholar; p. 135; p. 142; p. 162; p. 244; p. 248. On the jamdārs: Quatremère, vol. i, part i, p. 11.Google ScholarLa Syrie, P.C. Heraldry, p. 5Google Scholar; p. 11, n. 1; p. 14; C.I.A., l'Égypte, p. 390.Google ScholarLa Syrie, p.c. Z.D.M.G., 1935, p. 202Google Scholar; p. 212, n. 4. On the silāḥdārs: Quatremère, vol. i, part i, p. 159.Google ScholarC.I.A., l'Égypte, p. 195.Google ScholarLa Syrie, p. lvii.Google ScholarHeraldry, p. 4Google Scholar; p. 5; p. 13; p. 14; p. 58; p. 65, etc. On the bashmaqdārs: Quatremère, vol. i, part i, p. 100.Google ScholarLa Syrie, p.c. Heraldry, p. 5; p. 264.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 6} Zubda, pp. 115–16.Google Scholar Al-Maqrīzī gives a very confused account of the khāṣṣakīya. According to him, al-Ashraf Khalīl specially selected the Kipchakis and Khiṭā'īs to enter the hall called adh-dhahabīya and az-zumurrūdīya, appointed masters of the robe (jamdārīya) and cup-bearers (suqāt) from among them, and called them khāṣṣakīya. Similarly, from among the burjīya, who belonged to the races of the Āṣ and the Jarkas, he appointed armour-bearers (silāḥdārīya), jamakdārīya, tasters (jashnikīrīya), and pages (ūshāqīya) (Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 214).Google Scholar One gets the impression from this passage that al-Maqrīzī attributes to al-Ashraf Khalīl the founding of the khāṣṣakīya. The term is, however, encountered fairly frequently before his reign, for example in the days of al-Malik as-Sa'īd Berke Khan (Sulūk, i, p. 644Google Scholar; p. 645; p. 650; p. 651; p. 652. Patrologia, , xiv, p. 765).Google Scholar We have not encountered the term during Baybars' reign, though silāḥdārīya and jamdārīya are mentioned (Sulūk, i, p. 458).Google Scholar Further, it is not clear why al-Maqrīzī restricts the khāṣṣakīya to the offices of jamdārīya and suqāt, since it is known that the other offices, which he attributes to the burjīya, were also held by khāṣṣakīya. On the ūshāqīs see: Quatremère, , vol. i, part i, p. 108.Google ScholarC.I.A., l'Égypte, p. 619.Google ScholarHeraldry, p. 148.Google Scholar On the jashnakīrs: Quatremère, , vol. i, part i, p. 2.Google ScholarHeraldry, p. 4Google Scholar and n. 4; p. 5; p. 11; p. 15, n. 5, etc.

^{page 215 note 1} al-Furāt, Ibn, vii, p. 95Google Scholar, 1. 20. Nujūm (P), v, p. 213, 11. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 518Google Scholar, 11. 8–9. Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 413, 1. 5, 1. 14.

^{page 215 note 3} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 5Google Scholar, 11. 5–7. Nevertheless, it is not clear why Ibn Iyās remarks that al-Ghawrī, unlike his predecessors, cared for his khāṣṣakīya (Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 358, 11. 11–16)Google Scholar, for the khāṣṣakīya were the sultan's favourites at all periods.

^{page 215 note 4} Durar, i, p. 114, 1. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Ḍaw', iii, p. 91, 11. 13–16.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 6} Ḍaw', i, p. 222, 1. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 7} Ḍaw', i, p. 33, 1. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 8} Zubda, p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 9} Sulūk (trsl. Quatremère), i, pt. 2, p. 159. Unfortunately data on the number of the khāṣṣakīya during the whole of the Baḥrī period are extremely deficient.

^{page 215 note 10} Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 429–439.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 11} Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 218, 1. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 12} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 34, 11. 14–15.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 13} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 5, 11. 5–7.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 14} See, for instance, Zetterstéen, , p. 75Google Scholar; p. 184, 1. 14; p. 188, 11. 3–4. Patrologia, xx, p. 130.Google ScholarSulūk, i, p. 368Google Scholar, 1. 3; p. 433; p. 743, n. 2; ii, p. 75, 1. 9; p. 156, 1. 12; p. 183, notes; p. 531, 1. 1. Kathīr, Ibn, xiii, p. 225Google Scholar, 1. 17, 1. 20. Nujūm (C), vii, p. 5Google Scholar, 11. 1–3; p. 126, 1. 4. Nujūm (P), v, p. 458Google Scholar, 11.5–7; p. 555; vii, p. 317, 11.15–17; p. 318, 1. 2; p. 354, 1.14; p. 430, 11. 6–9; p. 691, 11. 11–13. Ḥawādith, p. 178Google Scholar, 11. 1–6; p. 399, 11. 10–13. Manhal, iiiGoogle Scholar, fol. 4b, 1. 12. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 324, n. 3; iv, p. 19, 1. 19; p. 29, 11. 4–8; p. 45, 11. 15–17; p. 50, 1. 16; p. 309, 11. 9–10. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 111Google Scholar, 11. 3–9. Ṣubḥ, v, p. 454Google Scholar, 11. 14–15; pp. 458–460; p. 463. Ḍaw' as-Ṣubḥ, p. 314Google Scholar; pp. 343–5; pp. 345–6; p. 348. Zubda, pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} Iyās, Ibn, v, p. 2; p. 200.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 2} Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 339.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 467, 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 4} Manhal, iv, fol. 222, 11. 19–20.Google ScholarḌaw', iii, p. 56Google Scholar, 1. 29; p. 294, 11. 22–3.

^{page 216 note 5} Ḍaw', iii, p. 7Google Scholar, 11. 6–10; p. 18; p. 30; 11. 2, 9, 11,13, 23. Cf. also Ṣulūk, ii, p. 342Google Scholar, 11. 14–15. Nujūm (P), vi, p. 310Google Scholar, 1. 10. Ḥawādith, p. 645Google Scholar, 1. 7. The bulk of the material dealing with this question has been gathered in L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, pp. 28, 29, 33, 57, 58Google Scholar, where it has also been pointed out that the sources are sometimes lax in their use of the terms ustādh and makhdūm, the meanings of which are in some cases reversed. An outstanding example of such laxity is provided by Baybars al-Manṣūrī, who calls Qalāūn throughout his chronicle al-makhdūm, though this sultan was the master who purchased ahd set him free.

^{page 216 note 6} al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 180, 1. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 7} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 505Google Scholar, 1. 18, 1. 21; p. 621, 11. 22–23; vii, p. 337, 11. 4–5. Qāḍī, Ibn Shuhba, fol. 49b, 1. 3Google Scholar. Ḍaw', iii, p. 61Google Scholar, 1. 8; p. 177, 11. 20–5; p. 277, 11. 14–15.

^{page 216 note 8} Tibr, p. 279Google Scholar, 1. 8. Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 68Google Scholar, 11. 1–2. Durar, iv, p. 489Google Scholar, 1. 13. ṭaw', iii, p. 11Google Scholar, 11. 3–4; p. 36; p. 285, 1. 10, 1. 29; vi, p. 194, 11. 3–4; p. 224, 1. 14; x, p. 165, 11. 4–5.

^{page 216 note 9} Fawāt, i, p. 232.Google ScholarManhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 18b, 1. 7, 1. 10; fol. 143b, 1. 7; fol. 192a, 1. 17; ii, fol. 190a, 1. 7; vii, fol. 260b, 1. 3. Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 162, 11. 8–9. Ḍaw', iii, p. 174Google Scholar; p. 289, 11. 23–4; p. 295, II. 24–8; vi, p. 194. In connexion with notes 1 to 5, cf. material gathered on the same question in L'Esclavage du Mamelouk. It is likely that the phrase ‘thumma intamā li-’ has a meaning similar to ‘thumma ittaṣal bi-khidmat …’ (cf. Ḍaw', iii, p. 16Google Scholar; p. 17; vi, p. 231, 1. 8; pp. 211, 1. 29–212, 1. 1). To indicate passing from rank to rank, from duty to duty, the sources use such expressions as ‘tanaqqal fī al-khidam’, ‘tanaqqal fī al-iqṭā'āt wa-l-imrīyāt’, ‘taqallabat bihi al-aḥwāl’. (Manhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 203a, 11. 21–2. al-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 43Google Scholar, 1. 12; p. 277, 11. 12–13, 11. 15–16, 11. 22–3; p. 279, 1. 23; p. 293, 11. 4–5; p. 318, 1. 14; p. 356, 1. 21; p. 447, 1. 11. Qāḍī, Ibn Shuhba, fol. 72a, 1. 6.Google ScholarḌaw', x, p. 279, 1. 17.)Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 10} Ḍaw', iii, p. 82Google Scholar, 11. 27–9. Nujūm (P), v, p. 105Google Scholar, 11. 18–19. Manhal, v, fol. 46b, 11. 12–16.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} Nujṭm (P), v, p. 452Google Scholar; pp. 454–5; vi, pp. 264–5; p. 384, 11. 4–5. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 56, 11. 3–5; p. 89; p. 106; p. 107, 11. 18–23; p. 143, 11. 13–25; p. 162. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, fo. 39b, 11. 7–10. Ibn al-Furāt twice mentions mamālīk mustakhbara as a body antagonistic to the mushtarawāt (ix, p. 88Google Scholar, 1. 3; p. 93); the context would seem to indicate that the term is synonymous with mustakhdama, but its etymology is not clear. It is possible that the mustakhbaza mentioned by Ibn Taghrībirdī (Nujūm (P), vii, p. 450Google Scholar, notes) have some connexion with al-mustakhbara. For mustakhdamūn, cf.: Quatremère, , vol. i, pt. i, p. 64Google Scholar; p. 160. La Syrie, p. xxxiii.Google ScholarFeudalism, p. 55.Google Scholar W. Popper, Glossary to Nujūm, vol. vi, pp. xxiii–xxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 2} Zubda, p. 116Google Scholar, 11. 13–14. The epithet ‘sulṭanīya’ which aẓ-Ẓahīrī, and after him Poliak (Feudalism, p. 2)Google Scholar apply to the mamluks of the former sultans is not accurate, for mamālīk sulṭānīya was the accepted appellation of the Royal Mamluks, as shown by the references presented above and below, which form but a very small part of the material supplied on this subject by the sources. It must, however, be indicated that the writer has encountered a few isolated cases in which the term sulṭanīya seems to apply to the mamluks of the former sultans (Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 25Google Scholar, 11. 14–16; iii (KM), p. 362, 11. 4–10), but these are extremely rare.

^{page 217 note 3} Evidence as to the identity of the qarānīṣ with the mamluks of the former sultans will be presented in Appendix B, to be included in Part III of this article.

^{page 217 note 4} Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, pp. 2Google Scholar, 1. 21–3, 1.3; p. 73, 1. 13; p. 92, 1. 21; p. 132, 11. 22–3. So far we met the designation of a mamluk unit by the sultan's first name and not by his surname only in Ibn Iyās's chronicle.

^{page 217 note 5} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 770Google Scholar, 1. 9; vii, p. 29, 1. 18; pp. 656, 1. 15—657, 1. 5; p. 666, 11. 2–18. Ḥawādith, p. 205Google Scholar, 11. 17–18; p. 443, 11. 8–9; Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, pp. 2,1. 21—3, 1. 3; p. 92,1. 21; p. 132, 11. 22–3. The tightness of the bonds which tied to each other the members of the same ṭā'ifa may be judged from the fact that Mamluk history knows of no single instance of the merger of the mamluks of one ṭā'ifa with those of another to form a single ṭā'ifa. Every Mamluk, ṭā'ifaGoogle Scholar kept its separate existence and disappeared only with the death of the last of its members.

^{page 218 note 1} Kkitat, i, p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 374Google Scholar, 11. 3–5; pp. 425–6; p. 532; p. 538; vii, pp. 12–19; p. 13, 11. 18–20; p. 16, 11. 16–17; p. 19; p. 29, 11. 18–22; p. 75; p. 87, 1. 9; p. 392; p. 396, 11. 11–12; p. 398, 11. 11–12; p. 756; p. 460, 11. 5–10; p. 461, 11. 12–16; pp. 657, 1. 18—658, 1. 9; pp. 663, 1. 16—664, 1. 13; p. 666, 11. 2–18; pp. 666–8; p. 672, 11. 5–18; p. 697; p. 699, 1. 2; p. 701, 11. 2–3; p. 720; p. 754, 11. 4–5; pp. 834–8; p. 854, 11. 9–11. Ḥawādith, p. 183Google Scholar, 11. 10–18; pp. 233,1. 21—234,1. 5; p. 371; p. 372; p. 410; pp. 442–4; pp. 520,1. 20—521,1. 6; p. 550,11. 4–9; pp. 550,1. 20—551, 1. 14; p. 553,11. 19–21; pp. 610–15; p. 643,11. 8–9. Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 71, 11. 23–5; p. 76, 11. 16–17; p. 93, 11. 2–3, 11. 5–8; p. 176, 11. 24–6; (KM) iii, p. 73, 1. 13. The fact of belonging to any military group or political unit is denoted in the sources by the term ‘Kān min ḥizb’ or by similar expressions containing the word ‘ḥizb’: Nujūm (C), vii, p. 30Google Scholar, 11. 12–15; (P) v, p. 360; p. 403, 1. 14; vi, p. 213, 1. 12; p. 524; vii, p. 44, 11. 15–16; p. 789, 1. 6. Ḥawādith, p. 352Google Scholar, 1. 14; p. 596, 1. 10; p. 719, 1. 22. Manhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 200b, 1. 18; fol. 201a, 11. 2–3; fol. 203a, 1. 10; ii, fol. 32a, 11. 6–7; fol. 128a; iv, fol. 110a, 1. 1. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, fol. 85a, 1. 14. Ḍaw', ii, p. 318Google Scholar, 1. 9; iii, p. 36; p. 41, 11. 25–6; x, p. 345, 11. 21–2. To denote grouping around a certain individual for common action, political or otherwise, the sources use the term ‘iltaff ‘alā’ (Kathīr, Ibn, xiv, p. 363.Google ScholarManhal, iGoogle Scholar, fol. 3a, 1. 14; ii, fol. 17b, 1. 17).

^{page 218 note 3} Ḥawādith, p. 550, 11. 4–9.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Ḥawādith, pp. 442, 1. 7—444, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 1} Zubda, p. 116Google Scholar, 11.14–15. It Seems plausible that the sayfīya were so called because during the Circassian period almost all the Mamluk amirs bore the title of Sayf ad-Dīn.

^{page 220 note 2} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 543Google Scholar, note. Cf. also Ḥawādith, p. 443, 11. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} Ḥawādith, p. 334Google Scholar, 11. 4–5. Cf. also Nujūm (P), vi, p. 425, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 4} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), v, p. 216Google Scholar; p. 513, 11. 22–3. Manhal, iiGoogle Scholar, fol. 59b, 11. 3–6. Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 24Google Scholar, 11. 21–2. Ḍaw', iii, p. 209Google Scholar; p. 287, 11. 13–14; vi, p. 231, 11. 22–3; x, p. 165. Durar, ii, p. 196Google Scholar, 1. 16. Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 209Google Scholar, 1. 14; v, p. 14, 11. 21–2. In fairly rare instances, one encounters the expression al-mamālīk as-sulṭānīya was-sayfīya (Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 25Google Scholar, 11. 14–16; (KM) iii, p. 362, 11. 4–10), but it seems that this is mere laxity in terminology.

^{page 220 note 5} Ḥawādith, p. 443, 11. 15–19.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 6} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 430, 11. 16–18.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 7} Ḥawādith, p. 448, 11. 7–11.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Iyās, Ibn, iv, p. 46, 11. 22–3.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} Hawādith, p. 454Google Scholar, 11. 7–9.

^{page 221 note 3} Al-Anṣārī, , Hawādith az-zamān wa-wafayāt ash-shuyūkh wal-aqrān. Cambridge MS., Dd. 11, 2, fol. 21b, 11. 5–10.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} Ibid., fol. 24b, 11. 8–13.

^{page 221 note 5} Ibid., fol. 25b, 1. 13—27a, 1. 4; fol. 29a, 11. 4–10.

^{page 221 note 6} See the author's ‘The Plague and its Effects upon the Mamluk Army’, J.R.A.S., 1946, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 43, 1. 28.Google Scholar On the cutting down of the wages of both the sayfīya and the awlād an-nās, see Iyās, Ibn, iv, pp. 65, 1. 23—66, 1. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Nujūm (P), vi, pp. 425–6; pp. 770, 1. 15—771, 1. 5Google Scholar; vii, p. 13, 11. 18–20; p. 396, 11. 11–12; p. 298, 11. 11–12; p. 672, 11. 13–18; p. 836, 1.3; p. 837, 1.7. So far as we know, the term sayfīya appears only in the Circassian period. In the Baḥrī period, mention is made of al-mamālīk al-manṣūrīya as-sayfīya (Sulūk, i, p. 821, 11. 2–3Google Scholar), but it is not clear whether this refers to amirs' mamluks.

^{page 222 note 3} Khiṭaṭ, i, pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 4} To be described under the heading ‘The Ḥalqa’, in Part II of this article.

^{page 222 note 5} Both lists will be reproduced in full in Appendix A, in Part III of this article.

^{page 222 note 6} Nujūm (C), vii, p. 15, 11. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 7} Zubda, p. 116.Google ScholarSulūk, i, p. 638.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Nujūm (C), vii, p. 192, 11. 5–10.Google ScholarFawāt al-Wafayāt, i, p. 115.Google Scholar Baybars' army was completely equipped; during one review, the entire army marched past him, so that it would not be said that a single soldier had had to borrow anything (Sulūk, i, p. 517, 11. 5–17Google Scholar). During that same review, he told the political envoys that that was the army of the capital only (Sulūk, i, p. 519, 11. 6–8Google Scholar), hut this was doubtless great exaggeration, since the first-class troops of the whole kingdom were, for the most part, concentrated in the capital. Al-Maqrīzī is of the opinion that the Mamluks imitated the Ayyubids (ḥadhū ḥadhwahum) in all matters of military organization.

^{page 223 note 2} Nujūm (C), vii, p. 179, 11. 15–17.Google Scholar In the passage cited here, it is specified that these were khāṣṣakī amirs and office holders; we are unable to determine whether the source meant that all of Baybars' mamluks were holders of offices and ranks, or whether the figure quoted here refers only to those among them who did hold such ranks and offices.

^{page 223 note 3} Nujūm (C), vii, p. 327, 11. 3–7.Google ScholarManhal, i, fol. 133a, 11. 20–3.Google ScholarSulūk, i, p. 755, 1. 20.Google Scholaral-Furāt, Ibn, viii, p. 97, 11. 21–6.Google ScholarKhiṭaṭ, i, pp. 94–5; ii, p. 214.Google ScholarIyās, Ibn, i, p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 4} Baybars al-Manṣūrī, Zubdat al-Fikra fi Ta'rīkh al-Hijra, B.M. MS., Add. 23, 325, fol. 99a, 1. 13—99b, 1. 1.

^{page 223 note 5} Nujūm (C), vii, pp. 327, 1. 15—328, 1. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 6} al-Furāt, Ibn, viii, p. 97, 11. 21–6.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 7} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 8} Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} Sulūk, ii, p. 524, 1. 13—525, 1. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} Khṭiaṭ, i, p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 218, 1. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 4} On the basis of this figure of 2,000 Royal Mamluks, Poliak draws an unwarranted conclusion as to the accuracy of the figures of mamluks cited by the sources (Feudalism, p. 6 and n. 7Google Scholar). On numbers of mamluks see also: Wiet, G., Précis de l'Histoire d'Égypte, Cairo, 1932, vol. ii, p. 242.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 5} Cf. L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, pp. 2–8.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 6} Nujūm (C), ix, p. 198, 1. 4; pp. 192–3.Google Scholar It is related of an-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāūn that he knew his own and his father's mamluks by name, as well as the rank and pay of each of them (Nujūm (C), ix, p. 173, 11. 12–14Google Scholar). The Mamluk amir Azdamur al-Mujīrī, who was brought before the Khān Ghāzān, told him that the above-named sultan possessed 10,000 Turkish mamluks like himself, but one of the Mongol Khan's courtiers contested the accuracy of this figure (Zetterstéen, , p. 103, 11. 10–20Google Scholar). On an-Nāṣir Muhammad's virtues in comparison with subsequent sultans, see Nujūm (C), ix, p. 191, 11. 3–7; p. 195, 11. 1–14.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 7} Nujūm (P), v, p. 208, 11. 17–19.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 8} Manhal, ii, fol. 61b, 11. 17–18.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Nujūm (P), v, p. 420, 11. 13–15.Google Scholaral-Furāt, Ibn, ix, p. 89, 11. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} Nujūm (P), v, p. 592.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} Manhal, ii, fol. 72b, 11. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 5} Nujūm (P), v, p. 312, 11. 7–11; p. 384, 11. 14–21; vi, p. 47, 11. 4 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 6} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 47, 11. 4 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 7} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 422, 11. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 8} For the ratio between the dirham and the dīnār in the Mamluk period, see L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, p. 42Google Scholar, and Strauss, E., ‘Prix et Salaires à l'Époque Mamelouke’, R.E.I., 1949, pp. 49 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 9} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 481.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 10} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 773, 11. 6–12.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 11} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 773, 11. 12–17.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 12} Ḥawādith, p. 442, 11. 15–17.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 95, 11. 9–14.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} B.M. MS., Or. 3026, fol. 115a, 11. 10–11.

^{page 226 note 3} Nujūm (P), vi, p. 387, 11. 10–21.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} The Mamluk sources furnish ample and very convincing information about the terrible decline which has befallen the whole Egyptian economy since the beginning of the 9th century A.H. till the destruction of the Mamluk kingdom (this problem is discussed elsewhere by the present writer). There can hardly be any doubt that this economic decline was one of the main causes for the drastic reduction hi the numerical strength of the Mamluk army.

^{page 227 note 1} Nujūm (P), vii, p. 671, 11. 15–20.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} Ḥawādith, pp. 550, 1. 22–551, 1. 10.Google Scholar As-Sakhāwī states that Sultan Khushqadam bought many mamluks (Ḍaw', iii, p. 176, 1. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 3} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 81, 11. 9–10.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 4} Iyās, Ibn, i, p. 315.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 5} Iyās, Ibn, ii, pp. 13–18.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 6} Iyās, Ibn, ii, p. 21, 11. 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 7} Iyās, Ibn (KM), iii, p. 318, 11. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 8} Ta'rīkh Qāytbāy at-tarjama ash-sharīfa al-ashrafīya, B.M. MS., Or. 3028, fol. 15a, 11. 4–8.

^{page 227 note 9} Al-Anṣārī, Ḥawādith az-zamān wa-wafayāt ash-shuyūkh wal-aqrān. Cambridge MS., Dd. 11. 2, fol. 54a, 11. 1–11.

^{page 228 note 1} See L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} Zubda, p. 27, 11. 5–7.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 3} Archives de l'Orient Latin, vol. IIA, p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 4} The figures of the auxiliary armies in the Mamluk kingdom are far less reliable.