Abstract
It should not come as a surprise that the Mamluks took their horses very seriously. The mainstay of their military might was a large mobile field army that was mostly made up of mounted archers. In this they were similar to the armies of the Eurasian Steppe. However, unlike the Mongols and the Turkmens, the Mamluk horses were not primarily fed by grazing, but rather by fodder. Like the Mamluk soldiers themselves, their mounts were “city dwellers,” although they may have also spent some time during every year out in the country. This, in turn, presented all kinds of logistical challenges, some of which will be discussed in this chapter. In addition, we will review some of the evidence for the types of horses that the Mamluks used and compare it to the mounts employed their Mongol enemies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
“… [H]ere a series of matters needs to be studied regarding the numerical importance and the role – during the first conquests and afterwards – of the famous ‘Arabian horse,’ more high-strung than strong, as well as to the existence in later Muslim armies (or in some of them) of horses of other breeds and characteristics” (Cahen1975, 115).
- 2.
Nicolle (1993) is a reasonable introductory text; on p. 10 there are some pertinent remarks on Mamluk horses. Some initial attempts at the military history of the early Mamluk Sultanate appear in Amitai-Preiss (1995), Amitai (2007, 2011). The book by James Waterson (2007) is a narrative survey of the Sultanate with emphasis on military affairs; unfortunately, it is marred by not infrequent inaccurate or misleading statements.
- 3.
Ayalon (1958, esp. 261–272).
- 4.
Ayalon (1961).
- 5.
Ayalon (1988).
- 6.
Rabie (1975).
- 7.
J. M. Smith (1984).
- 8.
J. M. Smith (1998).
- 9.
A summation and continuation of his study of Mongol mounts is found in J. M. Smith (2009).
- 10.
- 11.
Al-Sharraf (2004).
- 12.
Even less relevant to the study of the reality of procuring and maintaining horses is the material examined by Conermann (2009), which talks about the highly abstract, and unpractical, Prophetic furūsiyya.
- 13.
Shehada (2012). For the various uses of horses in the Mamluk Sultanate, see esp. chapter 1, and especially the two pages devoted to “War and Jihad” (pp. 26–28), and also the section “Furūsīyah and Jihad in Veterinary Essays,” pp. 169–172; also see p. 474.
- 14.
- 15.
Silverman (2007, Chapters 4–5).
- 16.
Irwin (1986, esp. 114–116).
- 17.
Loiseau (2014, esp. 155–159).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
For Ibn `Faḍl Allāh al-`Umarī’s family, career and works, see Richards (2017, 1–12).
- 21.
- 22.
Al-ʿUmarī (1984, 101; 2010, 3:347). The translation is taken, with some small changes, from Richards (2017, 58–59). Cf. Ayalon (1958, 262–263). Al-ʿUmarī’s oral source here was the officer Fā’id b. Muqaddam al-Sulamī, who held the Barqa as iqṭā`; probably this was similar to the ways the leaders of the Āl Faḍl held much of northern Syria as iqṭā`. On this latter tribe, see below.
- 23.
Al-Rūm, i.e. Anatolia.
- 24.
Lane (1863–1893, 1:186b). The entry compares the birdhawn to “those of the Arabian breed, that are light of flesh, lank in the belly, and more slender in the belly, and more slender in the limbs … or a Turkish horse; opposed to an Arabian.” A separate article on “Turkish” horses in the region is planned. See below, note 46 and accompanying text.
- 25.
Fishbein (1992, 54 note), who refers to Lane’sLexicon.
- 26.
- 27.
Kelekna (2009, 220). For even more exuberant expressions regarding the Arabian horse, see Harrigan (2010, 19). The American traveler Homer Davenport wrote during his visit in Syria in 1906: “The head is short from the eye to the muzzle and broad and well developed above. The eye is peculiarly soft and intelligent with a sparkle characteristic of the breed.… The build of the Arab is perfect…. If he be carefully examined it will be found that all the muscles and limbs of progression are better placed and longer in him than in any other horse. Nature, when she made the Arab, made no mistake….” (Grutz 2011, 16).
- 28.
Other expressions of this “high-spiritedness” is found in the Wikipedia article on “Arabian Horses”: “The Arabian also developed the high spirit and alertness needed in a horse used for raiding and war. This combination of willingness and sensitivity requires modern Arabian horse owners to handle their horses with competence and respect.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse, accessed on July 26, 2018. Lombard (2003, 170), writes: “The Arab thoroughbred was a perfect saddle-horse, delicately made, spirited, and swift.”
- 29.
Talking to those with experience working with horses, I have learnt that mixed breed animals tend to be more resilient than their purebred cousins.
- 30.
For this author and his work, along with some reproductions of the astounding color illustrations in the volume, see G. R. Smith (1979). The full work has yet to be edited and published; the one manuscript is found at the British Library, MS Add 18866.
- 31.
G. R. Smith (1979, 20), from MS, fol. 140a.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
Hyland (1994, 114) and Kelekna (2009, 263–264). In his treatise on how to reconquer the Holy Land, Fidenzio of Padua writes in 1291 that the horses of the Mamluks are smaller and less vigorous than those of the Latins, and also less burdened with equipment, thus permitting greater mobility; Paviot (2001, 84).
- 35.
See the discussions in studies by J. M. Smith, Jr. cited above in section “General Problems and Previous Scholarship”.
- 36.
Lombard (2003, 170), makes this interesting comment: “Egypt became the meeting-point of the Syrian-Arab horse and the North African horse: later its cavalry was as much feared by the Mongols as the Crusaders.” This author intuitively hit the nail on the head.
- 37.
Ayalon (1958, 263).
- 38.
NB: The Hijaz and Cyrenaica were generally under the aegis of the Mamluk sultan, although his authority was occasionally flaunted in these regions and had to be reinstated by a show of force. For the former, see Meloy (2015). For the latter, see al-`Umarī (1984, 100–102; 2010, 3, 346–348); translation in Richards (2017, 58–59). In early Mamluk times at least, the rule in Cyrenaica may have been even weaker than in northwest Arabia; Northrup (1998, 179–180). For more about conditions in this country during the early Mamluk period, see Baadj (2019).
- 39.
- 40.
Ayalon (1958, 264–265). On p. 267, we learn of the continuation of this sultanic policy of purchasing large numbers of horses, particularly under Barquq and Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī; nothing is said about the provenance of these mounts.
- 41.
- 42.
In the Mamluk sources, al-`arab and al-`urban invariably refers to Bedouins. We should remember that Āl Muhannā was the leading clan of the Āl Faḍl tribe of Syria, not a separate tribe as might be understood here.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
Al-Maqrīzī (1934–1973, 2/2:529, 530). The “Horse Office,” aiming at recording pedigrees, etc., should not be confused with the amīr ākhūr, the officer responsible for running the sultan’s stables and keeping his horses healthy and ready. Ayalon (1953–1954, Pt. 3, 63) and Loiseau (2014, 234), refers to the amīr ākhūr kabīr as “le grand connétable.”
- 46.
See Dozy (1881, 2:476b); Clauson (1972, 103), for very preliminary discussions. We are grateful to Prof. Judith Pfeiffer (Bonn), who informed us that ikdīsh in Turkish refers to a gelding. We are not disputing this translation, but will note that in the Mamluk sources, the term invariably refers to horses somehow connected to the Mongols or the Turks of Anatolia.
- 47.
- 48.
Al-`Umarī (1984, 33, 38; 2010, 3:290, 294); translation in Richards (2017, 23, 25). Some idea of the needs of regular trooper in a long-distant campaign is provided by Ibn `Abd al-Ẓāhir (1976, 111) when describing preparations for the expedition to Baghdad of the newly appointed `Abbasid caliph al-Mustanṣir in 1261: Sultan Baybars bought for him one hundred Mamluks; each of them was given three horses and a camel to carry his equipment. Cf. Ayalon (1958, 269 note 4).
- 49.
Al-`Umarī (1984, 29; 2010, 3:288–289); translation here based on Richards (2017, 21), but with some changes. “Amirs of 100” were the highest ranking officers in the Mamluk army, perhaps equivalent to a modern battalion commander; during campaign they also commanded a unit of theoretically 1000 non-Mamluk ḥalqa troopers, also cavalrymen. For the ranks of the Mamluk officer class, see Holt (1986, 146–148) and Ayalon (1953–1954, Pt. 2, 467–475).
- 50.
The translator may have taken some liberty here: marbiṭ is a place that someone ties or parks his mount. Perhaps breeding took place at this particular location, but “stud farm” may be reading more into it than warranted. Ayalon (1958, 268), translated this expression as “enclosures”; see below. He also notes (ibid., 266) that most of the breeding of the sultan’s horses was in the Maydān al-Mahārī (“The Hippodrome of the Colts and Fillies”).
- 51.
A caparison “is an ornamental covering for a horse,” or “decorative trappings and harness”; Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2001, 168b). Wikipedia is more specific: “A caparison is a cloth covering laid over a horse or other animal for protection and decoration.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caparison, accessed on 2 August 2018.
- 52.
Ṭablkhāna amirs had the right to maintain an orchestra (ṭablkhāna) and owned some 40 Mamluks; thus, they might be compared to a company commander in a modern army.
- 53.
Not surprisingly, the amīr of 10 had the right to own ten Mamluks; perhaps this can be considered equivalent to a platoon (albeit small one) commander today.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
Al-`Umarī (1984, 31); not found in al-`Umarī (2010) (should be on 3:289); translation based on Richards (2017, 2), who in a note (95, n. 100) gives an example of Baybars replacing dead mounts of private soldiers, and another example of the governor of Damascus, Aqqūsh al-Afram, giving cash payments to his own Mamluks whose horses had died, probably in the first decade of fourteenth century.
- 58.
This seems to be implied in Irwin (1986, 114–115).
- 59.
Unlike Baybars and Qalāwūn, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad—the son of a sultan—did not have khushdāshiyya (comrades from the days of slavery, i.e. Mamluks of the same patron) whom he needed to satisfy, but only subordinates of various kinds.
- 60.
- 61.
On al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s policy of bestowing extensive gifts and luxuries on his personal Mamluks (and by extension, officers who came from this body), even during their years of training in the barracks; al-Maqrīzī (1934–1973, 2/2, 524–525). On the contrary, his Mamluk predecessors did not spoil their young Mamluks, but they could certainly be lavish with their colleagues. For Baybars’ generosity—to his comrades (khushdāshiyya), other officers and his own Mamluks, as well as the wider (Muslim) public; Ibn Shaddād (1983, 295–298) and Ibn `Abd al-Ẓāhir (1976, 73–76, 86–87). See also the discussion in Holt (1982, 23–25). It appears that Qalawun was somewhat more tightfisted with his own Mamluks (and maybe others?); Northrup (1998, 192–193).
- 62.
One finds it during the reign of Saladin. See Holt (1995, 124). This may be seen inter alia of a continuation and development of a long-standing tradition in the Islamic Middle East, with antecedents in the pre-Islamic world: On the one hand, there was the ideal of muruwwa of the Jāhilī Arabs (Goldziher 1967), and at the same time, it may echo a pre-Islamic tradition elsewhere in the Near East; see, e.g., Colburn (2015, 190–193); I am grateful to Nathan Wasserman for referring me to this study. Thomas Allsen (1997, 75–89) has shown Near Eastern precedents (Islamic and before) for the distribution of clothing among subordinates at court, often that of the ruler himself. It should be clear that I am not concerned here with gift giving in the diplomatic sphere nor from subjects to ruler, as a disguised form of tribute or extortion.
- 63.
For a short initial discussion of this, see Amitai (2013, 82).
- 64.
Allsen (1997, esp. Chapter 2).
- 65.
- 66.
See Dozy, Supplément, 1:366a–b for this second kind of tent.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
Amitai-Preiss (1995, 71).
- 70.
There were surely hundreds if not thousands of horses in Cairo for non-military purposes, let alone mules and donkeys, along with camels for military and commercial use. All of these are left out of the present discussion.
- 71.
On the dangers of not properly disposing of urine to the health of the horses (particularly towards the respiratory tract and hooves), see Bachrach (1988, 182).
- 72.
Ayalon (1958, 261–262).
- 73.
Ibid., 262.
- 74.
As noted above, Richards (2017, 22), refers to this a “stud farms.”
- 75.
- 76.
One faddān would equal about 4000 square meters.
- 77.
Ayalon (1958, 269–270). For the translation of rabī` as clover season (and not “spring” in some general sense), see ibid., 268, n. 2. See al-`Umarī (1984, 30; not found in al-`Umarī 2010 [should be on 3:289]; translation based on Richards 2017, 22, with some changes): “All officers in Egypt close to the Sultan (al-khāṣṣa) received … clover for their horses’ spring feed, which during that period is in lieu of their allowance of fodder.” Cf. al-Qalqashandī1987, 4:56 [3:456]. For this pasturage see also Poliak (1939, 5).
- 78.
Ibn `Abd al-Ẓāhir (1976, 221–222), for this, and 221–225 for the entire episode. See Amitai-Preiss (1995, 111–112), for subsequent writers citing this source and the larger picture. Ibn `Abd al-Ẓāhir notes that the Franks in Syria knew about this yearly movement to the countryside to pasture the horses, and informed the Mongols of such. This, then, was one of the reasons for the timing of the Mongol campaign (another, unmentioned by our source, being the need for the Mongols to pasture and water their horses on campaign, best done in the winter months).
- 79.
See the discussions in studies by J. M. Smith, Jr. cited above in section “General Problems and Previous Scholarship”.
- 80.
We can note, however, that the eating of horseflesh was not uncommon in the Sultanate; Irwin (1986, 115–116). It is reasonable to assume that those horses picked to be slaughtered for food were not regular Mamluk mounts, and there must have been herds that were culled for this purpose.
- 81.
Cf. the remark of the Armenian historian (written in French), Het`um (Hayton/Hathoum) of Korikos (fl. 1307): “The Mongols (here: “Tartars”) have more regard for their horses, than they do for themselves” (Het`um 1906, 200).
References
Abū al-Fidā’ (al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Ismā`īl). 1907–1908 (1385 H.). Al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar. Cairo: al-Maṭba`a al-Ḥusaynī al-Miṣriyya, 1325.
Allsen, Thomas T. Allsen. 1997. Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire: A Cultural History of Islamic Textiles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. 1995. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War 1260–1281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amitai, Reuven. 2004. “Did the Mongols in the Middle East Remain Nomadic Pastoralists?” Paper delivered at workshop on “Conditions of Pastoral Mobility,” Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany, 17–19 June. Available at https://huji.academia.edu/ReuvenAmitai.
Amitai, Reuven. 2006. “Some More Thoughts on the Logistics of the Mongol-Mamluk War (with Special Reference to the Battle of Wadi al-Khaznadar).” In Logistics of War in the Age of the Crusades, edited by John Pryor, 25–42. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Amitai, Reuven. 2007. The Mongols in the Islamic Lands: Studies in the History of the Ilkhanate. Aldershot, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Amitai, Reuven. 2011. “Dealing with Reality: Early Mamluk Military Policy and the Allocation of Resources.” In Crossroads Between Latin Europe and the Near East: Frankish Presence in the Eastern Mediterranean (12th to 14th Centuries), edited by Stefan Leder, 127–144. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.
Amitai, Reuven. 2013. Holy War and Rapprochement: Studies in the Relations between the Mamluk Sultanate and the Mongol Ilkhanate (1260–1335). Turnhout: Brepols.
Amitai, Reuven. 2016. “Continuity and Change in the Mongol Army of the Ilkhanate.” In The Mongols’ Middle East: Continuity and Transformation in Ilkhanid Iran, edited by Charles Melville and Bruno De Nicola, 38–52. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Ayalon, David. 1951. L’Esclavage du Mamelouk, Oriental Notes and Studies No. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society. Reprinted in D. Ayalon, 1979. The Mamlūk Military Society: Collected Studies. London: Variorum.
Ayalon, David. 1953–1954. “Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Pt. 1: 15/2, 203–228; Pt. 2: 15/3, 448–476; Pt. 3: 16/1, 57–90. Reprinted in D. Ayalon. 1977. Studies on the Mamlūks of Egypt (1250–1517). London: Variorum.
Ayalon, David. 1958. “The System of Payment in Mamluk Military Society.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1: 37–65, 257–296. Reprinted in D. Ayalon. 1977. Studies on the Mamlūks of Egypt (1250–1517). London: Variorum.
Ayalon, David. 1961. “Notes of the Furūsiyya Exercises and Games in the Mamlūk Sultanate.” In Studies in Islamic History and Civilization, edited by Uriel Heyd. Published in Scripta Hierosolymitana, 9, 31–62. Reprinted in D. Ayalon. 1979. The Mamlūk Military Society: Collected Studies. London: Variorum.
Ayalon, David. 1971. “On One of the Works of Jean Sauvaget.” Israel Oriental Studies 1: 298–302. Reprinted in D. Ayalon. 1979. The Mamlūk Military Society: Collected Studies. London: Variorum.
Ayalon, David. 1988. “The Auxiliary Forces of the Mamluk Sultanate.” Der Islam 65, 13–37. Reprinted in D. Ayalon. 1994. Islam and the Abode of War. Aldershot: Variorum (Ashgate).
Ayalon, David. 1994. “The Expansion and Decline of Cairo Under the Mamlūks and Its Background.” In Itinéraires d’Orient: Hommages à Claude Cahen, edited by Raoul Curiel and Rika Gyselen, 13–20. Res Orientales VI. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient.
Baadj, Amar S. 2019. “Travel by Sea and Land Between the Maghrib and the Mamluk Empire.” In The Mamluk Sultanate from the Perspective of Regional and World History: Economic, Social and Cultural Developments in an Era of Increasing International Interaction and Competition, edited by Reuven Amitai and Stephan Conermann, 283–307. Göttingen: V&R Unipress.
Bachrach, Bernard. 1988. “Caballus and Caballarius in Medieval Warfare.” In The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches, edited by Howell Chickering and Thomas H. Seiler, 173–211. Published for the Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages, Inc. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University.
Bennett, Deb. 1998. Conquerors: The Roots of New World Horsemanship. Solvang, CA: Amigo Publications.
Bennett, Deb, and Robert S. Hoffmann. 1999. Equus caballus, Mammalian Species No. 628. https://academic.oup.com/mspecies/article/doi/10.2307/3504442/2600771 Accessed on December 1, 2018.
Cahen, Claude. 1975. “Les Changements techniques militaires dans le Proche Orient médiéval et leur importance historique.” In War, Technology and Society in the Middle East, edited by V. J. Parry and Malcom E. Yapp, 113–124. London: Oxford University Press.
Clauson, Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Colburn, Henry P. 2015. “Memories of the Second Persian Period in Egypt.” In Political Memory in and After the Persian Empire, edited by Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers, 165–202. Atlanta: SBL Press.
Conermann, Stephan. 2009. “Muḥammad zu Pferde im Kampf: Ein Beispiel für das Genre der Furūsiyya an-nabawiyya während der Mamlukenzeit (1250–1517).” In Pferde in Asien: Geschichte, Handel and Kultur / Horses in Asia: History, Trade and Culture, edited by Bert G. Fragner, Ralph Kauz, Roderich Ptak and Angela Schottenhammer, 51–59. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Davis, R. H. C. 1989. The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development and Redevelopment. London: Thames & Hudson.
Dozy, Reinhart. 1881. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1981. Reprint of Leiden: Brill.
Drory, Joseph. 2007. “The Role of Banū Faḍl in Fourteenth Century Northern Syria.” In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras: Proceedings of the 11th, 12th and 13th International Colloquium Organized at the Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven in May 2002, 2003 and 2005, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Kristof d’Hulster, 471–485. Leuven, Paris and Dudley, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Esin, Emel. 1965. “The Horse in Turkish Art.” Central Asiatic Journal 10: 167–227.
Fishbein, Michael, trans. 1992. The War Between Brothers, vol. XXXI of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Franz, Kurt. 2015. “Bedouin and States: Framing the Mongol-Mamlūk Wars in Long-Term History.” In Nomad Military Power in Iran and Adjacent Areas in the Islamic Period, edited by Kurt Franz and Wolfgang Holzwarth, 29–105. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Goldziher, Ignaz. 1967. “Muruwwa and Dīn.” In Muslim Studies. Translated by C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern and Edited by S. M. Stern, 11–43. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Grutz, Jane Waldron. 2011. “Hafiz’s Gift.” Saudi Aramco World 62 (1): 12–19.
Harrigan, Peter. 2010. “‘Drinkers of the Wind’.” Saudi Aramco World 61 (6): 18.
Het`um [Hayton/Hathoum]. 1906. “La Flor des estories de la Terre d’Orient.” In Recueil des historiens des croisades, documents armeniens, 2: 111–253. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres.
Hiyari, Mustafa A. 1975. “The Origins and Development of the Amīrate of the Arabs During the Seventh/Thirteenth and Eighth/Fourteenth Centuries.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 38: 509–524.
Holt, Peter M. 1982. “Three Biographies of al-Ẓāhir Baybars.” In Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, edited by David O. Morgan, 19–29. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Holt, Peter M. 1986. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. London and New York: Longman.
Holt, Peter M. 1995. “The Sultan as Ideal Ruler: Ayyubid and Mamluk Prototypes.” In Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age: The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World, edited by Metin Kunt and Christine Woodhead, 122–37. London and New York: Longman.
Hyland, Ann. 1994. The Medieval Warhorse from Byzantium to the Crusades. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing.
Ibn `Abd al-Zahir (Muḥyī al-Dīn). 1976 (= 1396 H). Al-Rawḍ al-zāhir fī sīrat al-malik al-ẓāhir. Edited by `Abd al-`Azīz al-Khuwayṭir. Riyad: n.p.
Ibn Shaddād al-Ḥalabī (`Izz al-Dīn Muḥammad b. `Alī). 1983 (1403 H). Ta’rīkh al-malik al-ẓāhir (Die Geschichte des Sultan Baibars). Edited by Aḥmad Ḥuṭayṭ. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Irwin, Robert. 1986. The Middle East in the Middle Ages: The Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250–1382. London: Croom Helm.
Kelekna, Pita. 2009. The Horse in Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lane, Edward W. 1863–1893. Arabic-English Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts Society, 1984. Reprint of London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.
Levanoni, Amalia. 1995. A Turning Point in Mamluk History: The Third Reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn (1310–1341). Leiden: Brill.
Loiseau, Julien. 2014. Les Mamelouks, XIIIe-XVIesiècle. Une experience du pouvoir dans l’Islam medieval. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Lombard, Maurice. 2003. The Golden Age of Islam. Translated by Joan Spencer. New Preface by Jane Hathaway. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
al-Maqrīzī, Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad b. `Alī. 1934–1974. Kitāb al-sulūk li-ma`rifat al-duwal wal-mulūk. Edited by Muḥammad Muṣṭafā Ziyāda, et al. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya.
Meloy, John L. 2015. Imperial Power and Maritime Trade: Mecca and Cairo in the Later Middle Ages. Chicago: Middle East Documentation Center.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 2001. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Nicolle, David, with Illustrations by Angus McBride. 1993. The Mamluks 1250–1517, 259. Men-At-Arms Series. London: Osprey Publishing.
Northrup, Linda. 1998. From Slave to Sultan: The Career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678–689 A.H./1279–1290 A.D.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Olsen, Sarah L., and Cynthia Culbertson. 2010. A Gift from the Desert: The Art, History and Culture of the Arabian Horse. Lexington, KE: International Museum of the Horse.
Paviot, Jacques. 2001. “Comment reconquerir la Terre sainte et vaincre les Sarrasin?” In Dei gesta per Francos: Crusade Studies in Honour of Jean Richard, edited by Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, and Jonathan Riley-Smith, 79–85. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Poliak, Avraham N. 1939. Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and the Lebanon, 1250–1900. London: The Royal Asiatic Society.
al-Qalqashandī, Aḥmad b. `Alī. 1987. Ṣubḥ al-a`shā fī ṣinā`at al-inshā. Edited by Muḥammad Ḥusayn Shams al-Dīn. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya. 1407 H. 14 vols.
Rabie, Hassanein. 1975. “The Training of the Mamluk Fāris.” In War, Technology and Society in the Middle East, edited by V. J. Parry and Malcom E. Yapp, 153–163. London: Oxford University Press.
Richards, Donald S. 2017. Egypt and Syria in the Early Mamluk Period: An Extract from Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-’Umarī’s Masālik al-Abṣār fī Mamālik al-Amṣār. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge.
al-Sarraf, Shihab. 2004. “Mamluk Furūsīyah Literature and Its Antecedents.” Mamlūk Studies Review 8 (1): 141–200.
Sauvaget, Jean. 1941. La poste aux chevaux dans l’empire des Mamelouks. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Shehada, Housni Alkhateeb. 2012. Mamluks and Animals: Veterinary Medicine in Medieval Islam. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Silverman, Adam. 2007. Postal Systems in the Pre-modern Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simonoff, Leonid de, and Jean de Moerder. 1894. Races chevalines, avec le chevaux russes. Paris: Librairie Agricole de la Maison Rustique.
Smith, G. Rex. 1979. Medieval Muslim Horsemanship: A Fourteenth-Century Arabic Calvary Manual. London: The British Library.
Smith, John Masson, Jr. 1984. “ʿAyn Jālūt: Mamlūk Success or Mongol Failure?” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 44 (2): 307–345.
Smith, John Masson, Jr. 1998. “Nomads on Ponies vs. Slaves on Horses.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118 (1): 54–62.
Smith, John Masson, Jr. 2009. “From Pasture to Manger: The Evolution of Mongol Cavalry Logistics in Yuan China and its Consequences.” In Pferde in Asien: Geschichte, Handel und Kultur/Horses in Asia: History, Trade and Culture, edited by Bert G. Fragner, Ralph Kauz, Roderich Ptak and Angela Schottenhammer, 63–74. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tritton, Arthur S. 1948. “Tribes of Syria in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12: 567–573.
al-`Umarī, Ibn `Faḍl Allāh, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. 1893–1894. al-Ta`rīf bil-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf. Cairo: Maṭba`at al-`Āṣima, 1312 H.
al-`Umarī, Ibn `Faḍl Allāh, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. 1984. Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār d’Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī (Šihāb Faḍl Allāh b. Yaḥyā b. Faḍl Allāhm. 749/1349): L’Égypte, la Syrie, le Ḥiğāz. Edited by Ayman Fuʾād Sayyid. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
al-`Umarī, Ibn `Faḍl Allāh Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. 2010. Masālik al-abṣār fi mamālik al-amṣār. Edited by Kāmil Salmān al-Jabūrī and Mahdī al-Najm. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya.
Waterson, Richard. 2007. The Knights of Islam: The Wars of the Mamluks. London: Greenhill Books & St. Paul and MBI Publishing.
Wehr, Hans. 1971. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan, 3rd ed. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amitai, R., Bar-Gal, G.K. (2019). The Mamluk’s Best Friend: The Mounts of the Military Elite of Egypt and Syria in the Late Middle-Ages. In: Kowner, R., Bar-Oz, G., Biran, M., Shahar, M., Shelach-Lavi, G. (eds) Animals and Human Society in Asia. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24363-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24363-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24362-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24363-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)