The Source of Power in the Formation Years of the Mamluk State:  Autocracy of the Sultan or Oligarchy of Amirs?

Yusuf Ötenkaya

Makale detayları

The Source of Power in the Formation Years of the Mamluk State: Autocracy of the Sultan or Oligarchy of Amirs?

Yazarlar:

Yusuf Ötenkaya

Yayıncı:

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar:

Din Araştırmaları

Dergi:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 1, pp.234-248

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001289877

pISSN:

2528-9861

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 There are many studies and theories in the literature on the source of power in the formative years of the Mamlūk state. In these studies, the importance of power and influence as a form of becoming a sultan in the Mamlūks has been emphasized, although the oligarchic power of the umara has been indirectly mentioned in terms of the source of power by discussing the distinction between a puppet sultan and an authoritarian sultan. However, this axiom causes a number of problems and ambiguities within itself and leads to the supersession of the determinism of the elite amirs. This work will try to overcome this problem by focusing on the political developments during the foundation years of the state and discussing how powerful and influential amirs were restricted by the umara on their way to becoming sultans. At the same time, by focusing on the chronicles of the period in question, the administrative determinism of the Mamlūk factions as a decision-making mechanism in the Mamlūk state will be pointed out. On the other hand, the statement that power emanated from both the sultans household faction and the military support of the elite amirs or khushdāshs who held the Mamlūk oligarchy in their hands leads to overlooking the tension or conflict between the two throughout Mamlūk political history. Considering the state of conflict between the two sides, it is a logical contradiction for the two opposing poles to agree on the same candidate. For instance, considering Muʿizz Aybaks accession to power, the Sālihiyya-Bahriyya amirs unanimously endorsed his sultanate, but in the process, Muʿizz Aybak prevailed over the tensions he experienced with the elite that brought him to power and managed to become the absolute sultan, albeit for a short time. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind that there was no uniform relationship between the sultan and the elite amirs, but rather a dynamic functioning. In other words, the future sultan, who had to establish good relations with the amirs until he became sultan, had to go against the amirs who brought him to power if he wanted to become an absolute ruler after he became sultan. In this study, the source of Mamlūk power is traced to the collective interests of the Mamlūk factions. It is emphasized that these interests were usually centered on candidates who were seen as more moderate among the factions. At the same time, by revealing the shortcomings of the understandings presented as a rule such as the one who kills the sultan becomes the sultan and the powerful and influential become the sultan, the analysis of the period from the founding years of the Mamlūks to Baybars sultanate mostly emphasizes the continuity of the status quo of the elite amirs by highlighting the sultanate of weak and middle-ranking amirs. The analysis has pointed out that those who killed sultans or usurped the throne were punished rather than usurping the throne as a legitimate right. Similarly, the consensus of the umara on the candidate for sultanate was pointed out by mentioning that those who were powerful and influential were being challenged rather than made sultan.

 There are many studies and theories in the literature on the source of power in the formative years of the Mamlūk state. In these studies, the importance of power and influence as a form of becoming a sultan in the Mamlūks has been emphasized, although the oligarchic power of the umara has been indirectly mentioned in terms of the source of power by discussing the distinction between a puppet sultan and an authoritarian sultan. However, this axiom causes a number of problems and ambiguities within itself and leads to the supersession of the determinism of the elite amirs. This work will try to overcome this problem by focusing on the political developments during the foundation years of the state and discussing how powerful and influential amirs were restricted by the umara on their way to becoming sultans. At the same time, by focusing on the chronicles of the period in question, the administrative determinism of the Mamlūk factions as a decision-making mechanism in the Mamlūk state will be pointed out. On the other hand, the statement that power emanated from both the sultans household faction and the military support of the elite amirs or khushdāshs who held the Mamlūk oligarchy in their hands leads to overlooking the tension or conflict between the two throughout Mamlūk political history. Considering the state of conflict between the two sides, it is a logical contradiction for the two opposing poles to agree on the same candidate. For instance, considering Muʿizz Aybaks accession to power, the Sālihiyya-Bahriyya amirs unanimously endorsed his sultanate, but in the process, Muʿizz Aybak prevailed over the tensions he experienced with the elite that brought him to power and managed to become the absolute sultan, albeit for a short time. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind that there was no uniform relationship between the sultan and the elite amirs, but rather a dynamic functioning. In other words, the future sultan, who had to establish good relations with the amirs until he became sultan, had to go against the amirs who brought him to power if he wanted to become an absolute ruler after he became sultan. In this study, the source of Mamlūk power is traced to the collective interests of the Mamlūk factions. It is emphasized that these interests were usually centered on candidates who were seen as more moderate among the factions. At the same time, by revealing the shortcomings of the understandings presented as a rule such as the one who kills the sultan becomes the sultan and the powerful and influential become the sultan, the analysis of the period from the founding years of the Mamlūks to Baybars sultanate mostly emphasizes the continuity of the status quo of the elite amirs by highlighting the sultanate of weak and middle-ranking amirs. The analysis has pointed out that those who killed sultans or usurped the throne were punished rather than usurping the throne as a legitimate right. Similarly, the consensus of the umara on the candidate for sultanate was pointed out by mentioning that those who were powerful and influential were being challenged rather than made sultan.

 There are many studies and theories in the literature on the source of power in the formative years of the Mamlūk state. In these studies, the importance of power and influence as a form of becoming a sultan in the Mamlūks has been emphasized, although the oligarchic power of the umara has been indirectly mentioned in terms of the source of power by discussing the distinction between a puppet sultan and an authoritarian sultan. However, this axiom causes a number of problems and ambiguities within itself and leads to the supersession of the determinism of the elite amirs. This work will try to overcome this problem by focusing on the political developments during the foundation years of the state and discussing how powerful and influential amirs were restricted by the umara on their way to becoming sultans. At the same time, by focusing on the chronicles of the period in question, the administrative determinism of the Mamlūk factions as a decision-making mechanism in the Mamlūk state will be pointed out. On the other hand, the statement that power emanated from both the sultans household faction and the military support of the elite amirs or khushdāshs who held the Mamlūk oligarchy in their hands leads to overlooking the tension or conflict between the two throughout Mamlūk political history. Considering the state of conflict between the two sides, it is a logical contradiction for the two opposing poles to agree on the same candidate. For instance, considering Muʿizz Aybaks accession to power, the Sālihiyya-Bahriyya amirs unanimously endorsed his sultanate, but in the process, Muʿizz Aybak prevailed over the tensions he experienced with the elite that brought him to power and managed to become the absolute sultan, albeit for a short time. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind that there was no uniform relationship between the sultan and the elite amirs, but rather a dynamic functioning. In other words, the future sultan, who had to establish good relations with the amirs until he became sultan, had to go against the amirs who brought him to power if he wanted to become an absolute ruler after he became sultan. In this study, the source of Mamlūk power is traced to the collective interests of the Mamlūk factions. It is emphasized that these interests were usually centered on candidates who were seen as more moderate among the factions. At the same time, by revealing the shortcomings of the understandings presented as a rule such as the one who kills the sultan becomes the sultan and the powerful and influential become the sultan, the analysis of the period from the founding years of the Mamlūks to Baybars sultanate mostly emphasizes the continuity of the status quo of the elite amirs by highlighting the sultanate of weak and middle-ranking amirs. The analysis has pointed out that those who killed sultans or usurped the throne were punished rather than usurping the throne as a legitimate right. Similarly, the consensus of the umara on the candidate for sultanate was pointed out by mentioning that those who were powerful and influential were being challenged rather than made sultan.

 Memlûk Devletinin oluşum yıllarında iktidarın kaynağı ile ilgili literatürde pek çok çalışma ve teori bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmalarda genel olarak kukla sultan-otoriter sultan şeklinde yapılan ayırımlar mevzubahis edilerek iktidarın kaynağı açısından dolaylı bir şekilde ümeranın oligarşik gücüne değinilse de Memlûklarda sultan olma biçimi olarak güç ve nüfuzun önemi vurgulanmıştır. Ancak bu aksiyom, kendi içerisinde bir dizi sorunlara, muğlaklıklara ve seçkin emîrlerin sahip olduğu belirleyiciliğin önüne geçmesine neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu problem, devletin kuruluş yılları dahilindeki politik gelişmelere odaklanılarak bu süre zarfında güçlü ve nüfuzlu emîrlerin sultan olma yolunda ümera tarafından nasıl sınırlandırıldıkları tartışılarak aşılmaya çalışılacaktır. Aynı zamanda söz konusu dönemin kronikleri merkeze alınarak Memlûk Devletinde bir karar alma mekanizması olarak memlûk hiziplerinin idari açıdan belirleyiciliğine işaret edilecektir. Diğer taraftan iktidarın hem sultanın hanehalkı olan hizbinden hem de memlûk oligarşisini elinde tutan seçkin emîrlerin ya da hûşdâşların askerî desteğinden neşet ettiğinin ifade edilmesi, Memlûk siyasi tarihi boyunca bu ikisi arasındaki gerilimin ya da çatışma ortamının gözden kaçırılmasına neden olmaktadır. Zira her iki taraf arasındaki çatışma hâli dikkate alındığında, iki zıt kutbun aynı adayda mutabık kalması mantıksal çelişkiye yol açmaktadır. Söz gelimi Muʿizz Aybekin iktidara getirilmesi dikkate alındığında, Sâlihiyye-Bahriyye emîrleri ittifakla onun sultanlığını tasvip etmişler ancak süreç içerisinde Muʿizz Aybek, kendisini iktidara taşıyan güç odakları ile yaşadığı gerilimden galip gelerek kısa süre de olsa mutlakmuktedir sultan olabilmeyi başarmıştır. Dolayısıyla sultan ile seçkin emîrler arasında yeknesak bir ilişki şeklinin olmayıp dinamik ve sürekli değişebilen bir işleyişin hatırda tutulması elzemdir. Bir başka ifadeyle, sultan olana kadar emîrler ile iyi münasebetler kurmak durumunda olan müstakbel sultanın, sultan olduktan sonra mutlak bir hükümdar olmak istemesi hâlinde kendisini iktidara taşıyan emîrlerin üzerine gitmek durumunda kaldığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Memlûk iktidarının kaynağı, memlûk hiziplerinin kolektif çıkarlarına dayandırılmıştır. Bu çıkarların da genellikle hizipler arasında daha mutedil ve ılımlı görülen adaylarda temerküz ettiği vurgulanmıştır. Aynı zamanda Sultan öldüren sultan olur, Güçlü ve nüfuzlu olanlar sultan olur şeklinde kaide olarak sunulan anlayışların eksik yönleri ortaya konularak Memlûkların kuruluş yıllarından Baybarsın sultanlığına kadar olan sürecin analizi dahilinde çoğunlukla Zayıf ve orta dereceli emîrlerin sultanlığı öne çıkarılıp seçkin emîrlerin haiz oldukları statükonun devamlılığı vurgulanmıştır. Yapılan incelemelerde sultan öldürenlerin ya da tahtı gasp edenlerin bunu meşru bir hak olarak kullanıp tahta çıkmalarından ziyade cezalandırıldıkları mevzubahis edilmiştir. Benzer şekilde güçlü ve nüfuzlu olanların sultan yapılmasından ziyade engellenmeye çalışıldığına değinilerek ümeranın sultan adayı hakkındaki mutabakatına işaret edilmiştir.

Makale detayları

The Source of Power in the Formation Years of the Mamluk State: Autocracy of the Sultan or Oligarchy of Amirs?

Yazarlar:

Yusuf Ötenkaya

Yayıncı:

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar:

Din Araştırmaları

Dergi:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 1, pp.234-248

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001289877

pISSN:

2528-9861

Medieval History

Mamluks

Power

Autocracy

OligarchyOrta Çağ Tarihi

Memlûklar

İktidar

Otokrasi

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Yusuf Ötenkaya

Yayıncı: Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar: Din Araştırmaları

Dergi: Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 1, pp.234-248

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001289877

pISSN: 2528-9861

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Yusuf Ötenkaya

Yayıncı:

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Ana Başlıklar:

Din Araştırmaları

Dergi:

Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi Vol.27 Issue 1, pp.234-248

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001289877

pISSN:

2528-9861