Talk:Bahri Mamluks

Untitled
Does it really make sense to refer to the Bahri as a "dynasty", or, alternately, to consider Aibek, rather than Qalawun, to be its founder? Aibek is succeeded by his son Ali. Ali is assassinated and succeeded by the entirely unrelated Qutuz, who is assassinated and succeeded by the entirely unrelated Baibars. Baibars is succeeded by his son, Baraka, and then there's more assassinations and Qalawun, again unrelated, comes to the throne. It's only with Qalawun that one gets an actual "dynasty" in the normal sense - from 1280 to 1382 - and even then somewhat intermittently, as I understand it. john k (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you this article should be titled BAHRI MAMLUKS. However, I should correct, from Baibars to Qalawun the practice was dethroning of child-sultans rather than assassinations.   Samsam22 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article however needs some corrections. ( The Egyptian Moorish Sultans established a peace with the Mongols in 1322, and also entered into relations with the Golden Horde, sultan al-Nasir marrying a Mongol princess in 1319. ) actually the Golden Horde had relations with Egypt since days of al-zahir Baibars . Further I do not understand what is meant by moorish Sultans. Samsam22 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To help this article I will add references to correct information. Samsam22 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this dynasty's length of rule compaired to the British Empire, when they are totally unrelated entities? --202.36.75.126 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

===

Why is European art of a mamluk "cavalryman" from the 19th century illustrating this article about the Bahri Mamluks of the 13th and 14th century? There's no relation whatsoever, other than the word "mamluk". Ellenois (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming
They are not a dynasty they are a regiment or a corps of soldier, that were bought as slaves, to be a form of elite soldiers and bodygaurd to the Ayyubid Sultan. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahri dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725124811/http://sumitbahri.com/ to http://www.sumitbahri.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. Can be reverted per WP:RMUM. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

– As other editors have also noted above, neither of these are "dynasties" in the most common sense. As the articles and any reliable sources explain, Mamluk sultans came to the throne mainly through the support of other Mamluks, not through hereditary succession. While some sultans managed to have their sons succeed them (most notably Qalawun), none of these lines lasted long and obviously not for the full length of either period. "Bahri Mamluks" and "Burji Mamluks" would be equally clear/precise, while avoiding the misnomer and any potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. R Prazeres (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bahri dynasty → Bahri Mamluks
 * Burji dynasty → Burji Mamluks


 * I probably should have noted this above, but just to confirm that this proposal is also in line with WP:COMMONAME: the designation "Bahri Mamluks" is very common in scholarly sources (e.g., , , , ) and probably more common than "Bahri dynasty" overall, if Ngrams can be trusted . "Burji Mamluks" is likewise common (e.g. , , , ). Ngram results look a little anamolous for the last few years on this one, but there is still a clearly greater prominence of "Burji Mamluks" over "Burji dynasty" overall . R Prazeres (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

did Mamluks ever control Basra / parts of todays Iraq?
the map used in the article suggests so, but i don't find a good reference to back up this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keratoplastiks (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Good question, I'm not aware of the Mamluks ever controlling Iraq, since it was generally ruled by the Ilkhanids or their vassals during this period. The current map is unsourced anyways, so I'm going to remove it. There are maps in reliable sources, such as this, if we need a future reference. R Prazeres (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)