No Mamluk Sultanate

[Elfwine]

What plausible, noncontrived, scenario could lead to the Ayyubids succeeded by a nonMamluk dynasty, with the Mamluks never rising to be a sultanate (in Egypt/Syria, at least)?

Saying noncontrived because I'm looking for how it could happen without going out of one's way to eliminate the Mamluks. "Not having them" just seems like an easy cheat.

 

[Constantinos]

What plausible, noncontrived, scenario could lead to the Ayyubids succeeded by a nonMamluk dynasty, with the Mamluks never rising to be a sultanate (in Egypt/Syria, at least)?

Saying noncontrived because I'm looking for how it could happen without going out of one's way to eliminate the Mamluks. "Not having them" just seems like an easy cheat.

one simple way is have Baibars nver rise to prominence. Without him i dont believe the mamelukes would have gotten so powerful.So they would still be in egypt but without baibars i doubt they will revolt and even if they do they would be easier to beat.

 

[Elfwine]

one simple way is have Baibars nver rise to prominence. Without him i dont believe the mamelukes would have gotten so powerful.So they would still be in egypt but without baibars i doubt they will revolt and even if they do they would be easier to beat.

But the first Mamluk sultan is ten years before him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aybak

So it seems the Mamelukes were already in a position to do that (and more importantly perhaps, no on able to stop them).

 

[Constantinos]

But the first Mamluk sultan is ten years before him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aybak

So it seems the Mamelukes were already in a position to do that (and more importantly perhaps, no on able to stop them).

No wait maybe if the french crusade fails and the ayyubid sultan As-Salih does not die. WHat happens is with the french crushed the Ayyubid king most likely survives and if he survives then the power wont pass to his wife Shajar and because of this Shajar wont marry a Mamluke aka Aybak. This is the way to prevent it.

 

[Pachac]

By the reign of As-salih it was basically inevitable that the Mamluks would decide to take power. They had status, and they had loyalty only to certain kings. If not Baibars, another would have killed Turanshah in the aftermath of As-salih's death.

 

[Elfwine]

By the reign of As-salih it was basically inevitable that the Mamluks would decide to take power. They had status, and they had loyalty only to certain kings. If not Baibars, another would have killed Turanshah in the aftermath of As-salih's death.

But what turned it into that situation?

I mean, you (via IM) told me why As-Salih raised the Mamluks as he did, but that they (the Ayyubids) would inevitably be drawn in that direction seems...pessimistic, for want of a better term.

 

[Pachac]

But what turned it into that situation?

I mean, you (via IM) told me why As-Salih raised the Mamluks as he did, but that they (the Ayyubids) would inevitably be drawn in that direction seems...pessimistic, for want of a better term.

Like I said; they're cheap, easy to obtain, and good warriors. The downside is monarchs almost never have much foresight for their successors so while a strong monarch can keep them in line a weaker one is likely to get killed in a coup.

 

[Elfwine]

Like I said; they're cheap, easy to obtain, and good warriors. The downside is monarchs almost never have much foresight for their successors so while a strong monarch can keep them in line a weaker one is likely to get killed in a coup.

Sounds like a situation inherited from the Byzantine aspect of the things influencing the Muslim world - referring to the Byzantines having successful generals topple weak emperors, that is.

But could you have a situation where the Mamluks play Praetorian in the sense they back contenders rather than being contenders? Or are their leaders at this point (~1250) too ambitious to be content as king-makers?

 

[Tobit]

Sounds like a situation inherited from the Byzantine aspect of the things influencing the Muslim world - referring to the Byzantines having successful generals topple weak emperors, that is.

But could you have a situation where the Mamluks play Praetorian in the sense they back contenders rather than being contenders? Or are their leaders at this point (~1250) too ambitious to be content as king-makers?

It doesn't really come from the Byzantines, since there were even Mamluk Sultans as far east as Delhi.

 

[Elfwine]

It doesn't really come from the Byzantines, since there were even Mamluk Sultans as far east as Delhi.

True. But the general situation where a general can overthrow a sultan seems Byzantine.

Not so much the Mamelukes in particular as just the lack of (outside the caliphate) the kind of "legitimate rulers only" of say, Western Europe.