Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:39:09.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossing the line: Mamluk response to Qaramanid threat in the fifteenth century according to MS ar. 4440 (BnF, Paris)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2017

Malika Dekkiche
Malika Dekkiche*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present article investigates the complex dynamics of the relationship between the Mamluk sultans and Qaramanid rulers in the second half of the fifteenth century. Based on the revealing of an unpublished corpus of letters (MS ar. 4440, BnF, Paris), which preserved copies of the correspondence exchanged between sultan Īnāl and Ibrāhīm II after the Qaramanids' Rebellion in 860–862/1456–58 and their capture of the Mamluk fortresses in Tarsus and Gülek. After briefly sketching the history of their contact and alliances, I then concentrate on the Qaramanid Rebellion itself, presenting the new data provided by the corpus and analysing the stakes and extent of the Qaramanids' threat to Mamluk policy in the Anatolian context.

Keywords

MamluksQaramanidsDiplomatic correspondencePeace agreementBordersBuffer-state
Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 253 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The first version of this article was completed within the context of the ERC project “The Mamlukisation of the Mamluk Sultanate. Political Traditions and State Formation in 15th-century Egypt and Syria”, headed by Jo Van Steenbergen (Ghent University, 2009–14, ERC StG 240865 MMS).

References

2 The practice of nationalist history in modern Turkey is discussed in Yıldız, S.N., “Karamanoğlu Mehmed Bey: medieval Anatolian warlord or Kemalist language reformer? History, language politics and celebration of the language festival in Karaman, Turkey, 1961–2008”, in Nielsen, J. (ed.), Religion, Ethnicity and Contested Nationhood in the Former Ottoman Space (Leiden and Boston, 2012), 147–70Google Scholar. As for the rich Turkish literature (primary and secondary sources) on the Qaramanids, see bibliography in Yıldız, S.N., “Reconceptualizing the Seljuk–Cilician frontier: Armenians, Latins, and the Turks in conflict and alliance during the early thirteenth century”, in Curta, Fl. (ed.), Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages (Turnhout, 2005), 91–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Yıldız, S.N. (“Razing Gevele and fortifying Konya: the beginning of the Ottoman conquest of the Karamanid principality in south-central Anatolia, 1468”, in Peacock, A.C.S. (ed.), The Frontiers of the Ottoman World (Proceedings of the British Academy, 156) (Oxford, 2009), 307–29)CrossRefGoogle Scholar also provides an abundant bibliography in Turkish. For more information on the Qaramanids before the rise of the Ottomans, in Western languages, see Cahen, Cl., Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 1071–1330 (New York, 1968)Google Scholar.

4 Har-El, Sh., Struggle for Domination in the Middle East. The Ottoman–Mamluk War, 1485–1491 (Leiden and New York, 1995), 13 Google Scholar.

5 Al-ʿUmarī, Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār, III, ed. Allāh, ʿAbd al-Sarīḥī, ibn Yaḥya (Abū Dhabī, 2001), 210–9Google Scholar; Al-ʿUmarī, al-Taʿrīf bi'l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, I, ed. al-Durūbī, S. (al-Karak, 1992), 51 Google Scholar; al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshāʾ fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ, V, (Cairo, 1963, 2nd impr. of the 1913–14 edition), 365–6Google Scholar (quoting and summarizing al-ʿUmarī, Masālik). These accounts relate to the early stage of Qaramanid history, according to which the Qaramanids ruled for the Mamluks (mulūkunā).

6 Al-ʿUmarī, Masālik, III, 210; Al-ʿUmarī, Taʿrīf, I, 51.

7 On the Mamluks' initial interest and advance into Anatolia during Baybars' reign: Gilet, J., “Genèse des relations entre Arméniens et Mamelouks. La Bataille de Marrī, première attaque sur le Bīlād Sīs (644/1266)”, in Aigle, D. (ed.), Le Bilād al-Šām face aux mondes extérieurs. La perception de l'Autre et la représentation du Souverain (Damascus and Beirut, 2012), 263–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li maʿrifat duwal al-muluk, I/2, ed. Ziyādah, M.M. (Cairo, 2006–07, 3rd ed.; 1st ed. 1939–58), 616, 618, 620–1Google Scholar. See also Amitai-Preiss, R., Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk–Īlkhānid Wars, 1260–1281 (Cambridge, 1995), 157–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cl. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 280–92. For the conquests under Baybars' successor: Broadbridge, A.F., Kingship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds (Cambridge, 2008), 64–93 Google Scholar; Har-El, Struggle, 32–5; Stewart, The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks. War and Diplomacy during the Reigns of Hetʿum II (1289–1307) (Leiden, 2001), 106–28, 164–71Google Scholar.

8 Stewart, The Armenian Kingdom, 185–8.

9 Baybars is said to have designated the Qaramanid ʿAlī Beg as his governor of Kayseri after his conquest of the city. See F. Sümer, “Ḳarāmām-Oghullari”, EI 2, IV, 644–5. See also an episode of Sulāmish's rebellion (allied with the Qaramanids): A.D. Stewart, The Armenian Kingdom, 128–35; al-ʿUmarī, Masālik, III, 210–17.

10 Ölçer, C., Coinage of the Karamanids (Istanbul, 1982), 120–1Google Scholar.

11 On the general situation in Anatolia after the end of Mongol rule: Yıldız, S.N., “Post-Mongol pastoral polities in eastern Anatolia during the late middle ages”, in Beyazit, D. (ed.), At the Crossroads of Empires: 14th–15th Century Eastern Anatolia (Istanbul, 2012), 27–48 Google Scholar.

12 F. Sümer, “Ḳarāmān-Oghullari”, EI 2, IV, 647; Har-El, Struggle, 60–1.

13 Lindner, R.P., “Anatolia 1300–1451”, in Cambridge History of Turkey I (Cambridge, 2009), 129–30Google Scholar. The Qaramanids were annihilated along with another beylik, that of Eretna (with Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn in Sivas): Broadbridge, Kingship, 174–5, 186–7; Har-El, Struggle, 62–5.

14 Shortly before, Bayāzid had attempted a new alliance with the Mamluks; owing to his attacks in Mamluk lands, however, sultan Faraj withheld his support (Broadbridge, Kingship, 192–3).

15 Har-El, Struggle, 69. The Mamluks' loss of northern territory is attested in a copy of the truce treaty between Tīmūr and Faraj, preserved in al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, XIV, 102–7.

16 The first expedition resulted in a truce between the Mamluks and Qaramanids. Ḥijjah, Ibn, Qahwat al-inshāʾ, ed. Vesely, R. (Beirut, 2005), 210–5Google Scholar, kept a copy of an exchange between the two rulers, dated to the end of Muḥarram 820/March 1417 (reached Cairo on 2 Rabīʿ II 820/19 May 1417), which demonstrates that Muḥammad Beg minted coins in the Mamluk sultan's name and also invoked it at the Friday khuṭbah; however, as soon as the Mamluk troops departed, Muḥammad Beg broke his oath and seized Tarsus again. The second campaign, led by al-Muʾayyad Shaykh's son, Ibrāhīm, headed to Kayseri, where the Mamluk sultan's name would be pronounced again at the khuṭbah after many years of interruption (Har-El, Struggle, 70).

17 Har-El, Struggle, 71–2.

18 Murād II's cousins, Sulaymān, and his sister Faṭīmah Shaykhzāde, had fled to Cairo. Har-El, Struggle, 73–4. Darrag, A., L'Égypte sous le règne de Barsbāy, 825–841/1422–38 (Damascus, 1961), 388–99Google Scholar.

19 Ibn Ḥijjah, Qahwat, 210–5.

20 Ibn Ḥijjah, Qahwat, 265–7, 267–9.

21 Ibn Ḥijjah, Qahwat, 375–6.

22 Ibrāhīm II had initiated his attacks against the Ottomans in 846/1442, so in 848/1444, after obtaining the Mamluk sultan's consent, Mūrād II responded to the Qaramanids' offensive and defeated them (Har-El, Struggle, 74–5).

23 Iyās, Ibn, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr, II, ed. Muṣṭafà, M. (Cairo, 2008, 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1982–84), 322 Google Scholar.

24 Taghrībirdī, Ibn, Ḥawādith al-duhūr fī maḍà al-ayyām wa 'l-shuhūr, ed. Shaltūt, F.M. (Cairo, 1990), 442 (19 Muḥarram)Google Scholar; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 322 (day not mentioned).

25 Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 322.

26 Taghrībirdī, Ibn, Al-Nujūm al-zāhirah fī mulūk Miṣr wa 'l-Qāhirah, XVI (Cairo, 2005–06: 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1963–71), 97 Google Scholar.

27 Ibn Taghrībirdī, Ḥawādith, 513–4 (5 Shaʿbān); ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ Khalīl, b., Nayl al-amal fī dhayl al-duwal, V, ed. al-Salām Tadmurī, ʿU.ʿA. (Beirut, 2002), 462 Google Scholar; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 334.

28 Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh al-Biqāʿī, II, ed. Ibn Shadīd al-ʿAwfī, M.S. (Jizah, 1992), 202 Google Scholar.

29 Ibn Taghrībirdī, Ḥawādith, 517; Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, V, 464.

30 Day not mentioned: Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 11; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 336–7. On 15 Muḥarram: Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 230.

31 Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 230, mentioned another emir: Ibn Ramaḍān al-Turkumānī, who killed the Qaramanid governor of Tarsus.

32 Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 235.

33 Day not mentioned: Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 16. On 6 Rabīʿ II: Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 260; Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 1045. The four emirs leading the troops, Jānibak al-Qaramānī al-Ẓāhirī, Qurqumās al-Ashrafī, Yūnus al-ʿAlāʾī al-Nāṣirī, and Khushqadam al-Nāṣirī, were given between 3,000 and 4,000 dinars. The emirs of 40 received 500 dinars each, and those of ten, 200 dinars.

34 Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 16–7; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 339; Al-Sakhāwī, Wajīz al-kalām fī'l-dhayl ʿalà duwal al-islām, II, ed. Maʿrūf, B.A. (Beirut, 1995), 703 Google Scholar.

35 Day not mentioned: Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 19–20; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 340. On 4 Shaʿbān/27 June: Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 287; Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 108–9.

36 Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 289–90.

37 On 9 Ramaḍān/31 July: Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 21; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 340–1; Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 109–10. On 10 Ramaḍān/1 August: Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 298–9.

38 F. Bauden, “Les relations diplomatiques entre les sultans mamlouks circassiens et les autres pouvoirs du Dār al-Islām. L'apport du ms. ar. 4440 (BNF, Paris)”, Annales Islamologiques 41, 2007, 1–29. M. Dekkiche, “Le Caire, Carrefour des ambassades. Étude historique et diplomatique de la correspondance échangée entre les sultans mamlouks circassiens et les souverains timourides et turcomans (Qara Qoyunlu – Qaramanides) au XVe s. d'après le ms. ar. 4440 (BnF, Paris)”, Université de Liège (Belgium, 2011), 2 vols.

39 The letter numbering follows that of F. Bauden “Les relations diplomatiques”.

40 The narratio, also called expositio, generally sets the reason for the letter's sending. In the case of a response, this part will also mention the reception of the initial letter and further provide a summary of it. See below.

41 Day not mentioned: Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 38; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 346, Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, II, 356. On 28 Jumādà I/13 April: Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 119.

42 Day not mentioned: Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 39; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 346–7. On 10 Jumādà II/25 April: Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 119.

43 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, II (Cairo, 1934–36), 325 Google Scholar.

44 Abd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 39; Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 119.

45 See al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, VIII, 233 on the mukātabah sulṭāniyyah: “wa hiyya al-juzʾu al-aʿẓamu min ṣināʿati al-tarassuli”.

46 The scribe who collected the sample of letters presented in this study did not copy the khawātim.

47 The basmalah designates the phrase “bi'smi 'llāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm”, which introduces any important action, granting it benediction. The ḥamdalah or taḥmīd follows the basmalah and is a phrase in praise to God. Four different forms of ḥamdalah are attested: “yaḥmaduhu”, “naḥmaduhu”, “aḥmaduhu”, and the more commonly used “al-ḥamdu li'llāh”. The tashahhud is the formula of Muslim profession of faith and conversion “ashhadu anna lā ilāh illā'llāh wa anna Muḥammad rasūlu'llāh”. The tashahhud follows the ḥamdalah, and then the taṣliyah (ṣallà Allāh ʿalayhi wa sallama) can come, which praises the Prophet Muḥammad as well as his family and companions (wa ṣalawātuhu ʿalà sayyidinā Muḥammad wa ālihi wa ṣaḥbihi). Finally, the baʿdiyyah “ammā baʿdu” concludes fawātiḥ.

48 The khawātim start with the phrase “in šāʾ Allāh taʿālà” (istithnāʾ/mashīʾah) and place the letter's contents under divine blessing. This formula is generally highlighted on the document through a different layout (in the centre of the sheet of paper, written on two lines), followed by the date of the letter's composition. The mustanadāt are not, strictly speaking, part of the letter but rather relate to the person in charge of recording the document (i.e. kātib al-sirr). Finally, concluding the closing protocol is a series of religious phrases such as the ḥamdalah, taṣliyah and ḥasbalah (ḥasbunā 'llāh wa niʿma'l-wakīl). Secretaries also mention a final part of the khawātim: the lawāḥiq (accessories). It consists first in the act of tartīb – to cover the letter with red soil to dry the ink – before the secretary's careful reading of the letter.

49 Dekkiche, M., “The correspondence exchanged between Mamluks and Timurids in the fifteenth century: study of an unpublished source (BnF.ms.ar. 4440)”, Eurasian Studies 11, 2013, 131–60Google Scholar; Dekkiche, M., “Diplomatics or another way to see the world”, in Bauden, F. and Dekkiche, M. (eds), Mamluk Cairo. A Crossroads for Embassies (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming 2017)Google Scholar.

50 The paper size was calculated from the wider sheet (qaṭʿ al-baghdādī al-kāmil), whose width measures 58.15 cm; paper sizes are also measured according to the roll width. All other sizes are designated as a fraction of the full sheet: 1/2 (29.07 cm), 1/3 (19.3 cm). The format al-ʿādah corresponds to the fraction 1/4 (14.5 cm).

51 The honorific titles correspond to a list of laqab (single word, i.e. al-malik) and nuʿūt (compound adjectives, i.e. sayf amīr al-muʾminīn). The list of titles being long, only the first two laqab are to be taken in consideration: principal laqab, secondary laqab. There is also a hierarchy among them: al-maqām > al-maqarr > al-janāb > al-majlis for the principal laqab and al-ashraf > al-sharīf > al-karīm > al-ʿālī > al-sāmī for the secondary.

52 The invocations relate to the existence, benefits, victory and power of the correspondents. They generally hope for longevity, glory, tenfold increase or perpetuity. We also find a hierarchy within the invocations fī'l-uluww wa'l-hubūṭ: iṭālat al-baqāʾ > iṭālat al-ʿumr; ʿizz al-anṣār > ʿizz al-naṣr > ʿizz al-naṣr; muḍāʿafat al-niʿma > dawām al-niʿma.

53 The hierarchy among the salutatio's phrase is, for the “publication”, aṣdarnāhā ilà > aṣdarnà hādhihi'l-mukātaba ilà > uṣdirat ilà > ṣadarat ilà. As for the marker that introduces the matn: nu-/tubdī li-ʿilmihi [al-sharīf] > nu-/tuwaḍḍiḥu li-ʿilmihi [al-karīm].

54 The signature in the letters is referred to as al-ʿalāmah. It is appended atop the letter (generally prepared in advance by a scribe). We have three different ʿalāmah depending on the addresee's rank: akhūhu (his brother) > wāliduhu (his father) > the sultan's name (ism).

55 For the details of this period and the previous one, see Dekkiche, “Diplomatics”.

56 It seems, however, that this title had already been granted to Mūrād by sultan Barsbāy in 1433, as shown in MS 4440, 45b–47b.

57 This was the normal way to address the Anatolian Turkmen during the Turkish period of the Mamluk rule. See Al-ʿUmarī, Taʿrīf, I, 55; Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf al-taʿrīf bi'l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, ed. Vesely, R. (Cairo, 1987), 56 Google Scholar. But also up to sultan al-Muʾayyad Shaykh's reconquest of Tarsus: Ibn Hijjah, Qahwat, 213.

58 Ibn Hijjah, Qahwat, 265–6.

59 Ibn Hijjah, Qahwat, 375.

60 Al-Saḥmāwī, Al-Thaghr al-bāsim fī ṣināʿat al-kātib wa'l-kātim, ed. Anas Mursī, A.M., 2 vols (Cairo, 2009)Google Scholar. This author, like his famous predecessor al-Qalqashandī (d. 821/1418), worked as secretary in the Chancery of Cairo during the period from Barsbāy's sultanate (r. 825–841/1422–37) to that of sultan Īnāl (r. 857–865/1453–60). Preserved in a unicum until 2009 (BnF, MS ar. 4439), this manual was long attributed to another author, al-Khālidī, under the title al-Maqṣid al-rafīʿ al-munshaʾ al-hādī li dīwān al-inshāʾ. The academic literature long referred to the manuscript by the title Dīwān al-inshāʾ. This work follows al-Qalqashandī's manual, from which it even took many examples. While al-Qalqashandī largely relied on the work of al-ʿUmarī (d. 749/1349) and Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh (d. 786/1384), adding changes of his own at times (especially for the early fifteenth century), al-Saḥmāwī provided concrete examples from his own time much more often (mid-fifteenth century) Ibid., II, 763. In another part of his work devoted to Anatolia, al-Saḥmāwī confirms that the Qaramanids were the only representative of the beylik left in the region that has not come yet under Ottoman rule (Al-Saḥmāwī, Al-Thaghr II, 783–7).

61 The paper size refers to the roll's width, expressed in Egyptian cubits of cloth (bi dhirāʿi 'l-qumāsh al-miṣrī), that is, 58.15 cm; at times, however, it was measured by finger, span or carat. The size al-thulth (the third) consequently measures 19.383 cm. W. Hinz, Islamische Masse und Gewichte (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1955), 56; W. Hinz, “Dhirāʿ”, in EI 2, II, 238–9. This measurement modifies the one established by Karabacek, which was 48.8 cm.

62 Bosworth, C.E., “The City of Tarsus and the Arab–Byzantine frontiers in early and middle ʿAbbāsid times”, Oriens 33, 1992, 268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Brauer, R.W., “Boundaries and frontiers in medieval Muslim geography”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Societies [New Series] 85/6, 1995, 15 Google Scholar.

64 The term also designates the border zone in al-Andalus (Brauer, “Boundaries and frontiers”, 21–5.

65 Bonner, M., “The naming of the frontier: ʿAwāṣim, Thughūr, and the Arab geographers”, BSOAS [in Honour of Wansbrough, J.E.] 57/1, 1994, 17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Bonner, “The naming of the frontier”, 18–9.

67 von Sivers, P., “Taxes and trade in the ʿAbbāsid Thughūr, 750–962/133–351”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 25/1, 1982, 71–99 Google Scholar.

68 Har-El, Struggle, 39–41, 45.

69 Al-ʿUmarī, Taʿrīf.

70 Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf al-taʿrīf bi'l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, ed. Vesely, R. (Cairo, 1987)Google Scholar.

71 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 119–30.

72 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 130–7.

73 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 137–9.

74 Har-El, Struggle, 44.

75 Har-El, Struggle, 43–5.

76 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 130.

77 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 131.

78 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 228.

79 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 299–303. These are approximately the same as those described by al-Qalqashandī.

80 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 303–7; II, 706–7.

81 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 307–8.

82 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 308.

83 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 303.

84 Har-El, Struggle, 39–42.

85 Har-El, Struggle, 45–7, only lists seven cities, based on al-Qalqashandī's description.

86 Har-El, Struggle, 47.

87 Har-El, Struggle, 48.

88 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 304.

89 The truce treaty between Tīmūr and sultan Faraj is kept in al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, VII, 325–31. Faraj had to abandon the fortresses of Elbistan, Malatya, Gerger, Kakhta, Qalʿat al-Rūm and al-Bīrah.

90 See Ibn Ḥijjah, Qahwat, 214–5. In his letter to Muḥammad Beg in 820/1417, sultan al-Muʿayyad Shaykh already insisted on the importance of Tarsus.

91 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, IV, 135–7; al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 306–7; II, 706.

92 Har-El, Struggle, 48–54.

93 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, I, 306.

94 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, II, 707–8.

95 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, VII, 282.

96 Al-Saḥmāwī, Thaghr, II, 707–8.

97 Fleet, K., European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants of Genoa and Turkey (Cambridge, 1999)Google Scholar; Zachariadou, E.A., Trade and Crusade. Venetian Crete and the Emirates of Menteshe and Yadin (1300–1415) (Venice, 1983)Google Scholar.

98 Lindner, “Anatolia”, 110–3.

99 Lindner, “Anatolia”,113–6.

100 Ehrenkreutz, “Strategic implications of the slave trade between Genoa and Mamluk Egypt in the second half of the thirteenth century”, The Islamic Middle East 700–1990 (Studies in Economic and Social History) (Princeton, 1981), 333–45Google Scholar; Amitai, R., “Diplomacy and slave trade in the eastern Mediterranean: a re-examination of the Mamluk–Byzantine–Genoese triangle in the late thirteenth century in light of the existing early correspondence”, Oriente Moderno 88/2, 2008, 349–68Google Scholar.

101 Fleet, European and Islamic Trade, 37; Stello, A., “La Traité d'esclaves en Mer Noire (première moitié du xve siècle)”, Les Esclaves en Méditerranée. Espaces et dynamiques économiques (Madrid, 2012), 171–80Google Scholar.

102 Ehrenkreutz, “Strategic implications”, 341.

103 Ehrenkreutz, “Strategic implications”, 343.

104 Lybyer, A.H., “The Ottoman Turks and the routes of Oriental trade”, The English Historical Review 30/120, 1915, 580 Google Scholar.

105 Lybyer, “The Ottoman Turks”, 583.

106 Popper, W., Egypt and Syria under the Circassian Sultans 1382–1468 A.D.: Systematic Notes to Ibn Taghrī Birdī's Chronicles of Egypt (University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, 15) (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955), 51–3Google Scholar.

107 Popper, Egypt and Syria, map 18 (Aleppo Province). Popper distinguishes Kūlak from Gülek; while Har-El, Struggle, 49 clearly shows that Kūlak is Gülek.

108 Fleet, European and Islamic Trade, 64.

109 The Cypriot rulers would fulfil this duty during the whole period of their submission. After the Venetian Republic had taken over in 1489, it would continue to send tribute to Cairo. Ziada, M.M., “The Mamlūk conquest of Cyprus in the 15th century”, Bulletin of the Faculty of Art 2 (Cairo University, 1934), 42 Google Scholar.

110 Ziada, “The Mamlūk conquest”, 45–6; Darrag, L'Égypte, 256.

111 de Mas Latrie, M.L., Histoire de l'x00EE;le de Chypre sous le règne des Princes de la Maison de Lusignan, III (Paris, 1855), 3–10 Google Scholar. B. de La Brocquière, who was travelling with the Cypriot emissaries, transmitted the account of their reception by Ibrāhīm II.

112 In the previous century, the two dynasties had already opposed each other when the Cypriots conquered Corycos. Zachariadou, E.A., “The early years of Ibrāhīm I Karamanoğlu”, The Sweet Land of Cyprus (Nicosia, 1993), 149 Google Scholar.

113 M.L. de Mas Latrie, Histoire, III, 48–56: it preserves copies of the exchanges between the great master of Rhodes and John II, as well as the letter of the latter to the sultan of Egypt in request for help.

114 Ziada, “The Mamlūk conquest”, 46.

115 De Mas Latrie, Histoire, III, 73–5.

116 Day not mentioned: ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 108. On 7 Shaʿbān/18 May: Ibn Taghrībirdī, Nujūm, XVI, 228. On 12 Shaʿbān/23 May: Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, III, 257.

117 Al-Biqāʿī, Tārīkh, III, 356–7.

118 S.N. Yıldız, “Razing Gevele”, 316–9; Har-El, Struggle, 81.

119 ʿAbd al-Bāsiṭ b. Khalīl, Nayl, VI, 217; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ, II, 430.

1 Note in the margin.

2 لائق الاستعارة added above the line.

3 بطلنا.

4 Extract from a Prophetic ḥadīth:

عن عمر بن الخطاب -رضي تعالى عنه- قال: قال رسول صلى عليه وسلم: إنما الأعمال بالنيات،

وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوى، فمن كانت هجرته إلى ورسوله فهجرته إلى ورسوله، ومن كانت هجرته إلى دنيا يصيبها

أوامرأة يتزوجها فهجرته إلى ما هاجر إليه متفق عليه.

5 مؤاخدته.

6 زال.

7 يتلوا.

8 عفى.

9 Quran XLII: 40.

10 فمن deleted.

11 fols 195a: اعصان.

12 بطلال.

13 طنه.

14 عدره.

15

16 Quran V: 95.

17 Prophetic ḥadīth.

18 الناطر.

19 بحسن.

20 المسافهة.

21 لفط.

22 List of gifts at the end of the letter.

23 بمليكة.

24 تانية.

25 نفصد.

26 يناله.

27 ذمامنا.

28 دمامنا.

29 Quran V: 95.

30 تجلا.

31 تجلا.

32 بقبض.

33 الحدب.

34 حياد.

35 فاليتناها.

36 التانية.

37 احلاص.