A PATH TO THRONE AMONG THE MAMLUKS IN EARLY PERIOD: NA'İB AL-SALTANA (REGENT OF REIGN) M. Fatih YALÇIN

Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD) Journal of History School (JOHS) Aralık 2014 December 2014 Yıl 7, Sayı XX, ss. 81-96. Year 7, Issue XX, pp. 81-96. DOI No: http://dx.doi.org/10.14225/joh653 A PATH TO THRONE AMONG THE MAMLUKS IN EARLY PERIOD: NA'İB AL-SALTANA (REGENT OF REIGN) M. Fatih YALÇIN Abstract Military slavery system that implied within the Abbasid time in the medieval period has been reached perfection in Mamluks time. Forces of the whole nation, including Sultan himself who organized by the commanders were originated from slaves. In this Nation, which had not been implied royal system in full, they were constantly gone through intense fighting regarding changes in the throne. This article tries to identify the na'ib al-saltana (regent of reign) that took the throne during the establishment of the Mamluk Dynasty, also explains their characteristic distinctions and determines that in which conditions they were seized the power. Ultimate administrative authority, within the Mamluk Dynasty belongs to the na'ib al-saltana (regent of reign) just after the Sultan. Key Words: Mamluks, Sultan, Na'ib al-saltana (Regent of Reign), Throne, Egypt. Erken Dönem Memlüklerde Tahta Giden Bir Yol: Saltanat Nâibliği Özet Ortaçağ da Abbasîlerden itibaren ordularda kullanılmakta olan askerî kölelik sistemi en mükemmel hale Memlükler döneminde ulaştı. Sultan da dahil olmak üzere bütün devlet teşkilatı köle asıllı komutanlardan oluşmaktaydı. Hanedan sisteminin tam olarak uygulanamadığı bu devlette, taht değişikliğinde sık sık yoğun mücadeleler yaşandı. Bu makalenin amacı Memlükler Devletinin kuruluş yıllarında tahta çıkan saltanat nâiblerini tespit etmek, bunların karakteristik özelliklerini ortaya koymak ve tahtı hangi koşullarda ele geçirdiklerini belirlemeye çalışmaktır. Memlükler Devletinde sultandan sonraki en yüksek idarî makam saltanat nâibliği idi. Geniş yetkileri haiz This paper is based on my dissertation, Na'ib al-saltana in the Bahri Mamluk Period. Arş.Gör., Sakarya Üniversitesi

M. Fatih Yalçın saltanat nâibleri, bazen sultandan daha etkin konumda olabildiler. Bunun yanı sıra sultanları tahttan indirip istediklerini tahta çıkarabildiler. Bazı durumlarda ise sultanı tahttan indirerek onların yerine geçmeyi başardılar. Anahtar Kelimeler: Memlükler, Sultan, Saltanat nâibi, Taht, Mısır. Introduction Ayyubids have brought the military organization of the Seljuk into the Egypt and Syria. Military Clan of the Mamluk Dynasty, organized by slaves under the name of Mamluk, had built upon the heritage, which was got from the Ayyubids. 1 In the Mamluks, backbone of the state organization has constituted by the Mamluk system. This system have played significant role for removing one of the great threat of the Crusaders and Mongols, which Islamic world was faced in the medieval period. In Islamic history, first time mamluks (slave soldiers) employed by the Abbasid Dynasty, start from 9-10 A.D (3-4 H.) eventually covered whole Islamic world. Later period of Ayyubs Dynasty, powerful Mamluks in 1250 A.D. (648H.) took the throne in Egypt and established Mamluk Dynasty. Young slaves or mamluks who were being bought and especially were chosen from among war captives, later on went through the military training. After these training selected to serve for Amir or Sultans, eventually, they were created an aristocracy class. In the Mamluk Dynasty some of the Sultans who were slave origin, were tried to place the inheritance system. But even have happened to determine heir to the throne, mostly impossible to become Sultan. Among the military hierarchy, also have some powerful amirs who have promoted with their capabilities, through support of the Mamluk clan who kept superiority against their enemy and succeeded to the throne. This situation has created continues fight among the different Mamluk clans. 2 Some heirs to the throne within the Mamluk Dynasty have succeeded to the throne. But have not able to present themselves in the Dynasty s governing 1 Altan Çetin, Selçuklu Teşkilatı nın Memlüklere Tesiri, Belleten, 2004, LXVII/251, p.105-130. 2 Ismail Yiğit, Siyâsî-Dini- Kültürel-Sosyal İslâm Târîhi: Memlükler, Istanbul: Kayıhan Yayınları, 1991, VII, 182-183; Süleyman Özbek, Memlûklerde Meşrûiyet Arayışları ve Saltanat İnşasına Yönelik Çabalar Sultanı Öldüren Sultan Olur, Ankara Üniversitesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2013, vol: XXXII/53 p.161; Ali Aktan, Memlûklülerde Saltanat Değişikliği Usulü, Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1990, vol: IX, p.273-274; Samira Kortantamer, Memlûklarda Devlet Yönetimi ve Bürokrasi, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, İzmir 1984, vol: II, p.28. [82]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana body. Because, the dynasty being governed by the father mamluks. The Mamluk Sultan who took the throne wanted to keep his son on the throne, must organize his own mamluks. But as new Sultan starts to organize his own Mamluk, the war could not be avoided with the mamluks who holding the power. Because it took long time to organize the mamluks of the Sultan who took the power, especially, the Sultan s first year in power extremely dangerous, cause he might loose his power even his own life. Although, al-malik al-nasir Muhammad has organized his own mamluks and successfully liquidated his own father s mamluks, and he has reigned as long as thirty years, it was very rare in Mamluks history. 3 As the reason, the establishment of the dynasty among the mamluks, we can show the Sultan should be elected among the council of the amirs. Also need to explain that this election was managed in very narrow scale. But the participants of the election and elected persons mostly were amirs. 4 In this way, if a Sultan who on the throne after election was powerful, he can be survived in governing the people who helped him to the throne. Only if the Sultan took the power in his very young age, in this case, amirs who put him in power would govern the nation. Constantlty change of power in the later period of Bahri Mamluks, were weakest point of this system. 5 Intimate relations in the central government have played vital role, regarding who would be in power. Among the contacts in central government na ib al-saltana come first with their authority. As known, before the Mamluk Dynasty, in the Muslim Nations, the status after Caliph or Sultanate was the Vizier. The situation being changed with the Regents of reign institution were established in the Mamluk period and status of the Vizier was become more powerless authority. The na ib al-saltana as a holder of the extreme authority, his authority powerful as Sultan and he was selected from the highest rank of the military class amirs. The na ib al-saltana as the highest governing authority has authority to supervise the army, manage the assembly of atrocity, listen to their requests and complains regarding ikta. Except appoint certain important positions like Vizier and Judge, he can appoint all other positions directly. Although, advises regarding like appointing the Vizier and Judge s 3 Cengiz Tomar, Memlük Devleti nde Askerî Kölelik Sistemi (1250-1517), (unpublished doctoral dissertation), Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, İstanbul 2006, p.75. 4 Ibn Fazlullah el-ömerî, Mesâlikü'l-ebsar fî memâliki l-emsâr devletü l-memâliki l-ulâ (ed. Dorothea Krawulsky), Beyrut: el-merkezü'l-islâmî li'l-buhus, 1986, p.47. 5 Ibid, p.48. [83]

M. Fatih Yalçın positions in general would accepted by Sultan. 6 Because of under these wide authorities, some na ib al-saltana, using these authorities they would successfully take the power. However, the regents of reign eventually have lost their importance and sometime have removed from their authority, even regain their authority, they have not got the power they have got before. Towards the Bahri Mamluks later period, these authorities have kept alive, in the same time the authorities their have got in the most of the time have taken by official named atabek. 7 In the Bahri Mamluk period, after the authority of the na ib al-saltana we can see five amirs who in reign authority. Among these amirs, Qutuz (657-658/1259 1260), Qalawun (678-689/1279-1290), Kitbogha (694-696/1294-1296), Lachin (696-698/1297-1299) have ruled the country. But Baydara only have stayed one day in power, in 693 (1293). A. The Na ib al-saltana Who Have Took The Power I. Qutuz (1259-1260 A.D/657-658H) The na ib al-saltana, just from the establishment of the dynasty have become influential to shift the power. Sometime, they have just made these efforts to keep another amir in power. Sometime they have fought for taking the power for themselves. In the result of these efforts, one of the first, successful and experienced men in politics from the five regents of reign was Qutuz. Qutuz originated from the Khwarazm Shah dynasty, the Mongols have captured him during a war. Much later he was bought by the amir Izzeddin Aybek al-turkmani and brought into Cairo. Qutuz rapidly stepped up the military hierarchy ladder, As soon as, Qutuz s master took the power, had appointed him as na ib al-saltana (1252A.D/650H). He was the one who had stayed in Egypt for long time and one of the oldest among the Aybek s mamluks. 8 6 Ibid, p.54; Makrîzî, Kitâbü's-sülûk li-ma'rifeti düveli'l-mülûk (ed. Muhammed Mustafa Ziyade), Kahire: Lecnetü't-Telif ve't-terceme, 1956-1973, I/1, p.373; Kalkaşendî, Subhu l-a şâ fî sınaati l-inşâ (ed. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemseddin), Beyrut: Dârü'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye, 1910-1920, IV, p.16-17; Şehabeddin Tekindağ, Berkuk Devrinde Memlük Sultanlığı, Istanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1961, p.133; İsmail Yiğit, Memlükler, DİA, İstanbul 2004, XXIX, p.94. 7 P. M. Holt, Memlük Sultanlığında Devlet Yapısı, trans. Samira Kortantamer, Belleten, Ankara 1988, LII/202, p.239-241. 8 Aynî, İkdü'l-cümân fî tarihi ehli'z-zaman (ed. Muhammed Muhammed Emin), Kahire: el- Hey'etü'l-Mısriyyetü'l-Âmme li l-kitâb, 1982, I, p.68; II, p.255. [84]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana After the assassination of Aybek, his son Nureddin Ali when he was 15 years old succeeded to crown (655/1257). In that period, Qutuz was a na ib alsaltana and Sultan s age was still young that was the reason Qutuz had great range of authority and he had managed Sultanate matter with full power. Although, internal and external threats made Qutuz himself took over to manage dynasty s affairs extremely necessary. Under these difficult situations, which the Sultanate has faced, Qutuz has consulted with the amirs and ulamas (scholars) regarding incompetence of the Nureddin Ali s governing the Sultanate and insufficiency of him on the throne. He also has highlighted someone who brave, powerful, most importantly can fight against one of the external threat, Mongols and someone who can make everyone obey himself, must take over the power from him. As amirs in that meeting has made it clear, only Qutuz was suitable for the throne, he was with the al-malik al-muzaffar title, acceded to the throne (November 1259 A.D/ Zilkade 657H). Then, to avoid any possible confusion, Nureddin Ali and his relatives was being captured. 9 Therefore, Qutuz has become first na ib al-saltana. 10 Qutuz was being a political genius, an influential na ib al-saltana, who has benefited from the age of young Sultan, with his ability has succeeded to the throne. Early years of establishment of the dynasty, we had seen Qutuz, as one of the stunning examples, which were na ib al-saltana having very important position at that time. Qutuz had stayed as na ib al-saltana for seven years, as Sultan for a year, he was stood out with his courage, determination, bravery, intelligence, management skill, good knowledge of the art of war and he has defeated 9 Baybars, et-tuhfetü l-mulûkiyye fi'd-devleti't-türkiyye ( ed. Abdülhamid Salih Hamdân), Kahire: ed-dârü l-mısriyyeti l-lübnaniyye, 1987, p.40-42; Ebu l-fidâ, el-muhtasar fî ahbari'lbeşer, (ed. Muhammed Zeynuhum Muhammed Azb), Kahire: Dârü l-maârif, undated, III, 234; Aynî, İkdu l-cûmân, I, 220; Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer ve câmiü'l-gurer ( ed. Ulrich Haarmann), Freiburg: Schwarz, 1971, VIII, p.39; Ibn Haldun, Kitâbü l-iber ve divanü lmübtede ve l-haber fî eyyami l-arab ve l-acem ve l-berber ve men asarahum min zevi s- Sultani l-ekber, Beyrut: Dârü l-kütübi l-ilmiyye, 1992, V, 450; Ibn Habîb, Tezkiretü n-nebih fî eyyami'l-mansur ve benih (ed. Muhammed Muhammed Emin), Kahire: el-hey'etü'l-mısriyyetü'l- Âmme li l-kitâb, 1986, I, 178; Makrîzî, Sülûk, I/2, p.414-417; İsmail Yiğit, Kutuz, DİA, 2002, XXVI, p.500-501; Ali Aktan, Sultan Kutuz ve Aynu-Calut Zaferi, Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1991, X, p.187-190. 10 Safedî, el-vâfî bi l-vefeyât (ed. Hellmut Ritter), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962-2004, XXIV, p.252; Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, p.39; Ibn Tağriberdî, Nücûmü z-zâhire fî mülûki Mısr ve'l-kahire (ed. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemseddin), Beyrut: Dârü l-kütübi l- İlmiyye, 1992, VII, p.55; Aynî, İkdü l-cümân, I, p.220. [85]

M. Fatih Yalçın Mongols and has stopped their spread. 11 Qutuz was assassinated in September 1260 A.D (Zilkade 658H) and replaced by Baybars. 12 II. Qalawun (1279-1290/678-689) Second na ib al-saltana who had succeeded to throne was Qalawun, he was captured when invaded to the Mongols Kipchak region. He had brought into Egypt by the slave trader when he was fourteen. There he has sold to amir Alladdin Aksungur al-saki, one of the Mamluks of Ayyubs Sultan al-malik al- Adil. Later in 1249A.D/647H, Qalawun who had sold to the Ayyubs Sultan al- Malik al-salih, when the Sultan Aybek time had escaped and went to Syria (1254A.D/652H). When Mongols had attacked Syria, he was returned to Egypt and served the Sultan Qutuz (1259A.D/657H). In the Sultan Baybars time, he was ranked as amir of thousand solders. Also, he has established the relation with the Sultan, as let his daughter married to Bereke who was the son and heir of the Sultan Baybars. Therefore, he has fortified his authority. Qalawun was being one of the outstanding Amirs, in Sultan Bereke s period; he has dethroned Bereke and has provided throne to the Baybars another seven years old son Sulemis with the title al-malik al-adil. 13 In that time, Qalawun has appointed as na ib al-saltana, he had made sure to print Sultan Sulemis name on the one side and his own name on another side of the every coins being made. As mater of fact, he has started to govern the Dynasty over the Sultan Sulemis who still too young and unable to rule the Dynasty. He has prepared to use his power and ability to taken over the throne. Also, he has not neglected to eliminate rival amirs. Thereby, he has tried to prevent emergence of the possible rebellion. After the short period of time, he has met with the prominent amirs within the formation of the appropriate conditions, he has highlighted dynasty must be governed by someone who more mature. The suggestion has taken by the amirs and has dethroned Sultan Sulemis and has replaced him with Qalawun, titled as al-malik al-mansur (November 1279 11 Ibn Tağriberdî, el-menhelü's-safi ve'l-mustevfi ba'de'l-vafi (ed. Muhammed Muhammed Emin), Kahire: el-hey'etü'l-mısriyyetü'l-âmme li l-kitâb, 1984-1999, IX, p.77; Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, p.41-42; Ayni, İkdu l-cuman, II, p.259. 12 Cüneyt Kanat, Bahrî Memlûkler Zamanında Sultanlara ve Devlet Adamlarına Düzenlenen Bazı Suikastlar, Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi, 2000, vol: III, p.32-34. 13 İsmail Yiğit, Kalavun, DİA, İstanbul 2001, XXIV, 227; Linda Northrup, From Slave To Sultan The Career Of al-mansur Qalawun and The Consolidation Of Mamluk Rule In Egypt and Syria, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998, 65-75; Ali Aktan, Memlûklerde Sultan Kalavun ve Hanedânı, Belleten, 1995, LIX/226, 607. [86]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana A.d/ Receb 678H). We can say, as the na ib al-saltana, Qalawun s succession to throne not only the Sultan was too young; also the relations he had built were far more strong and he was the very good politician, has played very important role. Qalawun has stayed as na ib al-saltana for three months and Sultan for eleven years. In November 1290 A.D (Zilkade, 689H), he was ill and died. Qalawun was known with his bravery, compassion, fairness, to avoid spilling blood, serenity, and gravity. 14 III. Baydara (1293A.D/693H) Baydara was one of the Sultan Qalawun s mamluks, he has taken part of various tasks. First he was the amir majlis 15, then the ustadar 16, in April 1288 A.D (Rebiulevvel 687H) he has appointed as Vizier. 17 Shortly after, in May 1288 A.D (Rebiulahar 687H) has dismissed by Sultan Qalawun. 18 Within same year, Baydara has regained his position as vizier; he has kept in this position until end of the Sultan Qalawun s reign. 19 In 1290 A.D (689H), Baydara had replaced Toruntay and had appointed as vizier, after Sultan Qalawun s son Halil succeeded to throne. 20 In the na ib al-saltana positions, it can be said that biggest problem for the Baydara was the vizier Ibnu s-sel us. During the Sultan Halil reign, power struggle between two of them was shifted to the vizier s favor. There were two factors influenced for the emergence of this situation. First one was, Sultan had 14 Ibn Tağriberdî, Menhel, IX, 95. 15 The supervisor of the physicians, oculists and the like who were in the service of the sultan. See Kalkaşendî, Subh, IV, 18-19; David Ayalon, Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army- III, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London 1954, XVI, 59. 16 For this office see Fatih Yahya Ayaz, Türk Memlükler Döneminde Saray Ağalığı Üstâdârlık (1250-1382), Istanbul: IFAV Yayınları, 2008. 17 Baybars, Zübdetü l-fikre fî tarihi l-hicre (ed. D. S. Richards), Beyrut: Das Arabische Buch Berlin, 1998, p.263; Ibnü l-furat, Târîhu d-düvel ve l-mülûk-târîhu Ibni l-furât (ed. Kostantin Züreyk-Necla İzzeddin), Beyrut 1938, VIII, 63-65; Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, 282-283. 18 Ibnü l-furat, Tarihü l-ibnü l-furat, VIII, 65, 96 19 Baybars, Zübdetü l-fikre, 263; Fatih Yahya Ayaz, Memlükler Döneminde Vezirlik 1250-1517, Istanbul: ISAM Yayınları, 2009, 51. 20 Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, IX, 336; Ibnü l-furat, Tarihü l-ibn Furat, VIII, 102; Ibn Habib, Tezkiretü n-nebih, I, 136; Makrîzî, Kitâbü'l-mukaffa'l-kebir (ed. Muhammed Ya lavi), Beyrut: Dârü'l-Garbi'l-İslâmî, 1991, II, 562-563. [87]

M. Fatih Yalçın given wide range of authority to the vizier. 21 Second one was, Sultan also had ordered the na ib al-saltana Baydara and foremost amirs of the time loyal to the vizier. 22 In this way, with the support of the Sultan, the vizier has become more influential than na ib al-saltana. By the increased of authority, vizier Ibnu s-sel us has started to disrespect the Baydara and other oldest amirs. He even has gone too far try to prevent Baydara s performance. This situation was the reason to force high rank of amirs had to hesitate front of him and had to show more respect to him if it was necessary. During that time, Baydara also had forced to show some respect to vizier if it was necessary. In contrary, when vizier has spoken to him, he has just treated him as the unimportant amirs; he has never called him with his rank. 23 Ibnu s-sel us has successfully established his authority over the military class and has started to intervene the appointments. This was the rare case in Mamluk history. 24 Na ib al-saltana Baydara and prominent amirs who have disturbed by Ibnu s-sel us and Sultan s attitude, have decided to assassinate the Sultan. In December 1293A.D (Muharrem, 693H), Sultan Halil went to outside the Cairo for hunting; it was the important opportunity for them to kill the Sultan. During the hunting time, Baydara had learned the sultan was unprotected, Amir Lachin and other amirs immediately taken in action. As soon as, Baydara and Lachin were went close to Sultan had attacked him and killed him there. Right after that, amirs in there had come together and had started to discuss about who would be the Sultan. In the end, they had decided, Baydara was the Sultan entitled with al-malik al-kahir or al-malik al-rahim. However, Mamluks of the assassinated Sultan Halil and some Amirs were not satisfied with this situation. In second day, Baydara had killed by one of the foremost amir, Kitbogha, when he was on his way to Egypt. 25 On account of, Baydara has even declared to be Sultan but has killed just before be seated on the throne. 21 Fatih Yahya Ayaz, Memlükler Dönemi Vezirlerinden Ibnü s-sel ûs (ö. 693/1294), Çukurova Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2005, vol: V/1, p.105. 22 Makrîzî, el-mukaffe l-kebîr, VI, 206; Aynî, Ikdü l-cümân, III, 52-53. 23 Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, 346; Nüveyrî, Nihâyetü l-ereb, XXXI, 190-193; Ibnü l- Furât, Târîhu Ibni l-furât, VIII, 108-109; Makrîzî, Sülûk, I/3, 760-762; op.cit, el-mukaffe lkebîr, VI, 206-208. 24 Ayaz, Memlükler Döneminde Vezirlik, p.54-55; Ayaz, Memlükler Dönemi Vezirlerinden Ibnü s-sel ûs (ö. 693/1294), p.109-110. 25 Baybars, Muhtârü'l-ahbar (ed. Abdülhamid Salih Hamdân), Kahire: ed-dârü l-mısriyyeti l- Lübnaniyye, 1993, p.96-97; Ibn Kesir, el-bidâye ve'n-nihaye (ed. Abdullah b. Abdülmuhsin et- Türki), Cize: Hicr li't-tıbaa ve'n-neşr, 1998, XVII, 663; Nüveyrî, Nihâyetü l-ereb, XXXI, 259- [88]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana Even, Baydara has remained in his authority ineffective, with the help of the Amirs who have supported him, first killed the Sultan Halil; and then declared to be Sultan. Because he has not able to gather more power, then he also been killed. Baydara has worked as regent of rein for four years; he was fond of books, bright, fair, in loved with scholars and intellectuals. He had a very good library with the books in various branches of knowledge. 26 IV. Kitbogha (1294-1296A.D/694-696H) Kitbogha was the Mongol origin, he was taken as pensioner in the battle against Mongols in Sultan Baybars time. Later Qalawun bought him. His military rank being raised and became one of the foremost amirs. Right after the Sultan Halil was being killed, Baydara was declared to be Sultan also being 27 killed. Amirs, including Kitbogha, Shujai and Lachin were come to unanimous decision to declare Muhammad b. Qalawun as Sultan (December 1293A.D /Muharrem 693H). 28 Amirs, who attended to meeting, have acquired significant positions. Among them, Kitbogha promoted as na ib al-saltana, Lachin as ustadar and Shujai as vizier. 29 First reign (1293-1294A.D/693-694H) of the Muhammad b. Qalawun, na ib al-saltana Kitbogha, took the state administration in his hand. Sultan was disabled and only carried the title. 30 Facing this situation, vizier Shujai was wanted to takeover the power and involved certain negative activities against the Kitbogha. Burji Mamluks supported Shujai, he took an advantage of the Sultan s young age try to get rid of the Kitbogha. As the result, vizier was killed and supporters of the vizier also were punished (January 1294A.D/Safer 267; Ibnü l-cezerî, Târîhu havadisi z-zaman ve enbâ ühu ve vefayâtü l-ekâbir ve l-a yan min ebâ ihi (ed. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmuri), Beyrut: el-mektebetü'l-asriyye, 1998, I, 191; Kütübî, Fevâtü'l-vefeyât ve z-zeylü aleyha, (ed. İhsan Abbas), Beyrut: Dâru Sadır, 1973-1974, I, 407; Ibn Haldun, Iber, V, 482; Ibn Dokmak, Cevherü's-semin fî siyeri'l-hulefa ve'l-müluk ve's-selatin (ed. Saîd Abdülfettah Aşur), Mekke: Câmiatü Ümmi'l-Kurâ, 1962, 313, 316; Ibn Tağriberdî, Nücûm, VIII, 17-20; op.cit, Menhel, V, 277-278; Cüneyt Kanat, Bahrî Memlûkler Zamanında, 36-39. 26 Safedî, Kitâbü l-vâfî bi l-vefeyât, X, 360-361; Ibn Tağriberdî, Menhel, III, 494. 27 Ibnü s-sukâî, Tali kitâbi vefeyati'l-a'yan ( ed. Jacquelıne Sublet), Dımaşk: Institut Français d Etudes Arabes de Damas, 1974, 131; Ibn Hacer, ed-dürer ü'l-kâmine fî a'yani'l-mieti's-sâmine Beyrut: Dârü'l-Cil, 1931, III, 262; Ibn Tağriberdî, Menhel, IX, 115 28 Aynî, İkdu l-cûmân, III, 215. 29 Aynî, İkdu l-cûmân, III, 223. See for Alemüddin Sencer al-shujai: Ibnü s-sukâî, Tâlî Kitâb, 90-91; Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, 353-355. 30 Makrîzî, Sülûk, I/3, 794. [89]

M. Fatih Yalçın 693H). 31 Therefore, na ib al-saltana Kitbogha was got rid of one of the barrier for the throne. After that incident, Kitbogha was tried to gather amirs to his side. In the other hand, in November 1294A.D (Muharrem 694H) was killed Sultan Halil s mamluks rebelled. Kitbogha was successfully quelled the rebellion and has punished the rebels. Just with the peace was served; Lachin went to Kitbogha and has encouraged him to throne. Kitbogha also intended to accede to the throne, so he acted as Lachin s suggestion. Shortly after the rebellion was quelled, Kitbogha called amirs as well as caliph for meeting. In the meeting, he emphasized because of the age of the Sultan was too young; state was lost its stability and also was not governed properly. Therefore, He urged them to dethrone the Sultan Muhammad b. Qalawun and obey him, in order to conduct the state affairs, as it was required. His offer was accepted and was declared as the Sultan with the title of al-malik al-adil (King of the Justice). 32 Kitbogha has stayed as na ib al-saltana for a year and as a Sultan for two years. He died in July 1303A.D (Zilhicce 702H). He was known as a person who brave, pious, benefactor, forbidding wrong. 33 V. Lachin (1296-1299A.D/696-698H) Lachin was one of the Nureddin Ali s Mamluks, later he was bought by Qalawun. He was married to Sultan Baybars daughter and worked as dawadar 34, ustadar, amir silah (grand master of armour) 35, and na'ib al-saltana of Damascus. 36 Within the eleven years of time, he has earned peoples sympathy. He also has involved killing Sultan Halil with Baydara. More lately, after Baydara was killed, he had to hide for a while. In the Sultan Muhammad b. Qalawun time, help of the na ib al-saltana Kitbogha, Sultan has pardoned 31 Baybars, Zübdetü l-fikre, 300-302; Ibnü l-furât, Târîhü Ibni l-furât, VIII, 178-183; Makrîzî, Sülûk, I/3, 798-802; Ibn İyâs, Bedâiü z-zühûr fî vekâii d-dühûr (ed. Muhammed Mustafa), Kahire: el-hey'etü'l-mısriyyetü'l-âmme li'l-kitâb, 1982-1984, I/1, 382-383. 32 Ibnü l-furat, Tarihü l-ibnü l-furat, VIII, 191-193; Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, 357; Ayni, İkdu l-cuman, III, 267; Makrizî, Sülûk, I/3, p.806; Ibn İyas, Bedaiü'z-zuhur, I/1, 385. 33 Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, IX 109; Safedî, A yânü l-asr ve a vânü n- nasr (ed. Ali Ebû Zeyd and others), Dımaşk: Dârü l-fik; Beyrut: Dârü l-fikri l-muasır, 1998, IV, 145; Ibn Hacer, Dürer, III, 218-219. 34 See Ayalon, Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army-III, 62. 35 See Kalkaşendî, Subh, IV, 18; Ayalon, Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army-III, 60. 36 Ibnü d-devâdârî, Kenzü d-dürer, VIII, 234, 238, 365, 366; Ibn Furat, Tarihü l-ibn Furat, VIII, 193, 222-223; Ibn Tağriberdi, Menhel, IX, 173. [90]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana him. He also has played vital role in Kitbogha to the throne. 37 Kitbogha was declared to be Sultan and he has appointed Amirs who helped him to the top jobs. Among those Amirs, Lachin was appointed as na ib al-saltana (November 1294A.D/ Muharrem 694H). 38 Within two years as Kitbogha was remained on throne, there were occurred some problems that drew public attention. These problems such as famines, epidemics and inflations that were experienced during the Kitbogha s reign, extremely disturbed the amirs and public. In addition, Kitbogha who was Mongol origin, was warmly welcomed, harbored and gave wide range of ikta to the thousands of non-muslim Mongols who belong to the Oirad tribe, 39 increased their concern. Oirads started to become more influential with the Sultan s support in the end has created mamluks as their enemy. The famines in the state, great number of Oirads immigration to Cairo and special treatment for them have created a huge opposition of the people as well as the military classes. Lachin, the na ib al-saltana has used these negative situations for own sake and agitated the opposition. In August 1296 (Zilkâde 695), he has concerned, Sultan Kitbogha s trip to Syria as an opportunity and has agreed with opposition amirs to dethrone the Sultan. Kitbogha has sorted some appointment and dismissal problem in the region and on his way to Egypt. On the way back, he has received information about Lachin s killing some of his mamluks and preparation of conspiracy against Sultan himself. He has realized that he cannot overcome the enemy then fled back to Damascus and has stayed there for a while. 40 The oppositions likely won the struggle and gathered under the na ib alsaltana Lachin. In the end of meeting, Sultan Kitbogha was dethroned and Lachin was declared as Sultan with the title al-malik al-mansur (November 37 Safedî, A yânü l-asr, IV, 166; op.cit, el-vafi, XXIV, 385; Ibn Tağriberdi, Menhel es-safi, IX, 166-167; Asri Çubukçu, Lâçin, DİA, İstanbul 2003, XXVII, 39. 38 Nüveyrî, Nihayetü l-ereb, XXXI, 305-306; Ibn Haldun, İber, V, 483; Makrizî, Sülûk, I/3, 807; Ayni, İkdu l-cuman, III, 272. 39 For details about Oirads see: Cüneyt Kanat, Gazan Han Zamanında Memlûk Devletine İltica Eden Uyratlar, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, İzmir 2000, XV, 105-120. 40 Ibn Tağriberdî, Nücûm, VIII, 60-63; Ibn Dokmak, el-cevherü s-semîn, 320-321; Ibn Habîb, Tezkire, I, 184-185; Zehebî, Târîhü l-islâm ve Vefeyâtü l-meşahir ve l-a lâm: sene 671-680 (ed. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmuri), Beyrut: Dârü'l-Kitâbi'l-Arabi, 2000, 39, 44, 51-52; Baybars, Zübde, 310-312; Ibnü l-cezeri, Havadis, I, 331-332, 256-257, 335-336; Ibnü l-furât, Târîh, VIII, 221; Makrîzî, Sülûk, I/3, 816-820; Kütübî, Fevât, III, 219; Nüveyrî, Nihâyetü l-ereb, XXXI, 312-313, Aynî, İkdü l-cûmân, III, 307-308. [91]

M. Fatih Yalçın 1296A.D/ Muharrem 696H). 41 Kitbogha has learned that Lachin acceded to throne with huge support and then Kitbogha has announced his allegiance to Sultan, also he has asked for Lachin s assurance. Lachin has forgave his colleagues (khushdash), the Kitbogha and appointed him as governor of the fortress of Serhad in Syria. 42 Lachin has stayed as na ib al-saltana for two years and has stayed on throne for two years. He was assassinated in January 1299A.D (Rebîulâhîr 698H). He has known as fair, just administrator, generous, brave, majestic, best user of archery, intelligent, wit, and smart person. 43 Conclusion In early period of Bahri Mamluks, the inheritance system was not fully implemented and na ib al-saltana as the position of second Sultan has played vital role on power shift. In that period, some of the na ib al-saltana were successfully acceded to throne. In early period of Bahri Mamluks, it should be noted that, na ib alsaltana had an important position to become Sultan. Na ib al-saltana who succeeded to throne was distinguished with their ability in politics. After the na ib al-saltana, there were five amirs. Among them Qutuz has stayed as na ib al-saltana for seven years, Qalawun for three month, Baydara for four years, Kitbogha for a year, Lachin for two years. Qalawun was the one who when he was in na ib al-saltana position has became Sultan and has reigned for eleven years, he was the longest reigned Sultan among the five amirs. After him, Kitbogha and Lachin have reigned for two years each. Qutuz has stayed in power for a year. Baybara has stayed in power a day. Among the na ib al-saltana who were on throne, Qutuz, Baydara and Lachin have assassinated. Qalawun was died with disease. Kitbogha was dethroned and exiled by the opposition amirs. 41 Baybars, Muhtar, 104; Baybars, Zübde, 313; Ibnü l-furât, Târîh, VIII, 223-224; Ibnü l-cezerî, Havadisü z-zaman, I, 332-333; Makrîzî, Sülûk, I/3, 820. 42 Ibn Habîb, Tezkire, I, 193; Ibn Tağriberdi, Nücûm, VIII, 64; Holt, P. M. The Sultanate of al- Mansur Lachin (1296-1296A.D/696-698H), Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London 1973, XXXVI, p.523-524; For khushdash, see David Ayalon, Memlûk Devletinde Kölelik Sistemi, trans. Samira Kortantamer, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, İzmir 1989, IV, p. 240-242. 43 Safedî, A yânü l-asr, IV, 165, 169; Ibn Tağriberdi, Menhel, IX, 169; Zehebi, Tarihü l-islam, XV, 886-887. [92]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana In early years of the Bahri Mamluks period, Qutuz, Qalawun and Kitbogha when they were in na ib al-saltana position, have used Sultan s young age as an opportunity successfully acceded to throne. Other na ib alsaltana like Baydara and Lachin, they have undertaken the leadership of the opposition that was formed from failure of the ruling Sultan and have became Sultan. Among the na ib al-saltana, who has become sultan, only Kitbogha was Mongol origin, others were Turks. Baydara, Kitbogha and Lachin were from Qalawun s mamluks. Another important point is, there still had a na ib alsaltana existed to accede to throne, even after the Kitbogha who successfully acceded to throne from na ib al-saltana. Bibliography Aktan, Ali, Bahri Memlükler de Sultan Kalavun ve Hanedanı Belleten, Ankara 1995, vol: LIX/226, p.604-620., Memlûklülerde Saltanat Değişikliği Usulü, Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1990, vol: IX, p. 270-279., Sultan Kutuz ve Aynu-Calut Zaferi, Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Erzurum 1991, X, p. 181-201. Ayalon, David, Memlûk Devletinde Kölelik Sistemi, trans. Samira Kortantamer, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, İzmir 1989, IV, p. 211-247., Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army-III, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London 1954, XVI, 57-90. Ayaz, Fatih Yahya, Memlükler Dönemi Vezirlerinden Ibnü s-sel ûs (ö. 693/1294), Çukurova Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2005, vol: V/1, p.91-122., Memlükler Döneminde Vezirlik 1250-1517, Istanbul: ISAM Yayınları, 2009., Türk Memlükler Döneminde Saray Ağalığı: Üstâdârlık (1250-1382), Istanbul: IFAV Yayınları, 2008. Aynî, Bedreddin Mahmud b. Ahmed, Ikdü'l-cümân fî tarihi ehli'z-zaman (ed. Muhammed Muhammed Emin), I-IV, Kahire: el-hey'etü'l-mısriyyetü'l- Âmme li l-kitâb, 1982. Baybars, et-tuhfetü l-mulûkiyye fi'd-devleti't-türkiyye (ed. Abdülhamid Salih Hamdân), Kahire: ed-dârü l-mısriyyeti l-lübnaniyye, 1987. [93]

M. Fatih Yalçın, Muhtârü'l-ahbar (ed. Abdülhamid Salih Hamdân), Kahire: ed-dârü l-mısriyyeti l-lübnaniyye, 1993., Zübdetü l-fikre fî tarihi l-hicre (ed. D. S. Richards), Beyrut: Das Arabische Buch Berlin, 1998. Çetin, Altan, Selçuklu Teşkilatı nın Memlüklere Tesiri, Belleten, 2004, LXVII/251, p.105-130. Çubukçu, Asri, Lâçin, DİA, İstanbul 2003, XXVII, 39-40. Ebu l-fidâ, İmadüddin İsmail b. Ömer b. Kesîr, el-muhtasar fî ahbari'lbeşer (ed. Muhammed Zeynuhum Muhammed Azb), I-III, Kahire: Dârü l- Maârif, undated. Holt, P. M. Memlük Sultanlığında Devlet Yapısı (trans. Samira Kortantamer), Belleten, Ankara 1988, LII/202, p. 227-246., The Sultanate of al-mansur Lachin (1296-1296A.D/696-698H), Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London 1973, XXXVI, p.521-532.., Memlük Sultanlığında Devlet Yapısı, trans. Samira Kortantamer, Belleten, Ankara 1988, LII/202, p. 239-241. Ibn Dokmak, Sarimüddin İbrahim b. Muhammed b. Aydemir, Cevherü'ssemin fî siyeri'l-hulefa ve'l-müluk ve's-selatin (ed. Saîd Abdülfettah Aşur), Mekke: Câmiatü Ümmi'l-Kurâ, 1962. Ibn Fazlullah el-ömerî, Şihabeddin Ahmed b. Yahya, Mesâlikü'l-ebsar fî memâliki l-emsâr devletü l-memâliki l-ulâ (ed. Dorothea Krawulsky), Beyrut: el-merkezü'l-islâmî li'l-buhus, 1986. Ibn Habîb, Bedreddin Hasan b. Ömer, Tezkiretü n-nebih fî eyyami'lmansur ve benih (ed. Muhammed Muhammed Emin), I-III, Kahire: el-hey'etü'l- Mısriyyetü'l-Âmme li l-kitâb, 1986. Ibn Hacer, Ebü l-fazl Şihabeddin Ahmed b. Ali el-askalânî, ed-dürer ü'l-kâmine fî a'yani'l-mieti's-sâmine, I-IV, Beyrut: Dârü'l-Cil, 1931. Ibn Haldun, Abdurrahman b. Muhammed, Kitâbü l-iber ve divanü lmübtede ve l-haber fî eyyami l-arab ve l-acem ve l-berber ve men asarahum min zevi s-sultani l-ekber, I-VII, Beyrut: Dârü l-kütübi l-ilmiyye, 1992. Ibn İyâs, Muhammed b. Ahmed, Bedâiü z-zühûr fî vekâii d-dühûr (ed. Muhammed Mustafa), I-V, Kahire: el-hey'etü'l-mısriyyetü'l-âmme li'l-kitâb, 1982-1984. [94]

A Path to Throne Among the Mamluks in Early Period: Na'ib al-saltana Ibn Kesir, Ebü l-fidâ İmadüddin İsmail b. Ömer, el-bidâye ve'n-nihaye (ed. Abdullah b. Abdülmuhsin et-türki), I-XXI, Cize: Hicr li't-tıbaa ve'n-neşr, 1998. Ibn Tağriberdî, Ebü l-mehâsin Cemaleddin Yusuf, el-menhelü's-safi ve'lmustevfi ba'de'l-vafi (ed. Muhammed Muhammed Emin), I-VIII, Kahire: el- Hey'etü'l-Mısriyyetü'l-Âmme li l-kitâb, 1984-1999., Nücûmü z-zâhire fî mülûki Mısr ve'l-kahire (ed. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemseddin), I-XVI, Beyrut: Dârü l-kütübi l-ilmiyye, 1992. Ibnü d-devâdârî, Seyfeddin Ebû Bekir b. Abdullah b. Aybek, Kenzü ddürer ve câmiü'l-gurer (ed. Ulrich Haarmann), VIII, Freiburg: Schwarz, 1971; (ed. Hans Robert Roemer), IX, Kahire 1960. Ibnü l-cezerî, Şemseddin Ebû Abdullah Muhammed b. İbrahim b. Ebî Bekir, Târîhu havadisi z-zaman ve enbâ ühu ve vefayâtü l-ekâbir ve l-a yan min ebâ ihi (ed. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmuri), I-III, Beyrut: el-mektebetü'l- Asriyye, 1998. Ibnü l-furat, Nasıruddin Muhammed b. Abdürrahim b. Ali, Târîhu ddüvel ve l-mülûk-târîhu Ibni l-furât (ed. Kostantin Züreyk-Necla İzzeddin), VIII, Beyrut 1938. Ibnü s-sukâî, Fazlullah b. Ebi l-fahr, Tali kitâbi vefeyati'l-a'yan (ed. Jacquelıne Sublet), Dımaşk: Institut Français d Etudes Arabes de Damas, 1974, Kalkaşendî, Ahmed b. Ali, Subhu l-a şâ fî sınaati l-inşâ (ed. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemseddin), I-XV, Beyrut: Dârü'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye, 1910-1920. Kanat, Cüneyt, Gazan Han Zamanında Memlûk Devletine İltica Eden Uyratlar, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, İzmir 2000, XV, 105-120., Bahrî Memlûkler Zamanında Sultanlara ve Devlet Adamlarına Düzenlenen Bazı Suikastlar, Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi, İstanbul 2000, vol: III, 23-56. Kortantamer, Samira, Memlûklarda Devlet Yönetimi ve Bürokrasi, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, İzmir 1984, II, 27-45. Kütübî, Muhammed b. Şakir, Fevâtü'l-vefeyât ve z-zeylü aleyha, (ed. İhsan Abbas), Beyrut: Dâru Sadır, 1973-1974. Makrîzî, Takıyyüddin Ahmed b. Ali, Kitâbü'l-mukaffa'l-kebir (ed. Muhammed Ya lavi), I-VIII, Beyrut: Dârü'l-Garbi'l-İslâmî, 1991. [95]

M. Fatih Yalçın, Kitâbü's-sülûk li-ma'rifeti düveli'l-mülûk (ed. Muhammed Mustafa Ziyade), I-XII, Kahire: Lecnetü't-Telif ve't-terceme, 1956-1973. Northrup, Linda, From Slave To Sultan The Career Of al-mansur Qalawun and The Consolidation of Mamluk Rule In Egypt and Syria, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998. Nüveyrî, Ahmed b. Abdülvehhab, Nihâyetü l-ereb fî fünûni l-edeb, IXVIII, Kahire, undated, XIX-XXVII (ed. M. Ebü l-fazl-ali M. el-bicâvî- Hüseyin Nassâr), Kahire 1975-1985, XXIX (ed. M. Ziyaeddin er-reyyis-m. Mustafa Ziyâde), Kahire 1992, XXX (ed. Muhammed A. Şaîre-M. Mustafa Ziyâde), Kahire 1990, XXXI (ed. el-bâz el-arînî-abdülaziz el-ehvânî), Kahire 1992. Özbek, Süleyman, Memlûklerde Meşrûiyet Arayışları ve Saltanat İnşasına Yönelik Çabalar Sultanı Öldüren Sultan Olur, Ankara Üniversitesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, Ankara 2013, vol: XXXII/53 p.155-172. Safedî, el-vâfî bi l-vefeyât (ed. Hellmut Ritter), I-XXXII, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962-2004., Selahaddin Halil b. Aybek, A yânü l-asr ve a vânü nnasr (ed. Ali Ebû Zeyd and others), I-VI, Dımaşk: Dârü l-fik; Beyrut: Dârü l- Fikri l-muasır, 1998. Tekindağ, Şehabeddin, Berkuk Devrinde Memlük Sultanlığı, Istanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1961. Tomar, Cengiz, Memlük Devleti nde Askerî Kölelik Sistemi (1250-1517), (unpublished doctoral dissertation), Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, İstanbul 2006. Yiğit, Ismail, Siyâsî-Dini-Kültürel-Sosyal İslâm Târîhi: Memlükler, Istanbul: Kayıhan Yayınları, 1991., Kalavun, DİA, İstanbul 2001, XXIV, p.227-228., Kutuz, DİA, İstanbul 2002, XXVI, p.500-501., Memlükler, DİA, İstanbul 2004, XXIX, p.90-97. Zehebî, Şemseddin Muhammed b. Ahmed b. Osman, Târîhü l-islâm ve Vefeyâtü l-meşahir ve l-a lâm: sene 671-680 (ed. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmuri), Beyrut: Dârü'l-Kitâbi'l-Arabi, 2000. [96]