This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
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? --126.96.36.199 (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)
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)