Talk:List of Mamluk sultans

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / Middle East CL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Quality is very high

Quality is very high in this article, you can maybe ask for a review or something from editors to give it a featured article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Ivanov: I'm glad you liked the article. However, there's still a decent amount of work left to be done, namely further expansion and referencing of the introduction section, some more work on the "Background notes" column of the actual list, and probably some style modifications and minor adjustments. It would also be nice if we could add a coin for the rest of the sultans. Not every sultan minted coins, but most apparently did [1]. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right it needs work, but I don't know about Wikipedia classes it can be one of those B or A class before reaching Featured Article. I also like how you put their ethnicity I remember the Mamluks having two Greek Sultans. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently there were three Greek sultans. Another obstacle to nomination for recognition is the fact that half the sultans don't even have articles yet. That'll take some time. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lajin is the third right? I know the other two two Burjis are clearly Greek, I have doubts on Lajin being Greek or Prussian, if I remember correctly he was Circassian? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a well-written list, when it is done it could easily be nominated for WP:FL. Constantine ✍ 10:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Ivanov: David Nicolle and Northrup write that he was Prussian or Greek, but I saw that Koby Yosef either refers to him as Circassian or supportive of Circassian mamluk interests. Worth looking into more. It's likely that the Mamluk-era sources themselves were not sure about his ethnic origins.

@Cplakidas: Thanks Constantine, your words of encouragement are always appreciated. I plan on nominating the list eventually. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Ivanov: I noticed you changed Lajin's ethnicity based on Yosef's source. Northrup and Nicolle are also highly reliable (in fact I would consider them veterans of Mamluk studies; Northrup had an excellent work on Qalawun and the Bahri dynasty in general). I think it would be best to include both views i.e. Circassian and Greek/Prussian. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: I highly disagree with the Greek and Prussian, they are indeed highly reliable, but Yosef backs up his words from (أعيان العصر وأعوان النصر), and when I checked Northrup she is referencing another secondary work (The Middle East in the Middle Ages : the early Mamluk sultanate, 1250-1382) by Irwin, I would have to check that work to be sure, but I'm 90% sure Lajin is Circassian, a relative to Baybars II. Both of whom represented the Circassian element in the Bahri Period, I will give you the benefit of the doubt he could be part Circassian, since it will take time for me to check these primary and secondary sources I will submit my edit later this month or maybe earlier based on the delivery of one of the books. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol ruler for one day missing

in 1293, the murdered of Sultan Khalil a mongol by the name Baydara al-Mansuri became a sultan for one day, is missing here Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether or not to include him because I don't know if he was officially proclaimed sultan. Do you have more information on him? If so, I'll add him if you don't. At the very least, we should have a footnote mentioning him. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was officially a Sultan. He was na'ib of Egypt for Khalil before his ascendance, he murdered him in 1293 C.E., he took the title Malik al-Qahir. He is of Mongol Extraction and a Mamluk of Qalawun. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Lajin is a Circassian

We have two sources who are showing different approach. One Circassian and one Prussian/Greek, I have analyzed the Circassian position to it's fullest meaning 100%, and in the coming weeks I will analyze the Prussian/Greek position which I have huge doubts.

@Al Ameer son: Take not, to see the argument that Koby Yosef presented which is simply connecting the dots. On the book (أعيان العصر وأعوان النصر) by al-Ṣafadī On a chapter or semi chapter dedicated to Aqūsh Al-Afram, a high ranking Circassian Mamluk who was employed as Na'ibn of Shaam, we see the author saying that Aqūsh and Lajin are cousins, Lajin is the son of the maternal aunt (خالة) of Aqūsh the Circassian. On another book written by the famous (ابن تغري بردي) Ibn Taghrībirdī on the book called (المنهل الصافي والمستوفي بعد الوافي) we see the author saying Aqūsh Al-Afram and Baybars II are relative. There is no single indication to me that Lajin was Greek or Prussian in these sources. I will analyze the Prussian/Greek before reaching definitive 100% answer. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence. Let me know of any information you have on Lajin which we could use to expand his stub article. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: My research has hit a BRICK WALL, Linda and Nicolle copied from Robin Irwin who doesn't give a reference. This whole Prussian/Greek thing comes from him, yet he doesn't give a reference. He says Lajin is Prussian or Greek, no footnote, no reference. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: My research has been revived I have received new information, that I'm following, will report if it's fruitful. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your extensive research for such a detail as this is admirable. You can go ahead and make the change, I have no objection. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total number

I've removed a statement in the lead that said there were 47 sultans ([2]), as this seems to be disputable (see below). I'm not sure if it was sourced or if it simply counted from the current list, which could contain errors or be missing individuals. It also implied that only three sultans had multiple reigns, but of course there are more than that (as evident in the list).

Depending on which reliable source is consulted, the total number of sultans differs. According to Carl F. Petry (2022, p.53), there were 44 sultans. In the list provided by Doris Behrens-Abouseif (2007, p.317-318), there appear to be 49, and likewise in Bosworth (1996, p.76-78; though it depends on whether you include al-Musta'in, Shajar ad-Durr, etc). In the list by André Clot (1996/2009, p.446-447), there seem to be 50.

It's likely that we're missing a couple of individuals in this list, but also that the number varies depending on who you count. I'd recommend that we simply avoid stating a total number as fact; it's unnecessary and is likely to contradict reliable sources in one way or another. Or, if we do give a total, we should note the differing numbers and inclusions that are found in reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]