![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Bahri dynasty to Bahri Mamluks. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bahri dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. Can be reverted per WP:RMUM. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
– As other editors have also noted above, neither of these are "dynasties" in the most common sense. As the articles and any reliable sources explain, Mamluk sultans came to the throne mainly through the support of other Mamluks, not through hereditary succession. While some sultans managed to have their sons succeed them (most notably Qalawun), none of these lines lasted long and obviously not for the full length of either period. "Bahri Mamluks" and "Burji Mamluks" would be equally clear/precise, while avoiding the misnomer and any potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. R Prazeres ( talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
the map used in the article suggests so, but i don't find a good reference to back up this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keratoplastiks ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Bahri dynasty to Bahri Mamluks. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bahri dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. Can be reverted per WP:RMUM. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
– As other editors have also noted above, neither of these are "dynasties" in the most common sense. As the articles and any reliable sources explain, Mamluk sultans came to the throne mainly through the support of other Mamluks, not through hereditary succession. While some sultans managed to have their sons succeed them (most notably Qalawun), none of these lines lasted long and obviously not for the full length of either period. "Bahri Mamluks" and "Burji Mamluks" would be equally clear/precise, while avoiding the misnomer and any potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. R Prazeres ( talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
the map used in the article suggests so, but i don't find a good reference to back up this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keratoplastiks ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)