Islam without mamluks

In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the Umayyads drew their forces from the Arabian peninsula, where a harsh nomadic existence had fortified its newly converted inhabitants into natural warriors. But, as Islam spread into the agricultural regions of Mesopotamia and the Nile Valley, the peasant-farmer inhabitants proved unsuitable soldier material.
The rapid expansion of Islam resulted in inevitable shortages of manpower. The Umayyad's successors, the Abbasids, solved this problem with the mamluk system whereby slaves from areas such as the Caucasus and Asia Minor provided hardened conscripts who would be trained from boys into highly effective troops known as mamluks. Thus the momentum of Islamic expansion was maintained for centuries.
So what if the mamluk system never existed? How successful could Islam have been if it had to rely on masses of conscripted peasants like their European counterparts? Would the Crusades have been more successful? Would Venice have prospered without Islam's constant demand for slaves?The slaves that paid for the valuable spices which were the foundation of the Venetian commercial empire.
 
I don't think they'd need top rely on conscripted peasants. Mamluks were valued, but only Egypt relied on them almost exclusively. The Abbasids and their successors were quite happy to also employ mercenary soldiers, pay standing forces in a arrangement very similar to pre-feudal stipendiary troops in Europe, and hire the tribal armies of client rulers, who as a resuilt often didn't stay client. My guess is an even greater reliance on Central Asian cavalry, since Mamluk horse archers wouldn't be available, and possibly greater emphasis on infantry forces to counter these frequently unpopular and feared savages.
 
In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the Umayyads drew their forces from the Arabian peninsula, where a harsh nomadic existence had fortified its newly converted inhabitants into natural warriors. But, as Islam spread into the agricultural regions of Mesopotamia and the Nile Valley, the peasant-farmer inhabitants proved unsuitable soldier material.
It is incorrect to state that the peasant-farmer inhabitants proved unsuitable soldier material. Those that were recruited made satisfactory if not great troops. It is a myth that wilderness dwellers make better troops than those from civilised areas. There are other factors such as level of equipment and training.
The rapid expansion of Islam resulted in inevitable shortages of manpower.
It was not inevitable. What happened was that a) the original Arab jihadists dropped out so they could enjoy their spoils and many converts declined to sign up. (It should be noted that Islamic commanders had no problems recruiting troops for the war in Spain, but that could have been as much out of opportunity as available manpower.)

There was also the matter of internecine fighting between branches of Islam and not withstanding current jihadist practice, Moslems are not supposed to kill Moslems. Non-Moslem troops do very nicely here.
So what if the mamluk system never existed? How successful could Islam have been if it had to rely on masses of conscripted peasants like their European counterparts? Would the Crusades have been more successful? Would Venice have prospered without Islam's constant demand for slaves?The slaves that paid for the valuable spices which were the foundation of the Venetian commercial empire.
We are looking at cultural change before even before the mamluk system slave soldiers were already being employed. If we did have such a change then the Islamic empires should be able to hold out again the Crusaders. The Mongols are another kettle of fish.
 
In truth, much of Venice's prosperity simply came from KNOWING the vitality of eastern trade. Combined with a lack of anti-Islanic attitude, the Rialtos would still have filled with eastern wares. The Venetians would make sure of it.

Due to the lack of Slave-soldier traditions, Arab armies would likely revert to a more conventional system of levies, conscripts, and professional soldiers. Militarily, little would change.

Politically , howver, we might see longer lasting governments, without the threat of being overthrown by a Mamluk uprising (Egypt).

Hope this helps.
 
It is incorrect to state that the peasant-farmer inhabitants proved unsuitable soldier material. Those that were recruited made satisfactory if not great troops. It is a myth that wilderness dwellers make better troops than those from civilised areas. There are other factors such as level of equipment and training.

A myth, but one that the Arabs bought into. If you wanted a military career in the Abbasid or Ayyubid forces, you were well advised to prentend to be a Turk, a Kurd, or a Berber, and certainly not admit to being born in a city.
 
In truth, much of Venice's prosperity simply came from KNOWING the vitality of eastern trade. Combined with a lack of anti-Islanic attitude, the Rialtos would still have filled with eastern wares. The Venetians would make sure of it.

Due to the lack of Slave-soldier traditions, Arab armies would likely revert to a more conventional system of levies, conscripts, and professional soldiers. Militarily, little would change.

Politically , howver, we might see longer lasting governments, without the threat of being overthrown by a Mamluk uprising (Egypt).

Hope this helps.

If there was no demand for slaves in the Islamic world, then what commodity could Venice use to pay for its spices? Europe produced nothing which was of any value in the Middle East apart from Italian glassware and red coral from the Mediterranean, neither of which were exported in great quantities. The muslims much preferred Indian cotton to European linen, and Europe's most important commodity, wool, was not very appealing in the heat of the Middle East.
 
If there was no demand for slaves in the Islamic world, then what commodity could Venice use to pay for its spices? Europe produced nothing which was of any value in the Middle East apart from Italian glassware and red coral from the Mediterranean, neither of which were exported in great quantities. The muslims much preferred Indian cotton to European linen, and Europe's most important commodity, wool, was not very appealing in the heat of the Middle East.

Iron, timber and silver, IIRC. Probably other commodities as well. Also, don't underestimate the potential demand for Italian woollens. Wool cloth isn't all blanketweight.
 
Iron, timber and silver, IIRC. Probably other commodities as well. Also, don't underestimate the potential demand for Italian woollens. Wool cloth isn't all blanketweight.

Wood, iron and gold were all available in Africa and India. These commodities were not exported to the Middle East in significant quantities during the Middle Ages. The Europeans always had a trade deficit with the Islamic world during this period. And wool was never going to be a popular export either.
 
Top