|
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
The following work has been my spare time labor for many years. I have been helped by many people—far too many to enumerate here in any meaningful way. I must, however, express my appreciation to the members of the University of Washington's Middle East Center for their support and encouragement. I am particularly grateful to Professors Jere Bacharach and Farhat Ziadeh for the enthusiasm they have shown for this project. I also want to thank my wife Amy for her support and editorial advice; wherever clarity has been achieved in the following pages it is entirely the result of her efforts. My son Tom, though too young to have made a direct contribution, inspired me with his energy and good humor.
Badr al-Dm Lu’lu'
Atabeg of Mosul, 1211-1259
Introduction
At the time of his death in 657/1259, Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ had ruled the city of Mosul for more than forty years.1 During his remarkable career he rose from mamluk to sultan, usurping the throne of his master's descendants and establishing his rule in his own name. As an independent ruler, he exploited the growing weakness of the Ayyubid dynasty and expanded Mosul's dominion to an extent nearly as great as it had been a century before under the early Zangids. In his efforts to secure and expand his territory, he supported al-Salih Ayyub, the Ayyubid ruler most dependent on mamluk power, and thereby indirectly fostered mamluk usurpation of Ayyubid rule in Egypt. He also cultivated the favor of the Mongols and willingly supported their invasion of Iraq, thus playing a role in the overthrow of the 'Abbasid Caliphate and the establishment of Mongol rule. Despite his important part in these dramatic transformations, Lu’lu’ is today known almost exclusively as a patron of the arts and as Mosul's ruler during a period of great artistic brilliance.2
The obscurity of Lu’lu”s political career does not arise from any lack of historical material. The medieval historians fully appreciated his importance, and repeatedly asserted that he was a handsome, youthful, energetic, and firm ruler, outstanding for his intelligence, shrewdness, and good administration (siyasa). In the words of his contemporary Ibn Wasil, often repeated by later authors, “dirt did not touch him; the order of his realm was undisturbed.”3 His firmness was widely admired. Ibn al-Dawadari reported that “no matter in his realm escaped him,”4 and al-Dhahabi noted that “despite his tyranny and oppression, he was loved by his subjects because he treated them in a manner [which balanced] greed and fear.”5 Similarly, al-Yunini (as cited by al-Dhahabi) said that he “could not be resisted by his amirs. He killed, hung, and cut unendingly until the land was deserted. Despite this, he was beloved by his subjects, who swore by his life, exaggerated his beard, and titled him Golden Wand (qadlb al-dhahab).”6 Baybars al-Mansuri stated that “he was beloved by the people, approved by the elite; he promoted justice among his subjects.”7 Two centuries after his death, Ibn Tagh-ribirdi gave him the ultimate tribute, saying: “may God make such rulers plentiful. The people need a ruler like this to rule the entire world.”8
While such fulsome praise is common in the royal biographies of the time, it is by no means showered on every ruler. Lu’lu’ had qualities which distinguished him from the typical ruler of his time, and his conduct affected the policy of every court in the region. The present lack of appreciation for his political activity has many reasons, most notably the considerable historiographical difficulties encountered in the reconstruction and interpretation of the events of his reign. Ironically, these difficulties stem primarily from the success of one of Lu’lu”s most notable acts of patronage, for it is he who commissioned 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir to write the Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh, which must be considered among the most influential world histories ever written.
Ibn al-Athir’s concern to justify his patron's legitimacy as ruler of Mosul and protector of the Zangids necessitated that he conceal an important aspect of the achievement: the usurpation of an established dynasty's authority by a mamluk slave. Ibn al-Athir cannot be faulted for this approach. He wrote while the Zangids still retained nominal control of Mosul and his primary task was to assert his patron's worthiness to rule in their name. The historians of later eras understood more fully the significance of Lu’lu”s rise from mamluk to sultan, but their respect for the stature of Ibn al-Athir and their reliance on his vivid narrative caused them to reinforce his glorious presentation of his patron. But for a few oblique references, the significance of Lu’lu’'s accomplishment almost completely escapes their attention. This is particularly regrettable because of the close parallel between the manner of Lu’lu”s rise to power and that of the mamluks of Egypt thirty years later.
While considerations of Ibn al-Athir’s stature and the context in which his history was written can offset the bias inherent in his account, the history of the latter half of Lu’lu”s reign has no such corrective. The fall of the Zangids certainly did not diminish Lu’lu”s importance as a ruler, but Ibn al-Athir's death in 630/1233 left Mosul with no historian to chronicle and defend his actions. Estimations of Lu’lu”s stature must be based solely on the observations of historians working under other rulers in other cities. This severely limits our understanding of Lu’lu’'s relations with the Mongols and the events leading to their occupation of Iraq. It is evident from all accounts that Lu’lu’ enjoyed the trust of the Mongols and usually served them loyally, but the significance of his conduct may be seen only in terms of its immediate effect on the ruler or dynasty with whom each historian is primarily concerned. These historians are uninterested in his policy or motivation and record little about the evolution of the relationship, or why and how Lu’lu’ came to be drawn into the Mongol orbit. Lu’lu”s actions, when mentioned at all, are usually described in simple and opportunistic terms appropriate to a subject of peripheral interest. Three distinct pictures emerge from the various accounts, depending on whether Lu’lu’ is seen through the eyes of Ayyubid, Mamluk, or Mongol era historians.
Notwithstanding these limitations, it is clear that Lu’lu’ was an important figure in the political history of his day, and that his influence was felt far beyond Mosul and long after his death. The exact nature of his significance is more clearly seen for the period of his rise to power, thanks to the perspective provided by Ibn al-Athir. For the latter half of his career, the conjectures which are presented below are far less certain. Greater certainty will be achieved only as more work is done on the history and historiography of the period. It is hoped that the present research will contribute something to that end.
1. / The principal secondary accounts of Lu’lu’'s life are C. Cahen, “Lu’lu’”; Farfcs, 625-31; al-Jalabi; al-Ruwayshidi; Sa’igh, 199-200, 223-28; and Zetterstden.
2. / His name is seldom omitted from studies of Islamic metalwork, manuscript illumination, epigraphy, and architecture. See the Bibliography under Fards, Rice (especially “The Brasses of Badr al-Din Lulu’”), Sarre, and van Berchem; also fitienne Combe, Jean Sauvaget and Gaston Wiet, eds., Repertoire chronologique d'ipigraphie arabe (hereafter cited as RCEA).
3. / Ibn Wa§il, Bibl. Nat. MS 1702, f. 386b; Baybars al-Man$uri (Bodl.) f. 167a; Abu'l-Fida, 6:104; al-Dhahabi, TaYtkh al-Islam, Bodl. MS Laud 305, f. 306a.
4. / 8:45.
5. / Al-Dhahabi, TaYtkh al-Islam, Bodl. MS Laud 305, f. 306a.
6. / Ibid. This quotation is not found in the Hyderabad edition of al-YOnini's Dhaylmir’at al-zaman.
7. / Br. Libr., f. 35b.
From Mamluk to Sultan
The Decline of Zangid Power
Badr al-Din Abu'l-Fada’il Lu’lu’ b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nuri al-Atabiki was the mamluk of Mosul’s last independent Zangid ruler, the Atabeg Nur al-Din Arslan Shah (ruled 589-607/1193-1211).1 Mosul's territory then extended only a score of miles beyond its wall, and was bordered by the small principalities of Irbil, Sinjar, and Jazirat b. 'Umar. During the lifetime of the Ayyubid ruler Salah al-Din, the “eastern lands,” as these principalities were known, came to be firmly subordinate to his authority. After his death in 589/1193, however, Ayyubid authority was weakened by the eruption of a bitter succession conflict, which was intensified by deep ethnic and regimental rivalries in the army.1 2 Arslan Shah was quick to capitalize on the Ayyubids’ disunity and reassert Zangid independence. In the hope of winning Ayyubid recognition for his independence, he provided support to the Ayyubid ruler of Damascus, al-Afdal, who was Salah al-Din's son …
1. A different presentation of the material in this chapter is scheduled for publication in Studia Islamica under the title “Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ and the Establishment of a Mamluk Government in Mosul.”
2. 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Al-KamU fi’l-ta’rikh, 12:341 (hereafter cited as Kamil)-, Ibn al-Sa'i, Mu'allim, f. 80b; Bar Hebraeus, 1375; Ibn al-'Ibri, 233; Ibn Wa$U, 431.
|
