AnExplanation
ofMilitarySlavery 55
beforethe
appearance
ofIslam;
butitdidnot.
2
Furthermore,
military
slaveryoccurredalso
inwetterareassuchassouthern
andeastern
India.
Turksareoftenassociatedwith militaryslavery,
with
good
reason.TheAbbasiduseofslavesoldiers
coincidedwiththeir
importation
ofTurks;
Turksservedinalmost
everymilitary
slavecorps
intheMiddleEast andnorthernIndia; andthey
dominated the best-known and
most
spectacular group,
the
Mamluksof
Egypt.
Theirclose
connectiontotheinstitutionof
military
slavery
bothassoldiersandasrulersmakesitreasonable
toconsidertheTurksits
originators
and
propagators.
Twoconsiderationsshow
thatthiswasnotso,however.The
firstresemblesthe
argument
against
aclimatic
explanation;
if
Turkswerethe
cause,
why
did
militaryslavery
notexistamong
TurksoutsideofIslamdom?Turksinthe
pre-Islamic
Middle
Eastandinnon-Muslimareasdidnot
institute
militaryslavery.
Mostnotably,
forcenturies
they
faced
Byzantium
andnumerous
empires
inChinaand
pre-Islamic
Iran;
they
alsofought
forthe
Muslimsfor
150 years
before
becomingmilitary
slaves?Non-
Muslimsmadeeffortsto
incorporate
Turksintotheirservice,
yet
nonedevised
the
system
of
militaryslavery.
4
Nordidthe
system
existintheTurks’InnerAsianhomelands.
A second
argument against
the
Turkic
explanation
comes
fromthe
Umayyad
dynasty
in
Spain.
It
appears
thatsimulta-
neouslywiththedevelopment
of
militaryslavery
in
Iraq
under
theAbbasids,thisSpanishdynasty
was
independentlymaking
systematic
useofslavesassoldiers.NoTurkswere
present
in
early3d/9th-century
Spain.
s
Later,
too,
sub-Saharan
dynasties
madeextensiveuse
ofslave
soldiers,
andalmostnoneofthem
wereTurks.Thus,Turkscorrelatemuchlessclearly
withmili-
taryslavery
than doesIslam.
The
stirrup
offersamuchbetterreason
for
militaryslavery.
Tounderstandhow,
Ishallsummarize
Lynn
White,
Jr.’s
ideas
2.Pp.
161-66discussessomeofthesepossibilities.
3.D.
Pipes,
"TurksinEarlyMuslimService,"documents
this.
4.OntheTurksandCrusaders,seenote 95
below,
5.Pp.192-93.