Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane's Unlikely Ally: The Timurid-Mamluk Alliance Against the Ottomans
Transcript
- Lucas: So, we've talked a lot about Tamerlane's enemies — the Ottomans, the Delhi Sultanate, the Ming. But one relationship that's often overlooked is his strange, almost pragmatic alliance with the Mamluks of Egypt. Luna: The Mamluks? Weren't they the ones who held off the Mongols at Ain Jalut? Lucas: Exactly. The same Mamluks. By 1400, they were the dominant power in Syria and Egypt, and they had every reason to hate Tamerlane — he was, after all, a Central Asian conqueror who claimed to be restoring the Mongol legacy. But geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows. Luna: So what changed? Lucas: The Ottomans. Bayezid I was expanding rapidly into Anatolia and threatening Mamluk interests in Syria. Tamerlane saw an opportunity. He wrote to the Mamluk Sultan Faraj — and this is where it gets interesting — offering an alliance against their common enemy. Luna: Wait, Faraj? That's the young sultan who took over after his father died? Lucas: Yes, Barquq had died in 1399, leaving his teenage son Faraj on the throne. The Mamluks were in a fragile position, with internal rivalries among the emirs. Tamerlane's offer came at a perfect time. He promised to respect Mamluk territory and even return some Syrian cities if they allied against Bayezid. Lucas: But here's the twist: just a year earlier, Tamerlane had sacked Damascus, one of the Mamluks' most prized cities. So Faraj had to decide — forgive the man who destroyed your city, or face the Ottomans alone. Luna: That must have been a brutal calculation. Lucas: It was. The Mamluk chronicles record long debates in Cairo. Some emirs argued that the Ottomans were the greater threat — Bayezid had already seized Mamluk towns in Anatolia. Others pointed out that Tamerlane was a barbarian who couldn't be trusted. In the end, Faraj chose pragmatism. Luna: So they actually allied? Lucas: On paper, yes. In 1401, Tamerlane and Faraj exchanged embassies. The Zafarnama tells us Tamerlane sent gifts — including a captured Ottoman prince — as a gesture of goodwill. Faraj agreed not to interfere with Timur's campaigns in Anatolia and even provided some logistical support. Lucas: But it was a fragile alliance. Ibn Arabshah, who was no fan of Tamerlane, notes that Faraj was constantly worried about betrayal. And Tamerlane wasn't exactly a loyal partner — he continued to demand tribute and recognition of his suzerainty. Luna: So it was more of a non-aggression pact than a real alliance? Lucas: Exactly. But it served its purpose. When Tamerlane crushed Bayezid at Ankara in 1402, the Mamluks breathed a sigh of relief. Their main rival was gone, and Tamerlane turned his attention eastward. For a few years, there was an uneasy peace. Lucas: However, the alliance didn't last. After Tamerlane's death in 1405, the Mamluks quickly reasserted control over Syria, and the Timurids were too busy fighting among themselves to stop them. By 1410, the alliance was a dead letter. Luna: It sounds like a classic 'enemy of my enemy' situation. Lucas: Exactly. And it shows how Tamerlane wasn't just a destroyer — he could be a shrewd diplomat when it suited him. He understood that you don't have to make friends, just temporary allies. Lucas: That kind of clearsighted pragmatism — knowing who your real enemy is and setting aside grudges to deal with them — is something we try to bring to this show. We don't take sides, we just try to understand the logic behind the decisions. And we do it without any ads, because we think history should be free of interruptions. Luna: Yeah, and that's only possible because of listeners who chip in. If you find value in these deep dives, you can support the show at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: So back to the Mamluks — one of the most fascinating aspects is how Faraj's alliance with Tamerlane actually weakened his own position at home. The emirs who opposed the deal used it as a pretext to rebel, and Faraj was eventually deposed and killed in 1412. Luna: So the alliance ultimately cost him his throne? Lucas: In part. It was a contributing factor. The Mamluk chronicler al-Maqrizi wrote that Faraj's willingness to ally with a 'godless tyrant' alienated many of his supporters. It's a reminder that diplomacy isn't just about external enemies — you have to manage your own people too. Lucas: And that's the legacy of the Timurid-Mamluk alliance — a brief, pragmatic marriage of convenience that reshaped the Middle East but ultimately collapsed under its own contradictions. Tamerlane got his victory at Ankara, the Mamluks bought themselves a few years of peace, and in the end, both sides went their separate ways.