Away from dramas, series, and movies, this is a concise personal perspective on the period when the Mamluks ruled Egypt. Perhaps we will come to understand the "truth about the Mamluks and the truth about the Ottomans".

This is not in defense of the Mamluks nor a disdain for the Ottoman invaders. This is a view from history and its events, and history is what tells us the truth:

The Mamluk dynasty began in the year 1250 AD and ended in the year 1517 AD. The Mamluks were destined to rule Egypt at a time when the Seventh Crusade of Louis IX had seized Damietta and entered Farskur, and was on its way to Cairo at a time when governance was vacant due to the death of the last sultan of the Ayyubid dynasty, Najm ad-Din , also known as Al-Malik as-Salih. Power settled with Shajar ad-Durr and Aybak after the killing of Turan Shah, the son of Al-Malik as-Salih, and the Mamluks fought the Crusaders, captured Louis, and drove them away... This happened in the year 1250.

No sooner had they finished with the Crusaders than the Mongols arrived, and they were preoccupied with wars against them, defeating them under the leadership of Qutuz, Baibars, and Qalawun.

The Crusades did not end with the Battle of Hattin in 1187 led by Saladin, nor with the campaign of Louis in 1250. Rather, they continued for nearly two centuries. The war with the Mongols did not end with Qutuz's victory at the Battle of Ain Jalut, but lasted for many more decades.

The Mamluks can be divided into two groups:

The Bahri Mamluks, represented by the earliest of their sultans brought by Najm ad-Din Ayyub, who fought the Crusaders and Mongols, like Aybak, Fakhr ad-Din Aktai, Baibars, Qutuz, and Qalawun.

Qutuz defeated the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, followed by Baibars and his descendants until around 1289. Then began the reign of an-Nasir Qalawun and his descendants after Baibars, approximately from 1289 to 1380.

Baibars had many victories over the Crusaders and Mongols after assuming power following Qutuz. After him came Qalawun who continued what Baibars had started. He and his descendants ruled for nearly a hundred years. Notably, his son an-Nasir Muhammad alone ruled for nearly 30 years, leaving the throne three times and returning to it, fearing assassination or murder as a result of the power struggle!

The Mamluk state went through periods of weakness after the end of the Qalawunids rule.

The Burji Mamluks, they are the second category or type of Mamluks after the early Bahri Mamluks like Aybak, Qutuz, Baibars, and Qalawun.

They were brought by an-Nasir Qalawun after he assumed power following Baibars, and they seized power after the end of the Qalawunid era. The struggle between them was significant, and rule was granted to whoever prevailed. Many of the Burji Mamluks ascended to power, with one even stipulating that they should not kill him if he agreed to assume rule.

The beginning was with Sultan Sayf ad-Din Barquq, who deposed the last descendant of Sultan an-Nasir Qalawun. Stability began during the reign of Qaitbay, during which Egypt witnessed stability, justice, an architectural renaissance, and the rule of Qaitbay lasted for about 30 years. Then came Qansuh al-Ghuri, whom the Ottomans desired to please and tried to appease to stand with them in their war against the Safavids at that time, but he refused.

So they had no choice but to declare war against "al-Ghuri". The Mamluk state ended with the last of its sultans, Sultan "Ashraf Tuman Bay" in the Battle of Ridaniya against Selim I and the Ottomans in 1517, which ended with the hanging of Tuman Bay's body at Bab Zuweila.

There were betrayals by the Ottomans and their massacres of Egyptians upon entering Egypt, and before that in Iraq and Syria. Their purpose was not for the caliphate or an Islamic state, but rather dreams of expansion and draining the resources of the people under the illusion and name of the alleged caliphate.

From the above, the reader can judge and ask:

Were the Mamluks invaders?

Or the Ottomans?

And who served and benefited Egypt and the Arabs and Islam?!

It was the fate of the Mamluks to come to rule Egypt and govern the Islamic state at that time, at a juncture when there were fierce attacks from the Crusaders and Mongols.

Perhaps the irony lies in the similarity between the Tatars and Mongols when they seized Iraq and Syria and were defeated at the gates of Cairo, and the Ottomans who seized Iraq and Syria and entered Egypt with the help of spies and influential betrayals, which came from the leaders of the Mamluk army, such as Khayer or Khayr Bey, al-Ghazali, al-Zaini Barakat, and others!

It is enough that the Mamluks were not invaders or occupiers, and did not come with armies to seize Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Hejaz, and did not kill and loot the wealth.

History will always give each their due.

History does not lie or beautify.