Tracking Down the Hafsid Diplomatic Missions All Theway to Theturco-Mamluk Borders (892–6/1487–91)

chapter 16 Tracking Down the Hafsid Diplomatic Missions All the Way to the Turco-Mamluk Borders (892–6/1487–91)

Lotfi Ben Miled

1 Introduction1

Hafsid diplomats are rarely mentioned in the space of the Islamic Mediter- ranean Orient in the second half of the ninth/fifteenth century; however, for three centuries this space, occupied by the Mamluks and the Ottomans, was a privileged field for some ambassadors (Ifrīqiyans) within the framework of the Hafsido-Mamluk relations.2 The ninth/fifteenth century witnessed major transformations, among them the acceleration of Western commercial hegemony. At the time of these up- heavals Hafsid diplomacy continued to play an important role in defending Hafsid economic interests, especially in the second half of the century.3 The rise of the ‘Grand Turk’ to power in Constantinople after the fall of Byzantium caused, inter alia, the disruption of trade networks and adversely affectedWest- ern and Hafsid interests. As a consequence, diplomacy was invigorated. The Ottoman push toward the borders of Mamluk Syria, at the beginning of the 880s/1480s was the result of ongoing quarrels between the Ottomans and the Mamluks.4 The imbalance between the powers had long been apparent, and the inability of the Mamluks to overcome the Ottomans pushed the Mamluk sultan to request Hafsid mediation, and this has raised some questions for his- torians. Was the image of Sultan Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān (r. 839–93/1435–88) in the Muslim world positive, like that of his predecessor Abū Fāris (r. 796–837/1394–

1 I would like to thank Ms. Nelly Amry (University of La Manouba, Tunis) and M. Dominique Valérian (University of Lyon, France) for proofreading this research paper and for their invalu- able comments. 2 On the Hafsido-Mamluk relationships, see also Ibn Mīlād, Ifrīqiya wa-l-mashriq 93–107; Ben Miled, Les Relations; Brunschwig, Taʾrīkh Ifrīqiya 236–91; Chapoutot-Remadi, Les Relations; Colin, Contribution; Daoulatli, Les Relations; and Chapoutot-Remadi’s article in this volume. 3 See also Valérian, Les Agents. 4 See also Ivanov, al-Fatḥ al-ʿuthmānī 69; Nāfiʿ, al-ʿAlāqāt; Ṭaqqūsh,Taʾrīkh al-Mamālīk 485; Yük- sel Muslu, The Ottomans 192–214.

1434)?5 With the exception of the two ambassadors who were mentioned on their return from Constantinople, the sources do not mention anything about the diplomatic relations and exchanges of embassies with the Islamic Mediter- ranean Orient.6 Our work is to study the reality of the diplomatic missions and the mission of the two or three Hafsid ambassadors who tried to end the war between the two rivals in the Muslim Orient. The scarcity and ambiguity of the sources and the absence of crucial information mean that we cannot pursue the conditions, paths, and results of Hafsid diplomacy in the 880s–890s/1480s.

2 An Assassinated Ambassador, a First Unfinished Mission: al-Qalshānī

In a little-known biography mentioned by al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497), a great Egyptian chronicler and biographer, a Hafsid ambassador is introduced as fol- lows:

Ḥusayn b. ʿUmar al-Qalshānī, brother of Ḥasan and Muḥammad, died, after being assassinated by the Firanj and before he had completed his sixty years, on 12 Shawwāl 891 [11 October 1486]. Having carried two let- ters sent from Tunis, one to the sultan of Rūm [the Ottoman sultan] and the other addressed to the Mamluk sultan, and containing a call for peace, the Firanj killed him after his arrival.7

This information mentioned by al-Sakhāwī leads us to wonder when the request for Hafsid mediation took place, and what were the circumstances around the assassination of the Hafsid ambassador in the month of Shawwāl 891/October 1486. This mediation began, in fact, after the first Mamluk victory in 891/1486. Indeed, we must return to the time of the attack against the Ottomans in Adana and Tarsus and the capture of their leader Aḥmad Hersek (Rabīʿ I 891/March 1486), then the attack two months later in Jumādā II/June of the same year. The Ottoman army normally had a tendency to seek revenge; however, Ibn Iyās, the chronicler of the last Mamluks, does not mention anything related to the

5 On the image of Abū Fāris in the Orient see Ibn Mīlād, Ifrīqiya wa-l-mashriq 126–7; Amri, Magistère scientifique 196. 6 Brunschwig, Taʾrīkh Ifrīqiya i, 292; Doumerc, Venise 574; Jehel, L’Italie 99. 7 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ iii, 153.