Research Article

DOI :10.26650/iutd.1082294   IUP :10.26650/iutd.1082294    Full Text (PDF)

Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri

Kazım Uzun

Memlûk ve Altın Orda devletlerinin müşterek çıkarları hedefleyen ilişkileri ortak düşman söylemi etrafında şekillenmiş ve gelişmiştir. Buna bağlı olarak Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in üçüncü saltanat dönemine kadar taraflar bir müttefik görüntüsü çizmişlerdir. Ancak farklılaşan konjonktürün tesiriyle Sultan en-Nâsır politika değişikliğine giderek Altın Orda ve İlhanlı devletleri arasında bir denge siyaseti gütmeye çalışmıştır. İlhanlı sonrası dönemde ise Memlûk-Altın Orda ilişkileri bu defa başka bir ortak düşman söylemi etrafında yeniden canlandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu münasebetler tüm yönleriyle tespit ve tetkike gayret edilmiş ve ayrıca bunların genelinin mahiyetine dair yeni bir yorum getirilmiştir.

DOI :10.26650/iutd.1082294   IUP :10.26650/iutd.1082294    Full Text (PDF)

The Political and Diplomatic Relations of the Mamluks and Golden Horde After the Third Enthronement of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad

Kazım Uzun

The relations between the states of the Mamluks and the Golden Horde aimed at common interests were shaped and developed around the discourse of the common enemy. Accordingly, the parties had drawn the image of allies until the third reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad. However, with the effects from differing conjunctures, Sultan al-Nasir made a policy change and tried to pursue a policy of balance between the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate states. In the post-Ilkhanid period, the attempt was made to revive Mamluk–Golden Horde relations, this time around another common enemy discourse. This study aims to determine these aforementioned relations, examine them in all their aspects, and also provide a new interpretation regarding their general nature.


Mamluk and Golden Horde relations began and developed toward common interests by virtue of the initiatives of Sultan Baibars. The Ilkhanid were pivotal to these relations as a common enemy, and the diplomatic agenda of the parties was shaped by a prospective joint operation against the Ilkhanid. The joint operation against the Ilkhanate remained and could even be claimed to have been exclusively kept on the agenda for nearly half a century. However, this study reveals no such operation was ever launched due to what beclouded the relationship between the parties and the policy the Mamluks adopted. Nevertheless, preserving the discourse on a possible joint expedition had well suppressed the Ilkhanate.

Until the third reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, Mamluk–Golden Horde political and diplomatic relations remained within the above-mentioned framework, and the parties showed complete alliance, at least diplomatically. However, Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad’s ascension to the throne for a third time was a milestone in the course of this relationship and may be closely associated with Abu Said Bahadur Khan’s ascension to the Ilkhanid throne in 1317 and adoption of a different policy than the previous Ilkhanid rulers. The Ilkhanid abandoned their aggressive policies against the Mamluks and took a pro-peace stance, one which the Mamluks reciprocated. A peace treaty was signed in 1323 pursuant to negotiations. This treaty shifted the course of Mamluk–Golden Horde relations. Sultan al-Nasir had abandoned the traditional policy in which the Mamluks were fully allied with the Golden Horde and began following a policy of balance between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanid states. This attitude fell far below the expectations of the Golden Horde and caused diplomatic problems between the two states. Despite these above-mentioned problems, the Mamluks and Golden Horde preserved their diplomatic relations.

The death of Sultan al-Nasir and Uzbek Khan and the end of the political existence of the Ilkhanate during this period also altered Mamluk–Golden Horde relations after the 1340s. Both parties leaned toward reestablishing and developing friendly relations and made diplomatic initiatives accordingly. However, the internal conflicts in both states and the absence of the threat of a common enemy hampered this construction for a while.

Akin to the Ilkhanid case, Timur’s rise and influence in the Iranian region grew into a new threat for both the Mamluk and Golden Horde states. As a common enemy, Timur encouraged a renewed alliance between the Mamluks and the Golden Horde. The measures and prospective joint operation against this new common enemy was at the core of the diplomatic contacts that had started becoming more frequent after 1385. However, Timur managed to be effective in the domain of the Golden Horde through his campaigns against Tokhtamysh Khan in the 1390s. 

Timur was also a threat to political elements in Anatolia as well. Thus, diplomatic contacts were established among the Ottomans, Mamluks, and Kadi Burhan al-Din in order to form an anti-Timur front, with an alliance being established accordingly. Later, the scope of the alliance was expanded with the participation of the Golden Horde. These above-mentioned efforts suppressed Timur for a short period. However, Timur would later on enter Anatolia and Syria, which was under Mamluk domination.

Limited diplomatic contact is known to have occurred between the Mamluk and Golden Horde states in the first quarter of the 15th century. However, the collapse of the Golden Horde’s central authority after Tokhtamysh Khan hindered diplomatic relations and a strong alliance discourse from being reestablished. Eventually, Mamluk–Golden Horde political and diplomatic relations came to an end with few weak contacts in the late 1420s.

The diplomatic relations between the Mamluk and Golden Horde states had important consequences. The alliance established through these relations had through suppression prevented the Ilkhanid from concentrating all their power on the Mamluks or the Golden Horde. Therefore, this alliance in question in fact had significant results for both states. However, no joint operation against the Ilkhanate and later on against Timur was ever launched, despite being kept on the agenda in diplomatic correspondence. At this point, discussing the Mamluks’ political stance would be useful.

Despite their common origin, certain historical enmities had existed between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate. Both states claimed rights over the Azerbaijan region in particular, and these problems also frequently brought the two states into conflict. Thus, a permanent resolution could not be claimed to be achievable unless the Golden Horde or the Ilkhanid state renounced their claims and interests in the Azerbaijan region. The khans of the Golden Horde saw the suppression of the Ilkhanate as a political gain by virtue of the alliance established with the Mamluks, and they wanted to strengthen this alliance. However, the ultimate goal of the Golden Horde State was to completely get rid of the Ilkhanate by organizing a joint campaign against this enemy.

In their correspondence, the Mamluk and Golden Horde states had agreed on a strategy to launch a campaign against the Ilkhanate where one of these two states would advance from the north and the other from the south. As stated by other researchers, the long distance between these states and the dominance of Byzantium in a significant part of this distance had nevertheless made the communication and organization necessary for a joint operation against the Ilkhanate very difficult. However, whether the Mamluks could even have organized an expedition into the central lands of the Ilkhanate in practice should also be questioned. 

The Euphrates River represented the eastern border of the Mamluk State, and the Mamluks’ sphere of influence and activity never exceeded Mesopotamia. Unlike the Golden Horde, the Mamluks claimed no dominance over Azerbaijan or Iran. Under these circumstances, organizing a campaign on the central lands or domination area of a strong state and leader like the Ilkhanid or Timur would not have been a very realistic goal for the Mamluks, nor would it have sounded easy or beneficial. What was essential for the Mamluks to protect their area of rule and interests from both the Ilkhanid and Timur. Instead of embarking on a common campaign, which would have been very difficult with uncertain results, the Mamluks developed a common operation discourse by virtue of the relations established with the Golden Horde. They tried to suppress the Ilkhanid and Timur by keeping this discourse on the agenda. Therefore, unlike the Golden Horde, the Mamluks attempted to protect their rule and interests by maintaining the discourse on a prospective expedition rather than directly organize a very difficult joint campaign. During the third reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, the Ilkhanate had to abandon their claims and actions in Mamluk Syria as a result of a peace treaty. Thus, Sultan al-Nasir changed his traditional Mamluk policy as he no longer needed an anti-Ilkhanid rhetoric by virtue of the peace treaty that had been signed. With this peace treaty, the sultan managed to protect Mamluk dominance and interests and began to follow a policy of balance between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanid states. Although Uzbek Khan negatively reacted to this policy, Sultan al-Nasir did not abandon it. The Ilkhanid state, which had already been weakened, would come to an end shortly after. By reviving their relations, the Mamluk and Golden Horde states tried to establish a new alliance against Timur and to revive the discourse of a common operation. This discourse had a certain degree of diplomatic effect. However, carrying out a joint expedition was just as difficult as it had been in the time of the Ilkhanid and appeared just as useless and unrealistic for the Mamluks. Ultimately, it never happened. 

PDF View


  • Abdürrezzâk es-Semerkandî, Matla-ı Sa’deyn, c. I, tah. Abdulhüseyn Nevâî, Tahran 2004. google scholar
  • Ağat, Nurettin, Altınordu Paraları Kataloğu 1250-1502, İstanbul 1976. google scholar
  • Ahmed b. Muhammed-i Gaffârî-i Kazvînî, Tarih-i Cihan Âra, tah. Hasan Nerâkî, Tahran 1342. google scholar
  • Aka, İsmail, “Timurluların Azerbaycan İle Alakaları”, Türk Kültürü, sayı 345 (1992), s. 11-17. google scholar
  • Akkuş Yiğit, Fatma, “İktidar ve İzdivaç: Memlûk-Altın Orda-İlhanlı Üçgeninde Siyasi Evlilikler”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, sayı 49 (2016), s. 103-120. google scholar
  • Amitai, Reuven, “The Resolution of The Mongol-Mamluk War”, Mongols, Turks, and Others Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, ed. Reuven Amitai-Michal Biran, Leiden-Boston 2005, s. 359-390. google scholar
  • Ayalon, David, “Memlûk Devletinde Kölelik Sistemi”, çev. Samira Kortantamer, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, sayı 4 (1989), s. 211-247. google scholar
  • , “The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A Reexamination (Part C1)”, Studia Islamica, sayı 36 (1972), s. 113-158. google scholar
  • Aynî, Ikdu’l-CumânfîTarihiEhli’z-Zamân, CöopHUKMamepuanoB, omııocıımuvcıı k ucmopuu3onomoüopdhi (Altın Orda Tarihi İle İlgili Kayıtlar Derlemesi), ed. V. Tiesenhausen, c. I, Petersburg 1884, s. 475-534. google scholar
  • _________, Ikdu’l-Cumân fî Tarîhi Ehli’z-Zamân, Beyazıt Devlet Kütüphanesi Veliyyüddin Efendi Koleksiyonu, no. 2394; 2395; 2396. google scholar
  • ________, Ikdu’l-Cumân fî Tarîhi Ehli’z-Zamân, neşr. Abdürrâzık et-Tantâvî el-Karmût, Kahire 1989. google scholar
  • Barker, Hannah, That Most Precious Merchandise: The Mediterranean Trade in Black Sea Slaves, 12601500, Philadelphia 2019. google scholar
  • Beitrage zur Geschichte der Mamlukensultane in den Jahren 690-741 der Higra nach arabischen Handschriften, ed. Karl Wilhelm Zettersteen, Leiden 1919. google scholar
  • Birzâlî, el-Muktefî alâ Kitâb er-Ravzateyn, c. IV, tah. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmurî, Sayda-Beyrut 2006. google scholar
  • Broadbridge, Anne F., Kingship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds, Cambridge 2008. google scholar
  • Canard, Marius, “Un Traite Entre Byzance et l’ Egypte au XIIIe Siecle et les Relations Diplomatiques de Michel VIII Paleologue avec les Sultans Mamluks Baibars et Qala’un”, Melanges Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Kahire 1934-1945, s. 197-224. google scholar
  • Cezerî, Havâdisü’z-Zaman ve Enbâ’uhû ve Vefeyâtü’l-Ekâbir ve’l-Ayân min Ebnâ’ihî, c. II, neşr. Ömer Abdüsselam Tedmurî, Sayda-Beyrut 1998. google scholar
  • Ciociltan, Virgil, The Mongols and the Black Sea Trade in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, çev. Samuel Willcocks, Leiden-Boston 2012. google scholar
  • Çetin, Altan, Memlûk Devletinde Askerî Teşkilât, İstanbul 2007. google scholar
  • ________, “Akdeniz Ticaretinde Memlûklar Devri, Mısır-Anadolu Mal Mübadelesi”, Adalya, sayı XI (2008), s. 359-371. google scholar
  • DeWeese, Devin, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition, Pennsylvania 1994. google scholar
  • Ebû’l-Fidâ, Tarihu Ebi’l-Fidâ (el-Muhtasarfî Ahbâri’l-Beşer), c. II, neşr. Mahmud Deyyûb, Beyrut 1997. google scholar
  • Ebûbekr el-Kutbî el-Eherî, Ta’rikh-i Shaikh Uwais (History of Shaikh Uwais), neşr. ve İng. çev. Johannes Baptist van Loon, Lahey 1954. google scholar
  • Ebü’l-Fedâil, Âgypten undSyrien Zwischen 1317 und 1341 in der Chronik desMufaddalIbn Abî al-Fadâ’il, (en-Nehcü’s-Sedîd ve Dürrü’l-Ferîdfî mâ ba’d Tarîhi İbni’l-Âmîd, Havâdisu’l-Fetre Beyne sene 717-741 Hicriyye), ed. Samira Kortantamer, Freiburg 1973. google scholar
  • Ebü’l-Fedâil, Mufaddal b. Ebü’l-Fedâil, en-Nehcü’s-Sedîd ve Dürrü’l-Ferîd fî mâ ba’d Tarîhi İbni’lÂmîd, neşr. ve Fran. çev. E. Blochet, I. Kısım, Patrologie Orientale, c. 12, Turnhout 1982, s. 65-208 (407-550); III. Kısım, neşr. ve Fran. çev. E. Blochet, Patrologie Orientale, C. 20, Turnhout 1985, s. 1-267 (512-776). google scholar
  • el-Haccî, Hayat Nâsır, “el-Alâkatu beyne Devleti’l-Memâlîk ve Devleti Moğul el-Kıfçak, 658-741 H./1260-1341 M.”, Havliyyâtu Külliyetu’l-Edeb (Kuveyt), c. II, sayı VIII (1981), s. 9-68. google scholar
  • Esterâbadî, Bezm u Rezm, çev. Mürsel Öztürk, Ankara 2014. google scholar
  • Favereau, Marie, The Horde, Cambridge-London 2021. google scholar
  • Georges Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, c. I, ed. ve Fran. çev. Albert Failler-Vitalien Laurent, Paris 1984. google scholar
  • Gökbilgin, Özalp, “1313-1357 Yılları Arasında Altınordu Devleti”, Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi, sayı 4 (1972), s. 1-52. google scholar
  • Hâfız-ı Ebrû, Zeyl-i Câmi’ü’t-Tevârîh-i Reşîdî, neşr. Hânbâbâ Beyânî, Tahran 1317. google scholar
  • , Zübdetü’t-Tevârîh, c. I, neşr. Seyyid Kemâl Hâc Seyyid Cevâdî, Tahran 2001. google scholar
  • Hamdullah el-Müstevfî el-Kazvînî, Tarih-i Güzîde, neşr., Abdülhüseyin Nevâî, Tahran 1387. google scholar
  • Hammâd Âşûr, Fayed, el-Alâkâtü’s-Siyâsiyye beyne’l-Memâlîk ve’l-Moğûl fî’d-Devleti’l-Memlûkiyyeti’l-Ûlâ, Kahire 1973. google scholar
  • Handmir, Tarih-i Habîbü’s-Siyer fî Ahbâri Efrâdi Beşer, c. III, neşr. Celaleddin Humâî, Tahran 1362. google scholar
  • Holt, P. M., Early MamlukDiplomacy (1260-1290). Treaties of Baybars andQalawun with Christian Rulers, Leiden-New York-Köln 1995. google scholar
  • İbn Arabşâh, Acâibu’l-Makdûrfî Nevâibi Teymûr, tah. Ali Muhammed Ömer, Kahire 1979. google scholar
  • İbn Battûta, İbn Battûta Seyahatnamesi, c. I, çev. A. Sait Aykut, İstanbul 2004. google scholar
  • İbn Dokmak, Nüzhetü’l-Enâm fi Tarihi’l-İslâm, CöopHUK MamepuaaoB, othocx^uxcx k ucmopuu 3onomoü opdhi (Altın Orda Tarihi İle İlgili Kayıtlar Derlemesi), ed. V. Tiesenhausen, c. I, Petersburg 1884, s. 315330. google scholar
  • İbn Fazlullah el-Ömerî, et-Ta’rîf bi-Mustelehi’ş-Şerîf, tah. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemseddin, Beyrut 1988. google scholar
  • İbn Hacer, ed-Durerü’l-Kâmîne fî A’yâni’l-Mieti’s-Sâmine, c. I, II, neşr. Abdülvâris Muhammed Ali, Beyrut 1997. google scholar
  • ________, İnbâ’u’l-Gumr bi-Ebnâ’i’l-Umr, C. I, III, tah. Hasan Habeşî, Kahire 2009. google scholar
  • İbn Haldun, Kitâbu’l-'İberveDîvânu’l-Mübteda’ ve’l-Haber, c. V, tah. Halîl Şehâde, Beyrut 2005. google scholar
  • İbn Kadı Şuhbe, Tarihu İbn Kadı Şuhbe, c. III-III/2, tah. Adnan Derviş, Dımaşk 1995. google scholar
  • İbn Kesîr, el-Bidâye ve’n-Nihâye, c. XV-XVI, tah. Komisyon, Katar 2015. google scholar
  • İbn Nâzırü’l-Ceyş, Kitâbü Teskîfi’t-Ta'rîf bi’l-Mustalahi’ş-Şerîf, tah. Rudolf Vesely, Kahire 1987. google scholar
  • İbn Tagriberdî, en-Nucûm ez-Zâhire fî Mulûki Mısr ve’l-Kâhire, c. X, neşr. Muhammed Hüseyin Şemseddin, Beyrut 1992. google scholar
  • İbnü’d-Devâdârî, Kenzü’d-Dürerve Câmi'u’l-Gurer, c. IX, neşr. Hans R. Roemer, Kahire 1960. google scholar
  • İbnü’l-Furât, Tarihu İbnü’l-Furât, c. IX/1, neşr. Konstantin Zureyk, Beyrut 1936; c. IX/2, neşr. Konstantin Zureyk-Neclâ İzzeddin, Beyrut 1938. google scholar
  • Kafalı, Mustafa, “Özbek Han”, DİA, c. XXXIV, İstanbul 2007, s. 107-109. google scholar
  • ________, Altın Orda Hanlığının Kuruluş ve Yükseliş Devirleri, İstanbul 1976. google scholar
  • Kalkaşendî, Meâsiru’l-İnâfe fî Meâlimi’l-Hilâfe, tah. Abdüssettâr Ahmed Ferrâc, Beyrut 2006. google scholar
  • _________, Subhu’l-A‘şâ fî Sınâati’l-İnşâ’, neşr. Muhammed Abdürresûl İbrâhim, c. VII-VIII, XIV, Kahire 1915, 1919. google scholar
  • Kamalov, İlyas, Moğolların Kafkasya Politikası, İstanbul 2003. google scholar
  • Kanat, Cüneyt, “Makrîzî’nin Kitâb es-Sulûk’undaki Osmanlılar İle İlgili Kayıtlar”, Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, sayı IV (2000), s. 225-256. google scholar
  • ________, “Memlük Devleti’nde İktidar Değişikliği, Bahri Memlûklar’dan Burcî Memlûklar’a”, Prof. Dr. Işın Demirkent Anısına, haz. Abdülkerim Özaydın vd., İstanbul 2008, s. 541-545. google scholar
  • ________, “Orta Doğu’da Hâkimiyet Mücadelesi (1382-1447), Memlûk-Timurlu Münasebetleri”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, c. V, Ankara 2002, s. 134-143. google scholar
  • ________, Memlûk-Timurlu Münasebetleri (1382-1447), Ege Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İzmir 1996. google scholar
  • Kemaloğlu, İlyas, “Toktamış Han”, DİA, c. XLI, İstanbul 2012, s. 231-232. google scholar
  • Kılıç, Arslan, Nikiforos Grigoras’ın Romaiki İstoria Adlı Eserinin I.-VI. Bölümlerinin Çevirisi ve Değerlendirilmesi, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İzmir 2019. google scholar
  • Kızıltoprak, Süleyman, “Türk Askerî Tarihinde Memlûk Sistemi”, Türkler ve Askerlik, ed. Süleyman Kızıltoprak, İstanbul 2009, s. 139-182. google scholar
  • Kortantamer, Samira, Bahrî Memlûklar’da Üst Yönetim Mensupları ve Aralarındaki İlişkiler, İzmir 1993. google scholar
  • Kurat, Akdes Nimet, IV.-XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Karadeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri, Ankara 2002. google scholar
  • Labib, Subhi, “Eygptian Commercial Policy in the Middle Ages”, Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, ed. M. A. Cook, New York 2014, s. 63-77. google scholar
  • ________, “Eyyûbîler ve Memlûkler Devrinde Mısır’ın Ticaret Politikası”, çev. Altan Çetin, Nüsha, sayı 4 (2002), s. 139-156. google scholar
  • Lane-Pool, Stanley, Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum, c. VI, London 1881. google scholar
  • Levanoni, Amalia, A Turning Point in Mamluk History, The Third Reign ofal-Nâsir Muhammad Ibn Qalawun (1310-1341), Leiden 1995. google scholar
  • Makrîzî, Durerü’l-Ukûdi’l-Ferîde fî Terâcimi’l-A’yâni’l-Mufîde, c. II, tah. Mahmûd el-Celîlî, Beyrut 2002. google scholar
  • , es-Sulûk li-Ma'rifetiDüveli’l-Mülûk, c. II, tah. Muhammed Mustafa Ziyâde, Kahire 1942; c. III, tah. Saîd Abdulfettâh Âşûr, Kahire 1970; c. IV, tah. Saîd Abdulfettâh Âşûr, Kahire 1972. google scholar
  • Markov, A. K., Monembi dMyııidon: 3ojıomax Opda, mamapcKue xaHcmea, [Cuci Sikkeleri: Altın Orda, Tatar Hanlıkları], yayına haz. I. M. Mirgaliev, Kazan 2008. google scholar
  • Muhammed, Subhî Abdülmenam, Siyasetü’l-Moğûli’l-İlhâniyyîn Tucâhi Devleti’l-Memâlikfî Mısr ve’ş-Şam, H. 716-736 / M. 1316-1335, Kahire 2001. google scholar
  • Muinüddin Natanzi, Müntehabü’t-Tevarih-i Muînî, tah. Pervin İstahrî, Tahran 1383. google scholar
  • Musa el-Yûsufî, Nüzhetu’n-Nâzırfî Sîreti’l-Meliki’n-Nâsır, neşr. Ahmed Hutayt, Beyrut 1986. google scholar
  • Nizamüddin Şâmî, Zafernâme, çev. Necati Lugal, Ankara 1987. google scholar
  • Nuveyrî, Nihayetü’l-Ereb fî Funûni’l-Edeb, c. XXVII, XXXII, XXXIII, tah. Necip Mustafa Fevvâz - Hikmet Kaşlî Fevvâz, Beyrut 2004. google scholar
  • Özcan, Altay Tayfun, “Altın Orda Hanlığı Zamanında Karadeniz’in Kafkasya Sahillerinde Cenovalı Tüccarlar, Kolonileri ve Ticarı Yaşam”, MUTAD, VII/1 (2020), s. 91-105. google scholar
  • Remzî, Muhammed Murad, Telfîku’l-Ahbâr ve Telgîhu’l-A ’sârfî Vakâi’Kazan ve Bulgâr veMulûki’t-Tatar, c. I, Beyrut 2002. google scholar
  • Sağlam, Ahmet, “Memlûk-İlhanlı Diplomatik İlişkileri”, Belleten, LXXXII/293 (2018), s. 83-157. google scholar
  • ________, “Nâsır Muhammed Dönemi Memlûk-Altın Orda Münâsebetleri: Stratejik İttifaklar”, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11/61 (2018), s. 324-331. google scholar
  • ________, en-Nâsır Muhammed Devri Memlûk Türk Devleti, Ankara 2021. google scholar
  • Saray, Mehmet, “Altın Orda Hanlığı”, DİA, c. II, İstanbul 1989, s. 538-540. google scholar
  • Sayrafî, Nüzhetu’n-Nufûs ve’l-Ebdân fî Tevârîhi’z- Zamân, c. I, III, tah. Hasan Habeşî, Kahire 2010. google scholar
  • Schamiloglu, Uli, “Altın Ordu”, Türkler, c. VIII, ed. Hasan Celal Güzel-Kemal Çiçek-Salim Koca, Ankara 2002, s. 412-428. google scholar
  • Sehâvî, ed-Davu’l-Lâmî li-Ehli’l-Karni’t-Tâsi’, c. II, neşr. Abdüllatif Hasan Abdurrahman, Beyrut 2003. google scholar
  • Spuler, Berthold, İran Moğolları, çev. Cemal Köprülü, Ankara 2011. google scholar
  • ________, The Muslim World, c. II, İng. çev. F. R. C. Bagley, Leiden 1969. google scholar
  • Sümer, Faruk, “Anadolu’da Moğollar”, Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi, sayı I (1970), s. 1-147. google scholar
  • Şerefüddin Ali Yezdî, Emîr Timur (Zafernâme), çev. Ahsen Batur, İstanbul 2013. google scholar
  • Şucâî, Tarihu’l-Meliki’n-Nâsır Muhammed b. Kalâvûn es-Sâlihî ve Evlâdihi, neşr. Barbara Schafer, Wiesbaden 1977. google scholar
  • Tekindağ, Şehabeddin, Berkuk Devrinde Memlûk Sultanlığı, İstanbul 1961. google scholar
  • Tomar, Cengiz, Memlûk Devletinde Askerî Kölelik Sistemi (1250-1517), Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 2006. google scholar
  • Usta, Ahmet, Hilal İle Haç Arasında Hayatlar, Ortaçağ Akdenizi’nde Ticaret ve Tüccarlar, İstanbul 2022. google scholar
  • Uzun, Kâzım, “Başlangıcından Sultan En-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Saltanatına Kadar Memlûk - Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 36/2 (2021), s. 735-765. google scholar
  • Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı, “Emîr Çoban Soldoz ve Demirtaş”, Belleten, XXXI/124 (1967), s. 601-646. google scholar
  • Vassâf, Tahrîr-i Tarihi Vassâf, nşr. Abdulmuhammed Âyetî, Tahran 1346. google scholar
  • Vernadsky, George, The Mongols and Russia, New Haven 1951. google scholar
  • Yakubovskiy, A. Yu., Altın Ordu ve Çöküşü, çev. Hasan Eren, Ankara 1976. google scholar
  • Yuvalı, Abdülkadir, “XIII. Yüzyılda Önasya’daki Siyasi Bloklaşma”, Türk Kültürü Dergisi, sayı 262 (1985), s. 111-120. google scholar
  • Yücel, Yaşar, “XIV.-XV. Yüzyıllar Türkiye Tarihi Hakkında Araştırmalar II, Türkiye ve Yakındoğu Üzerinde 1393/94 Timur Tehlikesi”, Belleten, XXXVII/146 (1973), s. 159-190. google scholar
  • Zeynüddin b. Hamdullah Müstevfî Kazvînî, Zeyl-i Tarih-i Güzîde, tah. İrec Afşar, Tahran 1372. google scholar


Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format



Uzun, K. (2022). Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri. Turkish Journal of History, 0(77), 15-52.


Uzun K. Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri. Turkish Journal of History. 2022;0(77):15-52.


Uzun, K. Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri. Turkish Journal of History, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 77, p. 15-52, 2022.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Uzun, Kazım,. 2022. “Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 77: 15-52.

Chicago: Humanities Style

Uzun, Kazım,. Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 77 (Aug. 2022): 15-52.

Harvard: Australian Style

Uzun, K 2022, 'Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri', Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 77, pp. 15-52, viewed 8 Aug. 2022,

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Uzun, K. (2022) ‘Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri’, Turkish Journal of History, 0(77), pp. 15-52. (8 Aug. 2022).


Uzun, Kazım,. Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri.” Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 77, 2022, pp. 15-52. [Database Container],


Uzun K. Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri. Turkish Journal of History [Internet]. 8 Aug. 2022 [cited 8 Aug. 2022];0(77):15-52. Available from: doi: 10.26650/iutd.1082294


Uzun, Kazım. Sultan en-Nâsır Muhammed’in Üçüncü Cülûsundan Sonra Memlûk-Altın Orda Siyasi ve Diplomatik İlişkileri”. Turkish Journal of History 0/77 (Aug. 2022): 15-52.


Published Online20.07.2022


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.