![Dirham coin of Abbasid Caliph al-Muttaqi][float-right]The amīr al-umarāʾ (Arabic: أمير الأمراء, literally "commander of commanders" or "supreme commander") was a senior military title that emerged in the Abbasid Caliphate during the early 10th century, designating the chief military authority responsible for overseeing all provincial armies and, increasingly, civil administration in Iraq.[1] First formally instituted in 936 CE by Caliph al-Radi to Muhammad ibn Ra'iq, the position arose amid the caliphate's weakening central authority, as caliphs sought to leverage powerful military figures to counterbalance rival factions and restore order in Baghdad.[1]Incumbents of the amīr al-umarāʾ rapidly accumulated de facto political power, often acting as de facto rulers by disbanding standing armies, controlling revenues, and sidelining viziers, which accelerated the caliphs' reduction to ceremonial religious figures.[1] Key holders such as Ibn Ra'iq, followed by Bajkam and Tuzun, exemplified the title's turbulent influence through assassinations, coups, and alliances with regional dynasties like the Hamdanids and Buyids, who later assumed the role after capturing Baghdad in 945 CE.[1]The title's significance lay in its role as a symptom and catalyst of Abbasid decline, shifting governance from caliphal bureaucracy to military strongmen and paving the way for Shia Buyid dominance over the Sunni caliphate, while the concept proliferated to other Islamic polities including Seljuq, Safavid, and even MughalIndia as a marker of high command.[1]
Etymology and Historical Origins
Linguistic Meaning and Derivation
The Arabic title amīr al-umaráʾ (أمير الأمراء) literally translates to "commander of the commanders" or "emir of the emirs," denoting a supreme militaryauthority over subordinate leaders.[2] The root word amīr derives from the triconsonantal Arabicroot ʾ-m-r (أَمَرَ), signifying "to command" or "to order," which evolved to denote a prince, chieftain, or military leader responsible for issuing directives and maintaining order.[3] The plural form umarāʾ (أمراء) refers to multiple amīrs or commanders, with the definite article al- and genitive construct (iḍāfa) in al-umarāʾ indicating possession or relation, hence "of the commanders."[4] This superlative construction, common in Semitic languages for denoting hierarchy, underscores the title's function as a paramount office eclipsing lesser amīrs, akin to later equivalents like Persianmīr-i mīrān ("emir of emirs").[5]
Precedents in Early Islamic Military Titles
In early Islamic military organization, the title amīr ("commander") emerged as a foundational designation for leaders of raiding parties and conquest expeditions under the ProphetMuhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs (632–661 CE), denoting authority over troops in specific operations rather than permanent hierarchies.[6] This usage extended to provincial governors during the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750 CE), who held military command over regional forces, such as those deployed against Byzantine territories in Anatolia or eastern frontiers in Transoxania, though overall armed forces remained decentralized without a singular supreme military office apart from the caliph.[6][7]A key precedent for compounded supreme titles arose with Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644 CE), who adopted amīr al-muʾminīn ("commander of the faithful") to signify unified religious-political-military leadership, a formula retained by subsequent caliphs and emphasizing oversight of all believers in jihad against non-Muslims.[6] In the early Abbasid period (750–850 CE onward), amīr continued for autonomous governors like the Tahirids in Khorasan (e.g., ʿAbdallah ibn Tahir, d. 828 CE), who exercised de facto military independence while nominally subordinate to the caliph, foreshadowing later elevations of non-caliphal figures to overarching command.[6]By the late 9th century, amid Abbasid fiscal and political decline, intermediate titles like amīr al-juyūsh ("commander of the armies")—initially held by Munis Muzaffar (d. 933 CE)—served as direct precursors, granting centralized control over disparate forces in Iraq without fully supplanting caliphal authority, thus setting the structural basis for the more explicit amīr al-umarāʾ as a coordinator of subordinate amīrs.[1] These evolutions reflected a shift from caliph-centric command to delegated supremacy, driven by the need to manage Turkic and Daylamite soldiery amid internal revolts and external threats.[1]
Usage in the Abbasid Caliphate
Background of Caliphal Weakness and Title Creation (Pre-936)
By the late 9th century, the Abbasid Caliphate's central authority had eroded significantly due to the introduction of Turkish slave soldiers (ghulams) under Caliph al-Mu'tasim (r. 833–842), who supplanted Arab troops but soon asserted independence, leading to the "Anarchy at Samarra" (861–870) marked by military coups, assassinations of caliphs like al-Mutawakkil (861), and fiscal collapse from unpaid salaries and provincial revolts.[8] This fragmentation intensified as rival ethnic military factions—Turks, Daylamites, and Maghrebi contingents—vied for control in Baghdad, while provincial governors established semi-independent dynasties, such as the Tahirids in Khurasan (821–873), Saffarids in eastern Iran (861–1003), Tulunids in Egypt (868–905), and later Ikhshidids (935–969), siphoning tax revenues and undermining caliphal oversight.[1]The reign of al-Muqtadir (r. 908–932), the longest but most unstable of Abbasid caliphs, exemplified this decay, with power oscillating among viziers, the caliph's mother Sa'da al-Abbasa, and eunuch commanders like Mu'nis al-Muzaffar, amid repeated palace intrigues, five deposition attempts, and the devastating Zanjslave rebellion (869–883) that devastated southern Iraq's agriculture and treasury. Economic strain from debased currency, halted land taxes, and banditry further weakened Baghdad, forcing reliance on ad hoc military alliances that exacerbated factionalism rather than restoring order.[8]Al-Qahir's brief rule (932–934) attempted authoritarian revival through purges of Turkish officers but provoked backlash, resulting in his blinding and deposition by Mu'nis, highlighting the caliph's subjugation to military arbiters.[1] Upon al-Radi's accession in 934, inherited insolvency and defiance from regional strongmen like the Baridi brothers—Abu 'Abdallah and Abu Muhammad, who controlled Basra, Ahwaz, and Fars since 933 and raided toward Baghdad—left the caliph without loyal forces or funds, compelling appeals to peripheral governors like Muhammad ibn Ra'iq of Wasit for support against these threats. This disunity in military command, where no single figure coordinated the disparate amirs and troops, underscored the need for a unifying title to centralize authority, setting the stage for the formal investiture in 936.[1]
Elevation and Early Holders (936–943)
In 936, amid the Abbasid Caliphate's deepening administrative and military disarray, Caliph al-Radi (r. 934–940) appointed Muhammad ibn Ra'iq, a governor of Wasit, as the first amir al-umara to consolidate control over fractious provincial forces and restore central authority in Baghdad.[9][10] This elevation endowed the titleholder with oversight of all military commanders, effectively positioning Ibn Ra'iq as de factoregent while sidelining the vizierate.[11] Ibn Ra'iq's tenure lasted until September 938, when he was defeated and expelled from Baghdad by Bajkam, a Turkish ghulam general previously in his service.Bajkam secured his own appointment as amir al-umara on 10 or 11 September 938, leveraging alliances with local troops to dominate the caliphal court during the remainder of al-Radi's reign and into that of his successor, al-Muttaqi (r. 940–944).[12] He maintained relative stability by suppressing rebellions, such as those led by the Baridids in southern Iraq, until his assassination by Kurdish raiders on 21 April 941 during a hunting expedition near Baghdad.[11][12] The abrupt power vacuum prompted Ibn Ra'iq's brief return to the post in mid-941, but he was assassinated on 13 February 942 amid ongoing factional strife.[13]Following these upheavals, Caliph al-Muttaqi turned to Abu'l-Wafa Tuzun, a Turkish mamluk and former deputy under Bajkam, appointing him amir al-umara around early 942 to counter threats from Hamdanid forces under Nasir al-Dawla.[14] Tuzun consolidated his hold by 943, notably forcing Nasir al-Dawla to retreat from Baghdad on 11 May after a siege, thereby securing the title's continuity amid persistent regional autonomy and Buyid encroachments.[15] These early incumbents, primarily of Turkish origin, exemplified the shift toward military dictation over caliphal governance, with each turnover marked by coups or assassinations reflecting the precarious balance of tribal loyalties and fiscal collapse.[11]
Power Struggles Among Contenders (943–946)
Following the assassination of Muhammad ibn Ra'iq on 13 February 942, regional warlords vied for control of Baghdad and the amir al-umara title. Nasir al-Dawla, the Hamdanid emir of Mosul, exploited the instability by occupying the capital and assuming the position of amir al-umara in mid-942, issuing coinage in his name alongside his brother Sayf al-Dawla.[16][17]Tuzun, a Turkish general who had served as Bajkam's deputy, challenged Nasir al-Dawla's hold. Rallying Abbasid loyalists and leveraging alliances with the Barid emirs of southern Iraq, Tuzun forced Nasir al-Dawla to abandon Baghdad on 11 May 943, thereby securing the amir al-umara title for himself.[18][19] Caliph al-Muttaqi initially endorsed Tuzun's appointment, but the general's assertive control and ties to the Baridis—viewed as rivals to caliphal authority—sparked distrust.In September 943, while Tuzun campaigned in Wasit, al-Muttaqi fled Baghdad for Mosul, seeking Hamdanid protection to counter the perceived threat. Tuzun pursued, defeating Hamdanid forces at the Battle of al-Mada'in and compelling al-Muttaqi's reluctant return under duress. Persistent friction culminated in 944, when Tuzun deposed al-Muttaqi, blinded him to neutralize his influence, and elevated al-Muttaqi's cousin, Abu Mansur Muhammad (al-Mustakfi), as caliph on 15 November.[17][20]Tuzun's dominance proved fleeting; he died suddenly of a stroke on 6 October 945, leaving no clear successor among the Turkish soldiery. This vacuum invited external intervention, as Buyid forces under Ahmad ibn Buya (Mu'izz al-Dawla) advanced on Baghdad. The Buyids captured the city in December 945, with Mu'izz al-Dawla assuming the amir al-umara title and deposing al-Mustakfi on 2 July 946 to install al-Muti. These upheavals underscored the fragility of Turkish military rule, reliant on personal loyalty rather than institutional stability, paving the way for Buyid supremacy.[18][21]
Consolidation Under Buyid Control (945–1055)
In December 945, Aḥmad ibn Būya, known as Muʿizz al-Dawla, entered Baghdad after defeating rival forces and compelled the Abbasid caliph al-Mustakfi to confer upon him the title of amīr al-omarāʾ, establishing Buyid supremacy over the caliphal court and Iraq.[22] This appointment formalized the Buyids' de facto control, reducing the Sunni caliph to a figurehead while the Twelver Shiʿi dynasty wielded military and administrative authority, relying on Daylamite troops to suppress opposition from Hamdanid and Abbasid loyalists.[23] The title's prestige, derived from caliphal investiture, legitimized Buyid rule without abolishing the caliphate, enabling resource extraction from Iraqi tax revenues to fund expansions into Persia and Syria.[22]The amīr al-omarāʾ office served as the institutional core of Buyid authority in Baghdad, coordinating military commands and fiscal administration while navigating fraternal alliances and rivalries among the dynasty's branches in Fars, Rayy, and Iraq.[22] Muʿizz al-Dawla (r. 945–967) consolidated initial gains by deposing al-Mustakfi in favor of al-Muṭīʿ and integrating Buyid kin into provincial governorships, though his death sparked succession crises exacerbated by tensions between Daylamite and Turkish mercenaries.[22] His grandson Bakhtiyār (ʿIzz al-Dawla, r. 967–976) briefly held the title amid revolts but was deposed by cousin ʿAżod al-Dawla, who unified disparate Buyid territories by 980 through conquests in Fars and Khuzistan, minting coins in his name and enforcing loyalty oaths from subordinate amirs.[22]Subsequent holders maintained control via familial pacts and caliphal endorsements, but recurrent civil wars fragmented authority:
Holder
Reign (as amīr al-omarāʾ)
Key Notes
Ṣamṣām al-Dawla
986–989
Seized Baghdad post-ʿAżod's death; killed in fratricidal conflict.[22]
Bahāʾ al-Dawla
989–1012
Stabilized Iraq-Persia axis; quelled rebellions in Basra and Kerman.[22]
Solṭān al-Dawla
1012–1021
Expanded into eastern Iran; faced Kurdish incursions.[22]
Mošarraf al-Dawla
1021–1025
Ruled amid partition with brothers; assassinated.[22]
Jalāl al-Dawla
1027–1044
Long tenure marked by alliances against Ghaznavids; supported by Abū Kālījār faction.[22]
Abū Kālījār
1044–1048
Transitional rule; navigated Seljuk threats.[22]
al-Malik al-Raḥīm
1048–1055
Final holder; imprisoned by Seljuk sultan Tuḡril Beg.[22]
These successions underscored the title's dependence on military prowess over hereditary stability, with amirs often proclaiming seniority through laqabs like šāhanšāh to assert Persian imperial claims.[22]By the mid-11th century, Buyid fragmentation—fueled by internal strife and Ghaznavid/Seljuk pressures—eroded the amīr al-omarāʾ's efficacy, as provincial governors withheld revenues and Sunni revivalism challenged Shiʿi dominance.[22] In December 1055, Seljuk leader Tuḡril Beg captured Baghdad, deposing al-Malik al-Raḥīm and assuming the title himself, thereby transferring supreme military command to the Sunni Turks while preserving caliphal nominality.[22] This shift ended Buyid hegemony in Iraq, though Fars lingered under their rule until 1062, highlighting the title's role in enabling dynastic longevity through adaptive power-sharing rather than absolute monarchy.[22]
Adoption in Other Muslim Regions
In Iranian and Central Asian Dynasties
The title amīr al-umarāʾ continued to signify supreme military command in several Iranian and Central Asian dynasties after the Buyid era, often denoting the chief of armed forces amid decentralized power structures. In the fragmented Samanid domains of Khorasan during their decline, the governor Abū ʿAlī Sīmǰūrī unilaterally assumed the title in 381/991 without Abbasid caliphal endorsement, leveraging it to consolidate control over troops and challenge rivals including the rising Ghaznavids, though his bid for autonomy ultimately failed.[1] This usage highlighted the title's appeal as a marker of de facto sovereignty in eastern Iranianate polities, where caliphal legitimacy was nominal.Under the Seljuk Turks, who established dominion over Iran and adjacent Central Asian territories from the mid-11th century, amīr al-umarāʾ functioned as a prestigious military honorific for key provincial commanders. ʿOṯmān ibn Čaḡrı Beg, a relative of the dynasty's founders, held the title in 465/1073 while governing the Valvālīǰ district, underscoring its role in delegating oversight of frontier garrisons. Similarly, Moḥammad ibn Solaymān wielded it in Khorasan in 490/1097, employing the designation to rally forces against internal dissent and external threats during the empire's expansive phase.[1] In Seljuk practice, the title complemented rather than supplanted sultanic authority, serving as an instrument for appointing loyalists to manage diverse Turkic and Iranian levies.The Safavids revived amīr al-umarāʾ as the formal headship of their Qizilbash tribal military backbone upon founding their Iranian empire in 907/1501. Ḥosayn Khan Šāmlū, from the influential Shamlu tribe, received the appointment alongside the wakīl (regency), directing campaigns that secured initial conquests but was ousted by Shah Ismāʿīl I in 915/1509-10 amid suspicions of overreach.[1] By Shah Ṭahmāsp's reign from circa 930/1524, the title's centrality eroded as the qūrčībāšī (chief of the royalguard) ascended in influence, reflecting shifts toward centralized ghulam slave-soldier units over tribal militias; subsequent invocations were sporadic, limited to crisis command in peripheral theaters like Khorasan and Azerbaijan.[1] This evolution mirrored broader Safavid efforts to curb Qizilbash autonomy while retaining the title's symbolic prestige for tribal cohesion.
In the Mamluk Sultanate and Ottoman Empire
In the Mamluk Sultanate, the title amir al-umara designated a supreme military authority akin to "commander of commanders," occasionally granted to influential amirs amid sultanic instability to consolidate control over the army and administration. This usage echoed Abbasid precedents but was not a fixed office in the Mamluk hierarchy, where titles like atabak al-asakir more commonly denoted the chief commander. A key example occurred after Sultan al-Zahir Barquq's death on 9 June 1399, when Saad al-Din bin Ghurab, previously ustadar (chamberlain) and a trusted aide in Barquq's campaigns against Timur's threats, assumed the title and governed as de facto ruler until his execution in 1401 amid plots by rival amirs supporting the young Sultan al-Nasir Faraj. Ghurab's brief tenure highlighted the title's role in bridging power vacuums, as he managed fiscal reforms and military readiness before his downfall triggered further factional strife.[24]The title persisted into the Ottoman Empire primarily as an Arabic equivalent to beylerbeyi ("lord of lords"), the governor of an eyalet (province), who commanded troops across multiple sanjaks and enforced imperial authority in conquered territories like Egypt and Syria post-1517 conquest of the Mamluks. Ottoman administrators translated beylerbeyi as amir al-umara in Arabic documents and provincial correspondences, reflecting the title's enduring connotation of hierarchical military supremacy over subordinate beys or amirs. For instance, in semi-autonomous regencies like Tunis under Ottoman suzerainty, beylerbeyis received formal investiture with amir al-umara alongside Turkish ranks, as seen in 1782 when a local ruler was granted the title to legitimize command over cavalry and fortifications. This adaptation underscored causal continuities from pre-Ottoman Islamic polities, where the title facilitated decentralized yet centralized military oversight, though Ottoman sultans curtailed its autonomy through the devshirme system and provincial inspections to prevent warlordism.[25][26]
Adaptation in Norman Sicily
Introduction and Key Appointments
In the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, established after the conquest of the island from Muslim rule by 1091, the Arabic title amir al-umara—rendered in Latin as amiratus amiratorum and signifying "emir of emirs" or "admiral of admirals"—was adapted to designate the kingdom's supreme naval commander and de facto chief minister. This usage preserved elements of the pre-existing Islamic administrative framework, including Arabic fiscal and bureaucratic systems, which the Normans retained for efficiency in governing a multicultural populace comprising Muslims, Greeks, and Latins. The title, originally a military honorific in Abbasid and other Islamic contexts, evolved in Sicily to encompass both maritime leadership and high-level policy influence, underscoring Roger II's (r. 1130–1154) strategy of integrating Eastern expertise into royal governance without fully supplanting local traditions.[27][28]The inaugural appointment occurred in 1132 under King Roger II, who elevated George of Antioch to amiratus amiratorum. A Byzantine Greek from Syria who had navigated service in Fatimid Egypt and other Muslim courts before aligning with the Normans around 1110, George leveraged his multilingual skills and naval acumen to orchestrate key campaigns, including the capture of Jerba Island in 1135 and Mahdia in 1148, as well as the sack of Tripoli in 1146. His tenure, lasting until his death in 1151 or 1152, marked the title's fusion of Islamic titular prestige with Norman expansionism, positioning him as Roger's primary executor of Mediterranean ambitions.[28]Following Roger's death, the title persisted briefly under his successor William I (r. 1154–1166). In April 1154, shortly after William's coronation on 4 April in Palermo, he appointed Maio of Bari, a physician's son from Apulia with likely Arabic cultural ties, to amiratus amiratorum. Maio wielded extraordinary influence as William's closest advisor, managing diplomacy, finance, and court intrigues until his assassination on 10 November 1160 amid noble unrest against his perceived overreach. This second key appointment highlighted the title's role in centralizing power but also its vulnerability to factional backlash, after which it faded from regular use.[29][27]
Roles and Functions of Title-Holders
In Norman Sicily, the title amir al-umara (Latinized as amiratus amiratorum, later evolving into the English "admiral") designated the supreme commander of the royal navy, who concurrently functioned as the kingdom's chief minister, wielding extensive administrative and diplomatic authority under the Norman kings. This role encompassed oversight of maritime operations, including fleet mobilization for conquests and trade protection, as exemplified by George of Antioch's campaigns against Byzantine territories such as Corfu in the 1140s.[30] Holders advised on state policy, managed fiscal revenues from naval commerce, and coordinated multicultural bureaucracies blending Arab, Greek, and Latin elements to sustain the kingdom's Mediterranean dominance.[31]The position's dual military-civil nature distinguished it from purely naval offices elsewhere, positioning the amir al-umara as a vizier-like figure who could influence royal decisions on warfare, alliances, and internal governance. For instance, under King Roger II (r. 1130–1154), the title-holder supervised the construction and deployment of a formidable fleet that facilitated expansions into North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean, while also handling civil administration such as tax collection and judicial appeals in diverse provinces.[30] Predecessors like Christodoulos (appointed ca. 1108) similarly combined naval command with protovestiarios duties, reflecting the Normans' pragmatic adoption of Islamic titles to legitimize authority over Muslim subjects and harness expertise from converted or allied administrators.[32]This office's functions evolved with the kingdom's needs, emphasizing loyalty to the crown amid ethnic tensions; title-holders often originated from Greek or Arab backgrounds, enabling effective rule over Sicily's heterogeneous populace without supplanting the king's sovereignty. By the mid-12th century, the role had solidified as a linchpin of centralized power, with the amir al-umara reporting directly to the monarch and occasionally leading embassies, as George did in negotiations with the Fatimids and Byzantines.[33] The title's prestige derived from its Arabic roots, signaling continuity with pre-Norman emirates and aiding in the recruitment of skilled mariners and officials.[31]
Significance and Legacy
Implications for Islamic Political Structures
The institution of the amir al-umara title in 936 CE by Abbasid Caliph al-Radi (r. 934–940) marked a decisive erosion of centralized caliphal authority, transferring supreme military and often fiscal control to a designated commander amid fiscal insolvency and provincial fragmentation.[18] This innovation, initially intended to unify disparate provincial forces under a single loyal figure like Muhammad ibn Ra'iq, instead entrenched a pattern of external military overlordship, reducing the caliph to a symbolic endorser of power rather than its wielder.[18] By 945 CE, when Buyid ruler Mu'izz al-Dawla assumed the title upon entering Baghdad, the caliphate's administrative apparatus—including tax collection and army recruitment—effectively operated under the amir's directive, confining the caliph's role to religious legitimation and ceremonial investitures.[18][22]This reconfiguration had profound causal effects on Islamic governance, institutionalizing a bifurcated authority structure where temporal power decoupled from religious primacy, a pragmatic adaptation to the caliphate's inability to maintain coercive monopoly post-9th century.[34] The Buyids' hereditary entrenchment of the office from the mid-10th century onward exemplified how military dynasties could invoke caliphal sanction to rule vast territories—spanning Iraq, Persia, and beyond—while sidelining the caliph's veto, fostering instability through succession disputes among title-holders that averaged every few years until Buyid consolidation around 977 CE.[35] Such dynamics compelled Sunni jurists like al-Mawardi (d. 1058 CE) in al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya to theorize the amir al-umara or sultan as a delegated enforcer of sharia, rationalizing military necessity over idealized caliphal absolutism when central authority faltered.[36]Across Islamic polities, the title's proliferation—adopted by Ghaznavids in the late 10th century and precursors to Seljuk sultans by 1055 CE—normalized military praetorianism, enabling ethnic outsider regimes (e.g., Daylamite Buyids over Arab Sunni caliphs) to dominate without doctrinal rupture, though often at the cost of ideological tensions and administrative inefficiency.[18] This precedent accelerated the caliphate's devolution into a fragmented umma of semi-autonomous taifas and dynasties, undermining the theoretical unity of dar al-islam and paving the way for Ottoman and Safavid adaptations where supreme military offices similarly overshadowed titular caliphal or imamic claims.[37] Empirically, regions under amir al-umara dominance saw heightened reliance on tribal levies over salaried armies, correlating with volatile power transitions but also adaptive resilience against external threats like Fatimid incursions.[34]
Influence on Later Supreme Military Offices
The amir al-umara office, by institutionalizing a supreme military commander with de facto control over caliphal administration from 936 onward, set a precedent for delegated military authority that outlasted the Buyids, influencing structures where army chiefs wielded overriding political power. This pattern manifested in the Seljuk atabeg system, where military tutors to princes evolved into autonomous governors commanding regional forces, echoing the Abbasid model's separation of martial and symbolic rule. By the 11th century, such roles enabled atabegs to establish semi-independent principalities across Anatolia and Syria, as Turkish warlords leveraged delegated command to challenge central sultanic authority.[38]In the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517), the atabak al-'asakir directly paralleled the amir al-umara as commander-in-chief of the armies, holding precedence over other amirs and assuming regency duties during sultanic absences, minorities, or campaigns, thereby ensuring military dominance over civilian governance. Established under the Bahri Mamluks around 1260, the position rotated among senior slave-soldier elites to prevent monopolization, yet retained the core function of supreme oversight of mustered troops and iqta' assignments, with holders like Baybars al-Bunduqdari (appointed circa 1260) using it to propel ascension to the sultanate itself.[39][40] This adaptation sustained Mamluk stability amid factional rivalries, with the atabak coordinating up to 10,000–20,000 cavalry in major expeditions, such as the 1299–1300 campaigns against Mongol Ilkhanids.Later Persianate dynasties adapted the archetype into titles like ispahsalar (army commander), prominent from the Ghaznavids (late 10th century) onward, where it denoted the highest military post under the sultan, responsible for expeditionary forces numbering tens of thousands. In Safavid Iran (1501–1736), the amir al-umara persisted as chief of Qizilbash tribal levies, numbering around 80,000 warriors by Shah Ismail I's era (1501–1524), though it waned by the 17th century in favor of vakil-yi mutlaq (absolute deputy) amid centralizing reforms. Ottoman equivalents, such as beylerbey (bey of beys), governed eyalets with 20,000–50,000 troops by the 16th century, embodying regional emir-like supremacy derived from earlier Turkic-Persian military hierarchies. These evolutions underscore the office's causal role in perpetuating militarized praetorianism, where supreme commanders recurrently supplanted nominal sovereigns across Islamic polities.[41]