The office ofamir al-umara (Arabic:أمير الأمراء,romanized: amīr al-umarāʾ), variously rendered in English asemir of emirs,[1]prince of princes,[2]chief emir,[3] andcommander of commanders,[4] was a senior military position in the 10th-centuryAbbasid Caliphate, whose holders in the decade after 936 came to supersede the civilian bureaucracy under thevizier and become effective regents, relegating theAbbasid caliphs to a purely ceremonial role. The office then formed the basis for theBuyid control over the Abbasid caliphs and overIraq until the mid-11th century.
The title continued in use by Muslim states in theMiddle East, but was mostly restricted to senior military leaders. It was also used inNorman Sicily for a few of the king's chief ministers.
The first person to be titledamir al-umara was the commander Harun ibn Gharib, a cousin of the Caliphal-Muqtadir (r. 908–932), in 928.[5] He was followed soon after by his rival, theeunuchMu'nis al-Muzaffar (845–933),[5] who served as commander-in-chief of the caliphal army and thepower behind the throne for most of al-Muqtadir's reign. From 928, Mu'nis was involved in a tumultuous power struggle with his rivals in the court's civilian bureaucracy, which ended with the deposition and execution of al-Muqtadir in 932, and his replacement with his brotheral-Qahir (r. 932–934). Mu'nis and the military were now dominant in the affairs of the Abbasid court, beginning a period of troubles that was, in the words of the historianHugh Kennedy, "dominated by the struggles of military men to control the caliphate and, perhaps more importantly, the revenues of theSawad which would enable them to satisfy the demands of their followers".[6]
Mu'nis himself was executed by al-Qahir in 933, but in 934 another palace coup deposed al-Qahir and replaced him withal-Radi (r. 934–940). The frequent coups and violent struggle for control of the Caliphate greatly enfeebled the central government inBaghdad. Effective control over theMaghreb andKhurasan had long been lost, but now autonomous rulers emerged in the provinces closer toIraq:Egypt andBilad al-Sham were ruled by theIkhshidid dynasty, theHamdanid dynasty had secured control overUpper Mesopotamia, and most ofIran was ruled byDaylamite dynasties, among whom the Buyids were most prominent. Even in Iraq itself, the authority of the caliphal government was challenged. Thus in the south, aroundBasra,Abu Abdallah al-Baridi established his own domain, often refusing to send tax revenues to Baghdad and establishing contacts with the Buyids of nearbyFars.[7] The historianAli ibn al-Athir (d. 1233) asserted that after the death of Mu'nis, the post ofamir al-umara fell toTarif al-Subkari, who was also head of the treasury.[5]
Finally, in November 936, the failure of thevizierIbn Muqla to control the provincial governors and confront the disastrous financial situation of the Caliphate, led to the appointment of the governor ofWasit,Muhammad ibn Ra'iq, to the position ofamir al-umara.[8] The authority granted to Ibn Ra'iq and his successors was sweeping. According to the contemporary scholarMiskawayh, he was named governor of Baghdad and commander-in-chief of the army, was entrusted with the collection of thekharaj land tax and the supervision of all public estates, as well as the maintenance of security. He was also granted a banner and robes of office, as well as the privileges of being addressed by hiskunya (teknonymic), and his name added to the caliph's during theFriday prayer. In effect, writes Miskawayh, the caliph "resigned to him the government of the kingdom".[9] Henceforth, effective power in both military and civil administrations passed from the caliph to theamir al-umara and his secretary, who ran the civilian administration. Ibn Ra'iq took care to deprive the caliph of his last support base by disbanding the old household bodyguard, replacing them as the core of the caliphal army with his ownTurks and Daylamites.[4]
Despite his extraordinary authority, however, Ibn Ra'iq failed to stabilize the situation and a decade-long complicated power struggle between various regional leaders followed for the office ofamir al-umara. On 9 September 938 Ibn Ra'iq was deposed by his former subordinate, the TurkBajkam, who secured his own succession to the post four days later, and ruled until his death at the hands of Kurdish brigands on 21 April 941. Caliphal-Muttaqi (r. 940–944), raised to the throne by Bajkam after al-Radi's death, now tried to restore civilian rule, appointing Ibn Maymun and thenAbu Abdallah al-Baridi as viziers, but the military retook control under the leadership ofKurankij, who becameamir al-umara on 1 July.[10][11]
He was deposed on 16 September by Ibn Ra'iq, who within a few days re-assumed his old position. However, Ibn Ra'iq's restoration provoked the reaction of al-Baridi, whose forces occupied Baghdad, forcing Ibn Ra'iq and al-Muttaqi to flee to the Hamdanid ruler al-Hasan inMosul. The latter helped the Caliph recover Baghdad, had Ibn Ra'iq assassinated on 13 February 942, and assumed the position ofamir al-umara himself on 18 February, with thelaqab (honorific title) ofNasir al-Dawla. The Hamdanids too were unable to consolidate their control in the face of financial difficulties, and a military revolt under the Turkish generalTuzun forced Nasir al-Dawla to abandon his post (11 May 943) and retreat to his base at Mosul. Tuzun became the newamir al-umara that year.[11][failed verification][12]
Al-Muttaqi tried to regain his independence by remaining atRaqqa instead ofBaghdad and contacting the Ikhshidids, who encouraged him to seek refuge in Egypt. In the end, al-Muttaqi refused and returned to Baghdad, where Tuzun deposed and blinded him, raisingal-Mustakfi (r. 944–946) to the throne. Tuzun's tenure lasted until his death in August/September 945, but was overshadowed by the rising power of the Buyids. After Tuzun's death, his secretary and successor,Muhammad ibn Shirzad, held only feeble authority and tried to fend off the Buyid threat by allying himself with Nasir al-Dawla. His efforts were in vain, and on 17 January 946, the Buyids under Mu'izz al-Dawla entered Baghdad.[13][14] This began the Buyid era in Baghdad and Iraq, which lasted until theSeljuk conquest in the mid-11th century.[15]
Possession of the title ofamir al-umara formed the institutional framework of Buyid authority in Baghdad itself and vis-a-vis the caliph, who now became simply another state functionary and was given an annual salary. Although Ahmad ibn Buya had seized Baghdad, the strong family ties of the Buyid brothers determined their respective positions with each other, and the post ofamir al-umara fell to the elder brother and ruler of Fars, Ali, known by hislaqabImad al-Dawla. After his death in 949 he was succeeded by the eldest surviving brother,Rukn al-Dawla, ruler ofRey, until his death in 976. It appears, however, that Ahmad (Mu'izz al-Dawla), who continued to rule over Iraq, also retained the title for himself, and gave it in addition to his sonIzz al-Dawla when he declared him his heir in 955. In response, Rukn al-Dawla's son and heir'Adud al-Dawla (r. 976–983) began to assume titles ofsovereignty in Persian fashion, likeshahanshah ("shah of shahs"),malik ("king"), ormalik al-muluk ("king of kings"), to underline his pre-eminence. Thus, under the later Buyid rulers, Persian titles were more prominent, andamir al-umara came to denote the designated heir-apparent. In general, Buyid use of the title appears to have been inconsistent, and it was employed more as an honorific rather than an office.[5][16]
Further east, neither theSamanid Empire nor theGhaznavids appear to have employed it often, except for the case ofAbu Ali Simjuri, a rebel military commander who took control of Khorasan in 991 and proclaimed himselfamir al-umara.[5] Later Muslim dynasties, whether Iranian or Turkish, used the title mostly in a military context, although not always associated with the command-in-chief of the army.[5] Thus the Seljuk Turks, who overran the former lands of the Caliphate in the later 11th century, used it as one among many designations for senior military commanders (ispahsalar,amir-i salar,muqaddam al-'askar, etc.). Only two instances are known where the title was held by princes of the dynasty as a mark of distinction: Osman, a son ofChaghri Beg, who in 1073 was named governor of northernAfghanistan, and Muhammad, a grandson of Chaghri Beg, who in 1097 rebelled in Khorasan against his nephew, SultanBarkiyaruq (r. 1094–1105).[5]
In theSafavid Iran, the title was initially of considerable importance, as it was held by the commander-in-chief of theQizilbash forces that formed the mainstay of Safavid regime. In the time whenHusayn Beg Shamlu occupied the office in 1501–1510, he was the most powerful state official, but after his fall it fell in importance and lost much power, particularly to thequrčibaši, the commanders of theTurkmen tribal cavalry. Theamir al-umara enjoyed a revival in the period of Qizilbash tutelage overTahmasp I in 1524–1533, but thereafter disappears almost completely. It only reappeared occasionally in the late Safavid period, when it designated a military commander exceptionally appointed to a border region threatened with foreign invasion.[5]
The title was also, albeit rarely, used by theMamluk Sultanate centered in Cairo, apparently associated with the commander of the army (atabak al-'asakir), but also appears to have been given to otheramirs.[3] In theOttoman Empire,emīrü’l-umerā[17] was used, along with the Persian equivalentmir-i miran, as a translation ofbeylerbey ("bey of beys").[3]
As a result of the long period ofArab rule inSicily, theItalo-NormanKingdom of Sicily continued the use of many Arabic terms in its administration, among which was 'emir' (am[m]iratus inLatin,ἀμηρᾶς inGreek, the other two languages in official use), whose holders combined military and civilian authority. Among the most prominent of these was a Greek Christian known asGeorge of Antioch, who as the most powerful official ofRoger II of Sicily (r. 1130–1154) fulfilled the duties of chief minister to Roger and was given the titles of 'grand emir' (magnus amiratus,μέγας ἀμηρᾶς) and 'emir of emirs' (amiratus amiratorum,ἀμηρᾶς τῶν ἀμηράδων). The title lapsed after his deathc. 1152, until it was awarded in 1154 byWilliam I of Sicily (r. 1154–1166) toMaio of Bari, who held it until his assassination in 1160.[18] The lastammiratus ammiratorum wasMargaritus of Brindisi who held the title until the collapse ofHauteville dynasty in 1194. It is from these individuals that the corrupted form "admiral" began to be used in the western Mediterranean for naval commanders in the 13th century.[19]
