IFAO

Cet article se propose de comprendre comment, au vie/xiie siècle, au Proche-Orient, le guerrier se représente la famille et appréhende les relations et les sentiments familiaux. Les sources montrent que le groupe familial du guerrier, turc, kurde ou arabe, servile ou non, ne se limite pas aux liens du sang. La « maison » du guerrier réunit sa famille de sang, ses proches et tous ceux qui sont à son service.

Les historiographes arabes ont tendance à décrire, à propos de l’esclave militaire (ġulām ou mamlūk) une parenté fictive. En effet, même après son affranchissement, le mamlūk est lié à son ancien maître et aux camarades aux côtés desquels il a été formé. Mais la parenté fictive ne s’inscrit pas dans le temps long. Le sang scelle des liens plus forts encore, et surtout plus durables. Dans tous les cas, la parenté constitue une matrice des rapports sociaux.

Les sources dénotent aussi la complexité des relations intrafamiliales. Dans la classe militaire dominante turque, ces relations sont régies par la violence lorsque les enjeux politiques sont décuplés. Mais ces relations sont aussi marquées par l’amour filial et/ou fraternel. Les souverains turcs et kurdes sont d’ailleurs présentés par les auteurs arabes comme des pères et des époux aimants et responsables. Leur attitude modérée, leur sobriété et leur respect des normes islamiques s’expriment dans le cadre de l’unité familiale, qui apparaît comme le soubassement de la société.

Dans la famille, la femme occupe une place particulière. Dominée, elle ne se conforme pas toujours à l’attitude qu’on en attend. En particulier, les femmes turques exercent parfois un pouvoir politique et militaire. Mais elles ne le font qu’au nom de l’homme auquel elles sont rattachées, père, époux ou fils.

Mots-clés : Famille – guerrier – parenté –relations intrafamiliales – Bilād al-Šām – Miṣr – xiie siècle – mamlūk

This article aimes to understand how, during the 12th century, the Near Eastern warrior imagined the family and apprehended family relationships and family feelings. The sources show that the family group of the warrior (Turkish, Kurdish or Arabic, enslaved or not) is not limited to blood ties. The warrior’s household gathered his blood family, relatives and all those in his service.

Arab historians tend to describe a fictive kinship for the military slave. In fact, the ġulām or mamlūk was linked to his former master even after emancipation. He also kept strong ties with his former comrades, with whom he had been raised. But fictive kinship was not as durable as forged blood ties which were even stronger. In all cases, kinship was a matrix of social relationships.

The sources indicate also the complexity of family relationships. In the Turkish dominant military class, these relationships were governed by violence when political issues were magnified. But these relationships were also marked by filial and, or fraternal love. Arab authors also described Turkish and Kurdish rulers as loving and responsible fathers and husbands. According to them, they were moderate, sober and pious. They respected the Islamic standards within the family unit, which was the bedrock of society.

Women had a special status in the family. They were dominated, but they did not always comply with the attitude that was expected from them. Sometimes, Turkish women had political and military power. But this power was exercised in the name of the man to whom they were attached, their father, husband or son.

Keywords: Family – warrior – kinship –family relationships – Bilād al-Šām – Miṣr – 12th century – mamlūk