Need Help with History Homework?

[René Artois]

Hi,
which is the difference between Ghulams (Ghilman) and Mamluks (Mamalik)?
Thanks

The Mamluks were the dynasty which succeeded the Ayyubids in Egypt in 1250. They seem to be quite a militaristic group of rulers, and ruled over Egypt at the time the Franks were finally expelled from the mainland of the Holy Land (Hillenbrand 1999, 26-29). Ghilman (from the little, questionable stuff I can find on them i.e. wikipedia) seem to be a specific group/unit of soldiers.

Before the time of the Mamluk rulers though, the terms appear to mean the same thing, referring to slave-soldiers. ("Mamluk also translates ghulam, the term with the same significance, used more frequently in the Eastern Islamic world" - from the Introduction to the translation of The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, part 1, trans. D.s. Richards)

[Aiskhylos]

As far as memory serves Ghulams were captured Turks, who then served the Caliphs...but after murdering three Caliphs- the Mamlukes on the other hand were enslaved children trained and educated as soldiers/ bodyguards. Something on those lines

[Aenima]

Ok, I've got to ask this, and I haven't been able to find an answer to it on the web, and feel too stupid/cheeky to ask a lecturer about it.

Is it considered plagiarism to quote a quote that you read in a book, and to copy the reference for it? Ie, I'm reading a book about the Byzantines, and one of the ancient sources mentions Arabs raiding Palaestina Prima, with a reference and all - fantastic! Practical me sees this as a perfect thing to use, and it gives me an ancient source to complement my list of sources....but is it alright to do this? I feel like just lifting the quote and reference is almost like plagiarism, even though at the same time, it seems perfectly normal and alright to do.

Sorry if this seems mundane, just something I'm a bit fogggy on and have a nagging voice telling me I'm not supposed to do.

[Aiskhylos]

As long as you acknowledge where you got the quote from it is fine, you could say in the book "Title" by the Byzantine historian, the historian '?? name' says "???????" REFERENCE! If that makes sense? As long as the quote is relevant and properly referenced there isn't a problem.


"Parroting and plagiarism
One reason to avoid using lengthy and too-frequent translations is that this can
easily lead to parroting and even plagiarism. Parroting means simply
regurgitating study material, word for word, without really understanding it.
When you parrot, you are not fitting relevant ideas together into an argument that
focuses on the topic you have been assigned. Sometimes when students do this
they also forget to acknowledge their sources. They do not realise themselves that
they are quoting, or paraphrasing, so they do not give references. Technically,
this constitutes plagiarism.
Plagiarism is reproducing in your assignments, word for word or in very close
paraphrase, work other than your own, without acknowledging it. Tutors realise
that students sometimes stray into plagiarism without meaning to, often from
inexperience. The key to avoiding plagiarism is – when not quoting directly from
a source that you acknowledge in your work – to try and put ideas in your own
words, no matter how difficult it may seem. " Taken from an OU student handbook

[Aenima]

So just to clarify, this would be alright?

Let's say that in Bob's book about the Byzantines, he quotes John the Greek talking Arab raids, and gives the reference.

In my essay, I write about how John talks about these Arab raids, and then use the reference given by Bob to reference it...in other words, I ignore Bob completely.

I'm not quoting an entire paragraph - at most, a couple of sentences, and oftentimes I'm just writing about it in my own words but then popping the reference on the end of the sentence, or wherever relevant. That's fine to do, isn't it?

[René Artois]

You can put a reference within a reference. So you could do "*John's reference*, cited in *Bob's reference*"
For example, in a recent history essay one of my references was:

The Dialogue concerning the Exchequer, trans. E.F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London: George Bells & Sons, 1986), cited here from The Avalon Project. Documents in Law History and Diplomacy [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/excheq.asp, accessed 14 January 2013].

Or if John's book is easily available so you could legitimately have accessed it, you can just put that reference and if asked say you pulled it from the book.

Yes, it's best to write in your own words but use a direct quote when the other author has written it in a way that can't be surpassed. Just remember to put it in quotation marks and cite it properly. If in doubt, cite.

Always best to ask your tutor though. That's what they're there for! Some are even nice enough to just give you the exact reference to put in.

[Aenima]

Thanks Rene, very well put. I'll get in touch with my tutor and see what she says!

[René Artois]

As far as memory serves Ghulams were captured Turks, who then served the Caliphs...but after murdering three Caliphs- the Mamlukes on the other hand were enslaved children trained and educated as soldiers/ bodyguards. Something on those lines

Mamluks were high ranking ex-slaves (or rather, high ranking ex-slaves were known as mamluks) amongst the Seljuks as well.

[Grymloq]

Ok, thanks!