I have been reading Machiaveli's "The Prince" recently and came across a part where after talking about how in the old Roman Empire the Emperors had to satisfy both the people and the armies, now most princes just had to satisfy the people. He mentions two exceptions though: the turks and the kingdom of Sudan where, according to him, soldiers enjoy more power.
What was the history and political landscape\structure of this particular kingdom ? Machiaveli mentions how it's very different from European monarchies and how it was very old, which sparked my interest.
Thank you for the answers !
What translation are you using?
A similar question came up a month ago and the consensus was that 'soldan' is an archaic form of the word Sultan.
The suggestion in that thread, that Machiavelli was referring to the Mamluke sultans of Egypt is persuasive, and his description of leadership passing by election approximates how the Mameluke system operated. Also, in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Italian merchants had extensive trade dealings in Alexandria, so it is quite plausible that Machiavelli would have been aware of the political system of Egypt.
What I can say with greater certainty is that Machiavelli's description of the "kingdom of the Soldan" is not really accurate to any of the Sudanic states of the late 15th or early 16th centuries.
For reference, here is the relevant passage from "The Prince"
The kingdom of the Soldan is similar; being entirely in the hands of soldiers, it follows again that, without regard to the people, he must keep them his friends. But you must note that the state of the Soldan is unlike all other principalities, for the reason that it is like the Christian pontificate, which cannot be called either an hereditary or a newly formed principality; because the sons of the old prince are not the heirs, but he who is elected to that position by those who have authority, and the sons remain only noblemen. And this being an ancient custom, it cannot be called a new principality, because there are none of those difficulties in it that are met with in new ones; for although the prince is new, the constitution of the state is old, and it is framed so as to receive him as if he were its hereditary lord.
This is not descriptive of the Mali Empire, as that state was decidedly a hereditary monarchy.
Ditto, the Songhai empire was also ruled by two lineages of rulers. Of course, the Songhai rebelled and took Gao from the Malians only in 1468. In 1513 when "the Prince" was first published, the Songhai state was still quite young (so, "for the reason that it is like the Christian pontificate, which cannot be called either an hereditary or a newly formed principality;" is problematic). Songhai had not really completed its struggle for supremacy with Mali, and I doubt that word of the existence of Songhai would have spread to Italy at this early a date.
It would not be Kanem-Bornu, again because this state was a hereditary monarchy.
It is hugely unlikely that he was referring to the states of the upper Nile valley (what is now Sudan and South Sudan). In Makuria, the situation became very chaotic after Mameluke invasion in the 1300s. In the early 1500s when Machiavelli was writing, that region couldn't be described as a kingdom so much as a collection of fiefs led by competing warlords.
In the 1506, Alodia/Alwa (south of Makuria, in the region of Khartoum) fell to an invasion of the Funj people. Our knowledge of the history of this state is very spotty. I highly doubt Machiavelli had any awareness of Alwas existence.
Ditto, he probably was not describing the Sennar sultanate that the Funj people established in 1506, because it was so remote from Italy, and was a new state and he is clear that he is talking of a long established state.