The death of Tooraan Shaah produced a significant political vacuum in Egypt, since there was no individual belonging to the Ayyubid Dynasty fit to rule the state. Furthermore, the Ayyubids in Shaam coveted Egypt and would inevitably prepare to come and take the throne of Egypt, and join it to Shaam. There was no doubt that the Ayyubids in Shaam had feelings of resentment towards the Mamluks for they dared to kill one of the Ayyubid Dynasty. There was no doubt too that the Mamluks knew well that the Ayyubids would be eager to take revenge.

But at the same time, they were certain about their high value in the Egyptian army, under the pretext that the actual power in Egypt was not in the hand of any of the Ayyubids or others in so much as in their hands, seeing that they were dealt with unjust in the wake of the Mansoura and Faraskoor battles. Although it was they who achieved the victory, their role was marginalized.
All of this led the Mamluks to think, for the first time in the history of Egypt, to hold the reins of power. Since the rule goes to the winner, and they had the power to win, then, why should they not rule?

The Mamluks were used since the Tulunid Realm (254-292 A.H.), i.e. almost four centuries before those events, then during the Ikhshidi State (323-358 A.H.), and then for over two centuries during the realm of the Shiite Fatimid State (358-567 A.H.), the time when Saladin took power. They were used in great numbers during the Ayyubid Dynasty as we have already seen.
Although the army depended mainly on the Mamluks throughout those centuries, they never thought about rule or sovereignty. They were always assistants of the kings. The idea of kingship never occurred to their minds, for they were, ultimately, slaves, subject to selling and buying, and had no identified families to which they belonged.

Undoubtedly, this made them feel alien in every country they lived. Furthermore, they were not exposed to direct risk, for they were, in the end, adherent to the new authority. They were not targeted in person. But now, plots are being made against them, the turn of misfortune would be against them, the kings were weak, and all the power was in the hands of the Mamluks. Why then should they not try their fortune in the rule?

But the accession of the Mamluks would be quite objectionable in Egypt. The people would not forget that the Mamluks were originally slaves exposed to selling and buying, and freedom was among the most fundamental conditions for the Muslim ruler. Even if they were emancipated, their acceptability as rulers would be questioned. Although they had enormous property, great competence and governed many provinces (inside Egypt), in the end, they were but slaves, and their accession required a convincing argument for the people who never saw them sitting on the throne of sultans.
All this developed within the Bahri Saalihi Mamluks, after the killing of Tooraan Shaah, a desire for a transitional stage to pave the way to the realm of the strong Mamluks, and, at the same time, to not turn the world against them in Egypt as well as in the Islamic region.
That was what the Bahri Saalihi Mamluks had in their account.

To Continue...........

http://300035.dotdothktrade.tech/en/artical/20806/mamluk-state