خلاصة:
The Khwarazmshahs, with their origins as slaves, attracted military elements with different backgrounds during the evolutionary process of their rule, attempting to employ them in parallel by exercising power from top to bottom. Despite the limited nature of the army institution during their period of regional rule, even the existing limited conflicts led to numerous rebellions, which delayed the escalation and transformation of the Khwarazmians into a great power. However, during the period of this government's authority, the process of structural conflicts in this dynasty accelerated. This article aims to use 'Conflict Theory' through an analytical method to analyze and explain the impact of the structural conflict within the army institution, which was collapsing from within. The reign of Sultan Mohammad Khwarazmshah was caught in a duality of sovereignty within the court institution and multiple conflicts (hierarchical conflict, demographic composition, center and province) within the army institution. The increasing influence and the seizure of totalitarian power by the Qungrat Turks under the support of the Queen Mother placed the Khwarazmian state in the vortex of decline and becoming a sultan before facing confrontation, despite possessing hundreds of thousands of soldiers; these were the tangible manifestations of this structural conflict.
ملخص الجهاز:
Structural Conflict and Its Impact on the Functioning of the Khwarazmian Army * Zekr Allah Mohammadi 1 Ismail Hassanzadeh 2 Abstract Despite their origins as slave-soldiers, the Khwarazmshahs, in the evolutionary process of their rule, resorted to recruiting military elements from diverse backgrounds and attempted to employ them in parallel through the exercise of top-down power.
The increasing influence and the seizure of totalitarian power by the Qunglit Turks under the support of the Queen Mother placed the Khwarazmshah state in the vortex of decline and becoming a sultan before the confrontation, despite possessing hundreds of thousands of soldiers; these were the objective manifestations of this structural conflict.
Multiple factors were involved in the emergence of conflict, including ambiguity in legal powers and duties, conflict in acquiring new status and position, disputes in receiving stipends and allowances, the interconnectedness and entanglement of duties, the desire for independence or the expansion of the scope of autonomy among various groups and offices, scarcity of resources and the tendency to pursue personal goals and interests, ethnic differences, and differences in values and beliefs, such as adherence to tribal values versus the values of the central government, or the degree of loyalty to a direct commander without regard for the totality of the sovereignty structure, etc.
Among the prominent cases of conflict resulting from the overlap of institutional duties, one can mention the dispute between the military emirs and Sharaf al-Mulk, the vizier of Sultan Jalal al-Din. According to Nasawi's report, Sharaf al-Mulk, the vizier, after the conquest of Tbilisi, had resided in that province with a number of soldiers and administrative officials to organize affairs.
(
, 
, 
)
