SIGLELD:D45955/83(3vols) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Nicolle, D.

English

Any study of arms and armour relies an three source, of
evidence: archaeological, pictorial and written. The farmer
naturally take precedence as such studies are essentially concerned
with material culture. For similar reasons this thesis gives
greater priority to pictorial sources rather than to the written,
descriptive, record. This is despite the limitations of artistic
conventions such no archaism. Written evidence seems to suffer
from comparable limitations while at the same time often having
an obscure vocabulary and a strongly poetic style.

In fact, the terminology of Islamic military equipment
remains far from clears and seems likely to remain so until
archaeology uncovers a greater number of surviving artifacts.
Nor can the study of terminology answer all questions relating
to the structure, development or appearance of items of arms
and armour.

Nevertheless, a study of the known vocabulary does suggest
certain features, most'of which are backed up by both the archaeological
and pictorial evidence. Iranian influences were probably much
stronger in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia than were those
from Byzantium. Iranian and Central Asian technological advances
subsequently had an increasing impact on Muslim military technology,
until Central Asian influences came to predominate in all regions
outside North Africa and the Iberian peninsula. This eastern
influence did not reflect a backward nomadic culture, but rather
one that boasted advanced metallurgical techniques as well as
sophisticated tactical concepts.

In the west, European influences dominated all other
external factors. At the some time it would be wrong to see
the Maghhrib and Andalus solely as the adopters of other peoples'
technical developments. (Wring the early Middle Ages there was
probably a two-way flow of ideas and techniques across the
Mediterranean: just as there was across the frontier between
Islam and Byzantium. In these central regions, however, the
Byzantine and Muslim worlds were both rapidly absorbing Central
Asian military fashions.

One of the most characteristic features of Classical
Islamic civilization was, in fact, its eclecticism. This was
particularly true in military matters. As the armies of the
Prophet advanced gnat and west they had mot the warriors of rival
cultures whose military traditions Islam then gradually absorbed.

Thus the military technologies and tactics of the late..
Romano-t3yz¬tntine world, the Barbers., the Iberian peninsula,
Armenia, the Saassaaninn Empire, Buddhist Afghnnistän and Turkish
Transoxaania, were all added to those of ancient Arabia. The
process by which they blended to produce something nov was slow
and far from regular, Influences from Perain and Turkistän
were clearly more important than those from Egypt end North
Africa$ while the impact of Visigothic Spain was limited almost
cntiroly to the Muslin culture of al Andnlus that succeeded it.

At first infantry dominated the armies of Islamas but during
the Umayyad period cavalry become ever more important. This
was particularly true of an Irenian.. style heavy cavalry which made
urea of the neul. y adopted stirrup. Such changes were soon reflected
in the organization of both Umayyad and
cAbbäsid forces. Nevertheless#
skilled professionalp and often mercennrya, infantry continued
to play a vital role as the borders of Islam became relatively
fixed and campaigns were generally limited to siege-warfare.

In the 11th century the arrival of the Saljügs;, ldd' to
a sudden, but not sustained, rise in the importance of Central
Asian) nomad-style, horse-archery. This was later reinforced
by the longol conquests and uns felt in all regions of the ruslim
world. Such an impact was, however) minimal in the My rib
and virtually non-2xiotant in al ttndalus, whore a local version
of early medieval western European military traditions continued
to predominate.Any study of arms and armour relies an three source, of
evidence: archaeological, pictorial and written. The farmer
naturally take precedence as such studies are essentially concerned
with material culture. For similar reasons this thesis gives
greater priority to pictorial sources rather than to the written,
descriptive, record. This is despite the limitations of artistic
conventions such no archaism. Written evidence seems to suffer
from comparable limitations while at the same time often having
an obscure vocabulary and a strongly poetic style.

In fact, the terminology of Islamic military equipment
remains far from clears and seems likely to remain so until
archaeology uncovers a greater number of surviving artifacts.
Nor can the study of terminology answer all questions relating
to the structure, development or appearance of items of arms
and armour.

Nevertheless, a study of the known vocabulary does suggest
certain features, most'of which are backed up by both the archaeological
and pictorial evidence. Iranian influences were probably much
stronger in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia than were those
from Byzantium. Iranian and Central Asian technological advances
subsequently had an increasing impact on Muslim military technology,
until Central Asian influences came to predominate in all regions
outside North Africa and the Iberian peninsula. This eastern
influence did not reflect a backward nomadic culture, but rather
one that boasted advanced metallurgical techniques as well as
sophisticated tactical concepts.

In the west, European influences dominated all other
external factors. At the some time it would be wrong to see
the Maghhrib and Andalus solely as the adopters of other peoples'
technical developments. (Wring the early Middle Ages there was
probably a two-way flow of ideas and techniques across the
Mediterranean: just as there was across the frontier between
Islam and Byzantium. In these central regions, however, the
Byzantine and Muslim worlds were both rapidly absorbing Central
Asian military fashions.

One of the most characteristic features of Classical
Islamic civilization was, in fact, its eclecticism. This was
particularly true in military matters. As the armies of the
Prophet advanced gnat and west they had mot the warriors of rival
cultures whose military traditions Islam then gradually absorbed.

Thus the military technologies and tactics of the late..
Romano-Byzantine world, the Barbers., the Iberian peninsula,
Armenia, the Saassaanian Empire, Buddhist Afghanistän and Turkish
Transoxaania, were all added to those of ancient Arabia. The
process by which they blended to produce something nov was slow
and far from regular, Influences from Perain and Turkistän
were clearly more important than those from Egypt end North
Africa, while the impact of Visigothic Spain was limited almost
entirely to the Muslin culture of al Andalus that succeeded it.

At first infantry dominated the armies of Islam, but during
the Umayyad period cavalry become ever more important. This
was particularly true of an Iranian-style heavy cavalry which made
urea of the newly adopted stirrup. Such changes were soon reflected
in the organization of both Umayyad and
'Abbäsid forces. Nevertheless,
skilled professional, and often mercenary, infantry continued
to play a vital role as the borders of Islam became relatively
fixed and campaigns were generally limited to siege-warfare.

In the 11th century the arrival of the Saljüqs led to
a sudden, but not sustained, rise in the importance of Central
Asian) nomad-style, horse-archery. This was later reinforced
by the Mongol conquests and was felt in all regions of the Muslim
world. Such an impact was, however) minimal in the My rib
and virtually non-existent in al Andalus, whore a local version
of early medieval western European military traditions continued
to predominate

The military technology of classical Islam

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Archive

OpenGrey Repository