Plate 7.2 Mamluk axe of the tabardariyya corps (axe-men), engraved metal, fifteenth century, Cairo, Egypt
Figure 7.32 Mace (jukan) of the Mamluk sultan Tuman Ba’i, early sixteenth century, Cairo, Egypt
There was also a mechanical crossbow, the qaws al-ziyar, which was mounted on supports and was used in sieges. According to al-Tarsusi, the ziyar ‘needs a number of men to pull its string … it is placed up against towers and similar obstacles and nobody can withstand it’.78
Al-Tarsusi gives a clear picture of the intricacies of carrying several weapons at a time, and especially on horseback. He suggests that the archer should have two bows with him.79
The composite bow, constructed in three to five sections of alternating stiff and flexible elements, with a strongly double-curved outline, reached its most sophisticated form with the medieval Turks and Mongols.80 Such bows had a maximum range of more than 800 yards, though it seems that they were truly effective at distances of some 300 yards or less. Although the arrows shot from these bows could cover such great distances, they were exceptionally penetrating at shorter range. Those defending a fortress or a city would shoot arrows at the besiegers from oversize crossbows mounted on the walls.
Figure 7.33 Mechanism for a triple bow from a treatise on war, Tabsirat arbab al-albab (‘The Perception of Those with Understanding’), written by al-Tarsusi for Saladin, c. 583/1187, probably Syria
Figure 7.34 Cross-bow training, Kitab al-makhzun (‘Book of Treasure’), 875/1470, probably Egypt
Although in Crusader times it was the horse archers who had most prominence and were justifiably feared and admired by the Franks, it should not be forgotten that there was a long tradition of infantry archers in the Islamic world. The Fatimid army contained Sudanese infantry archers,81 and Usama mentions ‘about twenty footmen of Armenian troops who were good archers’.82
Shields
Al-Tarsusi mentions a variety of shields: ‘Each nation has its own technique for the manufacture of them.’83
The round shield is called turs and was made of wood, metal or hide.84 The kite-shaped shield, known in the Muslim world as the tariqa, is, according to al-Tarsusi, used by the Franks and the Byzantines: ‘It is a long shield made in such a way as to hide the knight and the foot soldier. It is rounded at the top and narrows down into a point.’85
Figure 7.35 Archer, glazed ceramic bowl, twelfth–thirteenth centuries, Shirvan, southern Caucasus
A third type of shield is the januwiyya which is like the tariqa but is made so that it can be held on the ground. It is used by foot soldiers and ‘in a row it forms a fortress which resists archers’.86
The Bab al-Nasr (Gate of Victory) in Cairo was built in 1087 by the Fatimid vizier Badr al-Jamali.87 One of the outstanding features of this gate are the shields that decorate it (plates 7.3, 7.4). Shalem argues convincingly that shields were an important symbol of Fatimid hegemony:88 the Gate of Victory depicts circular and kite-shaped shields, thus showing that both kinds were known and probably used by the Fatimids.
Although the primary purpose of the shield was the protection of as much of the body as possible, it was also an object of display, a Levantine tradition that goes back for millennia. The shield could be made of a variety of materials, including polished wood, wood covered with shagreen, untanned leather, horse, ass, camel or giraffe skin or varnished or painted leather.
Figure 7.36 Helmeted soldier holding shield with multiple bosses, glazed ceramic statuette, late twelfth century, Raqqa, Syria
Figure 7.37 Shield types, Varqa va Gulshah (‘Varqa and Gulshah’), c. 1250, Turkey
The implication of Usama’s story about Tancred’s putting out the right eye of a Muslim warrior, Hasanun, is that the shield was held high up and that the lance was held in the right hand. As Tancred allegedly said: ‘Rather put out his right eye, so that when he carries his shield his left eye will be covered, and he will be no more able to see anything.’89
Armour
Armour was certainly not for everybody. According to Usama, whose evidence is supported by roughly contemporary works of art, the common foot soldier usually went without mail. Armour remained the prerogative of a small, rich elite, even in the highly militarised society of Mamluk Egypt; the horses of such warriors also had protective armour. Even when it was worn, it may not have been put on until the going became hard, probably because of the sheer discomfort of wearing it in the intense Levantine heat.
Usama’s memoirs mention various types of armour. He remarks on one occasion that his quilted jerkin or brigandine (kazaghand) was ‘furnished with two coats of mail, one on top of the other’.90 Later on, he describes this protective armour in greater detail:
The jerkin enclosed a Frankish coat of mail extending to the bottom of it, with another coat of mail on top of it reaching as far as the middle. Both were equipped with the proper linings, felt pads, rough silk and rabbit’s hair.91
Figure 7.38 Kite-shaped shield, glazed ceramic bowl, late twelfth century, Raqqa, Syria
Whether the ‘Frankish coat of mail’ was an item which he had acquired through the spoils of war, or as a gift from one of his Frankish friends, is not clear. Yet another possibility is that the Muslims called a particular type of coat of mail ‘Frankish’, just as they referred to – and often used – ‘Frankish mangonels’.
Plate 7.3 Bab al-Nasr, 480/1087, Cairo, Egypt
(Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 3433)
Plate 7.4 Bab al-Nasr, detail showing shields, 480/1087, Cairo, Egypt
(Creswell Photographic Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, neg. C. 3431)
Plate 7.5 Turkish foot-soldiers wearing splint armour, thirteenth century, Turkey
Figure 7.39 Warrior in mail armour, glazed ceramic cup, c. 1200, al-Mina, Syria
Coats of mail were worn under other clothes; Usama cites an example of a Frankish horseman wearing a green and yellow silk tunic; he smote the Frank with his lance but as the latter had linked mail under his tunic, Usama’s lance did not wound him.92 On another occasion, Usama tells the story of how his father was wounded by a pike because his servant had not fastened the hooks on the side of his long mail.93
Allowing for exaggeration, Usama suggests that coats of mail were extremely resistant to the lance’s thrust. He tells the story of his paternal cousin, Khitam, who made a charge single-handed against the Franks. They let him into their midst and then set about him with their lances, overthrowing him and striking his horse: ‘Reversing their lances, they then began to dig into him with them. But Khitam was wearing a coat of mail, the links of which were so strong that their lances could have no effect upon it.’94
Figure 7.40 Soldier in mail hauberk, inlaid metal pen-case, early thirteenth century, probably Iraq
Figure 7.41 Warrior wearing a ‘corset cuirass’ with lamellar, and laminated armour, Firdawsi, Shahnama (‘Book of Kings’ – the Great Mongol Shahnama), c. 1330, Tabriz, Iran
The Franks, too, were equipped, according to Usama, with very effective armour. He tells the story of a Frank ‘wearing double-linked mail and carrying a spear in his hand, but not equipped with a shield’. In spite of various blows administered to him by a Turk with a sword he escaped totally unscathed, presumably because of the effectiveness of his armour.95
But perhaps the most revealing episode concerns Saladin himself and one of the attempts on his life which occurred in 571/1175. Ibn al-Athir provides considerable detail:
An assassin attacked him and struck him with a knife on his head and wounded him. Were it not for the fact that the chain skullcap (al-mighfar al-zarad) was under his pointed bonnet (qalansuwa) he would have killed him. Saladin seized the assassin’s hand with his own hand. Although he could not prevent him from striking altogether he only struck weakly. The assassin kept on striking him in his neck with the knife. He had on a quilted jerkin (kazaghand)96 and the blows were falling on the collar of the jerkin and cutting through it and the chain mail was preventing
them (the blows) from reaching his neck … Saladin rode to his tent, like one terrified, hardly believing his escape.97
Figure 7.42 Foot soldier, inlaid bronze bowl of Aybak, c. 1250, Damascus, Syria
Here, then, is a clear illustration of the protection which coats of mail and helmets could give. Body armour and the shirts worn under it were often covered with Qur’anic inscriptions and indeed these were believed to have a protective power.98
The importance of an efficacious helmet is emphasised. Speaking of a knight called Rafi‘ al-Kilabi, Usama writes:
He had on his head a helmet without a visor. He looked back in order to see whether he had a chance to halt and attack his pursuers. As he turned aside, a jagged arrow hit him and gashed his throat, thus slaying him.99
But Usama also mentions that his own father wore on his head a helmet with a nasal protection. When a javelin hit the nasal protection, it made his nose bleed but otherwise he was unhurt.100 A fourteenth-century Mamluk military manual written by Ibn Mangli offers the following counsel on putting on a helmet:
It is necessary that the buttons of the skull cap of the helmet on the inner side of the lining of the helmet are passed through loops so that the helmet is not detached from the cap … The interlining of the helmets should be made of fine holes. This will protect against the impact which a heavy blow would make on the helmet … And the point of the device is that the numerous holes in the fibre will diffuse the substance of the blow.101
Figure 7.43 Helmet of the Mamluk sultan Barsbay (reigned 825-41/1422–38), Egypt
Figure 7.44 Helmet types, Varqa va Gulshah (‘Varqa and Gulshah’), c. 1250, Turkey
It is interesting to note that when a person was wearing armour it was not easy to recognise them. This could lead to some unusual disclosures; according to Usama, there were women fighting (cf. colour plate 8) during the siege by the Isma‘ilis of his home citadel of Shayzar, but as they were wearing full armour the sex of these warriors was not known until after the fighting.102 In his important article on Muslim arms and armour, Mayer sums up as follows what the typical Muslim commander of the Ayyubid period must have worn: as armour, a helmet, a shirt of mail, leggings and boots with spurs; and as arms, a sword, a dagger or knife, a lance, a javelin and a shield.103
The Views of Nizam al-Mulk on the Ceremonial Role of Arms and Armour
Nizam al-Mulk was well aware of the ceremonial importance of arms and armour and of their role in the life of the court as well as the battlefield. He suggests that the ruler’s bodyguard should have two hundred sets of weapons kept in readiness for them, of which: Twenty sword-belts and twenty shields should be (decorated) with gold, and one hundred and eighty belts and shields with silver, together with pikestaffs.’104
Of course, these were troops who had an important role on special occasions. Weapons excited awe and wonder, especially decorated ones, ‘studded with gold, jewels and other ornaments’, and they were brought out at state ceremonies to impress visiting dignitaries.105
Figure 7.45 Armour types, Varqa va Gulshah (‘Varqa and Gulshah’), c. 1250, Turkey
Figure 7.46 Helmet of the Mamluk sultan Tuman Ba’i, early sixteenth century, Cairo, Egypt
There should be at least fifty mace-bearers constantly at court, twenty with golden maces, twenty with silver ones and ten with large clubs. The equipment and outfit of the guard must be of the finest and he must be surrounded with the utmost possible pomp.106
Some faint reflection of this splendid kind of spectacle survives in the fragmentary frescoes which were found in the royal throne-room at the Ghaznavid site of Lashkar-i Bazar in south-western Afghanistan, datable to c.1020 (figure 7.47).107 The same theme occurs, this time in sculpture, in the roughly contemporary palace at Ghazna, in southern Afghanistan.108 This iconography was also known in the lands bordering the Islamic world; the Armenian historian Thomas Artsruni describes frescoes of the bodyguard of King Gagik of Vaspurakan adorning the throne-room of the royal palace at Aght’amar in eastern Anatolia in the early tenth century.109
The Social Role of Arms and Armour
Arms and armour were much prized in a militarised society such as that of the Muslim states of the Levant in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. They were an obvious target of looters after battle. They were part of the currency of luxury goods offered and accepted by rulers and commanders and were used to demonstrate prestige. In 610/1214 the Ayyubid ruler al-Zafir celebrated the birth of his son and heir, offering the new-born child amongst other gifts two coats of mail, two helmets and a decorated harness all encrusted with precious stones, and similarly ornate lances.110 Saddles were often very ornate and were offered as gifts. Usama describes an exceptionally fine saddle which had been made in Ghazza: This saddle was brought with me from Syria on one of the extra horses led by my side. It was quilted, had black stripes and was of extraordinarily beautiful effect.’111
Figure 7.47 Turkish bodyguard, fresco in palace, eleventh century, Lashkar-i Bazar, Afghanistan
At festival times the army was very much in evidence. In Ayyubid and Mamluk times troops would don their best costumes and parade in the hippodrome (maydan) of the town. Games of polo, jousts and simulated combats would be organised in the cities of Ayyubid Syria and in Mamluk Cairo, as part of the celebrations.112
Fortifications in the Levant in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
General Introductory Remarks
It should be stressed at the outset that there are significant differences between town fortifications and castles in the medieval Islamic period. In the case of towns, the fortifications consisted of a long wall around the area of settlement. This wall was made as tall and thick as resources allowed; and its role was purely defensive. The principal technology of a city wall lay in its gates: for example in the approach to the gate, sometimes by a drawbridge as at Aleppo, and in the use of successive supplementary gates, bent entrances or machicolation.
As for the castle, its purpose could be offensive as well as defensive, and this was especially true of Crusader castles which were placed in positions where they could do the most harm to the Muslims, denying them entry to important areas (they were often placed at the head of a valley), preventing Muslims from moving freely and threatening their lines of communication. Crusader castles were, moreover, garrisoned by very few people – the Crusaders were, after all, always a beleaguered minority – and, to offset this disadvantage, the defences of their castles had to be much more subtle and multi-layered than those of a city wall.
Figure 7.48 Iranian warrior, Kitab-i Samak ‘Ayyar (‘Book of Samak the Adventurer’), c. 1330, Shiraz, Iran
With the notable exception of the castles of another beleaguered minority, the Assassins, whose castles, often intervisible, clustered in northern Syria, Muslim castles do not generally serve the same functions. The indigenous Armenian Christians, however, who were also a minority, faced the self-same problem and concentrated their strength in castles. Structures in Cilicia such as Sis and Gökvelioğlu were built to last and Armenian craftsmen were often employed by the Muslims in the construction of city walls, as in Cairo. The city walls of Edessa, which had a large Armenian population, bear lengthy medieval Armenian inscriptions;113 they are of excellent quality and are technologically superior to most of the Muslim castles in Syria.
Almost all Crusader castles were built to withstand siege; Muslim castles were not – the Crusaders were always too few to inflict significant harm on them. A few men had to do the work of many on the Crusader side, whilst the Muslims were always plentiful in number. Given this fundamental difference of approach and function between Crusader and Muslim castles, it is unlikely that the Muslims would feel the need to make significant borrowings in the art of castle fortification from the Crusaders, even though the Crusader castles were manifestly superior in design and execution.
Figure 7.49 Iranian warrior, Firdawsi, Shahnama (‘Book of Kings’), c. 1320, Iran
The Mamluk sultan Baybars razed man
y of the Crusader castles to the ground since he had learned the hard way that a small number of men in such castles could inflict a disproportionate amount of damage on the Muslims. The Crusader castle phenomenon in the Levant was linked to very specific circumstances which did not recur – a conquering minority attempted to maximise its resources and utilised its superior technological skills in building castles – and this phenomenon resulted in inventions and devices which were tailored to those circumstances.
As for the Muslims, they certainly learned to besiege the Crusader castles, but once the Crusaders had departed from the Levant the Muslims did not build castles like these. There was no need. Quite apart from the very specific circumstances and the special European background which had engendered Crusader castles, they had been extremely expensive to build. Indeed they had been made possible only by an enormous economic input from western Europe and by desperate necessity. The Crusaders built and rebuilt steadily throughout the period of their occupation and vastly exceeded the output of labour that might have been expected from their limited manpower.
Crusader castles have survived because of their magnificent building techniques. Muslim castles have not fared so well. The Crusaders did not build on poor existing foundations, preferring instead to construct de novo. They took few short cuts, realising that there was no substitute for massive squared masonry, although it was so expensive and above all time-consuming to produce. Large blocks of stone were used to construct thick walls of ashlar masonry; this task required a large body of skilled craftsmen and thus an enormous financial input from western Europe.
The Crusades- Islamic Perspectives Page 52