Middle eastern Armies and their quality 800ishAD-1750ishAD

**knight of virtue and valor** · October 27, 2009, 11:02 AM

hello, I was just wondering about middle eastern armies, their composition, their quality, and their evoloution through this period. I like to call my self something of a history buff in this era when it comes to the armies of the WEST, but I admit that I cant talk about middle eastern armies very much without revealing my ignorance and looking like a militarily euro-centric yahoo. if you could point me to some good writings in the English language for me to read, and maybe tell me some of their shortcomings\strengths, then I would be appreciative. and I would really very much like to be explained to about how the crusaders did a damn thing at all considering the comparative tiny numbers and disunity that was rife among them, as it seems that all the non-partial writings I have read about this say that their Islamic enemies had Calvary\infantry that was just as heavilty armoured and well trained, and more numourous, AND more organized....how did the crusaders not get annihilated at the first battle with this power? thanks for the answers to all my questions.

**RollingWave** · October 27, 2009, 11:47 AM

asking 900 year span of a rather large place is pretty silly. in this span Europe went from Vikings to Napolean for crying out loud.

**dogukan** · October 27, 2009, 11:53 AM

well this is a loooong time span....and not all Middle Eastern armies were same.
I could give information about Ottomans though, but Ottomans didn't really have a "middle eastern" army.
So Egyptian and Iranian dynasties would fit your category better.

**knight of virtue and valor** · October 27, 2009, 12:01 PM

doh.....sorry...how about.....1300 to 1750?, and ottomans would be fine, I just meant the whole north African/Arabian/middle eastern\turkey area. any info is great. I want to be a military historian and have not decided what era, so I am just trying to learn as much as I can about as many armies as I can...I know, its impossible to be really knowledgeable about all of warfare, but I can try!

**dogukan** · October 27, 2009, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by knight of virtue and valor

doh.....sorry...how about.....1300 to 1750?, and ottomans would be fine, I just meant the whole north African/Arabian/middle eastern\turkey area. any info is great. I want to be a military historian and have not decided what era, so I am just trying to learn as much as I can about as many armies as I can...I know, its impossible to be really knowledgeable about all of warfare, but I can try!

Well then...Ottoman military composition was pretty much like this. Though I might make some mistakes.
(also check this http://www.theottomans.org/english/c...my/index_5.asp)

Kapıkulu(elite, palace/sultan guards):

Elite cavalry(well armed heavy cavalry)-bows, lances, swords, maces/ 6 divisons if I'm not mistaken

Varying Janissary units....numbered around 12-20 000. (later numbers increased when they were worthless and not really janissaries)
These would mainly be muskeeters but were trained for pretty much everything. Some divisions were heavily armored. Halberd too was in use by these guys. Extremely disciplined, professional soldiers.

Artillery and specialized regiments(such as engineers, tunnelers..e.tc) too were among the Janissary corps

Others
-----------
Akıncıs
Nomadic Turkics around the empire sent before the main army to loot and install fear...also used for scouting and raiding supply lines
Very mobile Light cavalry armed with bows and sabres/maces/lances
-----------
Tımarlı Sipahis
Cavalry from all over the provinces(tımars)
The main force of the Ottomans. In large numbers...with very varying equipments. Bows, lances, swords/maces..Light cavalry. Some wore chainmail armor.

Azaps
Levies made up of Muslims from empire, mostly Anatolia
Cannonfodder/working force mostly....no armor, whatever they find for fighting.

Armies of vassals:
Crimeans light cavalary in large numbers. They fight like Mongols

Romanians/Serbians
More European looking infantry/knights

I missing lots of things, read the website....information there is great

**Lysimachos11** · October 27, 2009, 12:39 PM

1300 - 1750 would in a nutshell be a continuing reliance on light cavalry for victory in a battle I think.

By 1517 the Ottoman Empire spanned much of the region you asked for. The era would also be characterized by an early adoption of gunpowder weapons, especially by the Ottomans. The Safavid Persian Empire (the second power besides the Ottomans) lags behind the Ottomans in gunpowder adoption and technology. By 1650 at the latest the Ottomans in turn are lagging behind after European armies, missing out on the adoption of infantry as the main force on the battlefield. Light cavalry remains the mainstay of the Ottomans armies AFAIK.

Arabia would not develop in any extraordinary way, probably lagging behind Turkey and Persia. The Portuguese actually manage to capture significant portions of Arab territory, and are decisive in maintaining the Ethiopian Christian kingdom.

By Napoleon's entry into Egypt it is clear Middle Eastern militaries are far behind Europe.

**hellheaven1987** · October 27, 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Lysimachos11

By 1517 the Ottoman Empire spanned much of the region you asked for. The era would also be characterized by an early adoption of gunpowder weapons, especially by the Ottomans. The Safavid Persian Empire (the second power besides the Ottomans) lags behind the Ottomans in gunpowder adoption and technology. By 1650 at the latest the Ottomans in turn are lagging behind after European armies, missing out on the adoption of infantry as the main force on the battlefield. Light cavalry remains the mainstay of the Ottomans armies AFAIK.

Well, Ottoman military was not lagging behind at 17th Century, as several accounts of Battle of Vienna suggest that. Rather, it was the painful memory of Thirty Years War that gave Europe a generation of experienced soldiers and a serious thought of reorganizing logistic that made European caught up Ottoman. The major killing force of 17th Century warfare was neither infantry nor cavalry, but artillery, which well-continued until 20th Century.

The real strength of Ottoman military was not technology, but superior logistic system. Indeed, Ottoman military effeciency suffered badly when logistic was fallen, which saw quite many times for their Caucasus' campaign, arguable the most unwanted region Ottoman soldiers ever wanted to be posted.

**MehemtAli_Pasha** · October 27, 2009, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lysimachos11

By Napoleon's entry into Egypt it is clear Middle Eastern militaries are far behind Europe.

AFAIK, Ottomans weren't very behind. it was the Mameluks who confronted the French army in the beginning, and they were far behind, relying on massive cavalry charges. fierce cavalry, but worthless against infantry squares.

the Ottomans though, with their new reformed military, Nizami I Cedid proved challenging against the French army.

**Sher Khan** · October 27, 2009, 12:53 PM

Until the establishment of an Ottoman state, most armies in North Africa and the Middle East, sans Mamluk Egypt and Syria, were comprised of a small, well-trained core of drilled bodyguards with varying levels of training in multiple forms of combat depending on the individual despot that ruled them. The armed forces during wartime was built up of levies, regional governor retinues, religious volunteers, and tribal or European mercenaries to bolster this central force for added numbers and/or specialization.

The question of loyalty, in a government that had legitimacy with the people only by lieu of its military dominance (Shi'a nations and Sunni states that claimed legitimacy through a caliph had added stability), was therefore the defining factor in determining how to create these bodyguards. The vast majority of the time they were freed-slaves bought from afar or foreign mercenaries on a large payroll. Their quality, numbers, and equipment depended entirely on either what they themselves could bring (if mercenaries) or what the ruler could afford for them (if raised from slavery).

So while these bodyguard regiments could be of good or superior quality (not always), the rest of the military raised in times of war were all over the place in their usefulness. While most peasant levies and tribal mercenaries were little better than freeloaders, some who hailed from a particularly proud or war-like region (or wherever live was hard) could prove effective troops. In North Africa, these were certain Berber tribes, in Syria these were either Turkic tribes roaming the plains or certain urban militias from various independent-minded cities, and in Anatolia and Iran these could be both Turks or Kurds or some other hillmen with useful military skills.

If the despot had good relations with the Ulema, he could request a preaching campaign for the recruitment of religious volunteers from the local region or from afar. Such troops were mostly relegated to logistical and engineering help, some could be from middle class families or have support from their local villages to afford good equipment to fight, and a small minority may even be 'professional,' jihad enthusiasts who survived more than one campaign and always itching for more. Their morale ranged from barely there to unbreakable, but then this could be true of almost any soldier given the right scenario and circumstance.