Evolution and Reformations of Muslim Armies

[Blaze86420]

Were there certain historical events or figures who have significantly changed Muslim warfare during the middle ages or was it gradual and paralleled long term events (such as Turkic migrations)? And what were the differences between arab, persian, and turkic armies?

[Chukada1]

I was unaware the Muslims had armies.

Were the Muslims loyal to their homeland, Muslimistan?

[hellheaven1987]

The question is too broad that is quite difficult to answer, especially after the decentralization of Caliph power after 8th Century Islamic force was becoming more localized and depended on the regions.

[Blaze86420]

The question is too broad that is quite difficult to answer, especially after the decentralization of Caliph power after 8th Century Islamic force was becoming more localized and depended on the regions.

After the breakdown and decline of the abbassids when new dynasties were established. Ill make the question more specific: in what ways did the tactics and equipment of Fatimid armies differ from lets say the Seljuk and Persian armies?

[Blaze86420]

I was unaware the Muslims had armies.

Were the Muslims loyal to their homeland, Muslimistan?

Am i supposed to laugh?

[Babur]

I was unaware the Muslims had armies.

Were the Muslims loyal to their homeland, Muslimistan?

maybe he is referring to the Armies of the Arab conquests in the 7th and 8th Century AD

[Blaze86420]

maybe he is referring to the Armies of the Arab conquests in the 7th and 8th Century AD

but i wasnt, i was refering to the different ethnic groups that inhabit the area and their style of warfare. I only used "muslim" as a collective term, instead of naming every single ethnic group and dynasty in the region.

I remember reading about heavy use of slave warriors known as ghulam or ghilman. These were drawn from fringe populations such as the Slavs but were mostly turkish. They either were the same or were the antecessors of the Mamluks (the difference is no yet quite clear to me). These formed the elite of the army and typically the Caliph's and later the Sultan's bodyguards, since they were perceived to be more reliable, lacking as they were of any regional loyalties.Their function was probably that of heavy cavalry operating in the traditional Persian style: heavy armor, probably lamellar combined with mail, a lance for the charge and a mace for the slugfest, probably constituted their equipment, as it did elsewhere. I'm not sure if such cavalrymen used the bow as well. I'm not quite sure of how much importance was given to other arms, such as foot archers, horse archers, or heavy infantry, the quality of these, or from where they were recruited, I remember reading that at least the Rashidun seem to have made heavy use of foot archers, and this sounds reasonable since this is the millenium-old military tradition of the Fertile Crescent-Arabia, area. It also must be taken into account that changes probably took place from the humble days of the Rashidun to those of Abbasid opulence, both in terms of the recruiting pool and equipment. They probably introduced more central asian influences under the Abbasids, and I believe it was during this period that recruiting turkish ghulams became a popular practice, this shift in military duties may have initiated a long process during which Muslim political power would shift from the hands of the arabs (and even the native Persian dynasties that would rise in the 9th century) to those of turkish slaves. As early as 861, Al-Mutawakkil was assassinated by his turkish slaves. There were also the famous Ghazi warriors, though these were more like the later Christian conquistadores: freelance adventurers fueled by religious zeal and lust for plunder, and were not an integral part of the caliphal armies, though they were probably employed.

The difference between Arabs and Persians was probably more in terms of expertise and appearance(clothing), since their military traditions developed in largely interconnected contexts, we see imitations of Persian cavalry traditions in the armies of late ancient Arab states such as Palmyra and the Lakhmids, and in general Persian political and military influence had been strong in Arabia since at least Shapur II. In fact, the word "Faris"(as in Farsi) would become the rough equivalent of "knight" in arabic. These two, being settled, urban, civilizations probably made more use of foot archers and foot soldiers in general. The Turks, however, until the rise of the Ottomans at least, were the typical Central Asian nomad warriors, making heavy use of horse archery and some heavy cavalry tactics as well, they were probably much more proficient at the former than the Arabs or Persians. Also, turkish slaves should not be confused with turkish tribesmen, the former were probably trained and educated in arab/persian traditions while the latter were purely central asian.

thanks for the info, +rep.
Were ummayad armies any different than rashidun armies? I imagine heavy equipment after the conquests was plentiful. also any books on muslim armies throughout the middle ages would be great.

[Babur]

but i wasnt, i was refering to the different ethnic groups that inhabit the area and their style of warfare. I only used "muslim" as a collective term, instead of naming every single ethnic group and dynasty in the region.

They were pretty diverse though, I doubt that a Turkic cavalryman in Maveranahr would be identical to a Berber cavalryman in Al Andalus.

[Blaze86420]

They were pretty diverse though, I doubt that a Turkic cavalryman in Maveranahr would be identical to a Berber cavalryman in Al Andalus.

exactly, the only reason i said "muslim armies" is because, well they were muslim and had armies! I knew they were diverse, i started the thread for the very reason. i wanted to know the different tactics and equipment that were used. then Chukada1 showed up...

[HansDuet]

Yes.

I did chuckle.

[Blaze86420]

i dont get why its funny, did i ask a stupid question?

[Atlassmurf]

Muslim = religion, not a nation. So the armies differ alot.

[Blaze86420]

Muslim = religion, not a nation. So the armies differ alot.

I never suggested it was one single nation, infact i was asking for the differences between the style of warfare and equipment between the ethnic groups. you know im an arab muslim myself, why would u assume i think that muslims are one homogenious nation?

[Herakleios]

I remember reading about heavy use of slave warriors known as ghulam or ghilman. These were drawn from fringe populations such as the Slavs but were mostly turkish. They either were the same or were the antecessors of the Mamluks (the difference is no yet quite clear to me). These formed the elite of the army and typically the Caliph's and later the Sultan's bodyguards, since they were perceived to be more reliable, lacking as they were of any regional loyalties.Their function was probably that of heavy cavalry operating in the traditional Persian style: heavy armor, probably lamellar combined with mail, a lance for the charge and a mace for the slugfest, probably constituted their equipment, as it did elsewhere. I'm not sure if such cavalrymen used the bow as well. I'm not quite sure of how much importance was given to other arms, such as foot archers, horse archers, or heavy infantry, the quality of these, or from where they were recruited, I remember reading that at least the Rashidun seem to have made heavy use of foot archers, and this sounds reasonable since this is the millenium-old military tradition of the Fertile Crescent-Arabia, area. It also must be taken into account that changes probably took place from the humble days of the Rashidun to those of Abbasid opulence, both in terms of the recruiting pool and equipment. They probably introduced more central asian influences under the Abbasids, and I believe it was during this period that recruiting turkish ghulams became a popular practice, this shift in military duties may have initiated a long process during which Muslim political power would shift from the hands of the arabs (and even the native Persian dynasties that would rise in the 9th century) to those of turkish slaves. As early as 861, Al-Mutawakkil was assassinated by his turkish slaves. There were also the famous Ghazi warriors, though these were more like the later Christian conquistadores: freelance adventurers fueled by religious zeal and lust for plunder, and were not an integral part of the caliphal armies, though they were probably employed.

The difference between Arabs and Persians was probably more in terms of expertise and appearance(clothing), since their military traditions developed in largely interconnected contexts, we see imitations of Persian cavalry traditions in the armies of late ancient Arab states such as Palmyra and the Lakhmids, and in general Persian political and military influence had been strong in Arabia since at least Shapur II. In fact, the word "Faris"(as in Farsi) would become the rough equivalent of "knight" in arabic. These two, being settled, urban, civilizations probably made more use of foot archers and foot soldiers in general. The Turks, however, until the rise of the Ottomans at least, were the typical Central Asian nomad warriors, making heavy use of horse archery and some heavy cavalry tactics as well, they were probably much more proficient at the former than the Arabs or Persians. Also, turkish slaves should not be confused with turkish tribesmen, the former were probably trained and educated in arab/persian traditions while the latter were purely central asian.

[hellheaven1987]

I remember reading about heavy use of slave warriors known as ghulam or ghilman. These were drawn from fringe populations such as the Slavs but were mostly turkish. They either were the same or were the antecessors of the Mamluks (the difference is no yet quite clear to me). These formed the elite of the army and typically the Caliph's and later the Sultan's bodyguards, since they were perceived to be more reliable, lacking as they were of any regional loyalties.Their function was probably that of heavy cavalry operating in the traditional Persian style: heavy armor, probably lamellar combined with mail, a lance for the charge and a mace for the slugfest, probably constituted their equipment, as it did elsewhere. I'm not sure if such cavalrymen used the bow as well. I'm not quite sure of how much importance was given to other arms, such as foot archers, horse archers, or heavy infantry, the quality of these, or from where they were recruited, I remember reading that at least the Rashidun seem to have made heavy use of foot archers, and this sounds reasonable since this is the millenium-old military tradition of the Fertile Crescent-Arabia, area. It also must be taken into account that changes probably took place from the humble days of the Rashidun to those of Abbasid opulence, both in terms of the recruiting pool and equipment. They probably introduced more central asian influences under the Abbasids, and I believe it was during this period that recruiting turkish ghulams became a popular practice, this shift in military duties may have initiated a long process during which Muslim political power would shift from the hands of the arabs (and even the native Persian dynasties that would rise in the 9th century) to those of turkish slaves. As early as 861, Al-Mutawakkil was assassinated by his turkish slaves. There were also the famous Ghazi warriors, though these were more like the later Christian conquistadores: freelance adventurers fueled by religious zeal and lust for plunder, and were not an integral part of the caliphal armies, though they were probably employed.

Regardless, slave soldiers only had small number among Islamical military until High Middle Age. The majority of force, particularly in Middle East, was militia. It was largely because the political nature of Seljuk Empire that pushed Middle East into some form of city state, hence militia became the main military force.

[Herakleios]

Regardless, slave soldiers only had small number among Islamical military until High Middle Age. The majority of force, particularly in Middle East, was militia. It was largely because the political nature of Seljuk Empire that pushed Middle East into some form of city state, hence militia became the main military force.

They were the professional elite and the core of the caliphal armies armies since their inception in the 9th century, but I agree that they were decidedly a minority. But their numbers increased dramatically during the 12th century as did the number of turcoman mercenaries, until these two elements came to form the majority of Muslim armies. Militias, such as the Syrian ahdath, were coming to prominence in the area as early as the 10th century in fact, much before the Seljuks, but the Middle East did become more fragmented after the fracture of Abbasid central power, which may have, as you said, made the states of the area more compact and reliant on the urban folk since they could no longer draw manpower from imperial domains, it seems it was also during this century that militias reached their peak, however, mercenaries always constituted a high proportion of Muslim Western Asian armies. For example, Daylami heavy infantrymen, some of which were pagan, in particular, were exceptionally prized military units, Turcoman mercenaries were also recruited heavily since around the 11th century and also berbers, bedouins, kurds, armenians, and others were employed. In determining the constitution of Muslim armies, it is necessary to take the timeframe into account. During the Rashidun, for example, Caliph Omar seems to have instituted an standing army paid by the state and recruited through conscription, with troops garrisoned in regional junds (or military centers) to guard the provinces, they also seem to have started to draw troops from conquered peoples for said garrisons at some point. The state could also call men who were not part of the standing army but fit to serve into service. Meanwhile some states which formed during the Abbasid collapse, such as the Aghlabids of Tunisia relied primarily on militias, and others, such as Tulunid Egypt, rather fell back on their ghulams and the regular army, so it's also a case-by-case issue. What seems to be a constant in Muslim armies since the Abbasids are a slave-soldier elite, and crack heavy cavalry tactics. The latter starting to take prominence, in fact, since the Ummayads.

[Herakleios]

Were ummayad armies any different than rashidun armies? I imagine heavy equipment after the conquests was plentiful.

Yes they were, their larger dominion provided them with larger areas for raising horses, lack of horses being consistently a problem during the early conquests. Also, armour probably improved as well, during the initial conquests, the armies seem to have only used mail as defense and no horse armour. During the Ummayyad era, they were able to equip themselves with iron armor(possibly lamellar) helmets, and also horse armour. The Syrian-Arab crossbreed of horse was also introduced in this period, and it was superior to the previous mounts. For these reasons, armoured heavy cavalry shock tactics similar to those of Byzantium and Persia became more widespread and more important during this era.The Arabs also started to recruit central asian horse archers at this time.

[Blaze86420]

are the arabian horses of today actually the crossbreed you mentioned? and in what ways was the syrian-arab horse better than the pure arabian one? was it larger, stronger, but slower? and i was under the impression ummayad armies were purely arab.

[Herakleios]

are the arabian horses of today actually the crossbreed you mentioned?

I do not know for sure, but perhaps this site can help you.

and in what ways was the syrian-arab horse better than the pure arabian one?

Because they combined the advantages of both breeds.

ummayad armies were purely arab.

As the empire started to grow, they seem to have resorted to recruitment of their new subjects, though this just may have been for garrisoning purposes. However, they surely used mercenaries, especially Central Asians.

[Dr. Oza]

the nomadic turks transitioned the nature of warfare to more so , one of tactics , horse-archery, and cavalry

ottoman and seljuk armies would divide according to the function of the units and most turks after genghis khan , such as the ottomans and mughals also used the mongol system of centennial military division 10-100-1000-10000 onwards...

and islamic armies were among the first in the globe to have a full-time professional army