preislamic arab armies

[Sakhr]

hi all
i know this is no history forum but i cant find a place where to discuss this matter without rising hordes of anti islamic trolls
im adressing this to bc historians and modders as they are fully acknowledged for this subject
1- what exactly composed the arab armies between 500 to 750 ad
2- Khalid ibn al waleed cavalry was it light or medium , what armor/ weapons they used exactly
3- same for the infantry about armors and weapons
4- archery: what bows they used (composites or simple wooden bows)
5- what kind of weapons / armors produced in yemen in that specefic era
im in need for accurate information for modding purposes in civ5 so thnx in advance for help
and bc mod is legendary

[matmohair1]

- http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_96_figure_1.htm

[Sakhr]

thnx man i knew this one already

[Dago Red]

You titled the thread pre-islamic (500AD) but ask for armies during the Muslim conquest (620 - 750AD). So this is very confusing.

Mat linked you to some info for the Muslim conquest but as I just pointed out, this doesn't seem to be all you are seeking. Problem is, while the time frame is technically all in the "Early Medieval Period," 500 AD has more in common with the late Ancient period, than the Middle Ages. Then, there was a lot of change over the next 250 years to the end of the time frame you're asking about.

It's extremely difficult to to find sources about arab armies in 500 AD. Your best bet is to go with Ancient sources and extrapolate outward somewhat.

And remember, in 500 AD many Arabs would be Christian, even Jewish. This complicates your question even further. In the mid 600's, during the Muslim conquest (lead by Arabs) the Arabs in Syria were all Christian.

Their proximity to the Eastern Roman Empire and, in general, greater wealth than their southern neighbors lead them to be overall better equipped than the southern Arab armies. There were also the heavier influence of Persian heavy cavalry and what became the Abna troops in BC in that area.

So are you looking for the armaments of Muslim Arab armies from that time, or Christian Arab armies from that time?
Or both?

[nein]

camels... lots and lots of camels

also curvy bad guy swords

[Dago Red]

It's true they did have many camels, and very few horses.

also curvy bad guy swords

Seriously though, I read through a bit of a book about the 630's and the Muslim conquest that covered some points about pre-islamic Arab warfare -- often noting Arab traditions/conditions to highlight what changed under Muslim rulers. In either case, it is about a time right smack in the middle of the time frame of 500-750AD. But I must stress things changed a lot from one end of that to the other.

There is a lot here so I took a few key sections.

Traditional Arab warfare tactics and how they evolved during Muslim conquest.

-Raiding tactics evolved to include deeper strategic thinking.
-Army core formed around defensive infantry

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Weapons and Armor.

-Mostly hardened leather armor, not iron.
-Mostly scale and lamellar armor.(1)
-Mixed iron swords of inferior quality.(2)
-Reed spears
-Hijazi longbows

(1.) Famous Najran armor
(2.) Except from Yemen which imported wootz from india and made high quality steel! blades. (A great advance over most of the rest of the world at this time).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Armor cont. here discussing metal armors only.

-Gilded helmets, some with aventails.
-iron lamellar rare, but available
-most with means to own serious armor, wore the Dir, chainmail hauberk.
-leather shields
-Wife's veils tied to spears as pennons (which later became a well known symbol of the European knight)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Edit -- Some more details....

Dress:

-Began to change even more from the traditional izar to the Persian/Eastern Roman trousers.
-Pre-Islamic Arabs wore long hair, and some still were not shaving their heads in the 630s AD
- Both leather sandals and Roman leather sandal-boots

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Supply:

-Early on, metal goods made in cities were traded for at tribal faires.
-Initial conquests of Jewish Arab tribes also bolstered armories.-The common man did not hang on to his leather armor and equipment if not on campaign for long, lest it go uncared for and rot.This indicates a brisk and plentiful trade in common items of war.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sakhr]

Dago Red , i really appreciate the time you accorded to my post and for that im thankfull

your last post provide a clear idea of both tactics and equipment but does not answer all


first of all, it is true that the timeline i specified is rather confusing. im also aware of the turkich influence over the arabian warfare in both tactics and armament .
so the 750 ad was a sort of line i estimated before this influence took over.

any clear description about infantry and cavalry?
any evidence for use of camel riders in battles?

the most important matter i need to understand here is the south arabian influence
Yemen had clearly a long history of conquests and warfar. Himyar comes to mind here. there is an obvious military tradition and we can clearly link it to the first islamic expensions
So. Is there any continuity from that tradition or arabs just adopted new ways to fight sassanids and eastern romans.

[Dago Red]

im also aware of the turkich influence over the arabian warfare in both tactics and armament .so the 750 ad was a sort of line i estimated before this influence took over.

Ah, I see what you mean. And normally it might take a couple hundred years to completely transform a "factions" military, but in this case I think outside influences (from the Eastern Romans and Sassanians/Persians) acted very quickly. not in 500AD perhaps but by the time the first armies began launching north against northern Arabians (who were often ERE allies), things began to change.

So. Is there any continuity from that tradition or arabs just adopted new ways to fight sassanids and eastern romans.

Both.
ALFAJI and others here might be better to address that and how and when it happened. But as some of those descriptions show, The Muslim Arabs equipped an entire army with weapons and armor from two destroyed groups the Ghassanids and Lakhmids (Judaic Arabs) and made a point of capturing and cataloging it all. Obviously they already had their own arms and armor, including elites with famed yemeni wootz blades, but as they conquered they seem to have very quickly adopted the equipments of those they made war on -- especially since they were overall, lacking in quality metal armor that the Arabs north had in plenty, mostly due to the geographical advantages and trade routes that their Muslim brothers/cousins as desert nomads did not have -- barring places like Yemen (and Oman) as already stated which had huge trade with India.

They also had few horses but many camels.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Army make up during this time (pre-Turk influence) was infantry centric. Heavy infantry and champions at the front rank. Medium and light infantry behind them, mostly spearmen. Archers in back. Cavalry was usually deployed on the sides. Many of the infantry may have rode in on camels but not fought on them.

I have found really no evidence for "curvy bad guy swords." And given that the warriors in question did not fight mounted nearly as much as later, I'm not as surprised as some might think.... given that curved sabers, and so called scimitars probably grew to infamy out of an equestrian warrior tradition.

We also know the Arabs did not use the stirrup, even long after they knew about it. This is well documented and written about by many Arab and non-Arab authors at the time and historians now. This is the device that made the two scourges of east and west so formidable as a horseman, The Turks and the Normans. Though they used it differently, the Turks more for horsemanship and finesses and the Norman knights to effect the most devastating charges -- allowed to support heavy armor, and heavy weapons combined with huge impacts.

It is interesting how infantry heavy the Arabs were during this time -- something most of us probably don't think about when we think of a medieval arab army. By some accounts they may have had nearly every man on a camel, on some expeditions, but only for traveling not for fighting. Few actually fought on camels, in a pitched battle from what I just read, though some might have been mounted as mobile reserves. Glad you started this thread, I love digging through this stuff.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So... the general army make up from what I have seen is:

-Some heavy infantry with both Yemeni and Omani origins, along with men wearing captured heavy armor. Straight swords, lots of mention of Arab "short sword."

-Medium spear infantry wearing the chainmail Dir, and various hardened leather armor -- both scale and lamellar.

-Various light infantry, lightly armored and un-armored (especially berbers and southern nomads) with leather shields and reed spears.

- Slow firing but AP archers

-Light cavalry

-small force of medium elite cavalry

[Sakhr]

Very useful data you bring here Dago Red i really appreciate it
i was told that some of the contributors here were extremely academic and i m not disappointed
do you think i can find visual material somewhere ?
and if you dont mind pointing me to the sources of these scans or the book name
thnx

[Dago Red]

and if you dont mind pointing me to the sources of these scans or the book name

Those are from Armies of the Muslim Conquest.
oops... I don't even have that book, just looked over it somewhere online. The book the excerpts are from is Battle of Yarmuk AD 636 -- even though it focuses on a particular battle it goes a ton of background.

You can easily find many of the images online, but the real trick is getting the explanation (which comes with sources noted, and on other pages even images of the sources). Otherwise you might easily misidentify the men represented. For example there is no way to tell the difference between the depictions of Christian Arabs of Syria and the Muslim Arabs of Medina apart for me, I just thought the former happened to have heavy armor on -- I had to read the descriptive pages and was constantly surprised.

Your best bet for unit depictions is to play BC in my opinion .

Use Omani units as a basis for the heavy infantry and champions.
Use the AOR arab units for the rest of the infantry basis -- Andath spearmen and bowmen, and the Bedouins.
Look at the Harafisha infantry and volunteers (one is medium infantry the other is light) and the light infantry of the Abbasid Caliphate as well.

Some of the Faris horse and Omani horse for medium and light cavalry sound about right.


edit: wrong book, changed above.

[Sakhr]

Those are from Armies of the Muslim Conquest.
oops... I don't even have that book, just looked over it somewhere online. The book the excerpts are from is Battle of Yarmuk AD 636 -- even though it focuses on a particular battle it goes a ton of background.

You can easily find many of the images online, but the real trick is getting the explanation (which comes with sources noted, and on other pages even images of the sources). Otherwise you might easily misidentify the men represented. For example there is no way to tell the difference between the depictions of Christian Arabs of Syria and the Muslim Arabs of Medina apart for me, I just thought the former happened to have heavy armor on -- I had to read the descriptive pages and was constantly surprised.

Your best bet for unit depictions is to play BC in my opinion .

Use Omani units as a basis for the heavy infantry and champions.
Use the AOR arab units for the rest of the infantry basis -- Andath spearmen and bowmen, and the Bedouins.
Look at the Harafisha infantry and volunteers (one is medium infantry the other is light) and the light infantry of the Abbasid Caliphate as well.

Some of the Faris horse and Omani horse for medium and light cavalry sound about right.


edit: wrong book, changed above.

thanx again
i will certainly dig for more

[matmohair1]

- http://imtw.ru/index.php?showtopic=7768&st=0

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[k/t]

The stirrup doesn't do much for charging.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

[General Sultan V]

any clear description about infantry and cavalry?
any evidence for use of camel riders in battles?

I Don't know where people get this but its wrong that they used camels extensively, they might be picking up what happened when the assyrians fought us arabs thousands of years BC. But at that time cavalry armies were very prominent and dominant. when the Muslims invaded Mekkah during their early Rise the Pagan Mekkans Had a Very good deal of cavalry which They used cunningly, They swung around a mountain stealthily and charged the Rear of Muhammad's lines, this is an example of a famous cavalry charge in the war, and large use of horses instead of camels who have became more as travel animals and pack carriers and treasures rather then battle Mounts

[Sakhr]

I Don't know where people get this but its wrong that they used camels extensively, they might be picking up what happened when the assyrians fought us arabs thousands of years BC. But at that time cavalry armies were very prominent and dominant. when the Muslims invaded Mekkah during their early Rise the Pagan Mekkans Had a Very good deal of cavalry which They used cunningly, They swung around a mountain stealthily and charged the Rear of Muhammad's lines, this is an example of a famous cavalry charge in the war, and large use of horses instead of camels who have became more as travel animals and pack carriers and treasures rather then battle Mounts

arabs certainly used war camels in different times but as you said not as largely as horses
i think it was only for archery purpose and using certain breeds (like actual race camels)
because a camel does not ride like a horse at all, and regular one are very slow
also there is the temper
palmyran used them for sure

[Harith]

As far as I can tell, it seems that the arabs never really had their army broken into units. It's usually the infantry cavalry and camel regiments.

The infantry might've been broken up to fursan and irregulars and the cavalry is already fursan since in the arabic armies anyone who new how to ride a horse, was a faris.

As for the armor, I sually dont bother with "sources".Instead I look at it from a logical point of view. If ur an arab soldier in the middle of the dessert, what are the chances of u wearing iron? none lol. So, logically they would settle for smaller protection such as leather on top of the baggy clothes. As for the helmet, there were many metal however were all covered with clothes to protect the head from being injured from an impact and to also block the heat that might result.

Now this summer I went to the british museum and I took some photos (which I might post) of some special gallery that was open for the arabian horses. Even though camels were common on the battle ground, it's a wrong perception to say that they were the dominant portion of the mobile units. The arabian horses go as far as the arab pagans in yemen and hedjaz. That being said, they were noted for speed, stamina and strength. The arabic swords also excelled to their counterparts in terms of speed and effectiveness.

So, a summary of what I said is.... arab armies were considered light and some medium (very few though). THey are dependent on their swords and cavalry superiority in maneuvering. Infantry was the main driving force where they would engage the enemy, pin them down for the cavalry to outflank them or perhaps attack from the rear.

[Sakhr]

As far as I can tell, it seems that the arabs never really had their army broken into units. It's usually the infantry cavalry and camel regiments.

The infantry might've been broken up to fursan and irregulars and the cavalry is already fursan since in the arabic armies anyone who new how to ride a horse, was a faris.

As for the armor, I sually dont bother with "sources".Instead I look at it from a logical point of view. If ur an arab soldier in the middle of the dessert, what are the chances of u wearing iron? none lol. So, logically they would settle for smaller protection such as leather on top of the baggy clothes. As for the helmet, there were many metal however were all covered with clothes to protect the head from being injured from an impact and to also block the heat that might result.

Now this summer I went to the british museum and I took some photos (which I might post) of some special gallery that was open for the arabian horses. Even though camels were common on the battle ground, it's a wrong perception to say that they were the dominant portion of the mobile units. The arabian horses go as far as the arab pagans in yemen and hedjaz. That being said, they were noted for speed, stamina and strength. The arabic swords also excelled to their counterparts in terms of speed and effectiveness.

So, a summary of what I said is.... arab armies were considered light and some medium (very few though). THey are dependent on their swords and cavalry superiority in maneuvering. Infantry was the main driving force where they would engage the enemy, pin them down for the cavalry to outflank them or perhaps attack from the rear.

you dont bother with sources but i do

i actually had a conversation with some friends about the rashidun expensions and one of them told me that they had no armors at all but faith and it was according to him the best armors this is of corse a romantic perspectives among others.

light troops maybe formed backbones of the arab forces in many times in antiquity and early medieval times but it was not always the case
we are talking about a very vast area stretching from yemen to syria and we are not discussing only bedouin warfare here
facing heavier troops certainly required better armors to hold in lines , and some major battles lasted for days.

[Dago Red]

Yes, and it's ill advised to lump people all into one homogenous group, just because you can seemingly fit them all under one label: Arab.

There was no similarity, at all, between Omani / Yemeni Arabs, and Bedouins from the open desert. The armies would be highly mixed if you put those groups together. You can say certain things, overall, based on the evidence and sources, but must acknowledge the diversity within that.

(And that's saying nothing of the Jewish Arabs and nothing else of the Christian Arabs of Syria).

[General Sultan V]

why are you guys calling syrians/North Peninsulars Arabs?

[Dago Red]

Because, aside from the ERE Greeks and Sassanian Persians, the largely Christian population was Arab. People forget, before Islam, many Arabs were Christian. Some still are.