The value of the additional visual sources for the study of historical weapons.

ariel · 7th January 2016, 11:37 PM

The more I look at the picture, the more doubts I have...

First, it cannot come from the Arab source. By the beginning of the 8th century, the idea of aniconism ( ban on human images) was already in a full swing in the Arab world.
Second, the style is Persian/Indopersian, even with clouds in the style of Chinese "chi"
Third, the armour looks East Asian: Mongols? Chinese? Even Persian, may be (???)
Fourth, composite bows.

My guess , this picture might be a part of Persian/ Moghul collection of miniatures 15-17 century.

The fact that it was used in a book dedicated to the history of Portugal and supposedly attributable to the battle at Jabal-al-Tariq is suspect. Not every reference or iconographic source can be accepted at face value.

I would dearly love to be wrong, but would need much more supportive evidence.

7th January 2016, 11:37 PM	#24
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The more I look at the picture, the more doubts I have... First, it cannot come from the Arab source. By the beginning of the 8th century, the idea of aniconism ( ban on human images) was already in a full swing in the Arab world. Second, the style is Persian/Indopersian, even with clouds in the style of Chinese "chi" Third, the armour looks East Asian: Mongols? Chinese? Even Persian, may be (???) Fourth, composite bows. My guess , this picture might be a part of Persian/ Moghul collection of miniatures 15-17 century. The fact that it was used in a book dedicated to the history of Portugal and supposedly attributable to the battle at Jabal-al-Tariq is suspect. Not every reference or iconographic source can be accepted at face value. I would dearly love to be wrong, but would need much more supportive evidence. Last edited by ariel; 8th January 2016 at 07:06 AM.