New book: Arms and Armor from Iran

[Mumtazb]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Hi Mumtaz. Great to see you here.

Thanks Andrew....good to be here!
I just saw the keris forum today so that's an added bonus to this site

[Doug M]

Hello,

I absolutely agree with Mumtazb: this book is of the highest quality with over eight years of research within it. Both the text and catalogue sections are excellent. The text is all academic, and there is an extensive bibliography for you, the interested party, to start your own research.

The same quality goes for the binding. What has been described as "weak binding" is certainly out of the ordinary. For my part, I have held the book vertically quite a bit, and the binding holds well. I suppose if the book is manipulated while held vertically, it could damage the spine, but that is the same for any large book. A book of this siaze, as suggested, is best enjoyed if it is placed horizontally on a flat surface. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the book's content: it has plenty to do with common sense. Keep this in mind when looking at it.

If one is interested in Persian arms and armor, this is, quite seriously, the best book on the subject. And I would like to say something about "definitive" as it has been used. If one thinks of "definitive" as a static thing, a definition written in stone, then this book is not "definitive." But if one thinks of definitions as things that change, particularly in academics, then this text is "definitive" as a starting point. Manoucher will be the first to state this. Regardless of how one regards this book, it is a fantastic starting point for future research.

Sincerely,

Doug M

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Doug M

Hello,

I absolutely agree with Mumtazb: this book is of the highest quality with over eight years of research within it. Both the text and catalogue sections are excellent. The text is all academic, and there is an extensive bibliography for you, the interested party, to start your own research.

The same quality goes for the binding. What has been described as "weak binding" is certainly out of the ordinary. For my part, I have held the book vertically quite a bit, and the binding holds well. I suppose if the book is manipulated while held vertically, it could damage the spine, but that is the same for any large book. A book of this siaze, as suggested, is best enjoyed if it is placed horizontally on a flat surface. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the book's content: it has plenty to do with common sense. Keep this in mind when looking at it.

If one is interested in Persian arms and armor, this is, quite seriously, the best book on the subject. And I would like to say something about "definitive" as it has been used. If one thinks of "definitive" as a static thing, a definition written in stone, then this book is not "definitive." But if one thinks of definitions as things that change, particularly in academics, then this text is "definitive" as a starting point. Manoucher will be the first to state this. Regardless of how one regards this book, it is a fantastic starting point for future research.

Sincerely,

Doug M

Hi Doug, good to see you here as well.

Didn't you and Mumtaz help edit the book? Personally, I'd love to hear more about that process and a "behind the scenes" perspective once I've had the chance to look it over. Did you edit only the text portion, or did you get the opportunity to participate in the photos and captions as well?

Best,
Andrew

[Lee]

Read for Kicks

[Mark]

Yeesh. It goes to show that if someone wants to be critical, they don't bother much with the details. I am not trying to belittle Raymond Sauvage, but to tear down a work by English-speaking authors by referral to Norwegian-language articles, one of which was published after the book in question, is just ridiculous. Even more so as he wrote, when asked to help locate copies of the articles, that "I think you guys sholdn't put to much energy getting those two articles. One of them is obut the theory of reconstruction versus imitations, the other one is a description of the Norvegian-Rusian sword project." How can it be that the articles he uses in his critique are are ones people "souldn't put much energy into getting?" Then he characterizes the most up-to-date English work (six years old by then) as "out of date."

I guess I am being critical of Sauvage, but that kind of gratuitous, at-any-cost criticism just burns me up. I am sure that anyone reading any of the works he cited could come up with equally severe, and equally weak, criticsim. It is highly unfair, and small-minded, IMO. And as an aside, I'm not aware that Sauvage has ever written a single word on the subject to contribute to the academic literature. Then again, most literary critics can't write (except a newspaper column) - that's why they are critics and not authors. I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

As for Manoucherer, I don't think anyone is accusing him of being less than thorough and comprehensive. Still, it won't surprise me if some finds some fault to harp on. As we say in the legal business, "if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; and if both are against you, just argue."

I must stop, as I am in grave danger of hijacking the thread.

[wolviex]

I think we've just resumed "interfora issues"

[Rick]

Originally Posted by wolviex

I think we've just resumed "interfora issues"

I certainly hope not Wolviex; it is nothing but an exercise in futility .

[Rivkin]

Gentlemen,

I am yet to receive the book, but I am well aware of the ideology behind CAIS and Professor Farrokh; I also have read Manoucher's posts for quite a while, so I know his opinion as well.
You see, there are two fundamentally different views on Persian history - one is that Persia is an ancient country that united Aryan people based on a common heritage and culture. Its Persian army is a direct descendant of traditions and ideas of Achaemenid Empire; it was a creation of Persian genius. The historical territory of Iranian people is that which was settled by Arian people (which includes Mongolia and Ukraine), or at least the one which was controlled by Achaemenids.
I think this theory is supported by CAIS and others. This is also the official opinion of IRI.
There is an element of truth here - the influence of Persian language and culture was extremely powerful, especially in neighboring and vassal states. Persian military of Achaemenid time was dominated by Persians and obviusly enormously influential as well.
However in my opinion there are a few problems - first of all, Persians can not remotely understand any of those Aryan people - no Osethians, no Scythians, no Armenians, no Kurds, no anyone else. All of these nations always had their own culture and history, and persian influence was quite comparable to that of English language and American movies today - powerful, but does not make an American out of an Afghani.

Another theory is that Persia was always a colonial empire. Its army even during Achaemenids was composed of dozens of nations, from Indians and Arabs to Scythian and Greek mercenaries. Each unit came with its own weaponry and its own language, but was given a Persian commander and a Persian flag. Over time the military influence of Persians decreased to the point when under Safavids there were virtually no persians in the army - turks, kurds, later georgians and circassians formed the bulk of the army. Btw as far as I remember (I can be wrong - long time since I read it, so I am sorry if I am wrong) Manaqib al Turk is not a treatise on Khorasanian cavalry and its crooked scabbards - its a work on Turks from Central Asia (including Khorasan) with their weapons - curved turkish sabres. Persians remained in control of the beurocracy; religion was controlled by "arabs" (sayeds), finance went to armenians and so on and so on. Again, each of these army units came with their language, this time - with their own commanders, with their weaponry and with their tactics.
Some of these nations were more loyal to the Persian Throne, some were less loyal. Kartli and Kacheti rebelled every 50 years; Afghani tribes where constantly attempting to dominate the region; turkish tribes of Kizil-bash confederation, Afshar and others where involved in endless bitter war for the Throne of Shahanshah. Even Persian history changed to the point that Jamshid and his son Tur would be believed to be fathers of all Turks (as in Pan-Turanism - in fact invention of Persian court poerts and philosophers) - see Minorsky and his works on Iran and Caucasica.

This opinion exists outside or Iran; those who voiced it inside Iran were jailed, killed and tortured (Chehregani).
In short - I support the second opinion, I strongly believe Manoucher (If I am wrong, I will personally apologize before him and his supporters), Farrokh and others support the first. There is no shame in disagreement, but I think the community should read Manoucher's book, just as everything written by me, knowing that there is a fundamental split in opinions and two rather opposite views on Persian military and Persian history.

Finally - I am no expert on Persia or weapons, so treat everything I say with a pound of salt .

[ariel]

Quoting Mark, I am in a mood to argue. Just argue. No facts, no law, just sheer and unrestricted desire to bare my fangs, growl and spill blood!
I AM MAD AS HELL AND I AM NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!
And the target of my aggression is......
Wrong!
Nothing to do with Mr. Khorasani's book!
It's the word " interfora conflict"
Forum (pl. fora) is a noun.
The sentence above requires an adjective which would be... what?...
foral? foruminal? (we cannot use "foraminal", it already has a meaning: "Hole-related")
So, my dear fellow Forumites, since none of us has a right to critique the book ( yet !) , I am offering a distraction game: Find an Adjective!!!
This will occupy our competitive juices for a while.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

...OMISSIS...most literary critics can't write (except a newspaper column) - that's why they are critics and not authors. I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

...OMISSIS... it won't surprise me if some finds some fault to harp on. As we say in the legal business, "if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; and if both are against you, just argue."

Words carved out from gold.