New book: Arms and Armor from Iran

[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 Then he characterizes the most up-to-date English work (six years old by then) as "out of date."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 .

[Ian]

Thanks Rivkin for the explanation of controversies surrounding the historical influences of Persia and what constitutes things Persian. Without wishing to set aside what you have said, I think we need to view this new book in terms of its stated objectives and the real contributions that it is making to understanding weapons, albeit within a cultural and political context.

We are all free here to express differences of opinion and perspective, but I think we need to maintain our focus on the weapons and what this book has to contribute in that regard.

Ian.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Hmmmm, I was reluctant to join this thread, but I think its time.

Ive known Manouchehr for a very long time, since I entered into the sword collecting world. I also have to say that my experience with him was a very bad one. I also disagreed with him, like Rivkin did, on many historical points and facts. However, besides all that, I really believe that Manoucher, has put his blood into this effort. He has been working on it tirelessly for years, traveling to and fro to areas of field research, examining museum inventories, manuscripts, old books, experts in the field, and completed this complilation.

I understand that history cannot be separated from antique weaponry, and that some will disagree with Mr. Khorasani on historical points, but Im sure that his effort in this compilation is great, and the information he provided is priceless to those whom are interested in the field of Persian weaponry.

[Tim Simmons]

This book sound quite a tome. It is a little pricey. Can anyone say how comprehensive it is, or is it another book that just concentrates on the luxury artifacts.

[ariel]

Rivkin has put his finger right on the point: the foreword for this book is indeed written by Prof. Kaveh Farroukh and it is everything Rivkin described. In general, there is " an uniterrupted evolution of military arts, technology and tradition... ( from)... the original Kurgan-Aryan arrivals into Persia".
In short:
Persian culture spreads from the Ukraine to the end of the civilized Earth ( and even primitive Arabs and barbarous Turks learned how to pick their noses from the highly cultured Iranians they defeated time and time again); Europe owes Persia an enormous cultural and military debt for stopping the Ottomans and this debt was never acknowledged; Persian recovery from the crushing defeat at Chaldiran was due to Abbas' " military genius" ( the fact that Sir Robert Shirley took over the re-organization of Persian military is conveniently forgotten); Nader Shah's military exploits are no less than "brilliant" and a brief mention of his invasion of Delhi does not go into pesky details of pillage, plunder and mass slaughter of civilians.
There is such thing as a viewpoint and then there is bias.
There is national pride and then there is jingoism.

[Doug M]

Originally Posted by 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.

Do you mean to make some sort of character attack here? What does any of this have to do with the text? It is best to avoid obvious attempts at discrediting someone (if, indeed, that is the intention above).

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.

Your opinion is fine, but it has nothing to do with a read of the text. Again, I wonder what is the idea behind posting this.

There is no shame in disagreement,

Disagreement is fundamental to human nature. So, yes, having opposing views and being able to act in a civil manner is absolutely fine, acceptable, and necessary.

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.

Well, to take this seriously, one has to read the book--let alone receive it--to arrive at any conclusion before making assertions.

Curiously, is this a thread about the book in question or about the author? Because the focus has shifted with what seems to be very negative intentions. If this is a thread about the book (assuming this is the case with a title such as "New book: Arms and Armor from Iran"), it should solely be about the book.

Doug M

[Andrew]

Anyone with eyes can see there are two camps here. The Staff is caught in the middle, and will not permit this to degenerate into bickering and flames.

We are scrupulously trying to remain neutral and encourage civil discussion about Manouchehr's new book. However, because of the underlying tensions, we are going to be all over this topic, and will be quicker than normal with intervention.

It would truly be a shame to see this topic prohibited simply because I don't want to be bothered trying to keep the peace when no one else seems to really want it. If you want to fight and argue, take it somewhere else.

This thread is now closed. I strongly suggest you all leave the contents where they lay.

If anyone wishes to discuss the book, please start a new thread.

[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.