Swords and "urbanization"

Tim Simmons · 10th October 2008, 06:52 PM

Very interesting topic. It might depend on what one thinks constitutes a sword. Then what is a good sword? Is the sword good because it is fancy? Is the sword good because it is what the market desires? Like art urbanisation does not always mean sophisticated design. Specialisation can occur in isolation?

Mark · 10th October 2008, 07:21 PM

I think it would be more appropriate to distinguish nomadic from sedentary, rather than nomadic or pastoral and urban. As you noted noted, very non-urban cultures do produce excellent blades. Just imagine the hardware that goes along with that - hammer, anvil, pincers, etc. - as well as the need for large amounts of hot-burning fuel, and you can see why blacksmithing could be rare among nomads. Too much stuff to carry around, if nothing else.

I have never examined the question, though, so I am curious if anyone has any references for prevalence of blacksmithing among nomadic peoples.

fearn · 10th October 2008, 07:57 PM

Hi All,

Interesting topic, but I think there are two issues with the Central Asian nomads. First, they did occasionally build cities (see various references), and second, because they often used carts to move things around (link, near bottom). While mobile, they could also move a forge around as needed.

Following what Mark said, I think that the important thing is population size and material needs, not mobility. The Hordes were large and highly organized, so they found ways to move both metalwork and smiths. A small, isolated tribe might not have the surplus to support a smith, nor ways to get the specialized materials he needed. That said, I think the critical tests are the African tribes, because they were pretty small, and did metalwork. Hopefully one of our Africa experts will chime in with how that was organized, and how small and isolated a group of people can be, and still support a smith.

As an aside, I'd point out Wallace's Malay Archipelago, wherein he describes what the smiths of Lombok used to make two meter long muzzle-loaders (link). Yes, these aren't swords, but it provides an idea of how little a skilled smith needs to make a long weapon:

"At Mataram we called at the house of Gusti Gadioca, one of the princes of Lombock, who was a friend of Mr. Carter’s, and who had promised to show me the guns made by native workmen. Two guns were exhibited, one six, the other seven feet long, and of a proportionably large bore. The barrels were twisted and well finished, though not so finely worked as ours. The stock was well made, and extended to the end of the barrel. Silver and gold ornament was inlaid over most of the surface, but the locks were taken from English muskets. The Gusti assured me, however, that the Rajah had a man who made locks and also rifled barrels. The workshop where these guns are made and the tools used were next shown us, and were very remarkable. An open shed with a couple of small mud forges were the chief objects visible. The bellows consisted of two bamboo cylinders, with pistons worked by hand. They move very easily, having a loose stuffing of feathers thickly set round the piston so as to act as a valve, and produce a regular blast. Both cylinders communicate with the same nozzle, one piston rising while the other falls. An oblong piece of iron on the ground was the anvil, and a small vice was fixed on the projecting root of a tree outside. These, with a few files and hammers, were literally the only tools with which an old man makes these fine guns, finishing then himself from the rough iron and wood."

(There's more detail in the original quote. Follow the link if you're interested)
F

Nonoy Tan · 10th October 2008, 09:26 PM

Hi Ariel,

You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic.

By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art.

There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

ariel · 10th October 2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonoy Tan

Hi Ariel,

You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic.

By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art.

There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

On the contrary, I do not in any way, shape of form would call Moro " uncivilized" or " un-anything". Their production of highly sophisticated arms despite pretty basic conditions is the exact point of my argument! If they could do it, I see no reason why we deny the same ability to the Central Asian nomads. Do we really believe that all those Dzhungarians, Kashgars, Kumans, Polovtsi, Turcoman Mongols etc, etc imported their swords from China? How did they managed to demolish the super-urbanized China and super-duper-civilized Iranian Empire if they could not maintain a steady-state military-industrial complex?

fearn · 11th October 2008, 01:58 AM

Hi Ariel,

Ummm.... steady state industrial complex? The Mongols? They had the largest contiguous empire in world history. Steady state? I'd say expansionist.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Somewhere along the line, I'd gotten the idea that the "scimitar" shape was something the Steppe nomads worked out and passed to surrounding peoples, not the other way around. Ditto with the compound bow and stirrup. They seem pretty advanced to me.

F

ariel · 11th October 2008, 05:53 AM

Perhaps, steady-state was an imprecise choice: I meant established, functioning, well-oiled or suchlike.
Going to a different topic I raised earler: the origin of the curved saber.

The Mohamed's book shows Khazar sabers, some with pretty obvious false edge ( vestigal yelmans) and suggests that these were the swords later called Kalachuri by the Persians/Indians.
This being the case, one would have to re-think the origins of the Shamshir.
According to Zakey, the introduction of the curved sabers into Muslim culture occured with the Turkic Mongols invading Persia in the 13th century.
However, Umayyad Arabs fought Khazars as early as in the 7th-8th centuries and Northern Iran was a part of the battlefield. This is when the straight Arab swords met the curved Khazar ones for the first time. Thus, it is likely that the replacement of the sword pattern in the Islamic armies occured much earlier than we think. Persians, who were under full Arab control, just adopted the new and superior pattern and continued to curve it more and more until the Safavid era. Another possibility is that the Seljuk ruler Israil ( a native Khazar or adopted Khazar) introduced curved Khazar sabers during his wars with Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 11th century.
Either explanations ( likely, the former one, ie Khazar-Arab Wars) would represent the starting point of the introduction of curved sabers into Islamic military culture. This would explain the North's and Nicolle's claims that curved sabers were present in the Islamic world as early as 8th-9th centuries.
If the Persian cavalry under Shah Mohammed fought the invading Mongols with straight swords, I must be wrong. If, however, they already had curved sabers, the idea of the " Chingiz Khan- inspired " origin of shamshir must be incorrect.

10th October 2008, 06:52 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	Very interesting topic. It might depend on what one thinks constitutes a sword. Then what is a good sword? Is the sword good because it is fancy? Is the sword good because it is what the market desires? Like art urbanisation does not always mean sophisticated design. Specialisation can occur in isolation?

10th October 2008, 07:21 PM	#2
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I think it would be more appropriate to distinguish nomadic from sedentary, rather than nomadic or pastoral and urban. As you noted noted, very non-urban cultures do produce excellent blades. Just imagine the hardware that goes along with that - hammer, anvil, pincers, etc. - as well as the need for large amounts of hot-burning fuel, and you can see why blacksmithing could be rare among nomads. Too much stuff to carry around, if nothing else. I have never examined the question, though, so I am curious if anyone has any references for prevalence of blacksmithing among nomadic peoples.

10th October 2008, 07:57 PM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi All, Interesting topic, but I think there are two issues with the Central Asian nomads. First, they did occasionally build cities (see various references), and second, because they often used carts to move things around (link, near bottom). While mobile, they could also move a forge around as needed. Following what Mark said, I think that the important thing is population size and material needs, not mobility. The Hordes were large and highly organized, so they found ways to move both metalwork and smiths. A small, isolated tribe might not have the surplus to support a smith, nor ways to get the specialized materials he needed. That said, I think the critical tests are the African tribes, because they were pretty small, and did metalwork. Hopefully one of our Africa experts will chime in with how that was organized, and how small and isolated a group of people can be, and still support a smith. As an aside, I'd point out Wallace's Malay Archipelago, wherein he describes what the smiths of Lombok used to make two meter long muzzle-loaders (link). Yes, these aren't swords, but it provides an idea of how little a skilled smith needs to make a long weapon: "At Mataram we called at the house of Gusti Gadioca, one of the princes of Lombock, who was a friend of Mr. Carter’s, and who had promised to show me the guns made by native workmen. Two guns were exhibited, one six, the other seven feet long, and of a proportionably large bore. The barrels were twisted and well finished, though not so finely worked as ours. The stock was well made, and extended to the end of the barrel. Silver and gold ornament was inlaid over most of the surface, but the locks were taken from English muskets. The Gusti assured me, however, that the Rajah had a man who made locks and also rifled barrels. The workshop where these guns are made and the tools used were next shown us, and were very remarkable. An open shed with a couple of small mud forges were the chief objects visible. The bellows consisted of two bamboo cylinders, with pistons worked by hand. They move very easily, having a loose stuffing of feathers thickly set round the piston so as to act as a valve, and produce a regular blast. Both cylinders communicate with the same nozzle, one piston rising while the other falls. An oblong piece of iron on the ground was the anvil, and a small vice was fixed on the projecting root of a tree outside. These, with a few files and hammers, were literally the only tools with which an old man makes these fine guns, finishing then himself from the rough iron and wood." (There's more detail in the original quote. Follow the link if you're interested) F

10th October 2008, 09:26 PM	#4
Nonoy Tan Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 293	Hi Ariel, You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic. By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art. There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

11th October 2008, 01:58 AM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Ariel, Ummm.... steady state industrial complex? The Mongols? They had the largest contiguous empire in world history. Steady state? I'd say expansionist. Otherwise, I agree with you. Somewhere along the line, I'd gotten the idea that the "scimitar" shape was something the Steppe nomads worked out and passed to surrounding peoples, not the other way around. Ditto with the compound bow and stirrup. They seem pretty advanced to me. F

11th October 2008, 05:53 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Perhaps, steady-state was an imprecise choice: I meant established, functioning, well-oiled or suchlike. Going to a different topic I raised earler: the origin of the curved saber. The Mohamed's book shows Khazar sabers, some with pretty obvious false edge ( vestigal yelmans) and suggests that these were the swords later called Kalachuri by the Persians/Indians. This being the case, one would have to re-think the origins of the Shamshir. According to Zakey, the introduction of the curved sabers into Muslim culture occured with the Turkic Mongols invading Persia in the 13th century. However, Umayyad Arabs fought Khazars as early as in the 7th-8th centuries and Northern Iran was a part of the battlefield. This is when the straight Arab swords met the curved Khazar ones for the first time. Thus, it is likely that the replacement of the sword pattern in the Islamic armies occured much earlier than we think. Persians, who were under full Arab control, just adopted the new and superior pattern and continued to curve it more and more until the Safavid era. Another possibility is that the Seljuk ruler Israil ( a native Khazar or adopted Khazar) introduced curved Khazar sabers during his wars with Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 11th century. Either explanations ( likely, the former one, ie Khazar-Arab Wars) would represent the starting point of the introduction of curved sabers into Islamic military culture. This would explain the North's and Nicolle's claims that curved sabers were present in the Islamic world as early as 8th-9th centuries. If the Persian cavalry under Shah Mohammed fought the invading Mongols with straight swords, I must be wrong. If, however, they already had curved sabers, the idea of the " Chingiz Khan- inspired " origin of shamshir must be incorrect.