A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Aqtai]

Rivkin, that is exactly what I meant.

Mamluks during the Mamluk period used Turkish names like Baybars, Qalawun, Khushqadam, Qaitbay and Tumanbay. As Rivkin said this even carried on after mamluks were no longer Turkish and recruited from the Caucasus. I assume it was some kind of tradition. Indeed mamluks actually spoke the Qipchaq dialect, for example Sultan Qansuh El-Ghuri, who was of Circassian erigin, commissioned a Turkish translation of the Shah-nameh so that other mamluks could understand it! BTW this Mamluk shahnameh remains a useful source of information on the appearence of mamluks. During the Ottoman period, as Rivkin pointed out, the mamluks started using Arabic names.

With regards to Muhammad ibn Qalawun, the children of mamluks who were born and brought up in Egypt always had Arabic names and were excluded from military careers, although they may have been allowed to join the halaqa in the early Mamluk period. Yusef Ibn Taghri-birdi and Mohammed Ibn Ahmed Ibn Iyas were sons and grandsons of mamluks. However children of mamluks were entitled to a state pension, which is probably why these two had the time to become historians, they also had access to many mamluk emirs and even the sultan himself. AFAIK the only two mamluk sultans of mamluk origin, not the sons of a previous sultan, who didn't have Turkish names I can think of are Sultan Barquq (which means plum) and Sultan Al-Mu'ayyad Sheikh.

Ham, thanks for letting me know about the research carried out on Mamluk and Ottoman armour. Is any of it being published in English or available to the public?

[Rivkin]

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

Hi Rivkin, I have never heard this story about Circassian mamluks being buried in trees, from what I know of the mamluks and the Mamluk sultanate, I think it would be highly unlikely. For all their frequent lapses (such as murdering each other, drinking wine and qumiz, love of fine clothing and over-taxing the native peoples of their kingdom ) the mamluks were pretty orthodox and overall quite sincere Muslims. Those kind of pagan practices would simply not have been tolerated. I don't know were the ordinary mamluks were buried, but certainly Cairo is littered with the splendid tombs of emirs and sultans, many of which I have visited. I assume the tombs of ordinary mamluks would have ressembled those of their contemporary middle-class Egyptians. In fact there is a lot we don't know about mamluks.

I'm not sure what you mean by pre-Mamluk era? certainly until the reign of the penultimate Ayyubid Sultan Es-Salih Ayyub, Mamluks would have been a tiny elite minority in an army made up largely of free-born Turks, Kurds and the occasional Arab tribesman. Even during Ayyub's reign the Bahri mamluks would probably only have numbered a couple of thousand at most. What distinguished Ayyub is he promoted his mamluks over the heads of free-born emirs. Indeed by the time he died all the emirs seem to have been of Mamluk origin. What also distinguished the Bahris is that they were nearly all of Qipchaq Turkish origin and were extremely loyal to each other as well as their sultan, whereas previously mamluks came from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds and included Turks, Armenians and Slavs. With regards to Armour and weapon virtually nothing survives which can be positively identified as Ayyubid or early Mamluk. As far as I know the earliest swords and helmets, apart from the sword of Ayyub, date to the late 13th and early 14th century.

This picture of a helmet and aventail comes from an Arabic translation of L. A. Mayer's "Mamluk Costume", A book I would love to own but which is terrifyingly expensive. The helmet is early 14th century and is attributed to Sultan Muhammad ibn Qalawun. If that mail is genuine (which I doubt), then it is the earliest piece of Mamluk mail I know of. These 2 pieces were in the Porte de Hal museum in Brussels.


I've not heard of Rustam's autobiography, what is it?

[Rivkin]

I was also puzzled by this tree story. I'll try to get my hands on the book and see if he provides any references.

Rustam's memoirs unfortunately have not been translated into english (to my knowladge), it's an autobiography by Napoleon's mamluk bodyguard. While it's relatively short it was extremely educating for me, for it's may be the only autobiography of this kind I know about. There is a french version:

Roustam Raza
"Souvenirs de Roustam, mamelouck de Napoléon", 1er.
Introduction et notes de Paul Cottin. Préface de Frédéric Masson (Paris, 1911) 302p.

Here is Napoleon with Roustam in the background:
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/nap...g/8NIII058.jpg

[Aqtai]

That would be an interesting book to read. I think in terms of material culture however early 19th century mamluks would have been more influenced by Ottoman culture than 13th-16th century Mamluke sultanate culture. Certainly the costumes worn by the mamluks of this period were Ottoman.

I'll see if I can get hold of it. My French is bit rusty now, but hopefully i should still be able to read a book .

BTW what language were the mamluks speaking among themselves in Rustam's time? Were they still speaking Qipchaq?

[Rivkin]

Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan.

Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive:

a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars.
b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day.
c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks.
d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate.

Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

[Tim Simmons]

I would have to agree with Aqtai that these heavy bladed knives and katars may have originated as mail piercing weapons but became just other versions of bladed weapon that to us are of unusual form. Something I proposed on page one. This water colour of an unidentified, unarmoured, middleaged nobleman painted circa 1750? illustrates quite well. Tim

[B.I]

what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail??

i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined.
i know jens is on a road trip but jim??

aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Brian,
I have to admit I've been pretty much 'out of the loop' on this oustanding discussion on mail and katars the past week, although I have read this thread as well as the one on the other forum. I think your discussion on Indian armour was very nicely stated and well placed, bringing up material on this armour that illustrates that there was a distinct spectrum of quality in the forms found. This suggests of course that some Indian armour certainly did parallel European quality. I think Ham made a particularly important comment concerning the validity of comparisons when significant difference in period are involved. Weapons and armour of later period that maintain certain traditional style or form vestigially, as their expectation of meeting the combat situations intended for original design is negligible, seem hardly worthy of such comparison.

The study of armour has admittedly been far outside my field of study, but in reviewing these discussions I cannot help but become profoundly intrigued and realize how important and relevant its study is to our more focused study on ethnographic weapons. The paper "Demystifying Chain Mail and Ring Mail" by Dan Howard that is linked in the thread is nicely written and beautifully referenced, informative and most helpful in getting the proper perspective in understanding this topic from the European forms. I agree with your note that most study of weaponry and armour does defer to Ottoman and Mamluk material when 'Eastern' examples are discussed, while Indian forms are relegated to broad assumptions and nearly cliche' interpretations. I think one of the most important qualities of Robert Elgood's magnificent new book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (London, 2004, ISBN 81-88204-44-7), is that he brilliantly examines how to understand the symbolism imbued in the weapons and armour, an extremely important perspective that has typically eluded the scope of arms and armour study in the west. His work will stand as the renaissance of the study of Indian weaponry.

Returning to the topic of mail and katars, on the mail I would defer to the advanced knowledge of you and the others on these threads, and hope the discussions will continue as the material is fascinating and its great to learn more on this!
On the katar and it's use as a mail piercing weapon. You, Jens and I have of course discussed these often, and there have been countless posts over the years on these forums. With the limited material available on these, most of the discussion is naturally speculative. The suggestion that the katar was not intended for use against mail needs qualification. This is a weapon that evolved over a long period and seems to have remained indiginous to the Indian sphere, however with the development came of course variations. It seems to me that in its development in Southern India it was likely not meant to pierce armour originally. Much like the pata, its gauntleted sword big brother, it was used in slashing manner as much as in thrusting. It is important to note that the Mahratta versions after the arrival of Europeans often used the straight broadsword blades from Europe. These blades would have not been suited for mail piercing in India any more than they would have been in Europe.

In later development of course, encroaching influences brought the well known reinforced points seen on many of these katars that would suggest the potential for armour piercing. Obviously such a feature would not guarantee that it would be used for such purpose any more than it would preclude its use in any manner dictated by circumstances. With that consideration, it seems worthy of note that the absence of combat damage on existing katar examples that would indicate contact with armour does not necessarily provide evidence that such use was not intended. It must be remembered that most Indian weapons that survive are typically those found in collections acquired during the British Raj, and these were often armoury items or from gatherings from diplomatic interaction. The weaponry of the rank and file and with combat history typically ended up in scrap heaps and were disposed of. This severely impedes the possibility of combat damage on examples found for examination, much as in considerable weaponry usually found by collectors. It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

I think that the katar was a weapon form that like most others, experienced variation, and while there were certainly examples that carried blades that were reinforced for mail piercing, this was not an exclusive consideration.
As far as the most effective attack against mail, it seems that in the heat of combat, the most instinctive action in the melee would be a powerful blow with a zaghnal, battle axe or mace. It would seem that in using blades against mail the primary concern would be in the blade breaking. Here I would ask those more advanced in armour...would there have been a construction location in the coats or shirts that were more vulnerable? It is of course said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Also, would heavy blows from mace or axe sufficiently weaken areas of the mail to allow better penetration of a bladed weapon?

This has been an outstanding discussion, and I very much admire the prudent demeanor employed by you and everyone on this thread in discussing a concurrent thread from the other forum and avoiding direct criticism of its participants. Very nicely done!

With all best regards,
Jim