The Chariot Empires
Mesopotamia
Time Frame – roughly 3100 B.C. to 600 B.C.
Politics/Economics – Instead of trying to expound on each empire and kingdom, we’re going to go for the larger view of the commonalities found in the non-Egyptian cultures of the Middle East and Asia Minor. The time frame is also rather broad, covering the beginning of the Bronze Age and written history in the area all the way to the fall of Assyria, at which point the Persians and Greeks began to dominate.
From the earliest inscriptions, these societies seem to have been true kingdoms, each ruled by a single autocratic ruler. The power of the kingdom depended largely on the sagacity, ambition, and personal energy of the king. A weak king could easily loose all of the gains of even a powerful empire. Kings were often considered to be appointed agents of the local god, but not gods themselves or even necessarily having a special relationship with a deity. The basic economy was based on agricultural output, although a vast trade network throughout the area meant that wealth could be enhanced through the selling of especially prized commodities.
Although reading the inscriptions left behind by these kingdoms leaves the impression that all were in a constant state of war, this of course is not possible, for constant warfare is extremely expensive and would drain the coffers of these primarily agricultural societies. Having said that, it is true that certain energetic rulers could sustain prolonged military campaigns through the subjugation of neighboring tribes. Those with especially fertile and extensive plains were constantly at the mercy of raiding parties. A particularly capable leader could protect his kingdom by establishing a defensible perimeter, and with time the further frontiers of that kingdom would have to be protected as well. Standing armies would need to be provided for, requiring more land to produce more surpluses. More wealth meant more threats from kingdoms even further off, leading to further increases in the size of the army and the necessity to launch preemptive strikes. The cycle of expansion, perceived or real threat, and further expansion led to the creation of some of the most powerful kingdoms of the ancient world.
Warfare – The most powerful kingdoms used the chariot as a mobile fighting platform, usually with one driver, one archer, and one shield bearer who, armed with a sword or axe, would also defend the chariot against any enemy who approached too closely. Chariots were a nearly unstoppable force on the battle field, something that the later Persians would find out to be true as well. Moving quickly to the front lines, the chariot archer could fire a quick succession of arrows, and then the chariot itself could break through the formations of infantry and scatter the soldiers. Chariot cavalry tended to come from the upper levels of society.
The vast majority of warriors were infantry, normally using the spear, arrows, and axe. Infantry were either conscripted farmers, paid foreign mercenaries, vanquished enemies, or some combination of the three depending on the economic resources available. For what little information is available, it is most likely that the soldiers were massed into a battle line, arrows and thrown weapons were launched as soon as distance permitted. If that was enough to weaken the enemy line, the chariots would move in to take advantage of the breaks. If not, the lines would close in and infantry fought hand-to-hand.
Some regional differences should be noted:
¨ Sumerians: The earliest of the great kingdoms, from which we get the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were the first to use bronze weapons, the war chariot, and the massed infantry line (perhaps even formed as a disciplined phalanx) but had no archers.
¨ Babylonians: Renowned for their skill as archers, almost all soldiers, cavalry and infantry, carried bows in battle. There is nothing to indicate that they would close in with anything like a heavy infantry. Babylon had one of the few feudal levies of the area, where land was granted in exchange for service in the army.
¨ Nubians: Never completely united in their own territory, but also never conquered by Egypt, they conducted numerous raids as loose infantry units while armed with only the bow or spear. These groups sometimes reached impressive numbers, and their skills as fighters were highly respected. Large contingents of captured Nubian soldiers were often used by the Egyptians as mercenary/slaves. But even as slaves, they were fairly well paid as guards during peacetime and irregular infantry during war.
¨ Ethiopians: More feared than the Nubians because of their tight battlefield formations. They seem to have used heavy spear and javelins, along with some archers.
¨ Arabs: Exclusively nomadic, they fought completely unarmoured and used only the bow. It seems that they fought mounted from camels, two soldiers per animal. We may assume that one guided the camel while the other fired the arrows.
¨ Israelites: While never wealthy enough to support a large standing army, they were able to summon respectfully large numbers through their use of a compulsory rotating citizen levy, with active duty for one month of the year and the other time being held as reservists. It was primarily an infantry army, mainly due to the financial inability to purchase and maintain large numbers of war horses.
Although the kopesh is often used when illustrating the ancient Israeli warrior, I have great doubts that the weapon was used to any degree outside of the Egyptian army. (Indeed, archaeologically we find the very few remnants of the kopesh only in Egyptian sites). [Shared symbolism of kopesh as military might] It is a difficult weapon to build, and I part ways with those who like to see a direct lineage from the plow. [false-etymology] While the plow blade looks curved, it is really a bent triangle, and very thick. It takes the same skill to make a thick bowl as it does to make a plow.
The blade on the kopesh is both partly curved and straight and comparatively thin and long. That is a weapon that requires a high degree of specialized skill to produce, and the Egyptians would seem to have produced them in mass quantities. It is a poor weapon for single combat, but excellent for a line of soldiers in a mass formation. I also disagree with those who see the kopesh as a slashing weapon. The very reason to the off-angle of the curve is to put the maximum amount of cutting force forward of the user’s swing, but in the middle of the blade. This diminishes its slashing power but makes it a very effective chopping sword.
The Canaanites had neither the military organization to put such a weapon to effective use, nor the wealth to employ a dedicated team of highly trained specialists to build and maintain such weapons. It is far more likely that they used the straight broad shortsword found throughout the rest of the world at the time. The shortsword is both cut and thrust weapon, far less expensive to produce, and is more resilient to damage in battle.
Egypt
Time Frame – aprox 3000 BC to 30 BC
Politics/Economics – Although the history of Ancient Egypt went through many dramatic changes during the 3000 years until its fall to Rome, the many dynasties did share some overarching similarities. First, a sustained shift to urban, rather than rural, forms of living. Secondly was the creation of substantial agricultural surplus due in large part to the bounty of the Nile valley. This provided wealth which allowed it to also thrive as a trading and war power. Lastly, the creation of the pharaoh. Although several societies developed systems of power based on the idea of a god/king, a pharaoh was not only a divine being but also “the high priest of all temples”. As such, all religious activity, public and private, was directed through his person. He was the earthly mediator for all things secular and sacred. Combined with the wealth and military might, he had a power within the country far greater than any emperor.
That isn’t to say that all was harmonious during those three thousand years. Many dynasties lost power through both foreign conquest and civil wars. But even though several pharaohs were usurped and even brutally murdered, the presumption that pharaohic culture would continue was never questioned. Each new ruler took on the title and power of the conquered kingdom, leaving the political and religious bureaucracy largely intact. And it was that higher conservative and efficient bureaucracy that largely kept the empire prosperous.
Two periods in ancient Egypt’s history are particularly noteworthy for theatre. The New Kingdom (1540 BC to 1070 BC) was Egypt at the height of power, establishing itself as a nearly indomitable empire. It also was the period of greatest construction and highest achievement in art. When shows are set in “Ancient Egypt”, this era is usually chosen. The glory of the prior classical period was reestablished during this time of domestic peace and tremendous wealth, when the great pyramids were already a thousand years old.
The reign of the Ptolemys (332 BC to 30 BC) was another era of rebuilding former glory. But these kings were all descendants of one of Alexander the Great’s generals, so the influence was heavily Greek. Although most of the external trappings remain the same, the artwork and culture become increasingly Hellenistic. It is important to note that by the time of Cleopatra’s rule, the society had lost most of its regional power. The kingdom that remained for another three hundred years under direct Roman rule was nothing but a shadow of the superpower it once was.
Fashion/Manners – It seems that the more we know about ancient Egypt, the less we know about how people acted. More and more information is unearthed every year as to daily activities, but we cannot tell how they moved, how they stood, or how they treated each other.
The temple and papyrus drawings that remain are apparently not attempts at realism, but rely on certain artistic conventions. The same conventions lasted some three thousand years. For instance, we see a drawing of a pharaoh holding the hair of a kneeling prisoner with the left hand, while an axe is held high with right. Obviously this king is shown in the moment before an execution. But we cannot assume that this king actually performed that action, for the same drawing appears at the end of many chronicles of victorious battles thousands of years before. On yet another pictorial representation, the same pose is shown of another pharaoh about to behead a prisoner – while single-handedly driving a chariot. Sometimes the same image is included in a specific commemoration of a military victory, with the same accompanying description of victorious carnage, even though in actuality a peace treaty had been negotiated before a battle even took place. (It is interesting to note that this same artistic convention also appears in the art of several of Egypt’s neighbors, and is even seen in the carvings on Central American Mayan pyramids – a half a world away!)
What can be gleaned from these drawings is what they considered to be not important. Although we see images of enemy prisoners kneeling before the pharaoh, regular servants are seen standing fully upright, without even a lowering of the head. There would seem to be no tradition of bowing before the king at every occasion, as would later develop in both Europe and Asia. Also, whenever the pharaoh and his family are shown seated or reclined they are extraordinarily relaxed, shoulders rounded and completely without a trace of trying to appear “royal”. When standing, the posture of all figures is shown to be “casually proud”, in that the shoulders are straight but with none of the self-consciousness seen in Greek or Roman statuary.
Compare Egyptian art with that of some of their contemporaries. Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian depictions of kings and warriors all show them as men of great physical strength as well as having political power, as though having the first attribute validates having achieved the other. It is a conceit that is common throughout time and geography, a necessity to prove to the viewer the physical prowess of the leader. There seems to be no such imperative in Egyptian art. The Pharaohs are never shown with body language that would indicate a need to “awe” his own citizens.
To better understand this casualness, we are helped by comparing other cultures. When there exists a very real threat that the lower nobility or even the lowly workers might take arms against the rulers (i.e. Medieval Japan, Middle Age Europe), then elaborate manners in the presence of the king are required to establish every possible form of obedience from their subjects. It also becomes necessary to provide visual representations of the personal power of the rulers, reminding the viewer that it would be unwise to oppose him. It is reasonable to infer that in such a stable society as was Egypt, these considerations were nearly unknown. All of those movie scenes with servants groveling in front of the pharaoh may be way off the mark. A ruler who is supremely self-confident about his power and place in the universe might have no need to demand outward displays of obedience.
Civilian Conflict – We really have nothing which tells us anything about civilian interaction, but isn’t it fascinating to note that in the period artwork no civilian is ever shown using, much less wearing, a weapon? The tight control of the ruling power may not only have tightly clamped down on representations of individual discord, but may also have had an effect on the actions themselves. Although thievery and other forms of social disruption had to have occurred (otherwise why hire Nubian guards to patrol the open marketplaces?) it is possible that within the urban areas taking justice into your own hands was fairly uncommon.
Warfare – The army of Egypt was largely an infantry army, although by the late New Kingdom there was also a significant cavalry contingent. The cavalry, as for all Middle East Bronze Age cultures, was the chariot, not a mounted rider on a horse. Therefore the chariot provided Egypt with the equivalent of a light cavalry. The bulk of the fighting was performed by heavy infantry – armed during the later periods with the kopesh but far more commonly with the small axe (daggers are found, but in small numbers). Additional weapons included the javelin, light wooden shields, and archers to provide covering fire, or to take out lightly armored forces. The archery contingent, providing a light infantry role, was not arrayed near the heavy infantry, but kept at a distance, forming a natural reserve. Egyptian bows were notoriously weak compared to those of their neighbors.
The consensus has been that Egyptian battlefield formations were rigidly controlled, and that soldiers were drilled to fight in near machine-like precision. But this assumption comes from viewing tomb paintings – not a reliable source of realistic practice.
All young males were required to serve a two year military service, but only the best prospects were actually recruited after a short period of training and testing. A military career provided significant possibilities of advancement, for able soldiers and administrators were promoted regardless of the status of their birth. The pharaoh himself led the army into battle, and was supposed to be expert in handling the chariot and in firing the bow. Some artwork show him driving the chariot and firing the bow at once – not terribly likely. Most chariots had two people on it. A driver would wear a shield, protecting the left (blind) side o the archer. The chariot would be driven directly to the front line, charge the infantry, fire the bow a few times, then turn to the right for an escape back to safety, keeping the shield towards the enemy.
Large contingents of mercenary soldiers, especially from the Nubian kingdom, were employed, and these foreign troops were allowed to use their own weapons, mainly spears and large shields, and fight in their own style, although controlled by an Egyptian general.
No sheaths are seen on any drawings, and none have been found in any archeological digs. We may surmise that weapons were carted to the battlefield en mass and distributed to soldiers only when battle appeared to be imminent. It is safe to assume that the daggers, swords, and small axes were simply never worn. Even archers had no arrow quivers, but merely marched into battle with a good bunch of loose arrows held in the right hand and the bow held in the left. That is clear from many tomb and obelisk drawings, But did the archers transfer the arrows to the left hand, holding both the bow and the extra arrows in one hand as they fired? Or did they stick the arrows into the ground near their feet in the medieval style? We just don’t know.
Weapons available – The very stability and continuity of the Pharaonic bureaucracy also made it susceptible to a systemic rigidity. They were very slow to adopt the chariot, doing so only after coming out of a long period of Hyksos domination. They were likewise very resistant to replacing their bronze weapons with iron, although they certainly had the wealth to be able to purchase what they could not produce. They only began to produce full swords after the nearly disastrous confrontation with waves of immigrants collectively known as the “Sea People”. But even then the swords were still made out of heavy bronze and the military planners were never able to effectively incorporate them into Egyptian battle tactics.
There is some evidence that at least a few soldiers wore a short knife either tucked into the fold of fabric at the waist or strapped onto the left forearm without a sheath, but these seem to be personal items, not part of the issued weaponry.
Islamic Middle East
Rise of Empire (622 – 750)
It is customary to mark the beginnings of Islam with the Hijrah [Hegira], the movement of Mohammed and his followers from Mecca to Medina, at which point the organization of Islam expanded beyond merely the ties of immediate relatives. This simple shift provided the framework which would allow Mohammed to capitalize on a series of battlefield and diplomatic victories that led to the establishment of a unified Islamic state in Arabia, where before there had been a collection of warring cities.
After his death in 632, his successors expanded the extent of Muslim rule, confronting the Persians, Byzantines, Egyptians and various smaller powers. In 661 the power center shifted to Damascus, and during the next ninety years the empire would expand deep into Europe, North Africa and pressing into the Byzantine territories. Interestingly, during this time and also during the following “Golden Age”, conquests were conducted with what for the time passed for remarkable tolerance, with religious conversion not being made a requirement, and a great deal of respect given to Christian and Jewish residents within the empire. Much of this tolerance was because of the continuing influence of the great former Persian emperor Cyrus II.
Golden Age (750 – 1220)
The overthrow of the ruling Umayyads by the ‘Abbasids, meant a change of capital to Baghdad for the next 500 years, and with it a re-energizing of Persian culture. Continued success into Christian states was not only from aggressive military campaigns, but also from the support of Christian communities tired of heavy-handed Byzantine control. The ‘Abbasids, although constantly under attack from other independent Muslim caliphates, established a network of trade routes that encouraged the unrestricted movements of goods from Spain to China, from the Philippines and India to West Africa. To facilitate trade, borders were open and a series of inspectors made sure that weights and standards were uniform throughout.
This wealth combined with a thriving intellectual life, and the advances in medicine, art, science, architecture and learning, along with a continued tolerance of other monotheistic faiths, made Baghdad the center of civilized living after the fall of Rome. Their libraries held possibly the largest store of human knowledge at the time, with scholars combing the world “as far as China” for all surviving scientific and philosophical information. Long before the crusades, many of the material and intellectual benefits of the Islamic empire were percolating up to Southern Europe, and would provide the raw intellectual material for the Renaissance.
For Western Europe, the three most important of the independent Muslim kingdoms of this period were the Seljuks of Turkey, the Ayyubids of Egypt, and the Andalusian kings of Spain. If Europeans actually saw Muslims, they were more than likely from one of these three client states. It was the Seljuks during the 11th and 12th centuries that weakened the Byzantine Empire, the Ayyubids that conducted most of the war against the Crusaders, and the Andalusians who transformed Latin Spain into one of the glittering centers of Muslim power in Europe. Such was the wealth in Spain that after the fall of the last Muslim king, a re-Christianized Spain could instantly begin ambitious worldwide maritime exploration and become a dominant European power.
As far as the crusades are concerned, from the Muslim point of view they were a minor concern, of no more long term importance than any of the periodic uprisings and challenges to military power.
Mongol Invasions (1220 – 1380)
When Genghis Khan swept in from the east, the obliteration of the ‘Abbisids in Persia was so complete that even the great city of Baghdad was reduced to rubble and ruin. As the Mongols conquered through intimidation and fear, one of their tactics after a successful invasion was to kill leaders and scholars and destroy the collected works of art and science. Only in Egypt were the Mongols defeated and finally rolled back by a concerted effort of the soldier/slaves known as the Mamluks.
Mamluks [Arabic: “white slave”] were prisoners primarily from the Caucuses, trained as cavalry soldiers and converted to Islam, then maintained as an independent fighting force. In Egypt, they attained such power that, while technically still slave, they overthrew the Ayyubids and establish their own autonomous sultanate stretching across northern Africa. Mamluks became the defacto aristocracy, and maintained power in Egypt until massacred in 1811.
Ottoman Empire (1300 – 1922)
One of the remnant emirates in Turkey that survived the Sulyuk collapse were mounted warriors converted to Islam. But the Ottomans were not only fearsome warriors but also skilled bureaucrats. Taking advantage of a weak Byzantium and Persia, at the height of its powers in 1566 it controlled all of the Balkans, coastal Northern Africa, and all of Persia. It completely surrounded the Black and Red Seas, extended to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, and controlled 3/4 of the perimeter of the Mediterranean. They effectively controlled all land and sea routes allowing trade between Europe and Asia. It was this monopoly of wealth and the constant threat of conquest that turned out to be the impetus for some of the most history-making decisions for Europe.
In order to find a way to the rich India spice trade, many European kingdoms funded the age of naval exploration that would lead to Magellan’s circumnavigation and Columbus’ accidental discovery of the New World. It was to protect its ships that the merchants of Venice built their city in the natural protection of marshland. Large numbers of Jews, persecuted in Europe, found safety within the Islamic Empire. For most Europeans, their only knowledge of Islam or Muslims would be that which filtered through contact with the Ottomans. That “eastern” culture was quite a mix of Persian, Greek, Arab, and Turkic elements.
The court life, limited as it was to outsiders’ view, provided some of the imagery that would intrigue Western imagination to this day. The image of a turbaned Sultan surrounded by his harem, protected by eunuchs and attended by slaves – all have an element of truth, but as is usual, the truth is a bit more complicated. The harem consisted of not only the Sultans wives, but also other female relatives and their children (up to the age of sixteen, for boys). The palace quarters for the harem (the seraglio) were kept separated from the rest of the palace, but it was not a prison nor brothel. Eunuchs worked both within the seraglio (“black eunuchs”) and in the political administration of the palace at large (“white eunuchs”). Although slaves, members of both groups could rise within their respective bureaucracies to achieve great national power. Slavery was a fact of life within the empire, always taken from the population of defeated captives of non-Muslim countries. It is estimated that perhaps one fifth of the Ottoman population at any given time were slaves.
One group of slaves, the Janissary, became the most significant part of the Empire’s standing army. Recruited as young boys from among Christian captives, they were sequestered from the general population, endured harsh training, and were considered the personal slaves of the regiment and of the Sultan. But once attaining full status as Janissaries, they received regular pay, were allowed to marry, and achieved a high social standing. Janissaries had to convert to Islam, and were not allowed to wear beards, which is why they are always shown with full mustaches but clean chins. They were an infantry corps, and used muskets as their primary weapon as early as the 16th century.
Once Western Europe was able to establish its own trading routes to India by sailing around Africa, the wealth of the spice trade began to diminish. The reduction in revenue, increasing power of the Janissaries, fragmentation within the Empire by semi-autonomous local rulers, a steady line of ineffective sultans, all finally led to the long decline of the power. As allies of Germany during WWI, the loss in that war led to the final collapse of an empire that lasted six hundred years, supplanted by the modern republic of Turkey.
Modern Era (1922 – present)
Although the discovery of vast quantities of oil in the region in 1908 could have propelled another period of Islamic power, the area was already politically fragmented, most of it divided up into European colonies. Even when these achieved nation-state status, their leaders were too easily under the influence of Western political and economic interests. Many Persian and Arab leaders achieved fabulous personal wealth, but were unwilling or unable to translate that into political power, and certainly nothing approaching the creation of a Pan-Arab state.
Manners – From the beginning, and continuing still today, it is appropriate for Muslim to greet Muslim with “Salaam” (“peace”) or the complete ““Assalamu Alikum.” The protocol for who greets who first is as follows: the one who comes greets the Muslims that are present, those who ride greet those who walk, one who is walking greets one who is sitting, a smaller group greets the larger group, and younger always greets elder. It is not appropriate to offer salaam to non-Muslims.
The following gestures and manners are not specifically Islamic, but rather Arab. But as Islam began in Arabia, these gestures are now commonly practiced throughout much of the Middle East:
The right hand is used for eating, the left for personal hygiene. Therefore, by extension, all gestures toward another person, the serving of food, and the taking of food must be performed with the right hand. Using the left is taken as an insult or at best a measure of disgustingly bad manners.
Pointing a finger at someone is a sign of contempt, inferring that the person is less than human. Therefore to gesture for someone to approach the entire open hand is used, fingers together, and with the palm facing down in a gentle sweeping motion inward.
Tilting of the head slightly back, especially when combined with a “tsk” sound, signals that what the other person has said is not believed (the same is common in most of Latin Europe, as well).
Moving the open palm from right to left, thumb up, as if closing a door, means “no”.
Shaking hands is common at each greeting and departure, and again only with the right hand, not adding the left as we might in the West. Immediately placing the hand over the heart after a handshake is a sign of respect and sincere honor. When the same gesture directly follows the offering of food or other item of use, it shows sincerity on the part of the giver.
The highest gesture of respect on greeting is to kiss the hand, forehead or nose of the person being greeted.
In refusing the offering of food, the heart is patted several times, indicating that the offer is greatly appreciated, but that you have had enough.
Hugging or clasping the upper arms (with both hands) upon greeting is usually reserved for a close friendship. Between men, kissing a cheek means the same, and it can also be used in business circumstances to indicate that both sides have reached a “meeting of the minds”.
Especially in initial meeting, the distance between two men is very close, usually only a foot apart. This establishes trust, and may be accompanied by touching.
Touching noses together three times is a specifically Bedouin tradition, still common, but rarely seen outside of the Arabian dessert countries.
The “OK” sin, the “thumbs up” sign, and striking the left open palm with the right fist are all deeply insulting obscene gestures. When seated, the soles of the feet or shoes must never be facing another person, for to do so indicates that you are metaphorically stomping them to the ground.
To show open palms to someone expresses great approval to what they have said or done.
To kiss your hand then raise it slightly expresses thanks. Even more respectful is to touch the hand to the forehead with a slight bow. To show the highest amount of sincere thanks, the hand might first touch the heart (sincerity), then touch the lips (thanks) and then finally touch the forehead (humility).
Other signs of sincerity, especially when performed when making a promise, include touching the nose or eyes, and stroking the beard or mustache.
Warfare – We in the West have an image of Islamic weaponry and tactics that is loosely based on fact, but even more on a combination of European revisionism and modern popular culture. Middle Eastern warriors are almost always depicted as using a single-edged curved sabre called a scimitar, and wearing little armor compared to the European knights. While this has a great deal of truth, it is also woefully simplistic.
It is true that curved swords were always more popular in the Middle East than they were in Europe, but straight swords actually have a longer history in the area. The swords particularly associated with the birth of Islam (circa 600 AD) are almost all straight double edged broadswords, swung single handedly. It is important to note that the sword is always shown as a cutting weapon, and never described in contemporary texts as being used for thrusting. While curved blades of excellent quality were produced, even as late as the 1300’s both curved and straight blades were equally popular. Either way, swords were built “blade-heavy” to facilitate powerful cutting motions. Even what appear to be pommels are simply hollow flairs, never a counter weight, and the hilts are smaller and lighter as well. So by comparison, Islamic swords would be lighter than European swords, although would be heavier in feel. This means that they would be difficult to balance in preparation of a thrust, or to suddenly change direction in case one commits to a cut but suddenly needs to block. For the Muslims, the answer was simply to use the sword for attacking and ignore defense. This also led to a certain tactic which infuriated the Crusaders. Instead of closing in with the enemy and trading blows, the Arabs/Persians would harass from a distance until a distinct advantage could be discerned before attempting to close with the enemy. An attack with the sword was a single strike, all or nothing, and then step or ride out of distance. The European knights, on the other hand, wanted to close in with the enemy. Each individual was expected to find an opponent and fight until victory or defeat. In their frustration, the Europeans railed that the Muslims fought as cowards, but this was far from the case. The Muslims generals viewed their own army as a single unit with many parts. That one part should strike the enemy here and another should cut the enemy there was all one; each strike helped weaken the opponent. There was no need to have a multitude of individual battles so long as the overall battle was won.
To aid in this strategy, the Muslim generals could count on a fighting force of far superior discipline than that of the Europeans, who were often amazed at the cleanliness, quiet, and order of the Muslim army camp. This compared unfavorably with Medieval Crusader encampments, which were usually unsanitary and poorly regulated, with a high rate of disease, drunkenness, gambling, fighting, and desertion.
By 1400, with the Ottoman Turks establishing their empire, curved blades became the overwhelming standard. It is in this time that some of the curved blades developed a fattened width near the point, and this is what caught the European imagination. European depictions of swords had always emphasized sword points rather than the edge, and so they drew an exaggeration based on same.
By the sixteenth century, the blade lightened and thinned considerably, and also lost even the hollow pommel in favor of the pistol style grip. The sword became even faster in the hand. Ironically, even as the actual sword became thinner (and far lighter than comparable European cavalry sabres of the same period), the sword of European fantasy became ever more exaggerated, until the current view of the curved blade with a severe back-point below the tip nearly three times as wide as the forte of the blade has become completely ingrained in our popular image. It has even affected the concept among current inhabitants of the Middle East, with some of these exaggerated fantasy swords occasionally waived about by traditionalists even though such swords were built in response to Western expectations.
As mentioned, infantry units were largely armed with arquebus/muskets beginning as early as the mid 1400’s, but even in the 1300’s archery was a more valued skill among infantry than the use of the sword. So it was that the sword was relegated to a position of secondary weapon, some 300 years before the same would happen in Europe. The pistol was issued to light cavalry units, although the weapon was largely despised by the majority of soldiers.
Weapons available – The yatagan goes back to at least 1000 BC, has always been popular in the many cultures of Turkey, and the shape has also been used in some French bayonets of the late 1800’s. The most recognized style of this sword has no guard and a two foot blade with a double curve, giving it the forward cutting power of a chopping tool along with the sweeping slashing edge of a sabre. Another benefit is that, since the tip of the sword ends up in a straight line with the extended arm, the weapon is perfectly made for a shortsword thrust. Surely at least some warriors would have noticed this benefit and used the weapon to its fullest advantage.
While some straight daggers existed, curved daggers were nearly universal, and every warrior wore one.
Muskets followed European designs, except that they were much lighter than their Western counterparts, due in large part to better metal working techniques that allowed for thinner, lighter barrels. These in turn could be mounted onto thinner, lighter wood stocks.