Armies of the early conquests and the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates

[Patrick Waterson]

As it says in the title (thanks, Duncan).

[Duncan Head]

I am not clear when this forum is supposed to end (nor whether it matters). The problem is that few of the Muslim regional states are "caliphates". The first independent Muslim army (discounting short-lived rebel forces) would be the separatist Umayyad emirate, from 756; but the Spanish Umayyads only became a Caliphate in 929. Back in the Near East the power of the Abbasid Caliphate started to break up in the 9th century but no rival Caliphate was ever proclaimed, except when the Fatimid Caliphate (proclaimed in Tunisia in 909, based in Egypt from 969) intervened in the region. So does this forum end in the eighth, ninth or tenth century?

Perhaps "Armies of the early conquests and the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates" might be better.

[Andreas Johansson]

"Abbasid Caliphate" is a bit ambiguous too, in temporal terms - is it up till the Buyid takeover in the tenth century? To the sack of Baghdad in the thirteenth? End of the Mamluk pet caliphate in the sixteenth? I presume you mean the first, but, that mightn't be obvious from a bare heading "Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates".

ETA: I'm incidentally not quite clear how this subforum is supposed to work. Is it for requests for information, or rather intended as a wiki-like compilation of volunteered information?

[Patrick Waterson]

ETA: I'm incidentally not quite clear how this subforum is supposed to work. Is it for requests for information, or rather intended as a wiki-like compilation of volunteered information?

Mostly the latter, although open to the former.

Patrick

[Andreas Johansson]

OK, thank you.

[aligern]

OKI'd like to kick off the conversation on these armies by looking at why they won. I have come across several views
1) that the early Arab Muslim armies are fanatics and are undaunted by casualties.
2). That they use the desert to protect them acting as camel mounted infantry, and retiring into the desert where their opponents cannot follow when outmatched.
3) That they are very determined infantry that fight with the desert at their back and that the benefit of their religion is that gives them great staying power so that battles can last several days which their opponents cannot cope with. (my own pet theory).
4) that they have a special tactic of attacking the enemy commander and thus destroying the  command of the opponent.
5 )an interesting idea suggested by Michael Lund, that the Arabs had penetrated areas such as Syria  and Mesopotamia peacefully and had already achieved a substantial position which they converted into control.
6) another favourite of mine,  that the Arabs develop a system based upon raiding in which they degrade the opponent over a long period of time by razzias which have an economic and morale effect and then they try a larger raid which brings on a battle, if they win they conquer, if they lose they break off and resume the raiding cycle.
Of course these methods embrace the strategic as well as the tactical and are not mutually exclusive, but what do others think?

Roy

[Jim Webster]

A tricky one, and the answers might change over time.
I would suggest that 6) is probably wrong for Syria, but might be correct in North Africa but perhaps somewhat later than the period under discussion (my memory fails me in this).

I quite like 5) in that the 'Arabs' were widespread throughout 'Iraq' and 'Syria' anyway and were this population to become Moslem and to think of themselves as a single people, they would be in effective control of a large area.

But I'd like to suggest
7) Their two main opponents, Byzantium and the Sassanids, were in a very bad way anyway. They had fought each other pretty much to a standstill and I suspect that the constant demands for men and money had alienated many of the people in the provinces. Add that to religious schism in the Byzantine Empire and it is perfectly possible to see why a lot of the population just accepted their new Arab rulers.
Also, for the citizens of the Byzantine Empire, would the new Arab rulers be much different from the Ghassanid Princes who had been so influential previously. Especially if they were now cheaper to support.

Jim

[aligern]

I do worry about the Arabs being  successful because the Byzantines and Sasanians are exhausted. These are two highly organised rich states with strong militaries the wars against both involve several battles over a period of years and they both have plenty of time to recognise the threat. When the Arabs rip their Eastern territories from the Byzantines  the Greeks  are incapable of reconquering them.
I suppose support for your view might come from the case of Palmyra. Given a period of chaos in the mid third century the city state of Palmyra suddenly takes a position of power, beats off the Sasanians and is for a brief period dominant in the Roman East. That shows how powerful an entity can suddenly become in this area. If the Arabs have infiltrated  these areas extensively over many years they could convert a flurry of victories against weakened opponents into a real power base.
I think the June's and such foundations as Basra and Kairouan  also have a part to play as the Arabs keep their armies together and avoid being dispersed and absorbed.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

This history of the area is of 'waves' of Arabs spilling out of the desert and drifting slowly north. Some would settle and congregate around cities, some would remain more nomadic, but the process was constant.
It is interesting that whilst there is a tendency to regard the cities as 'Greek', Syriac and other 'aramaic' languages were increasing in use. In some of the churches the Sermon was delivered in Greek, but with Deacons translating it into Aramaic for those in the congregation who didn't speak Greek.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

This pattern survived the conquest, and was still present in 1917-18, according to T.E. Lawrence in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which is incidentally an interesting source for logistics for an Arab army.

[Jim Webster]

I think the pattern goes back to 'Old Testament' times at the very least.

Jim

[aligern]

What's the view on the best figures to represent these armies. Essex do a range of pre Conquest Arabs that look good as the poor Saracens with just a draped cloth for clothing that fit with Ammianus' description and the Saracen from the carvings on bishop Maximian's chair in Ravenna. I also used an Essex Visigoth cavalry figure for Arab cavalry as it was bearded, had long sleeved tunic, mail armour, plain shield and a spangenhelm.
I see the Arabs of this period as ranging from semi naked  Bedouin types to men in Palmyran looking costume and indeed Persian and Roman costume.  Essex do some suitable Palmyran figures of LC and I find their bare legged Pictish cavalry also make  good Arabs as do the Old glory early Arab Conquest cavalry.  The  most difficult to get right are the mass of infantry to get figures to mix in with the Essex Saracens. I have made units from the robed figures that Museum Miniatures supply, but frankly I doubt the whole concept of long robed Arabs at this time.
Roy
(All the above are 15 mm figures.)

[Jim Webster]

For my Pre-Islamic Arabs, I discovered I'd got a heap of Lancashire games Heavy and Light cavalry and infantry, so I've used them. But the armoured cavalry I've given shields and painted them to look 'late Roman'. For the Bd(O) (in DBMM terms) I've actually made up some bases of various armoured infantry, some of whom were once Legionaries, even a few with Lorica Segmentata but with a big round shield.

Jim

[Mark]

For 28mm (* = SoA discount)

- * Musketeer do "Armies of the Caliphates".
- * Gripping Beast (who these days distribute the Musketeer range also) do a Seljuk range and also Moorish armies for "El Cid". They also have a very small "Desert Frontier" line (including camelry).
- The Perrys do Islamics for their crusades line.
- As do Essex
- * Artizan (available via North Star) do Moors
- Miniature Design Studio do Berbers
- A&A do later Romans, Sasanians and Palmyrans

You can probably put together something from mixing and matching the above. I have a combination of the Musketeer and GB Islamic/Desert Frontier, for a relatively flexible (in that it can be used for different periods) Arab army, but I doubt it would pass muster as something so early.

[Bohemond]

How about using figures from a Biblical range? Essex do archers in kilts and bare chests. Also, sword and spearman wearing the same plus others in tunics, both types wearing turbans, carrying large round shields. These should make up as Sp, and Bd or Wb, depending upon your preference.
As to the Arab conquests, I believe that a combination of factors, as outlined by Roy, came into play. A key one IMHO was the conquerors' tolerance of the customs of the conquered peoples. Crucially this encouraged fortified places to surrender quickly, sparing the Arab forces long sieges, and so speeding their movements on campaign.