I was looking at the Moslem conquest of Sicily and the subsequent Norman conquest of the same. I noticed that in the various rules army lists (DBMM, Fog, MeG etc) the first were typically Arab/Berber in nature with spear/sword /javelin and a lesser scattering of bow armed troops. Post Norman conquest the Sicilian Moslems are mostly archers, presumably using composite bows. Does it therefore follow that the army lists covering that earlier period are incorrect? Thought I'd ask the hive mind.
I think it just means that the Normans and their successors chose to employ archers, and not the other types of infantry - perhaps they had no shortage of spearmen.
Nicolle's article http://millitarch.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/A-Gift-to-the-Normans-the-Military-Legacy-of-Sicilian-Islam.pdf says that for much of the time, the Sicilian Muslim army was made up of slave troops and similar, though following revolts local troops were being relied on by the time of the Norman conquest. He also says the Greeks were rarely called upon but did fight against the Normans.
For the DBMM lists, the Sicilian Aghlabids should probably be allowed the same regular spearmen as the Zirids until the early 11th century. The Berbers were apparently also expelled then, but from a rules point of view, the quality of the press-ganged city dwellers would probably be the same.
As Duncan says, the Normans and later chose to raise archers - eventually their resettlement policy required the Muslims concentrated at Lucera to be archers. I suspect that their value was particularly in siege warfare, attacking or defending.
It's worth remembering that the widespread 'Norman' sucess was, in part, due to a military methodology developed in the areas around the North Sea. This focussed around armoured charging cavalry supported by significant infantry lines. The infantry lines were, wherever possible, partly (typicaly a third) specialist archers. A practice developed from the widespread 'one bow per bench' allocation in ships crews.
The 'Normans' were astute enough to recruit from the exsisting core of trained archers who, convieniently, were a separate social group.
Regards,
Tom..
I am surprised by the high numbers of archers quoted for the early twelfth century. There is nothing in the Nicolle article to really indicate or justify this .
Giovanni Amatuccio (https://storiamilitaremedievale.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/arcieri-e-balestrieri.pdf) mentions 6,000 Saracen infantry in the Sicilian royal army in 1133. Unfortunately he doesn't give an overall size for the army, which makes working out a proportion difficult. However, at 1:200 that might be 30 elements.
Note for anyone looking for figures...
The slinger, archer and crossbowman in Amatuccio's article from the Liber ad Honorem Augusti are from Salerno, so not likely to be Saracen. They do show that the Regno had access to missile troops in addition to the Muslims. If nothing else, I suspect that ships from Salerno would have need missile troops.
The appearance of these Salerni is not really any different to the Bohemian archers in the Swabian army - whether this is artistic convention or common European culture I shall leave. At least some of the Bohemians have the same style of bow as the Salerni - again, read into that what you will.
The Mirliton 15mm range is based very closely on these images.