Civilization Proposal: Arabs/ Rashidun Caliphate/ Umayyads

[Imperator Ferrum Princeps I]

I want to see Parthians...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Imperator Ferrum Princeps I said:

I want to see Parthians...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

Wrong topic, Parthians is planned for vanilla game and isn't related with this mod. only Sassanid Late Persia can fit well.

[wackyserious]

Preliminary texture for the Umayyads.

[Athelia]

I like that very much!

[wackyserious]

I'm uncertain on the textiles, not sure if those are accurate.

[Sundiata]

@wackyserious, nice!

[Genava55]

"While it is a common mistake to regard the scimitar as a weapon exclusive to the Middle Eastern world, scimitars and straight swords existed side by side in the region for millennia. In the 7th century, scimitars first appeared among the Turko- Mongol nomads of Central Asia. A notable exception was the sickle- sword of ancient Egypt, which appeared to be an outgrowth of a battle axe rather than a true sword. As successive waves of nomads spread through Asia, their curved swords were adapted by the Indians, Persians, Arabs, and Chinese. With the steppe warriors migrating farther west, the scimitar entered Eastern Europe by way of Russia and Ukraine. The spread of the scimitar into Central and Western Europe can be tracked linguistically. From sabala of the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia, it became sablya in the Russian language, szabla in Hungarian and Polish, sabel in German, sabre in French, and saber in English."

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scimitar-how-one-sword-dominated-warfare-centuries-25033

"The name is thought to be derived from the Persian word shamshēr which literally means “paw claw,” due to its long, curved design. The word has been translated through many languages to end at scimitar. In the Early Middle Ages, the Turkic people of Central Asia came into contact with Middle Eastern civilizations through their shared Islamic faith. Turkic Ghilman mamelukes serving under the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates introduced "kilij" type sabers to all of the other Middle Eastern cultures. Previously, Arabs and Persians used straight-bladed swords such as the earlier types of the Arab saif, takoba and kaskara."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar

"The Central Asian Turks and their offshoots begun using curved cavalry swords beginning from the late Xiongnu period.[3] The earliest examples of curved, single edged Turkish swords can be found associated with the late Xiongnu and Kok Turk empires.[4] These swords were made of pattern welded high carbon crucible steel, generally with long slightly curved blades with one sharp edge. A sharp back edge on the distal third of the blade known as "yalman" or "yelman" was introduced during this period.

In the Early Middle Ages, the Turkic people of Central Asia came into contact with Middle Eastern civilizations through their shared Islamic faith. Turkic Ghilman slave-soldiers serving under the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates introduced "kilij" type sabers to all of the other Middle Eastern cultures. Previously, Arabs and Persians used straight-bladed swords such as the earlier types of the Arab saif, takouba and kaskara.

During Islamizaton of the Turks, the kilij became more and more popular in the İslamic armies. When the Seljuk Empire invaded Persia and became the first Turkic Muslim political power in Western Asia, kilij became the dominant sword form. The Iranian (Persian) shamshir was created during the Turkic Seljuk Empire period of Iran/Persia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij

 

Edit: a few pictures here:

https://www.pinterest.ch/thomaslothar/swords-of-the-umayyad-caliphate-era/?lp=true

Edited November 2, 2018 by Genava55

[wackyserious]

Again, I experimented with @Alexandermbs coif/hood mesh. This could be a temporary prop for the Arabs.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Let me help you with shield textures, tomorrow today I'm resting  my back ( I test acupunture, isnt painfull.)

[wackyserious]

[wackyserious]

@Sundiata What is the closest building set in the game that we could use as structure placeholders for the Umayyad faction?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Persians

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, wackyserious said:

@Sundiata What is the closest building set in the game that we could use as structure placeholders for the Umayyad faction?

Hmmm, Umayyad Caliphate was vast... Their capital was Damascus, though, and would have looked very Byzantine, actually (lots of arches, pillars and domes)... In very superficial and generalistic terms, the Persian building set might be more representative for the greater region/countryside, maybe just use those Byzantine walls and military structures (Byzantine architecture is still extant across the Levant).

Umayyads have a pretty dope mashup of styles... The Dome of the Rock for example features Corinthian pillars, many Byzantine features like the dome, and gorgeous Islamic calligraphy and geometric designs... 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Sundiata

[Sundiata]

@wackyserious, few examples:

Spoiler

The Great Umayyad Mosque of Damascus: 

I don't think it look so pretty no more...

 

Ruins of the Umayyad palace at Anjar

 

Umayyad palace in Jabal al-Qal'a Amman, Jordan

 

Courtyard of the Great Mosque of Aleppo:

 

Qasr Al-Kharanah, Umayyad fortress in Jordan (Sassanid influence) 

 

Interior of the Dome of Rock:

So yeah, I also forgot to mention Sassanid (Persian) influence

Edited November 4, 2018 by Sundiata

[wackyserious]

Would the Seleucid building set work as a placeholder?

[Sundiata]

8 hours ago, wackyserious said:

Would the Seleucid building set work as a placeholder?

I was also inclined to mention that, but then you'd have those overly Hellenistic influences, which by this time-frame would have evolved into Byzantine/Sassanid architecture. Then again, we're just talking about placeholders, so it doesn't really matter that much anyway, for now.

These questions and your delicious work on their units got me looking forward to a specific Umayyad structure set   I guess I'll start reading up more on early Islamic architecture  

[wackyserious]

Another problem would be the proper unit roster. I am oblivious in the military structure during the period of the Muslim conquests.

Good news is that I already made a functional civ for the Umayyads and it is ready to be committed. I have used the Seleucid building set for placeholders.

For now it has the following units which already have texture files:

- Infantry spearman

- Infantry archer

- Infantry swordsman

- Female citizen

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, wackyserious said:

Another problem would be the proper unit roster. I am oblivious in the military structure during the period of the Muslim conquests. 

With the plates descriptions it is easier:

Spoiler

Others info:

Spoiler

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Genava55

[Sundiata]

@wackyserious, just a few more unit ideas

Spoiler

Muhammad's time: 

 

Umayyads:

 

Umayyads of Cordoba

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

That shield can be emblem.

@Sundiata  you can help me with decoration?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Z5

 

 

Some Sasanid helmet.

htt

 

Quote

Iron and copper alloy helmet composed of a pair of iron shells independently riveted onto an external frame of copper alloy bands around the bottom, up the front and back, and over the top. The iron shells are now heavily corroded and form the front and back of the helmet creating a roughly parabaloid asymmetrical profile. The iron shells were originally covered with cloth, traces of which remain in the corrosion. Round-headed gilded rivets (diameter at head 0.7 cm) were used to secure the shells onto the bands, are evenly spaced at 0.3-0.5 cm intervals and are hammered into the bronze bands which form the frame of the helmet. There was originally a second row of rivets, slightly more widely spaced, but now missing and with the holes obscured by corrosion.

 

Culture/period

Late Sasanian 

Date

6thC-7thC

Findspot

Excavated/Findspot: Nineveh

(Asia,Iraq,North Iraq,Nineveh (Iraq))

Materials

iron

gold 

copper alloy 

Technique

riveted 

gilded 

Dimensions

Height: 20 centimetres

Width: 22 centimetres (base)

Depth: 19 centimetres

Curator's comments

This belongs to the so-called spangenhelm type of helmet. The lowest row of rivets were presumably used to attach the lining, presumably of leather and since perished. The construction and decoration of the close parallel in the Iraq Museum (also from Kouyunjik) confirm a late date similar to that of the decorated scabbards and not the earlier Parthian (let alone Assyrian) date 

 

ps://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=282445&partId=1&images=true

Quote

The first metal helmets were of copper or bronze. Most of the few Near Eastern helmets that have been excavated, as well as the great number shown in ancient sculpture, appear to have been made in a single piece, usually in a conical or near-conical shape, and sometimes with additional pieces attached to the rim to protect more of the head (Figure 4). During the first millennium B.c. bronze was gradually supplemented and partially supplanted by iron, which when carburized was harder than bronze. But unlike bronze, sheets of which could be cast in almost any size, iron had to be made in small pieces, and it was difficult to weld these together into a mass from which a helmet could be wrought. The solution to this problem seems to have been the use of iron in segments, fastened together rather than forged in one piece. At first these segments were probably attached to some sort of framework, very likely a leather cap of the kind that provided the original inspiration for the helmet shape. Later the segments were fastened together without internal support, the fastenings themselves providing enough stability to keep the helmet in shape. No Near Eastern examples are known of the earliest types of segmental construction, but in the Museum is a rare, late example of such a helmet (Figure 9). It was made in seventeenth century Tibet, and is constructed of eight iron segments and a crest ornament, laced together very simply with leather thongs. Whether it is a survival of an old Near Eastern form (which is not in the least unlikely), or simply a similar solution to a similar problem, is not known. This rather primitive form can, however, be considered a model of the lost prototype for our Sasanian helmet. The Sasanian helmet is also in essence a structure of segments, perforated along the edges, with short lengths of wire, hammered through the holes to form rivets, replacing the less durable leather thongs. Very few Sasanian helmets have been found-there are only four other known examples (Figures 5-8)-but all are made in the same way, with triangular iron segments riveted to a cross-shaped framework of metal bands. One of the helmets is made entirely of iron, and two others have iron browbands, indicating that the choice of bronze for the frame of our piece was dictated by taste and tradition rather than necessity. One of the iron browbands is covered with a copper overlay, and the whole surface of the all-iron helmet is sheathed with copper. These overlays are too thin to serve any practical function, except perhaps protection of the surface from weather; they were evidently applied for embellishment, as were the silver sheets used in our piece. Nor was metal the only material used for decoration: the iron segments of one helmet retain a few tatters of a fabric covering. There are not many contemporary representations of Near Eastern armor in use. Most occur in Roman art, for the Romans were usually at war with the nations of the Near East, and also adopted some of their equipment

So indeed, Arabian, Assyrian, Syrian, Sarmatian , Persian Sassanid they are related.

https://www.metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3257947.pdf.bannered.pdf

Edited November 5, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

Quote

the Romans hired barbarians to fight other barbarians, and these former nomads had come into immediate contact with Near Eastern culture as they emigrated westward from Central Asia. Scythians and Parthians are shown wearing conical helmets on the Column of Trajan, erected in A.D. I I4 (Figure 12), and on the Arch of Galerius in Salonika (A.D. 296) the Emperor's bodyguard itself carries Persian standards and is armed in the Persian fashion, with helmets of clearly segmental construction (Figure I I). The Romans called the Near Eastern warriors cataphractarii, meaning that they were totally covered with armor. They were, in fact, equipped more like the knights of medieval Europe than their contemporaries in the legions, and like the later knights, the Sasanian elite usually fought on horseback. Perhaps the best representation of the Sasanian heavy cavalryman is the rock sculpture of Taq-i-Bustan (Figure I5), variously said to have been carved in the fifth century or around the turn of the seventh, and supposedly portraying one of the Sasanian kings. The king's helmet does not contain visible segments and is more hemispherical than conical, but the family resemblance to our helmet is obvious. His face and neck are entirely covered, except for the eyes, with a defense of mail, suspended from the rim of the helmet, and his body is protected by a long mail shirt, or hauberk. Around the rim of our helmet are several perforations to which a similar defense of mail, called a camail, must have been

So conical helmet is an standard after all in near east.

Quote

The army’s organization and weaponry was probably patterned on the Roman/Byzantine example, although the Arabs had two early disadvantages: they didn’t have enough horses to adequately supply a cavalry wing, and they had little idea how to wage siege warfare. Both of these were resolved in time–more conquests meant acquiring more horses in tribute, as well as more land on which to raise more horses, and assimilating the machines (trebuchets were the most common, though they were more commonly used against armies in the field) and techniques of capturing cities. But the early sources describe a lot of cities falling to the Muslims the way Jericho falls to the Israelites in the Book of Joshua (leaving aside the bit about the trumpets and the walls): because someone inside the city is convinced to aid the righteous attackers. That’s the kind of trope chroniclers might use to make it clear that the new faith, not its army, was responsible for the conquests, but it’s also the kind of tactic you might see from an army that really has no way of taking a well-fortified city except by turning–whether with faith or with cash–somebody on the inside. The chronicles don’t really mention the Arabs using siege engines until conquests that took place in the 8th century, though that doesn’t mean that they weren’t used before that.

One asset the early Arab armies did have in abundance was camels. These weren’t so great in a cavalry fight, but they were incredible both as pack animals and as mounts for the infantry when moving between battles. The speed with which the Arabs were able to move, owing to their mounted infantry, was one of their biggest advantages, because it allowed them more often than not to control where battles were fought and to establish position on the field before their enemies could arrive. Another asset was the degree of organization that underpinned the military from very early on, thanks to the second caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab (d. 644). Umar instituted the diwan, or registry (diwan al-jund, “army registry,” if you must), which was nothing much more sophisticated than a list of all the military men in the empire along with records of their service, in order to ensure that they (or their surviving family members) were each paid what they were owed (soldiers who’d served longer were, obviously, due more money). In a sense the payments functioned like pensions; soldiers and their families were paid for their past service in campaigns. Soldiers were also compensated with provisions (food, clothing, etc.) and with grants of settlements (qataʾiʿ) in garrison cities, or occasionally with larger grants of land (iqtaʿ), though this system became much more complex and pervasive later on. The diwan worked exceptionally well in terms of ordering military affairs–so well, in fact, that it spawned a whole host of other diwans covering taxation, correspondence, charitable disbursements, and so on. The bureaucratization of the army led to the bureaucratization of the whole empire, and in fact the word diwanbegan to refer to a “department” rather than simply a “register.”

We have a gameplay and Heroe, check this.

Quote

Still another asset working in the favor of the Arab conquerors was great generalship, and in particular the great generalship of one man, Khalid b. al-Walid (d. 642). We’ve talked about Khalid’s great abilities as a commander in previous entries, but he deserves some mention in a discussion of the early Arab military. An early opponent of Muhammad’s teachings who led the Meccan armies to victory at the Battle of Uhud in 625, Khalid eventually joined Muhammad’s movement and won one of the most important engagements of the 632-633 Ridda Wars. Later he commanded Arab armies that defeated vastly larger Sasanian and Byzantine forces in Iraq and Syria, respectively. His army’s six day forced march from Iraq to Syria in 634 is the stuff of legend, even though we don’t really have a great handle on what really happened other than that he pulled it off (successfully enough that his army besieged and conquered Damascus shortly afterward). Khalid wasn’t the only capable Arab commander, either. For example, there was Amr b. al-As (d. 664), the conqueror of Egypt, who had a background similar to Khalid’s (early opposition to Muhammad, meritorious service in the Ridda Wars). He commanded an army in Syria before being sent further west where, against heavy odds and with remarkable speed, he conquered Egypt (639-641) for the caliphate. After a stint as the deputy to Muʿawiyah, the governor of Syria who later became caliph, Amr was able to wrangle an appointment as governor of Egypt, where he’s credited with helping to restore and preserve the Coptic Church.

Getting a handle on the size of these early armies is very difficult. The earliest surviving sources for the conquests were still written decades after the fact, and anyway even eyewitness accounts from that long ago are notoriously unreliable when it comes to troop counts. People writing from the perspective of one side or the other always have a tendency to exaggerate the size of the enemy’s forces and minimize their own side’s strength, either to make a victory seem more heroic or to excuse a defeat. The modern consensus seems to be that the Arabs had about 30,000 men (20,000-40,000 is the range usually given) operating in Syria at the same time, though these forces were usually divided among a number of active armies. They had considerably smaller forces in Iraq (12,000 at most) and Egypt (maybe 4000 before reinforcements were sent).

Accounts of the battles of the conquest suggest that these armies were organized into units based on tribal affiliation (each tribe carrying its own battle standard), but they also talk about recognizable organizational units like right and left flanks, rear guard, vanguard, etc. So those tribal units were probably grouped into larger tactical units, but also broken up by military specialty (if a tribe had some cavalry it would fight with the other cavalry, not with that tribe’s infantry). If this is accurate there’s a pretty sound reason for it; if/when a battle descended into chaos, and those tactical units lost their cohesion, the tribal units within them could be counted on to rally around their banner and keep fighting hard to protect their kinsmen. While most of these forces were Arab, some local fighters joined up and/or defected (everybody loves a winner); these were called mawali (clients) because, in order to fit in to the established organizational framework, they had to become affiliates (clients) of a particular Arab tribe). You can think of them as “coverts” if you like, but Islam wasn’t fully formed enough during the conquests for that term to really mean much. Many mawali were also slaves, POWs who were freed in exchange for their service, and here we can see the roots of the slave soldiery that really became predominant by the mid-9th century.

Once the conquests were completed, many of these soldiers settled in the regions they conquered, either in new “garrison cities” (amsar) created for them in Iraq and Egypt (the Iraqi cities of Kufa and Basra were founded this way, and Fustat, in Egypt, isn’t its own city anymore but is part of the historical section of Cairo), or in already existing towns and cities as tended to be the case in Syria. There they functioned more or less as tribal levies, with the local appointed commander (amir) responsible for collecting them back into service to go on campaign or for defensive purposes. Amirs would have a standing police (shurta) and bodyguard (haras) units under them, which were very powerful for a time because they were the only standing military units in the empire–as the army became more professionalized the prestige of these institutions declined. Under the caliph Abd al-Malik (d. 705) we see the beginnings of a standing army (along with the disappearance of military units based on tribe), and the payments registered on the diwan stopped resembling pensions (payment for past service) and began looking more like salaries (payment for current service). Gradually military service, rather than chummy and/or familial ties to the caliphal court, began to become the surest path to high political appointment. The standing army grew through the caliphal period, and under the Abbasids it was probably around 100,000 strong, all wholly or at least semi-professional (Kennedy, in When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World, suggests that they were all paid a regular salary but many probably took additional work on the side, or ran their own businesses). Under the Abbasids the army’s officer (qaʾid) class became professionalized, where previously officer appointments had been temporary things for a particular battle or campaign.

Let’s talk weapons and armor, which soldiers were, at least during the early conquests, expected to provide for themselves (so the quality of any soldier’s arms would have varied based on what he could afford or what he could loot in battle). We know the infantry (the core of the army) relied on iron spears and swords (straight stabbing swords at first; scimitars were a later import from the east), cloth (or maybe chain mail for those few who captured or could afford it) armor, helmets (leather or metal) or mail hoods, and leather shields. Javelins and bows were used as skirmishing weapons, and the Abbasids also employed men using flame weapons (possibly fueled by Greek Fire or perhaps just simple crude oil). Cavalry fighting made heavy use of lances (though swords or maces would have also been carried as secondary weapons). Umayyad and Abbasid cavalry also were among the first cavalry soldiers whose use of the stirrup can be historically attested. This probably increased their effectiveness, and may have allowed mounted archery to become a viable military technique by making it easier to fire a bow from horseback. Under the Umayyads (c. 661-750), whose Syrian Arab forces were the backbone of the army, the cavalry began to divide into light and heavy units, with the unarmored light horsemen used for scouting and the well-armored heavy units (horse armor may have come into use around this time) used as shock troops. This, again, reflects an adoption of Byzantine and Persian equipment and tactics, and while it may seem odd that the conquerors adopted the military techniques of the conquered, it was around this time when the Arabs began to make contact with Central Asian Turkic horse archers and so they adopted the same armor that the Persians had used when dealing with that particular opponent.

https://attwiw.com/2016/05/24/islamic-history-part-30-the-early-islamic-military-7th-9th-centuries-ce/

 

Quote

With the rise of the Abbasids (c. 750), Arab soldiers began to be supplanted as the core of the army, first by Iranian Khurasani troops and later by Turkic slave soldiers, both of which placed far more emphasis on cavalry warfare than the Arabs had. The Khurasanis fought as heavy cavalry, in full armor and wielding swords, clubs, and axes, and even their infantry were mounted for transportation purposes and were trained to fight from horseback (using spears) if the situation required it. The Turks brought with them the art of mounted archery, which was so devastating as a technique that it fundamentally changed caliphal warfare. I don’t want to get too deep into the rise of the Turkic slave soldier because we’re not there yet in the history and it represented a real social change for the caliphate that we’ll see unfold over a long period of time.

Quote

If we move west, we need to account for another ethnic group with its own military traditions: the Berbers. They don’t seem to have been particularly formidable when the Arabs began invading North Africa–lightly armed with swords, shields, and javelins, and not particularly sophisticated from a tactical standpoint–but they were quick to adopt the weapons and tactics of the Arabs, and by the time the first Muslim forces crossed into Iberia in the early 8th century the Berbers were as much a key to their strength as the Arabs. The two big differences in the west were the importance of naval warfare and the use of frontier fortifications, called ribats. Where naval capability didn’t become a real point of emphasis for Muslims in the eastern Mediterranean for a few centuries, in the western Mediterranean it was crucial to early expansion into Iberia (8th century) and Sicily (9th century).

Quote

The ribat fortifications, which dotted North Africa and were manned by volunteer fighters, were built mostly to defend caravan routes from marauding tribes (not all the Berber peoples were immediately receptive to the early Islam brought by the Arabs). These may have been similar to the “desert castles” built by the Umayyads in various places in Syria in the late 7th and early 8th centuries–although it’s not entirely clear what the desert castles were for, protecting merchant traffic was probably one of their purposes. The reason I mention them now is because their highly motivated defenders became fertile ground for traveling Sufi scholars looking for students. One group of ribat defenders/students eventually grew into a whole movement, the al-Murabitun (“ribat occupiers”) or Almoravids, that came to rule most of Andalusia and Morocco in the 11th and 12th centuries. So we’ll be coming to them later.

This is not to say that fortifications weren’t important in the east. Fortifications wereimportant, from simple ditches to wooden forts to brick structures to outright castles, though many of the most impressive “early Muslim” fortifications were the Roman-built walls surrounding cities that were conquered by the Arabs, like Damascus. Newly build cities, like Kufa and Basra, interestingly, often weren’t constructed with walls initially but had them added to the city after some kind of attack made them a necessity. Then there are the aforementioned Umayyad “desert castles,” or qusur (singular qasr), about which nobody really knows much for certain. They were probably multi-use facilities, meant both as defense against raids from nomads and/or militant groups like the Kharijites and as way-stations where merchants could stop, water their animals, and rest before continuing their journey to whatever city was their next stop.

Spoiler

Qasr

Spoiler

Quote

The Umayyad Desert Castles, of which the Desert Castles of Jordan represent a prominent part, are fortified palaces or castles in what was the then Umayyad province of Bilad ash-Sham. Most Umayyad "desert castles" are scattered over the semi-arid regions of north-eastern Jordan, with several more in Syria, Israel and the West Bank (Palestine).

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

@LordGood

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_army

Quote

During the 7th century the middle east was dominated by the Byzantine army driven by religous purpose and a desire to replicate the old roman empire. However a new force was rising in Arabia. The Prophet Mohammad had died and the caliphate had formed to expand the reach of the prophet to all of the middle east. 

The Rashidun army served under the Umyyad caliphate. A caliphate is the governing and millitary body ruled by the “successors to Mohammad”. The Rashidun army was well trained and was driven, like the byzantines with a furious religous zeal. In the year 632 the Rashidun army was comprised of 13,000 troops by the year 657 the army had swelled to 100,000 troops. 

The Rashiduns relied heavily on their infantry. They used persian style bows and primarily spearmen to either charge or hold a shield wall against the enemy. The Mubarizun was a special force of the greatest warriors in the arab millitary they were made to undermine the enemy morale by slaying the greatest champions of the opposing army.

During the Ridda wars in the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr, the army mainly consisted of the corps from Medina, Mecca and Taif. Later on during the conquest of Iraq in 633 many bedouin corps were recruited as regular soldiers. During the Islamic conquest of Sassanid Persia (633-656), some 12,000 elite Persian soldiers converted to Islam and served later on during the invasion of the empire. During the Muslim conquest of Roman Syria (633-638,) some 4,000 Greek Byzantine soldiers under their commander Joachim (later Abdullah Joachim) converted to Islam and served as regular troops in the conquest of both Anatolia and Egypt. During the conquest of Egypt (641-644), Coptic converts to Islam were recruited. During the conquest of North Africa, Berber converts to Islam were recruited as regular troops, who later made the bulk of the Rashidun army and later the Umayyad army in Africa.

Quote

Infantry

Rashidun army relied heavily on their infantry. Mubarizun were a special part of the Muslim army, composed of the champions. Their role was to undermine the enemy morale by slaying their champions. The infantry would make repeated charges and withdrawals known as karr wa farr, using spears and swords combined with arrow volleys to weaken the enemies and wear them out. However, the main energy had to still be conserved for a counterattack, supported by a cavalry charge, that would make flanking or encircling movements. Defensively, the Muslim spearman with their two and a half meter long spears would close ranks, forming a protective wall (Tabi'a) for archers to continue their fire. This close formation stood its ground remarkably well in the first four days of defence in the Battle of Yarmouk.

Quote

Arabs used the standard weaponry at the time. Long spears and curved long swords were common among infantry divisions. Cavarly would often use Lances. Shields were made of metal if you were lucky. Most used leather or even elephant skin as shields. Some used persian style wicker shields. Many soliders used leather armour but chaimail became more common as the army became richer. Infantry was more heavily armoured than horsemen. To withstand armoured charges from the byzantine millitary. 

The army was well trained among the regular troops. However any citizen could be called up to fight. They were paid in small amounts and gained more economic support from looting and obtainting random goods from their conquest. The army was under strict discipline and anyone caught raping and killing would be executed. The Muslim leader Khalid ibn al walid took charge of the army and implemented rules and a conduct of war for the troops to follow. Breaking the “rules of warfare” was punishable by your neck being shortened. 

http://historyofhumanity.tumblr.com/post/127971736857/arab-millitary-101-during-the-7th-century-the

Quote

Turban Helmet

The most familiar characteristic of Islamic armor is perhaps the distinctive conical-shape helmets, which, with some variation, are found in most European and Near Eastern areas under Islamic rule. One variation is known as a “turban helmet.” Its prototype can be found in the pre-Islamic

Sasanian tradition

(224–651) of Persia, but its sweeping outline, reminiscent of the domes of mosques, has contributed to this type of helmet being recognized today as decidedly Islamic. Many of the early surviving examples date from the fifteenth century and seem to have been made in Iran and Turkey. Additional protection was afforded by shields, usually of round shape, and constructed—unlike the majority of their European counterparts—of metal.

 

 

Quote

Many of the early surviving examples date from the fifteenth century and seem to have been made in Iran and Turkey. Additional protection was afforded by shields, usually of round shape, and constructed—unlike the majority of their European counterparts—of metal.

 

Quote

Swords

The name is thought to be derived from the Persian word shamshēr which literally means “paw claw,” due to its long, curved design. The word has been translated through many languages to end at scimitar. In the Early Middle Ages, the Turkic people of Central Asia came into contact with Middle Eastern civilizations through their shared Islamic faith. Turkic Ghilman mamelukes serving under the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates introduced "kilij" type sabers to all of the other Middle Eastern cultures. Previously, Arabs and Persians used straight-bladed swords such as the earlier types of the Arab saif, takoba and kaskara.

During Islamization of the Turks, the kilij became more and more popular in the Islamic armies. When the Seljuk Empire invaded Persia and became the first Turkic Muslim political power in Western Asia, kilij became the dominant sword form. The Iranian shamshir was created during the Turkic Seljuk Empire period of Iran.

The term سَيْف saif in Arabic can refer to any Middle Eastern (or North African, South Asian) curved sword. The Arabic word might be derived from the ancient Greek xiphos, but not necessarily as it may have entered Arabic from another source, as both saif and xiphos go back to an old (Bronze Age) wanderwort of the eastern Mediterranean, of unknown ultimate origin. Richard F. Burton derives both words from the Egyptian sfet.^[3]

The English term scimitar is attested from the mid-16th century, derives from either the Middle French cimeterre (15th century) or from the Italian scimitarra. The ultimate source of these terms is unknown. Perhaps they are corruptions of the Persian shamshir, but the OED finds this explanation "unsatisfactory".

 

 

Ghilman

 

Quote

Ghilman (singular Arabic: غُلاَم‎ ghulām ,^{[note 1]} plural غِلْمَان ghilmān )^{[note 2]} were slave-soldiers and/or mercenaries in the armies of the Abbasid, Ottoman, Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar empires.

History

Ghilman were introduced to the Abbasid Caliphate during the reign of al-Mu'tasim (r. 833–842), who showed them great favor and relied upon them for his personal guard. The ghilman were slave-soldiers taken as prisoners of war from conquered regions or frontier zones, especially from among the Turkic people of Central Asia and the Caucasian peoples (Turkish: Kölemen). They fought in bands, and demanded high pay for their services.^[1] They were opposed by the native Arab population, and riots against the ghilman in Baghdad in 836 forced Mu'tasim to relocate his capital to Samarra. The ghilman rose rapidly in power and influence, and under the weak rulers that followed Mu'tasim, they became king-makers: they revolted several times during the so-called "Anarchy at Samarra" in the 860s and killed four caliphs. Eventually, starting with Ahmad ibn Tulun in Egypt, some of them became autonomous rulers and established dynasties of their own, leading to the dissolution of the Abbasid Caliphate by the mid-10th century.

A Ghulam was trained and educated at his master's expense and could earn his freedom through his dedicated service. Ghilman were required to marry Turkic slave-women, who were chosen for them by their masters.^[2] Some ghilman seem to have lived celibate lives. The absence of family life and offspring was possibly one of the reasons why ghilman, even when attaining power, generally failed to start dynasties or proclaim their independence. The only exception to this was the Ghaznavid dynasty of Afghanistan.