quadara - Caucasus, Trabzon, Iran ?

[Rivkin]

First of all my deepest gratitude to Artzi Yarom who took such fantastic pictures of so many weapons.

As you all know, quadara (short, straight, single edge dagger-sword) has always been a subject of controversy, in particular it is so called "transcaucasian" or "azerbajani" type. Are they really from Caucasus ? Can they be iranian ?

Let us try to address the issue. First of all, lets quote from Astvatzaturjan on transcaucasian weapons (Oruzhie Narodov Kavkaza):
"Transcaucasian weapons...e.) Blades are slighly bend, one side is sharp, another is dull, i.e. this kindjal is not a kindjal, but a knife, below the dull side there are 2 or 3 fullers, on the left - right below the hilt, on the right - somewhat further from the hilt. Around the hilt one can find a touchmark-figurine"
"Armenian weapons: "....bend knife with a slightly bend dull side; around the last third the blade rapidly bends towards the end...has a single fuller".
Unfortunately no picture of this weapon is given.

Let us start with what we have seen in a part of Caucasus that is Turkey - Trabzon short swords.These weapons have been discussed here:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...swords+trabzon

While their blade is quite similar to certain "quadaras", they have quite characteristic hilts, dissimilar to kindjal hilts and therefore to those of quadaras.
On the other side, in Iran one sees quite a lot of quaddaras with kindjal-like hilts, see for example the first picture below - quadara of Nader-Shah.

But now we come to the most interesting part - Caucusus. Besides small knives, I have seen only two types of quadaras coming from Caucasus. First type (2nd picture and http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=514 ) - essentially straight caucasian single fuller kindjal with three modifications - first the fuller is even more off-centered than usual. Second the tip rapidly bends to one side. Third, one of the edges is oftenly blunt. The caucasian provenance of them, in my opinion, is well established - just to take these two the first one (russian Tula's arms museum) has a typical caucasian niello hilt, second one has a typical caucasian goldwork on the scabbard.
quadara-kindjals of this type do not have touchmarks.

Another type, depicted here
http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=259
is also a very common type one can find in the area. It has a touchmark and it has correct number of fullers to be the one described by Astvatzaturjan?

I would like to see what members think about this issue. My opinion is that single-edge swords existed in Trabzon, Caucasus proper and Iran, with some modifications distinquishing among them.

[Rivkin]

Again, if moderators feel like it, they can modify this message.

What one can tell about Azerbajani weapons? First let us ask ourself, what is the Azerbajan and what is Persia. Since 12th century both become dominated by turko-mongolic tribes. Their military was traditionally composed from turkoman, with some inclusion of kurds and in later times - georgians, lezghi and even armenian. Persian as in "members of persian tribe" were present in the army in extremely small numbers, moreover traditionally they were used in gun bearing regiments. Because of this, I think it is rather strange to talk about some specific persian ifluence (whichwas mostly confined to language, literature, religion and government bureacracy), like their wrestling traditions, defining the nature of iranian arms. While in the current state of Azerbajani, the presence of Armenians, sunni Lezghi and others to some extenet decreased the power of turkoman lords, however massacres and deportations organized by Savafids gradually decreased such presense. Here one also must concentrate on turkoman influence.

If one to accept this, one can not truly distinguish between Karabagh (currently Azerbajan or Armenia) and Tabriz (turkish-speaking Iran). Both were controlled by the same families - should we expect chingizoid-turkoman Qajars, lords of Shusha and Karabagh, future Shahs or Iran, to change their weapons every time they cross Arax (river separating "Iran" from "Azerbajan") to arrive into their family strongholds in Shusha and Shirvan?
Should regular georgian army, recruited and armed in Georgia, used by Shah to control Afghanistan (see "Georgia and the Fall of the Safavid Dynasty," BSO(A)S 14, 1952, can be found of jstor) be labeled as the one carrying persian or georgian weapons ? What about Lezghis who served Nader-Shah (as all other Shahs with an exception of Pahlavi and Zand - not a persian by tribe)?

In fact, while one can certainly observe some tribal distinction between weapons of these countries, their mutual influence is colossal, specifically due to the common overpowering presence of turkoman clans. Again, one should not expect great variations among weapons used by the same Qajar family, whether in their lands in modern Azerbajan or in Tabriz.

Now to the point of quadara. I was trying to think in what context one can be depicted - it is certainly not so much a parade weapon, especially since Astvatsaturjan seems to descirbe single edge kindjals as "knifes", i.e. something quite utilitarian. The answer came when I was reading an article (I can not guarantee its accuracy, since it was heavily pro-armenian) with series of photographs - azeri artillery at Shusha, etc., one of them (the first picture below) was titles "shahsey-vahsey, Azerbajan". Shahsey-vahsey is a derogatory term, popular in Caucasus, for Shia Ashura festival. As one can see the weapon's blade here is straight, single edged. While I can not quarantee the authenticity of this picture, it is better than nothing.

Now to show that such quadaras and even kamas are not constraigned by any means to modern Iran - the following 2 pictures are from Iraq. On the first one you can clearly see quadaras in the crowd, on the last picture - a kindjal-kama. Again, Ashura festival.
P.S. A while ago I stated my disbelief that kindjals can be used in Ashura. Well, I stand corrected - I have seen a very sanitized version of Ashura, this one seem to be much bloodier.

[Rivkin]

Another shots - quadara and qama.
Interestingly, all qaudaras have much narrower and smaller fullers than one usually sees on so called "Azerbajani" ones.

P.S. I selected the photographs that are _least_ bloody and most concentrated on weapons, not on the festival itself. I think if we want to keep this thread moving, it must be about weapons, not about Ashura.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

P.S. I selected the photographs that are _least_ bloody and most concentrated on weapons, not on the festival itself. I think if we want to keep this thread moving, it must be about weapons, not about Ashura.

Good advice, Kirill.

Folks, this thread must NOT become about Religion or Politics. Let's scrupulously avoid going down that path and focus on the weapons.

[ariel]

My undestanding is that Kindjal is a typically Caucasian weapon. All along, Caucasians of various ethnicities and religions were very active in foreign militaries (Mameluke in Egypt and, especially, in Persia. In the latter, they might have constituted the bulk of the military). Also, frequent invasions from Persia and Turkey displaced many of them into the victors' hinterlands.
This is a classical scenario for the spread of a particular weapon type.
I have a typical Kindjal, but it has a rhino handle and alligator (lizard?) skin stips on the scabbard: a very likely "Sudanese" type.
As to single-edge or double-edge... If Shashka is a "big knife", there is no reason why single-edge Kindjals could not have been also used in, say, Circassia. Are we saying that a single-edge Kindjal is a Persian development?

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by ariel

My undestanding is that Kindjal is a typically Caucasian weapon. All along, Caucasians of various ethnicities and religions were very active in foreign militaries (Mameluke in Egypt and, especially, in Persia. In the latter, they might have constituted the bulk of the military). Also, frequent invasions from Persia and Turkey displaced many of them into the victors' hinterlands.
This is a classical scenario for the spread of a particular weapon type.
I have a typical Kindjal, but it has a rhino handle and alligator (lizard?) skin stips on the scabbard: a very likely "Sudanese" type.
As to single-edge or double-edge... If Shashka is a "big knife", there is no reason why single-edge Kindjals could not have been also used in, say, Circassia. Are we saying that a single-edge Kindjal is a Persian development?

This is similar to my thinking, especially since kindjals in Egypt were specifically recovered by napoleonic army from mamluks, and I have never seen them before or after on any pictures.
While I can not deny a chanse of such weapons created in parallel elseswhere, since kindjals are somewhat similar to ancient daggers - as in attachment (2500bc).


Now, other images coming with this post - two short transcaucasian "qaudaras" - almost completely straight blades, single edge and armenian family from Nagorny Karabagh (?), boy has a small knife-like quadara.
One of quadaras is photographed at the angle, so it is a little bit distorted.

[mross]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Another shots - quadara and qama.

snip

P.S. I selected the photographs that are _least_ bloody and most concentrated on weapons, not on the festival itself. I think if we want to keep this thread moving, it must be about weapons, not about Ashura.

This may seem an odd question and the answer my lie in the above quote but here it goes. Are these quadaras special for ceremonial use? I'm just basing this on the amount of blood I am seeing. Like I said the answer may be in the quote that we are seeing a very sanitized view. I have several knives/swords that if I did anything more then touch my head I would be in much worse shape. From what little I know of the festival caution is not a big part of it. But then, cutting yourself so bad that you bleed out and can't last to the end is not either. I guess the questions is then are these designed for the ceremony with edges that are not what they should be? From the design of the blade it looks to me like it would work equally well in a slash and thurst role. So I would expect the edge to be sharp.

[ariel]

The self-inflicted wounds at the Ashura are not that deep; no danger to life at all.
Scalp wounds bleed like crazy because there is almost no vessel constriction in that area: the vessels are attached to the fascia. The wounds do not have to be big at all for the horrific "special effect" of bleeding.
By the same token, because of great blood supply, scalp wounds heal miraculously fast and well. No infections, nothing.
Pay attention: no self-inflicted wounds on the arms, torso, neck.

[mross]

Originally Posted by ariel

The self-inflicted wounds at the Ashura are not that deep; no danger to life at all.
....

That is my point. How do you prevent deep wounds from a very sharp blade? For instance I have a waved Endura that I always carry, it caught on my sleeve and opened and cut me good with just the weight of the knife(which is very light). I just find it hard to believe that in the middle of religious fervor that they are carefull enough with a large sharp blade not to do themselves serious harm. It is noted that no other part of the body is cut.

[ariel]

Here is my Qaddara: 32.5" total, 26.5" blade, 1.75"wide. For easy visual comparison, I put a paperback next to it: appropriately, it is " The sabres of Paradise" by Leslie Blanch. It is a fantastic book about the Russian wars to conquest the Caucasus, mainly about the Shamil's Gazavat. Reads like young John LeCarre, only better. Strongly recommend.

[Rick]

No more cracking wise about this thread Gentlemen .

[ariel]

Are comments about cracked handles (as in mine) permitted?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by ariel

Are comments about cracked handles (as in mine) permitted?

All right I'll spell it out ; do not make any comments that demean the religion of Islam .
If I see any more comments of that nature in this thread the poster will get a month off.

Is that clear enough ?

[Emanuel]

Hello,
A question about the kindjals and quadaras used here: are these old weapons kept by families over the generations, or are some of them newly made/assembled for their ceremonial uses? There seem to be a whole lot of them in these pictures alone, so I'm wondering how widespread they are.
I never knew these weapons reached as far south as Iraq, they're trully fascinating.
Emanuel

[ariel]

Here is another one.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

This one was apparently made in the Ukrainian town Zhitomir, and Kharkov was another center. Many were made in Russia proper.
It is a souvenir piece, with the nielloed inscription KABKA3 (Caucasus) on the scabbard. Shows that this curved pattern was viewed as fairly representative of the Caucasian tradition and not necessarily related to Iran. These curved Kindjals were called Bebut (ethimology?) and a similar pattern was used for the military (the so-called "artillery") daggers.
Miller in his book Kaukasiske Wappen shows curved Kindjals from the Hermitage collection and dated to the 19th century. Askhabov shows pictures of Chechen burial stones engraved with the silhouettes of curved kindjals (17-19th centuries) and Gorelik shows similar knives from 1st milennium BCE to 1st milennium CE.
The bottom line: I agree with Rivkin that both straight and curved kindjals hail from the Caucasus; they spread to the surrounding countries (Iran, Ottoman empire) and the far flung ones ( Egypt, Sudan, Arabia proper) by the war tradition of the Caucasian nations. By the same token, curved Omani Kattaras replaced the straight ones in the 19th century as a result of popularity of Caucasian shashka blades that were exported there.

[Rivkin]

Absolutely agree, altough I would keep all the options open concerning exact origins of these weapons. I would summarize my position:
a. We definitely see a variety of single edged weapons in Caucasus - from highly curbed jambiya-like blades to straight, single edge kindjal-knives.
b. Unfortunately, as of yet no one has demonstrated the differencies (I am sure there are some) between "Azerbajani", better to say Karabagh, Gyandzha and Talysh weapons vs. weapons of Tabriz,i.e. weapons of iranian Azerbaijan.

P.P.S. It is understandable that in the state of Azerbajan one can see lots more purely caucasian weapons. What is discussed here are weapons common for both "Caucasus" and "Persia".

P.S. The Tanavoli collection is in Canada right now:

"Persian Steel : The Tanavoli Collection -
March 5th to Sept 4th, 2006

This exhibition is dedicated to the collection of Persian steel objects gathered over the last thirty years by the Iranian sculptor, Parviz Tanavoli, and tells the story of traditional life in pre-modern Iran. Steel was an integral part of the economic, social and religious life of Persia (now Iran) during the Safavid and Qajar periods (16th to early 20th centuries). Through the display of more than 300 intricately designed items of steel - tools, household implements as well as ceremonial items - the gallery will illustrate the superb workmanship of the traditional Iranian craftsman. This tradition is not just concerned with decoration, but also shows a keen attention to form, as can be seen in the instruments and utensils of daily life as well as in devotional objects."

[Rivkin]

Dear All,

I believe I came by a reasonable explanation for this problem.

Let me start with a few comments - first of all most of our misunderstanding comes from the excessive use of a generic label "persian". While it has its uses in this cases since the question Caucasus/Azerbaijan/Persia involves specific tribes residing in Persia, in my opinion one must concentrate on tribal affiliation rather than on that based on a state. It is also unfortunate that unlike for example russian where russian means ethnic russian and rossian means a citizen of Russian Empire, in persian both members of fars tribe and non-persian citizens of Persian Empire are called Persia.

Second comment would be that to resolve the issue one rather than concentrating on contemporary field research, one must concentrate on archival sources. In my personal opinion, things told by local artisans, martial artists etc. tend to be heavily mixed with rumors, legends and interpretetations. Obviously, if one is capable to analyze them, they can be important sources as well.

Now to the problem at hand. What is qama/quadara ? Is it Caucasian, Azerbaijani (i.e. turkish-speaking tribes of Transcaucais and north-western Iran) or Persian (i.e. pre-islamic Persian weapon transformed into its modern form) ?

A month ago I would politely say that it is quite likely we have a simultaneous development in both Caucasus and Persia. Today I do not think so, for the following reasons:

a. We know that kindjals (qamas) in Egypt, Syria, Balkans, Russia and Turkey appeared as a result of connections with Caucases. While it is possible that Persia and Iraq are sole exceptions, one has to wonder why Persia with its colossal influence did not sucsed in spreading kindjals in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan ? Why all the countries that have kindjals are located in a circle surrounding Caucasus ?

b. It will be important for us later, so let me again state that Azeri weapons from Azerbaijan the state are very similar to that of Azerbaijan the province, with a little bit of extra caucasian influnce in the former. For details see “Oruzhie Vostoka” (Weapons of the Orient), Collection of the State Historical Museum of Azerbaijan.

c. One might say that since kindjals descended from akenakes, the weapon common to almost entire northern part of the middle east, it is possible that one has the same simultanous development, or even more - "persian" influence. To argue with that I would refer the reader to Gorelik "Weapons of Ancient East", page 19 "Development of akenakes type, i.e. dagger with a specific form of the guard and scabbard, happens in the middle of the seventh century BC, most likely in the north of pre-Caucasus, the center of scythian culture and state". One can check these statements against almost any public source, like wikipedia. In light of this I think one should be very careful when talking about the influence of persian akenakes on caucasian kindjals.

Now let us proceed to the first hand accounts of Qajar and pre-Qajar Persia.

c. 1998 Kibovsky and Egorov published series of article in a Russian journal Zeichgaus titled "Persia Army, first half of XIXth century", later incorporated in a book. They quote a number of western travelers, like Gaspar Druville (1813), specifically related to the army of Abbas-Mirza Qajar Shah, assembled in Persian Azerbaijan. Here is a quote describing its weaponry: “… Daggers were worn in the sash, both soldiers and civilians preferred the straight, “Georgian” kindjal, often with rich decorations”.

d. It gets even more interesting when we start talking about Ashura and its development. I would mostly refer to the article of Dr. Nakash from Princeton, in Die Welt des Islams 33 (1993), pages 161-181. Additional information can be gathered in a reach selection of literature he provides and some extra reading - Chenabi, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 29 (1997), p. 23, less so , for general information concerning caucasians in Iran I would cite the book by Babaie et al, "Slaves of the Shah", 2004, Tauris and Co, in Iraq - "Merchants, Mamluks, and murder : the political economy of trade in eighteenth century Basra", Thabit A.J. Abdullah. Virtually everything written by Dr. Minorksy is also can be of great use.

In the work of Dr. Nakash he tries to trace the origin of Ashura. I greatly recommend his article to anyone interested in this tradition, but for us the section on flagellation is of a certain interest. He says that while "Breast beating and flace slapping... were traditional ways of expressing grief in Muslim societies", however concerning the more violent ways to do so: "Both the accounts of European travelers and Shia sources point to Caucasus and Azerbaijan as the place of origin for flagellation. The earliest accounts of the travelers go back to the first half of XVIIth century (my comment - Evlia Chelebi and others)... In the southern cities, such as Isfahan and Shiraz, the travelers Della Valle, Thevenot, Tavernier and Le Brun ... did not mention any shedding of blood. In contrast, in the frontier like, Turkish speaking regions of the Caucasus and Azerbaijan in northern Iran, the travelers Karasch, Olearius and Struys wrote that devoteers struck their heads with swords... while flagellations as a form ... existed in the Caucasus and Azerbaijan at least from seventeeth century, the practice is not reported in the central and southern cities of Iran, nor among arab Shias until the nineteenth century". He links the practice with Qizilbash tribes from Caucasus and Persian Azerbaijan, and specifically points to the role of Sheikh Mulla Agha Abid from Derbent (Lezgistan, Caucasus) as someone who greatly popularized the flagellations. He talks about specific role of turks from Caucasus and Azerbaijan in bringing flagellations into Iraq. He also refers to very interesting material by Lassy and Monchi-Zadeh, concerning specifically caucasian rituals of Ashura, with kindjals being massively used.

Since at least in Iraq and probably to the smaller extent in Iran kindjals-qamas are used specfically for flagellations, one can make a solid guess (but nevertheless a guess) that the appearance of caucasian kindjals is connected with appearance of caucasian/azerbaijani Ashura practices, whether it is in Ardabil (Azerbaijan-Iran), Karbala (Iraq) or Isfahan (Iran).

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Second comment would be that to resolve the issue rather than being interested in contemporary field research, one must concentrates of archival sources. In my personal opinion, things told by local artisans, martial artists etc. tend to be heavily mixed with rumors, legends and interpretetations. Obviously, if one is capable to analyze them, they can be important sources as well.

I'm under the impression that archival resources were made with field researches too, so they may be subject to the same limitations of the modern ones. Depends on the way they were/are made.
But the modern ones benefits of the previous knowledge, the highlighting of previous mistakes and of the modern technology.
I completely agree about the capability to analyze them.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

I'm under the impression that archival resources were made with field researches too, so they may be subject to the same limitations of the modern ones. Depends on the way they were/are made.
But the modern ones benefits of the previous knowledge, the highlighting of previous mistakes and of the modern technology.
I completely agree about the capability to analyze them.

I think both are important.

No question that archival resources can be subject to imprecision and innacuracies. Many older sources are colored by prejudice and colonial perspectives, while still others simply reflect poor data collection and analysis. In the end, an archival source is only one thing and we should recognize potential pitfalls and try to utilize as many available sources of data as are available. To me, this includes looking at past writings (when available) and interacting with contemporary sources.

I agree with Kiril that contemporary sources have potential for innacuracy, but I'm no more willing to ignore their existence than I am potentially innacurate archival resources and prior reasearch.

I'm always pleased by how edifying a few comments by someone actually living within a particular culture can be to my research. I wouldn't base anything solely on those comments, but they often add to my understanding exponentially.

[ariel]

Rivkin,
I think this is a first-rate analysis! Well researched, supported by references and thoughtful.
Circassians and Daghestanis emigrated from the Caucasus en masse after the Russian conquest (with not a benign encouragement from the new "masters" who transplanted ethnic Russians and Cossacks to the abandoned territories) and went to Turkey. From there they were sent to the Balkans, Iraq and Arabia proper. Whereas the decorations were locally-influenced, the general form of the Kindjal remained stable in all of the above areas and well beyond them.
The earlier influx of Caucasians both to Persia and the Ottoman empire predated this immigration by several centuries.
In general, Persian Empire always depended on foreighners as soldiers and on ethnic Persians as administrators.
Look at Chodynski's chapter in "Orez perski" ( "The sun and the lion: sketches of Persian militaria"):
In the Sassanian Empire with its capital in Bokhara, the military was mainly Afghani Ghaznavids (forming the elite "wedge" in the middle of the army formation.
The bulk of Persian military at that time were Turkish gulams, followed by the Hindu infantry and cavalry, and "...the least effective group were the Tadjik divisions consisting mainlly of Iranians".
Safavid Shah Ismail ( whose grandmother was Bysantian princess Despina) also had an army consisting mainly of Turkish gulams. By the way, iron ore was imported by him from Ossetia (Caucasus) and that was likely the early route of Kindjal penetration into Persia.
Abbas the Great 's army " ...consisted of Armenian, Circassian and Georgian divisions": another source of origin of Kindjals. Giorgi Saakadze, a Georgian , was in command of Abbas' forces conquering Baghdad and Kandahar.
Overall, I fully agree: Kindjal was a proto-Caucasian weapon and was adopted by Persians, Ottomans and other groups that came in contact with Caucasian nations. The names they gave to this weapon are immaterial: Qame, Qaddara etc were just local monikers.
The hypothesis of Azeri influence on Ashura is particularly interesting.
Currently, about 25% of the total population in Iran are ethnic (Turkic )Azeris ( and, by the way, there is quite a lot of unrest among them
http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371133 )

[Rivkin]

Ariel: I am really glad you liked it, thank you.

To add a few things - strangely enough there are a few georgian dances, that are nearly always performed with quadara, in particular:

Correction! This is clearly a Khevsuruli, not Pakioroba. Moreover, these pictures present a final moment of khevsuruli, when a woman drops her veil stopping the fight.

Another thing is that it is interesting that in the above mentioned article Ashura is paralleled to sufi Zikr. The first time I actually have seen a quaddara was when I saw Zikr - the leading man in the center was swinging it, while everyone else was circling around him.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by ariel

Look at Chodynski's chapter in "Orez perski" ( "The sun and the lion: sketches of Persian militaria"):
In the Sassanian Empire with its capital in Bokhara, the military was mainly Afghani Ghaznavids (forming the elite "wedge" in the middle of the army formation.
The bulk of Persian military at that time were Turkish gulams, followed by the Hindu infantry and cavalry, and "...the least effective group were the Tadjik divisions consisting mainlly of Iranians".

I recently read Herodotus (sorry for this very long quote, but find such a detailed description to be of great interest), and found interesting his depiction of Persian infantry:

"Now these were the nations that took part in this expedition.
The Persians, who wore on their heads the soft hat called the tiara,
and about their bodies, tunics with sleeves of divers colours,
having iron scales upon them like the scales of a fish. Their legs
were protected by trousers; and they bore wicker shields for bucklers;
their quivers hanging at their backs, and their arms being a short
spear, a bow of uncommon size, and arrows of reed. They had likewise
daggers suspended from their girdles along their right thighs. Otanes,
the father of Xerxes' wife, Amestris, was their leader. This people
was known to the Greeks in ancient times by the name of Cephenians;
but they called themselves and were called by their neighbours,
Artaeans. It was not till Perseus, the son of Jove and Danae,
visited Cepheus the son of Belus, and, marrying his daughter
Andromeda, had by her a son called Perses (whom he left behind him
in the country because Cepheus had no male offspring), that the nation
took from this Perses the name of Persians.
The Medes had exactly the same equipment as the Persians; and
indeed the dress common to both is not so much Persian as Median. They
had for commander Tigranes, of the race of the Achaemenids. These
Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; but when Media,
the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name.
Such is the account which they themselves give.
The Cissians were equipped in the Persian fashion, except in one
respect:- they wore on their heads, instead of hats, fillets. Anaphes,
the son of Otanes, commanded them.
The Hyrcanians were likewise armed in the same way as the
Persians. Their leader was Megapanus, the same who was afterwards
satrap of Babylon.
The Assyrians went to the war with helmets upon their heads made
of brass, and plaited in a strange fashion which it is not easy to
describe. They carried shields, lances, and daggers very like the
Egyptian; but in addition, they had wooden clubs knotted with iron,
and linen corselets. This people, whom the Greeks call Syrians, are
called Assyrians by the barbarians. The Chaldaeans served in their
ranks, and they had for commander Otaspes, the son of Artachaeus.
The Bactrians went to the war wearing a head-dress very like the
Median, but armed with bows of cane, after the custom of their
country, and with short spears.
The Sacae, or Scyths, were clad in trousers, and had on their
heads tall stiff caps rising to a point. They bore the bow of their
country and the dagger; besides which they carried the battle-axe,
or sagaris. They were in truth Amyrgian Scythians, but the Persians
called them Sacae, since that is the name which they give to all
Scythians. The Bactrians and the Sacae had for leader Hystaspes, the
son of Darius and of Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus.
The Indians wore cotton dresses, and carried bows of cane, and
arrows also of cane with iron at the point. Such was the equipment
of the Indians, and they marched under the command of Pharnazathres
the son of Artabates.
The Arians carried Median bows, but in other respects were
equipped like the Bactrians. Their commander was Sisamnes the son of
Hydarnes.
The Parthians and Chorasmians, with the Sogdians, the
Gandarians, and the Dadicae, had the Bactrian equipment in all
respects. The Parthians and Chorasmians were commanded by Artabazus
the son of Pharnaces, the Sogdians by Azanes the son of Artaeus, and
the Gandarians and Dadicae by Artyphius the son of Artabanus.
The Caspians were clad in cloaks of skin, and carried the cane bow
of their country and the scymitar. So equipped they went to the war;
and they had for commander Ariomardus the brother of Artyphius.
The Sarangians had dyed garments which showed brightly, and
buskins which reached to the knee: they bore Median bows, and
lances. Their leader was Pherendates, the son of Megabazus.
The Pactyans wore cloaks of skin, and carried the bow of their
country and the dagger. Their commander was Artyntes, the son of
Ithamatres.
The Utians, the Mycians, and the Paricanians were all equipped
like the Pactyans. They had for leaders, Arsamenes, the son of Darius,
who commanded the Utians and Mycians; and Siromitres, the son of
Oeobazus, who commanded the Paricanians.
The Arabians wore the zeira, or long cloak, fastened about them
with a girdle; and carried at their right side long bows, which when
unstrung bent backwards.
The Ethiopians were clothed in the skins of leopards and lions,
and had long bows made of the stem of the palm-leaf, not less than
four cubits in length. On these they laid short arrows made of reed,
and armed at the tip, not with iron, but with a piece of stone,
sharpened to a point, of the kind used in engraving seals. They
carried likewise spears, the head of which was the sharpened horn of
an antelope; and in addition they had knotted clubs. When they went
into battle they painted their bodies, half with chalk, and half
with vermilion. The Arabians, and the Ethiopians who came from the
region above Egypt, were commanded by Arsames, the son of Darius and
of Artystone daughter of Cyrus. This Artystone was the best-beloved of
all the wives of Darius; and it was she whose statue he caused to be
made of gold wrought with the hammer. Her son Arsames commanded
these two nations.
The eastern Ethiopians- for two nations of this name served in the
army- were marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing
from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character
of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while
they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the
world. Their equipment was in most points like that of the Indians;
but they wore upon their heads the scalps of horses, with the ears and
mane attached; the ears were made to stand upright, and the mane
served as a crest. For shields this people made use of the skins of
cranes.
The Libyans wore a dress of leather, and carried javelins made
hard in the fire. They had for commander Massages, the son of Oarizus.
The Paphlagonians went to the war with plaited helmets upon
their heads, and carrying small shields and spears of no great size.
They had also javelins and daggers, and wore on their feet the
buskin of their country, which reached half way up the shank. In the
same fashion were equipped the Ligyans, the Matienians, the
Mariandynians, and the Syrians (or Cappadocians, as they are called by
the Persians). The Paphlagonians and Matienians were under the command
of Dotus the son of Megasidrus; while the Mariandynians, the
Ligyans, and the Syrians had for leader Gobryas, the son of Darius and
Artystone.
The dress of the Phrygians closely resembled the Paphlagonian,
only in a very few points differing from it. According to the
Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time that they had their
abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of
Brigians; but on their removal to Asia they changed their
designation at the same time with their dwelling-place.
The Armenians, who are Phrygian colonists, were armed in the
Phrygian fashion. Both nations were under the command of Artochmes,
who was married to one of the daughters of Darius.
The Lydians were armed very nearly in the Grecian manner. These
Lydians in ancient times were called Maeonians, but changed their
name, and took their present title from Lydus the son of Atys.
The Mysians wore upon their heads a helmet made after the
fashion of their country, and carried a small buckler; they used as
javelins staves with one end hardened in the fire. The Mysians are
Lydian colonists, and from the mountain-chain of Olympus, are called
Olympieni. Both the Lydians and the Mysians were under the command
of Artaphernes, the son of that Artaphernes who, with Datis, made
the landing at Marathon.
The Thracians went to the war wearing the skins of foxes upon
their heads, and about their bodies tunics, over which was thrown a
long cloak of many colours. Their legs and feet were clad in buskins
made from the skins of fawns; and they had for arms javelins, with
light targes, and short dirks. This people, after crossing into
Asia, took the name of Bithynians; before, they had been called
Strymonians, while they dwelt upon the Strymon; whence, according to
their own account, they had been driven out by the Mysians and
Teucrians. The commander of these Asiatic Thracians was Bassaces the
son of Artabanus....
The Cabalians, who are Maeonians, but are called Lasonians, had
the same equipment as the Cilicians- an equipment which I shall
describe when I come in due course to the Cilician contingent.
The Milyans bore short spears, and had their garments fastened
with buckles. Some of their number carried Lycian bows. They wore
about their heads skull-caps made of leather. Badres the son of
Hystanes led both nations to battle.
The Moschians wore helmets made of wood, and carried shields and
spears of a small size: their spear-heads, however, were long. The
Moschian equipment was that likewise of the Tibarenians, the
Macronians, and the Mosynoecians. The leaders of these nations were
the following: the Moschians and Tibarenians were under the command of
Ariomardus, who was the son of Darius and of Parmys, daughter of
Smerdis son of Cyrus; while the Macronians and Mosynoecians. had for
leader Artayctes, the son of Cherasmis, the governor of Sestos upon
the Hellespont.
The Mares wore on their heads the plaited helmet peculiar to their
country, and used small leathern bucklers, and javelins.
The Colchians wore wooden helmets, and carried small shields of
raw hide, and short spears; besides which they had swords. Both
Mares and Colchians were under the command of Pharandates, the son
of Teaspes.
The Alarodians and Saspirians were armed like the Colchians; their
leader was Masistes, the son of Siromitras.
The Islanders who came from the Erythraean Sea, where they
inhabited the islands to which the king sends those whom he
banishes, wore a dress and arms almost exactly like the Median.
Their leader was Mardontes the son of Bagaeus, who the year after
perished in the battle of Mycale, where he was one of the captains.
Such were the nations who fought upon the dry land, and made up
the infantry of the Persians.
..........
(i.) The Persians, who were armed in the same way as their own
footmen, excepting that some of them wore upon their heads devices
fashioned with the hammer in brass or steel.
(ii.) The wandering tribe known by the name of Sagartians- a
people Persian in language, and in dress half Persian, half Pactyan,
who furnished to the army as many as eight thousand horse. It is not
the wont of this people to carry arms, either of bronze or steel,
except only a dirk; but they use lassoes made of thongs plaited
together, and trust to these whenever they go to the wars. Now the
manner in which they fight is the following: when they meet their
enemy, straightway they discharge their lassoes, which end in a noose;
then, whatever the noose encircles, be it man or be it horse, they
drag towards them; and the foe, entangled in the toils, is forthwith
slain. Such is the manner in which this people fight; and now their
horsemen were drawn up with the Persians.
(iii.) The Medes, and Cissians, who had the same equipment as
their foot-soldiers.
(iv.) The Indians, equipped as their foot. men, but some on
horseback and some in chariots- the chariots drawn either by horses,
or by wild asses.
(v.) The Bactrians and Caspians, arrayed as their foot-soldiers.
(vi.) The Libyans, equipped as their foot-soldiers, like the rest;
but all riding in chariots.
(vii.) The Caspeirians and Paricanians, equipped as their
foot-soldiers.
(viii.) The Arabians, in the same array as their footmen, but
all riding on camels, not inferior in fleetness to horses.
These nations, and these only, furnished horse to the army..."

While here the persians are told to be the most determined and valient fighters, the persian army is composed of many nations that have little to do with each other but to be persian colonies, with their national arms. It seems that only Colchis and their southern neighbors, urartrians (alarodians), had swords; the rest had akenakes, bows and slings; this and some other parts in ancient authors makes me think that North-West Turkey and western Georgia continued to be the major centers of sword production and metal work.