Islamic Crossbow?

[B.I]

marc,
please feel free to 'snipe' any time you want
also, if this is the casual information you can provide when in a hurry, then i look forward to you sitting down with time!
your information was very helpful, and i had always suspected the information needed would come from a spanish source, due to the heavy involvement with moors and a cross-culture that was never more prevelant than in the 'medieval' period.
i shall get the link you sent translated and hope it holds some good information. you hint that it does, but my spanish doesnt get much further than ordering a couple of beers in a bar.
also, i will try and search this source -

SOLER DEL CAMPO, Álvaro. "La evolución del armamento medieval en el reino Castellan-Leonés y Al-Andalus (Siglos XII-XIV)", Ed. by Servicio de Publicaciones del E.M.E, Madrid, 1993.

no matter how poor, any iconography is desperately needed.
the Nasrid crossbow sounds intriguing, is there any images available. the two links you sent are in spanish, but do these sites hold images?
again, i can get the text sifted through.
also, the frescoes in Torre de las Damas - are there any publications that show these.

please expand when you have time. i will not be able to get the texts translated for another week, so expect some questions from me.

King Jaume I of Aragon sounds like a tough guy. a mere headache from a headshot! i wonder if that goes into mythology and fantasy. i remember the story of the sikh warrior who continued fighting after his head was cut off!!
if not, i think charlton heston ought to come out of retirement, put down his rifle and don a spanish sword for there is another epic to be made

thanks again.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Elgood: Firearms of The Islamic World, page 115, you will see a miniature with at least two crossbows – dated c. 1500. Too late for you I guess.

Syed Zafar Haider: Islamic Arms and Armour of Muslim India, page 186. Two drawings of crossbows, one from Egypt 11th century, in Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo and one from a miniature shown in ‘Zafar Nama’ c. 1467. In the text about crossbows he writes:

Takhsh.
A rare example of a crossbow is illustrated in the late fifteenth century Persian manuscript Zafar Nama. Under the nomenclature takhsh it is further mentioned in the manuscript as a part of the arsenal used by the Muslim Indian armies fighting against Timur.

A drawing in ink from the eleventh century, Egypt proves the presence of this weapon with the Islamic armies much before it became popular in Europe. Ease and effectiveness with which the composite bow was used prevented the crossbow from gaining favour with the Islamic armies. It is for this reason that no example of such a weapon has reached us from the past.

The crossbow from Egypt is a multipurpose weapon, a spear and a crossbow. Maybe they have other crossbows at the museum, but anyway it shows, that they knew the crossbow very early.


Jens

[B.I]

thank you jens,
could you please post the two drawings from haiders book. i can try and trace the manuscript here and find the reference.
attached is a persian inlaid silver bottle from the 13thC, in the freer gallery of art.
this is a good start but much more is still needed and much appreciated, as ever.

[Rivkin]

My memory was almost entirely right (with an exception of that I interchanged "persian" and "turkish" bows).
"The Mamluks in Egyptian politics and society" edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann has an article on p.174 "The late triumph of the Persian bow: critical voices on the Mamluk monopoly on weaponry". It deals mostly with the issue that while descendants of the prophet were banned from carrying weapons, sons of idolaters (mamluks) were the only ones permitted to do so. On p.184 it discusses the crossbows - they had two names "qaws ak zaytun, qaws al jarkh, qaws al-rijl" (not bunduq) and "turkish bow". Some of these bows where possibly some sort of siege machines rather than ordinary crossbows (I can't exactly envision a crossbow firing a 90kg bolt ?).

The nomenclature of bows comes from religious discussions of Ibn al-Qayyim (d.1350) and others on whether a muslim can use weapons of non-muslims (since the prophet himself in principle did not use the weapons of kafir). Crossbows where seen as an introduction made by mamluks from the lands of kafir.

It's a very interesting article, unfortunately (or fortunately) it mostly refers to original sources in arabic with an exception of works I already cited here.

[fernando]

You can read in the "Historia Silense " ( Perez de Urbel y Ruiz-Zorrilla - pages 189-190 ) , in the year 1028 , during the conquist of Coimbra by Fernando I, the relate of the punishment inflicted to a Moor, that has killed his father in law Afonso V, with a crossbow.
These type of texts are or come from writings of the period, and there is no misinterpretation of terminology. A bow is an "arco" ( arch ) and a crossbow is a "besta" ( beast ) or whatever subnames derived from the crossbow evolution and variations.
In the French National Library of Paris, there is ( at least ) an illumination of the great siege of Rhodes, in 1480, where you can clearly see the gear of both Otoman Turks and the Knights Hospitalers ( St. John of Jerusalem ), with the Turks using a consistent shape of crossbows ( one with a highly powerfull cranequin, a ratchet device that spanned a 450 ratio tension ).
Naturally all this showering of examples don't bring a label stating " Made in Islam ", but you are getting each time closer to something solid.

[B.I]

hi all,
sorry for going absent on my own post. i seem to have walked back into some great, and very useful contributions.
jim, as you say i always thought that the greatest link would be from spain, but in my ignorance, i had not thought of portugal. i have access to saracen archery, but although i havent had a chance to access it, from previous viewings i didnt think it would yield any confirmed answers. i was looking into other things at the time so i hope i am wrong.
agtai, what you are doing is what all academics have to do. as the published accounts have produced all that they can, it is time to backtrack back into the original translations, and try and steer research past the set stumbling blocks. this has been happening for some time on the well accepted manuscripts in the hope that a re-translation may offer a different perspective. i am pleased to hear that you tackle this in the same way. i truly look forward to new finds.
krill, thanks for confirming your reference. i got the feeling this involved unpacking material and i really appreciate the effort. i will access the book and see if i can track down his references. i can get these translated, or at least read to see if they can offer any more information.
marc, your contributions have been great. you mention Cantigas de Alfonso X with illustrations. i have found this book on a few sites, but can you confirm an author. as the title is in spanish, the booksellers tend to be spanish and i would hate to buy the wrong book. i will try and send some examples for you to choose which is the correct version.
fernando, your image is wonderful. many thanks! the illustration you say is an illumination of the great siege of Rhodes, in 1480. can you confrim a date for this image? this is important and it would have to have been painted within that period. also, can you tell the the book it came from.
i really do appreciate all the help, and hope that more references will be found in time, and posted here.

[Rivkin]

B.I.: you are welcome, no problem. I've finished Burke "History of Archery" and "Turkish Archery" by Klopsteg and I have to say their opinion on what is crossbow and what is not is entirely different. Only turkish bow where the stirrup mechanism is explicitly mentioned is certianly a crossbow (such things indeed appear in the mentioned article in "Mamluks in Egyptian ..."). The rest of the bows seem to regular bows, and "foot bows", which the article takes to be crossbows, is just the way these bows where used - two legs holding the frame, two arms used to draw the string. My impression from Burke that qaws something is not related to the crossbow unless some special device used to draw the string is mentioned, so only some of them where actual crossbows.

[B.I]

jens,
the image from firearms of the islamic world is great. although later, it clearly shows the crossbow being used at a developed stage, by someone that could only have been persian. it definately helps.
this shows that it was definately used and is a good introduction to begin the process of successive and comparative investigation.

[Jens Nordlunde]

The one to the left is the one from 11th century; the other one is from 15th century. Sorry for the bad pictures but they are placed very close to the spine.
To compensate for the bad quality, I also attach an Italian Walnut Stone Bow, early 17th century - although it is very late for your use.


Jens

[Aqtai]

I got David Nicolle's "Acre 1291" last week, I was flicking through it today, when I found this:



According to the caption it is a "Mamluk enamelled glass flask" in the British Museum.

The same book also had this picture:
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/607...anjaniq8be.jpg

[fernando]

So there is a modern publication on The great siege of rhodes ... certainly with that illumination with the Turks using crossbows..


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...roduct-details

[B.I]

i continue to be both impressed and staggered by the information uncovered on this post. none of the sources referenced are common, nor easily accessed and it shows the seriousness of the forum members.

fernando -
thank you for expanding your information. the reason i had let the post 'die out' is because we had uncovered a fair amount of information, and i was waiting for the researcher to come back from france to hand it over to him. he is very happy with the information, but jist needs 'back-up' if he is to use any of it. could be please tell me the source of your mention of the seljuks having crossbows, before the ottoman illustration.
thanks for the book link, and i will order a copy and hand it over (with an invoice!). the article marc found also referenced the crossbow with a number of spanish terms - the foot bow, the foreign bow and the complicated bow. the 'beast' is a good thing to look out for when i am picking through foreign texts to see what i am going to give in for translation.

aqtai -
this research was already started by someone, and he had found the british museum bowl and inserted it in his file. (i wasnt aware of this when i first started the post). still, a great find though and much appreciated.
also, the illumination you linked from david nicholles book is useful, even though its a seige engine. the concept is still similar and maybe this can be used in this manner. thanks.

marc -
as fernando said, a wealth of fabulous information.
i will track down the BL books next time i am there (including the french article you mentioned). it isnt easy getting things copied there, and i hope i can get the information i need without having to type it out myself (not an option - i am slow in english....but spanish!!!)
the kings chronicle in pdf is a great find and i will print it out and hand it in.
the article from the madrid university is fabulous (i think) and i have handed it in for translation. just picking out bits, it seems there is much direct information and i look forward to recieving it back in english. do you know the author?
i can easily get hold of a copy of nicholles book, as its on most of the arms libraries i use and i will chase it up. i have had some time off (playing of course) and so it will be a week or so before i can take more time off to pursue the information in places other than my computer, but i look forward to showing anything new here.
i look forward to the information you are sending (especially the frescoes - even in poor quality), when you have time. believe me, i understand how hard it is to fit in any extra research as i struggle myself.

agian, much appreciated to all.

[fernando]

Just look what i came across with:

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...ambra_ma25.htm

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...ambra_ma26.htm

It's a pitty, there's something wrong with the attachment uploader ... these pictures are great.

[fernando]

There you are

[Marc]

Brian,
Just trying to drown you with work, you know...

About the books:
If you manage to take a peek to a facsimile copy of the Cantigas de Alfonso X (the tome in the Monasterio de El Escorial's library, IIRC) you'll find the images (Cantigas number 28, 99 and 187, crossbows in Muslim hands, there may be more). On the other hand, Soler del Campo's book may be easier to get...
The frescoes in the Torre de las Damas in the Alhambra are also shown there, though in the form of a drawing. Said drawing was done long ago by Gomez-Moreno, an Spanish arabist and archaeologist, and I seem to remember (might be wrong, here, but it can be checked) that the original frescoes are almost illegible now. They are also found in Nicolle's book. By the way, given its date of publication, I'm sure that this information must be found in other, later books by Dr. Nicolle dealing with the same subject (like "Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era", maybe, and some others) that might be easier to find.

Sorry, not images of the Nasrid crossbow that I can be sure of. The sites have information about it, one is a reference for a monography and the other is about an old exhibition that displayed it and that probably have a catalogue somewhere.

Oh, and the incident in front of Valencia is told by the King himself in his Crònica ("Chronicle"), that is quite faithful. It's not that strange, if one analyzes the circumstances, the helmet saved him from what it probably was a quite long-distance shot to start with. Besides, Jaume I, called El Conqueridor ("The Conquerer"), was also a formidable man, standing more than 2 m. tall. And he says that he had an horrible headache for several days. Maybe not really the stuff of legends... but a good deal of sheer luck, at least, well, that's for sure.

Oh, and I thought it might be worth mentioning that, IIRC, the Mamluk Sultan Baybars I, who was involved in the coup of 1250 and took later the power in Egypt in 1260 after defeating the Mongols in Ain Jalut, at some point in his career was the commander of the Mamluk units of crossbowmen.

Jens, just a small nitpick, the crossbow was well-established in Europe in the 11th c. There's for example a representation of a crossbowmen in the Beatus of Burgo de Osma dated in 1086.

P.D.

Originally Posted by B.I

but my spanish doesnt get much further than ordering a couple of beers in a bar.

Well, that's not bad at all, don't let you be led to think us Spaniards use our language for anything less important...

[fernando]

Hi B.I.
The "Cuçalarab" shown in the the aquarel nr. 85 is part of the Moors armament in the 12th century, in the occupied peninsula. It is a modern drawing, to illustrate historical research for a miniature making company. It was just to confirm ( and reconfirm ) that the crossbow, in whatever variation, was used by arabs or muslims much before the VXV century.
But certainly this this isn't what you are looking for. Nor even the attached scanning of an illumination on "Chronicles of England" by Jean Wavrin ( 1498 ).
Certainly you are close from finding what you need.

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Marc

...
Oh, and I thought it might be worth mentioning that, IIRC, the Mamluk Sultan Baybars I, who was involved in the coup of 1250 and took later the power in Egypt in 1260 after defeating the Mongols in Ain Jalut, at some point in his career was the commander of the Mamluk units of crossbowmen...

I'm not too sure about that. I think this belief has come about because one of Beybars' titles was El-Bunduqdari. This has often been translated as "the crossbowman" in the belief that bunduq means crossbow. Which is reasonable when you consider that the modern Arabic name for rifle is bunduqiyah. However El-Bunduqiyah is also the Arabic name for Venice and bunduq in Arabic means hazelnut. I have seen suggestions that in Mamluk times the name bunduq was actually used for pellet bows, also reasonable when you consider the size and shape of a pellet.

Beybars had this title because his first master was the emir Aydekin El-Bunduqdar, which translates either as Aydekin the pellet-bow bearer, or Aydekin the crossbow bearer, depending on how you translate bunduq. This title was a court position, and referred to the sultan's attendents. There were also silahdars, sword bearers; tabardars, axe bearers and jukandars, polo-stick bearers. Sultan El-Salih Ayyub later purchased Beybars from Aydekin, which is how he came to be one of the Bahri mamluks.

[Marc]

Aqtai:

Ah! Thank you! Learning never stops, indeed. I appreciate very much the clarification on the Baybars issue.

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Marc

Aqtai:

Ah! Thank you! Learning never stops, indeed. I appreciate very much the clarification on the Baybars issue.

You're welcome!

I've had a look at the Italian pellet crossbow posted by Jens again. I'm now wondering if during the Mamluk period the term bunduq actually referred to pellet-crossbows.

I'm also struck by the fact that Jens called it an Italian "walnut" crossbow, and that the word bunduq means hazelnut.

Mind you, bunduq is also the Arabic name for the Disney character "Goofy". I don't think the mamluks knew about him though...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Well actually I called it an ‘Italian Walnut Stone Bow’, and the design could suggest, that it was made for shooting stones rather than arrows. Was it?
My knowledge of crossbows is more than limited.

Jens

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Brian,
I've been following this thread with great fascination, as I admit that the crossbow or any bows for that matter, are far outside my field of study. I have learned a great deal from the fantastic and well referenced material that has been posted here, and am intrigued by your topic and especially that what you are researching may be published. It is clear that little material is available on Islamic crossbows, particularly specific references in the West. It seemed quite inevitable that with the well established Moorish/European associations the most relevant material presented would be from Spain and Portugal with the outstanding data from Marc and Fernando. Indeed all the posts have added so much pertinant data that the history of these deadly weapons becomes much more approachable.

While it appears you are searching for specific data on an example noted, I have checked through some resources that may add some data from the historical perspective. In checking "Islamic Arms & Armour" ed. by R. Elgood (London,1980), the chapter titled "Archery in the Lands of Eastern Islam" by J.D.Latham & W.F.Peterson presents interesting discussion of the various bows and thier use, but no mention is made of crossbows. The prior published work of the authors is cited as "Saracen Archery: An English Version and Exposition of Mameluke Work on Archery c.1368 AD" (London, 1970). In the content of this work, the profound religious view of the expertise of a Muslim warrior with the bow seems well qualified, and seems to concur with the reference noted in earlier post where the 'Persian' crossbow is ordered discarded and the Arab bow was to be used.

In checking further in "Armies of the Caliphs" (Hugh Kennedy, London, 2001), there is considerable detailed discussion on warfare, tactics and especially on weapons. In that chapter, while weaponry and armour is well covered, it is noted on p.105 that "...neither in the case of the Khurisaniya nor of the Abna, is there any clear discussion of bows and archery". While this is obviously a somewhat isolated note, it seemed to exemplify the seemingly limited material on this topic.

Although there appears to be considerable absence of reference to the crossbow as noted in the early Islamic literature, whether because of the general terminology or its use being deferred for Orthodox reasons, it does seem likely that the Persians may have developed interpretations. I think that Jens' reference to the technology of siege engines and catapults may hold some of the potential for this thought, as well as a reference I found concerning more ancient origins for the crossbow.
In "The Ancient Engineers" (L. Sprague de Camp, N.Y. 1960) on pp.106-107, the author notes, "...the earliest crossbow was called a 'gastrapheles' or 'belly weapon' because of the curved crosspiece at the butt end, which the arbalester braced against his chest. It was also called a hand catapult and a scorpion. Although the crossbow was well known from the 4th c. AD on, it never attained the popularity in classical times that it achieved in medieval Europe. The only detailed description of an ancient crossbow that we have is by Heron of Alexandria, who describes a rather cumbersome device with a bow of horn and the elaborate working mechanism of larger catapults".

While this material does not provide answers specifically, I am hoping it will provide perspective that will constructively add to the outstanding references already posted in this thread. I also found some additional titles that could possibly be helpful:
"Arab Archery" N.A.Faris & R.P.Elmer , Princeton, 1945
"A Bibliography of Archery" F.Lake & H. Wright, Manchester, 1974
"The Crossbow, Medieval and Modern" Sir R Payne-Gallway, London 1958
"Book of Archery" G.A.Hansard, London, 1840

With very best regards,
Jim