Islamic Crossbow?

[B.I]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Since turks and persians converted you can use their weapons, but you can't use firearms for they are "christian sunna" (Ayalon quotes the last speach of Tuman-Bey in which he accuses ottoman in violating this law by using "christian sunna" - guns).

very interesting. i am not familiar with 'christian sunna' and its meaning.
the firearms theology i am aware of.
its a strange concept, that if you cut off someones head, the body still remains 'whole' as in, it still exists in the material world, even if in two pieces.
but, firearms cause the body to be partially destroyed when meeting their maker, and so you are undoing what your deity has created.
very strange.

[fernando]

Sorry if this is nonsense ...
What about the muslim crossbow being of portuguese ( or partly ) influence ?
By the time Afonso de Albuquerque defeated and practically controlled all the sea and coast, from the straight of Ormuz, all India west coast, down to Malaca,( around 1505 ), he personnaly took it as a modernity that all the archers from his fleet used the crossbow, while João de Barros and others from the period, quoted that, muslims and turks were armed with normal bows, some of them very powerfull and sofisticated.
At least several crossbows were left back or captured during the inumerous battles ... this could be a start, like other known cases of invader/defender influence on altering or adopting eachother's weapons.
If this is a plausible possibility, i can translate a few historical quotations, added by pictures.

[Rivkin]

1. "Christian sunna" (also known as "hadith of kafirs") is when someone does not follow the islamic tradition - for example erects statues (like spanish umayads) or in opinion of some uses paper money (rather than bimetallic islamic currency system). Handguns were considered "christian sunna" in an extremely orthodox (and in the same time extremely unislamic) mamluk society, i.e. they were considered a chirstian novelty that is prohibited for proper muslims (source - Ayalon quotation of Tuman bey's speach).

2. I'll find this article, but it will probably take some time - I'll have to check out the books from the library, and right now I'm on a little bit tight schedule.

3. As far as I remember the decision of qadis that permitted the use of crossbow was made during the rulership or Calawun, (14th century) or somewhere in this range of time, centuries before the establishment of a portuguese base in Oman. The problem is that crossbow is nearly always referred in islamic sources as a "bow", the paper makes the point in emphasizing that it's (as far as I remember) sometimes is called a "persian bow" or "the bow where string is drawn with the foot". The size of these bows is reported to be completely enormous - elite, extremely strong mamluks were rumored (according to the paper, that I'll dig up ) to use bolts that weighted up to a few dozen pounds and more.

[Rivkin]

Ok, here are two books that should mention islamic crossbows:
Boas, Adrian J. (1999). Crusader Archeology. New York: Routledge.
Burke, Edmund. (1957). The History of Archery. New York: William Morrow and Company.

[B.I]

thank you krill.
i will chase these books down. is this from memory or do they definately mention the crossbow. a bow pulled by the foot is enough for me but it must be pre 1500.
jens,
i just bumbled across this image from a moghul painting circa 1570. too late for my needs but interesting all the same.

[Rather]

As far as I remember, the crossbow was a weapon typically used by townspeople or on ships. It was much less effective in open ground battle, as the firing rate is much slower (5 to 6 times) compared to a bow. Furthermore, it can’t be used by cavalry, due to the difficult loading procedure. So, if your are looking for such a weapon in the Islamic armies, I suggest to look into the Naval warfare or check areas, where towns were under the thread of siege. Good luck!

[Jens Nordlunde]

Sorry I must have seen the crossbow in a book other than in my own. I have however found something else in Elgood’s Hindu Arms and Ritual.

Page 51. ‘Kautilya’s text as it has reached us with its insertions of identerminate date describes stone-throwing machines and we know from Muslim sources of manjaniqs, maghribis, arradahs and gigant crossbows called charkhs which were used in siege operations (see Toy, Sidney: The Strongholds of India. London 1957)’. And at the bottom of the page. ‘Ferishta is probably reliable when he reports that 5000 Hindus were slain when Muslim cannon fired ‘bags of copper miney’ at point-blank range at the advancing Hindu army during the battle of Talikota in 1565. He also refers to the Hindu use of ‘vast flights of rockets’. Probably rocket throwers, Takhsh-andaz, were carried into battle in howdahs together with grenade throwers, r’ad-andaz, in the army of Sultan Mahmud when he fought Timur at Delhi in 1398, but takhsh can mean a crossbow or an arrow.

See also the Glossary page 249 and 257.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by B.I

thank you krill.
i will chase these books down. is this from memory or do they definately mention the crossbow. a bow pulled by the foot is enough for me but it must be pre 1500.
jens,
i just bumbled across this image from a moghul painting circa 1570. too late for my needs but interesting all the same.

It's from memory, but "The History of Archery" I think certainly mentions the development of islamic crossbow (here my memory becomes vague - was it turks or persian who introduced it). As strange as it sounds they used it against very heavily armored enemies. As far as I remember old turkish shooting style (khazars etc.) very often required archers to dismount even when shooting with bows. Concerning ships, arabs, mamluks and early turks were not very profficient of famous for using them. Navy service was too often dispised and was not considered a "mainstream" career, therefore I (well I'm way too ignorant) don't know of a single famous "mamluk navy" manual.