Swords and "urbanization"

fearn · 10th October 2008, 07:57 PM

Hi All,

Interesting topic, but I think there are two issues with the Central Asian nomads. First, they did occasionally build cities (see various references), and second, because they often used carts to move things around (link, near bottom). While mobile, they could also move a forge around as needed.

Following what Mark said, I think that the important thing is population size and material needs, not mobility. The Hordes were large and highly organized, so they found ways to move both metalwork and smiths. A small, isolated tribe might not have the surplus to support a smith, nor ways to get the specialized materials he needed. That said, I think the critical tests are the African tribes, because they were pretty small, and did metalwork. Hopefully one of our Africa experts will chime in with how that was organized, and how small and isolated a group of people can be, and still support a smith.

As an aside, I'd point out Wallace's Malay Archipelago, wherein he describes what the smiths of Lombok used to make two meter long muzzle-loaders (link). Yes, these aren't swords, but it provides an idea of how little a skilled smith needs to make a long weapon:

"At Mataram we called at the house of Gusti Gadioca, one of the princes of Lombock, who was a friend of Mr. Carter’s, and who had promised to show me the guns made by native workmen. Two guns were exhibited, one six, the other seven feet long, and of a proportionably large bore. The barrels were twisted and well finished, though not so finely worked as ours. The stock was well made, and extended to the end of the barrel. Silver and gold ornament was inlaid over most of the surface, but the locks were taken from English muskets. The Gusti assured me, however, that the Rajah had a man who made locks and also rifled barrels. The workshop where these guns are made and the tools used were next shown us, and were very remarkable. An open shed with a couple of small mud forges were the chief objects visible. The bellows consisted of two bamboo cylinders, with pistons worked by hand. They move very easily, having a loose stuffing of feathers thickly set round the piston so as to act as a valve, and produce a regular blast. Both cylinders communicate with the same nozzle, one piston rising while the other falls. An oblong piece of iron on the ground was the anvil, and a small vice was fixed on the projecting root of a tree outside. These, with a few files and hammers, were literally the only tools with which an old man makes these fine guns, finishing then himself from the rough iron and wood."

(There's more detail in the original quote. Follow the link if you're interested)
F

Nonoy Tan · 10th October 2008, 09:26 PM

Hi Ariel,

You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic.

By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art.

There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

ariel · 10th October 2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonoy Tan

Hi Ariel,

You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic.

By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art.

There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

On the contrary, I do not in any way, shape of form would call Moro " uncivilized" or " un-anything". Their production of highly sophisticated arms despite pretty basic conditions is the exact point of my argument! If they could do it, I see no reason why we deny the same ability to the Central Asian nomads. Do we really believe that all those Dzhungarians, Kashgars, Kumans, Polovtsi, Turcoman Mongols etc, etc imported their swords from China? How did they managed to demolish the super-urbanized China and super-duper-civilized Iranian Empire if they could not maintain a steady-state military-industrial complex?

fearn · 11th October 2008, 01:58 AM

Hi Ariel,

Ummm.... steady state industrial complex? The Mongols? They had the largest contiguous empire in world history. Steady state? I'd say expansionist.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Somewhere along the line, I'd gotten the idea that the "scimitar" shape was something the Steppe nomads worked out and passed to surrounding peoples, not the other way around. Ditto with the compound bow and stirrup. They seem pretty advanced to me.

F

ariel · 11th October 2008, 05:53 AM

Perhaps, steady-state was an imprecise choice: I meant established, functioning, well-oiled or suchlike.
Going to a different topic I raised earler: the origin of the curved saber.

The Mohamed's book shows Khazar sabers, some with pretty obvious false edge ( vestigal yelmans) and suggests that these were the swords later called Kalachuri by the Persians/Indians.
This being the case, one would have to re-think the origins of the Shamshir.
According to Zakey, the introduction of the curved sabers into Muslim culture occured with the Turkic Mongols invading Persia in the 13th century.
However, Umayyad Arabs fought Khazars as early as in the 7th-8th centuries and Northern Iran was a part of the battlefield. This is when the straight Arab swords met the curved Khazar ones for the first time. Thus, it is likely that the replacement of the sword pattern in the Islamic armies occured much earlier than we think. Persians, who were under full Arab control, just adopted the new and superior pattern and continued to curve it more and more until the Safavid era. Another possibility is that the Seljuk ruler Israil ( a native Khazar or adopted Khazar) introduced curved Khazar sabers during his wars with Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 11th century.
Either explanations ( likely, the former one, ie Khazar-Arab Wars) would represent the starting point of the introduction of curved sabers into Islamic military culture. This would explain the North's and Nicolle's claims that curved sabers were present in the Islamic world as early as 8th-9th centuries.
If the Persian cavalry under Shah Mohammed fought the invading Mongols with straight swords, I must be wrong. If, however, they already had curved sabers, the idea of the " Chingiz Khan- inspired " origin of shamshir must be incorrect.

Nonoy Tan · 11th October 2008, 08:12 AM

Hi Ariel,

I am in agreement with your point.

What I have learned from studying various peoples is that it is difficult to generalize (as Jared Diamond did). Often, we need to study a group/people in detail and focus because one group may have had a different set of circumstances, politics, external influences, etc. that make shape their "destiny". While there are parallels, there could also be differentiation even among "similar" groups of peoples. My 2 cents.

By the way, do the peoples you mentioned undertake "blacksmithing"?

TVV · 11th October 2008, 08:54 AM

The Arabs had contacts with the Eatsern Roman Empire as well, and the Romans had contact with the Bulgarians, the Avars and the Magyars, all of whom used the sabre. There is a sabre found in a grave in North-Eastern Bulgaria, dated to the 8th century based on artefacts surrounding it (the reference is in Bulgarian). The dating may be questionable, but one has to keep in mind that it might have been a heirloom, which could potentially make it older. I believe pictorial evidence suggests that the sabre was popular enough in Constantinople in the 10th century, as Emperors are depicted with it. It would be interested to see if there are any frescoes in Eastern Anatolia. Anyway, this has little to do with the main question in this topic, but it supports the idea that the Arabs knew of the sword earlier.
I believe that the technological skills and development of Central Asian peoples tend to be underestimated. There are far more sabres than straight sword found in nowadays Bulgaria, dating to the 8th-10th centuries. Some of them undoubtedly were brought by the Magyars, but the fact stands that sabres were prevalent and straight swords wre not, even though the production centers in the Rhein were closer than any centers in Persia, and let alone China. There wither was huge trade in blades, or the Bulgarians somehow managed to produce them themselves. I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle - perhaps instead of swords, the trade was mainly of ingots. In the European Armoury it was discussed that there is a high probability that some of the Northern European swords may have been forged in Scandinavia with wootz, imported all the way from India. If true, this could potentially explain a lot.
Finally, I do not find it surprising that peoples, who relied on weapons for their survival, had skilled bladesmiths. Apart from horses and bows, what was really more important to Central Asian nomads than their blades?

kronckew · 11th October 2008, 09:24 AM

just a few general comments

1. 'uncivilized' is a roman concept, the word originally derived from civitas, a roman administrative unit for citizens of rome, a.k.a. 'city' - uncivilised people thus were those who did not live in cities, such as rome. they were thus not 'urban'

in english,

Civil:
Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state.
Subject to government; reduced to order; civilized; not barbarous; -- said of the community.
Performing the duties of a citizen; obedient to government; -- said of an individual.
Having the manners of one dwelling in a city, as opposed to those of savages or rustics; polite; courteous; complaisant; affable.

2. they were frequently barbarians, meaning they did not speak a 'civilised' (see no. 1) language like latin or greek, and thus their language was just meaningless sounds, or bar-bar-bar-bar ( we say blah-blah-blah).

these words had no relation to either their scientific, engineering, moral, technical or social skills, just that they were different, and thus people outside roma's control. the romans had no trouble buying fine crafted items from them, trading with them, or stealing ideas from them; or conquering them, 'civilising' them and making good little tax paying citizens of them.

the celts, gauls, etc. who did not live in what rome would call cities, did however have manufacturing communities and an extensive pre-roman trade setup and produced many fine items, including weapons that even rome bought. raw materials not available locally were available by trade. civilization was not a requirement. rome of course conquered them eventually and as they wrote the histories, shuffled most of them off into the 'uncivilised barbarian' category and ignored their contributions.

thus, some of the concepts of urban life in the modern 'civitas' most of us grew up with would have been totally unknown to some of the ethnic groups mentioned here. they still managed. trying to neatly package their cultures in terms of ours is an exercise that will likely result in frustration and disagreement.

10th October 2008, 07:57 PM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi All, Interesting topic, but I think there are two issues with the Central Asian nomads. First, they did occasionally build cities (see various references), and second, because they often used carts to move things around (link, near bottom). While mobile, they could also move a forge around as needed. Following what Mark said, I think that the important thing is population size and material needs, not mobility. The Hordes were large and highly organized, so they found ways to move both metalwork and smiths. A small, isolated tribe might not have the surplus to support a smith, nor ways to get the specialized materials he needed. That said, I think the critical tests are the African tribes, because they were pretty small, and did metalwork. Hopefully one of our Africa experts will chime in with how that was organized, and how small and isolated a group of people can be, and still support a smith. As an aside, I'd point out Wallace's Malay Archipelago, wherein he describes what the smiths of Lombok used to make two meter long muzzle-loaders (link). Yes, these aren't swords, but it provides an idea of how little a skilled smith needs to make a long weapon: "At Mataram we called at the house of Gusti Gadioca, one of the princes of Lombock, who was a friend of Mr. Carter’s, and who had promised to show me the guns made by native workmen. Two guns were exhibited, one six, the other seven feet long, and of a proportionably large bore. The barrels were twisted and well finished, though not so finely worked as ours. The stock was well made, and extended to the end of the barrel. Silver and gold ornament was inlaid over most of the surface, but the locks were taken from English muskets. The Gusti assured me, however, that the Rajah had a man who made locks and also rifled barrels. The workshop where these guns are made and the tools used were next shown us, and were very remarkable. An open shed with a couple of small mud forges were the chief objects visible. The bellows consisted of two bamboo cylinders, with pistons worked by hand. They move very easily, having a loose stuffing of feathers thickly set round the piston so as to act as a valve, and produce a regular blast. Both cylinders communicate with the same nozzle, one piston rising while the other falls. An oblong piece of iron on the ground was the anvil, and a small vice was fixed on the projecting root of a tree outside. These, with a few files and hammers, were literally the only tools with which an old man makes these fine guns, finishing then himself from the rough iron and wood." (There's more detail in the original quote. Follow the link if you're interested) F

10th October 2008, 09:26 PM	#2
Nonoy Tan Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 293	Hi Ariel, You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic. By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art. There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

11th October 2008, 01:58 AM	#4
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Ariel, Ummm.... steady state industrial complex? The Mongols? They had the largest contiguous empire in world history. Steady state? I'd say expansionist. Otherwise, I agree with you. Somewhere along the line, I'd gotten the idea that the "scimitar" shape was something the Steppe nomads worked out and passed to surrounding peoples, not the other way around. Ditto with the compound bow and stirrup. They seem pretty advanced to me. F

11th October 2008, 05:53 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Perhaps, steady-state was an imprecise choice: I meant established, functioning, well-oiled or suchlike. Going to a different topic I raised earler: the origin of the curved saber. The Mohamed's book shows Khazar sabers, some with pretty obvious false edge ( vestigal yelmans) and suggests that these were the swords later called Kalachuri by the Persians/Indians. This being the case, one would have to re-think the origins of the Shamshir. According to Zakey, the introduction of the curved sabers into Muslim culture occured with the Turkic Mongols invading Persia in the 13th century. However, Umayyad Arabs fought Khazars as early as in the 7th-8th centuries and Northern Iran was a part of the battlefield. This is when the straight Arab swords met the curved Khazar ones for the first time. Thus, it is likely that the replacement of the sword pattern in the Islamic armies occured much earlier than we think. Persians, who were under full Arab control, just adopted the new and superior pattern and continued to curve it more and more until the Safavid era. Another possibility is that the Seljuk ruler Israil ( a native Khazar or adopted Khazar) introduced curved Khazar sabers during his wars with Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 11th century. Either explanations ( likely, the former one, ie Khazar-Arab Wars) would represent the starting point of the introduction of curved sabers into Islamic military culture. This would explain the North's and Nicolle's claims that curved sabers were present in the Islamic world as early as 8th-9th centuries. If the Persian cavalry under Shah Mohammed fought the invading Mongols with straight swords, I must be wrong. If, however, they already had curved sabers, the idea of the " Chingiz Khan- inspired " origin of shamshir must be incorrect.

11th October 2008, 08:12 AM	#6
Nonoy Tan Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 293	Hi Ariel, I am in agreement with your point. What I have learned from studying various peoples is that it is difficult to generalize (as Jared Diamond did). Often, we need to study a group/people in detail and focus because one group may have had a different set of circumstances, politics, external influences, etc. that make shape their "destiny". While there are parallels, there could also be differentiation even among "similar" groups of peoples. My 2 cents. By the way, do the peoples you mentioned undertake "blacksmithing"?

11th October 2008, 08:54 AM	#7
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	The Arabs had contacts with the Eatsern Roman Empire as well, and the Romans had contact with the Bulgarians, the Avars and the Magyars, all of whom used the sabre. There is a sabre found in a grave in North-Eastern Bulgaria, dated to the 8th century based on artefacts surrounding it (the reference is in Bulgarian). The dating may be questionable, but one has to keep in mind that it might have been a heirloom, which could potentially make it older. I believe pictorial evidence suggests that the sabre was popular enough in Constantinople in the 10th century, as Emperors are depicted with it. It would be interested to see if there are any frescoes in Eastern Anatolia. Anyway, this has little to do with the main question in this topic, but it supports the idea that the Arabs knew of the sword earlier. I believe that the technological skills and development of Central Asian peoples tend to be underestimated. There are far more sabres than straight sword found in nowadays Bulgaria, dating to the 8th-10th centuries. Some of them undoubtedly were brought by the Magyars, but the fact stands that sabres were prevalent and straight swords wre not, even though the production centers in the Rhein were closer than any centers in Persia, and let alone China. There wither was huge trade in blades, or the Bulgarians somehow managed to produce them themselves. I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle - perhaps instead of swords, the trade was mainly of ingots. In the European Armoury it was discussed that there is a high probability that some of the Northern European swords may have been forged in Scandinavia with wootz, imported all the way from India. If true, this could potentially explain a lot. Finally, I do not find it surprising that peoples, who relied on weapons for their survival, had skilled bladesmiths. Apart from horses and bows, what was really more important to Central Asian nomads than their blades?

11th October 2008, 09:24 AM	#8
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	just a few general comments 1. 'uncivilized' is a roman concept, the word originally derived from civitas, a roman administrative unit for citizens of rome, a.k.a. 'city' - uncivilised people thus were those who did not live in cities, such as rome. they were thus not 'urban' in english, Civil: Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state. Subject to government; reduced to order; civilized; not barbarous; -- said of the community. Performing the duties of a citizen; obedient to government; -- said of an individual. Having the manners of one dwelling in a city, as opposed to those of savages or rustics; polite; courteous; complaisant; affable. 2. they were frequently barbarians, meaning they did not speak a 'civilised' (see no. 1) language like latin or greek, and thus their language was just meaningless sounds, or bar-bar-bar-bar ( we say blah-blah-blah). these words had no relation to either their scientific, engineering, moral, technical or social skills, just that they were different, and thus people outside roma's control. the romans had no trouble buying fine crafted items from them, trading with them, or stealing ideas from them; or conquering them, 'civilising' them and making good little tax paying citizens of them. the celts, gauls, etc. who did not live in what rome would call cities, did however have manufacturing communities and an extensive pre-roman trade setup and produced many fine items, including weapons that even rome bought. raw materials not available locally were available by trade. civilization was not a requirement. rome of course conquered them eventually and as they wrote the histories, shuffled most of them off into the 'uncivilised barbarian' category and ignored their contributions. thus, some of the concepts of urban life in the modern 'civitas' most of us grew up with would have been totally unknown to some of the ethnic groups mentioned here. they still managed. trying to neatly package their cultures in terms of ours is an exercise that will likely result in frustration and disagreement.