God's Warriors

Extract from ‘Rival Military Elites: Saracen Faris’

Home and Barracks

Medieval Islamic civilization, particularly among military groups, had great respect for individual worth and personal achievement. Attitudes were in many ways closer to those of the modern world than to those of medieval Europe. Overcoming natural cowardice, for example, was regarded as more admirable than feeling no fear. (Feeling no fear was often attributed to stupidity.) Military service was also considered to involve an element of personal humiliation through submission to orders, but at the same time, the military elite were also something of a social elite. As one Arab replied when taunted for his humble origins: ‘My family line begins with me, yours ends with you!’

Protection of the weak by the strong was a powerful ideal and romantic ideals of honour, particularly among the Arabs, were remarkably similar to those of Western European chivalry. For example a cavalryman who felt that his honour had been tarnished by being struck by a second-rate soldier would charge among the enemy’s ranks just so that he could return the blow. The beliefs and attitudes of the Turkish warrior classes were different: the Turks believed that they were destined to rule the world. Even after becoming Muslim, they continued to see themselves as a chosen people who had saved Islam in its hour of crisis.

The differing attitudes of Turkish, Persian and Arab soldiers were also reflected in their literary tastes. Tales of love and war written for the Turks had much in common with French chansons de geste, whereas Persian stories tended to focus on a lost imperial past, a clash of titanic heroes and the splendour of courtly life. The Arabic epic tradition, which reached its final form during the Crusades, showed deeper interest in human relations, the emotions of battle and the often tense relationship between men and women, with the leading character often being female. There were also elements of sex and violence: an enemy warrior-heroine with a ‘bottom like a narcissus flower’ finally succumbs to the hero, and, of course, falls in love with him.

Music played a very important part in the culture of Arab, Persian and Turkish military elites, but was regarded with deep suspicion by the religious leadership. Chess was associated with older and wiser warriors, and youngsters preferred faster, gambling games. The Saracen soldier’s love of perfumes and flowers was seen as effeminate by the rougher Crusaders, but scents cooled a man in the heat of the Middle East, while flowers and fragrant leaves flavoured his drinks. Of course the Muslim warrior drank more than mere ‘sherbet’ – alcoholic beverages were widespread. A thick, sweet, slightly fermented juice made from dried grapes or dates was acceptable, and the Turks also drank a form of beer called buzah.

More is known about the social attitudes of the officer class than of ordinary soldiers. The Muslim elite was very concerned with etiquette: the correct way of eating; respect for age and women; and ‘moderation in all things’. But where romance was concerned, they showed less restraint: pursuit of the fair sex was considered normal for a young man, though quite separate from the question of marriage. As Kai Ka’us, ruler of Gurgan, wrote for his son in AD 1082:

Marry a woman of honourable family, because men marry in order to have a lady for the house and not to indulge in sexual pleasure. To satisfy your desires you can buy slave-girls in the bazaar, which involves less expense and less trouble.

The idea that the Muslim warrior’s ideal woman was fat is also untrue. A beauty was described as slender like a cane or twig, with a pale face, long dark hair, large dark eyes, a straight nose, a small mouth, bright red lips, a small bosom, waist, hands and feet but wide hips. She was also highly sexed.

The significance of jihad and religious motivation may have become exaggerated but they were important. Jihad itself was never supposed to force conversion to Islam; it was intended to increase the power of Islam and to defend Muslims. The Crusader conquest of parts of Syria and the Holy Land was, in fact, received with apathy outside the areas immediately concerned. Yet the savagery of the newly arrived ‘Franks’ (Western European Christians) was noted, and some scholars who understood Crusader motivation worked for a revival of the jihad spirit. Once it did re-emerge, it was a Sunni or ‘orthodox’ Muslim phenomenon aimed as much against ‘heretical’ Shi’a Muslims as against the Crusaders. However, how much influence scholarly works on jihad had on ordinary soldiers remains unknown.

As far as the professional soldier was concerned the rules of war, or siyar, had been established back in the 8th century. They were rooted in religion, and any educated soldier knew them well. Basically they consisted of the rules of jihad (who could and could not be fought and under what circumstances), ‘aman (when and where safe-conduct should be offered to an enemy) and hudnah (the rules regulating truces). Sometimes such regulations were highly specific, dealing with the preservation of fruit trees and beehives. Among the most important practical regulations were those dealing with obedience to orders, keeping one’s word – even to an enemy – not harming women, children, old men, non-military slaves or religious figures (unless the latter were spies), and causing no more devastation than was militarily necessary. Male prisoners could be killed or enslaved, though only for good reason, whereas female prisoners should be provided with transport into captivity. Clearly Muslim soldiers and their commanders did not always live up to such high standards, but at least the siyar was there as an ideal – which is more than can be said for European warfare against non-Christians.

The Muslim soldier was also rather superstitious. Small totemic swords, magic daggers and written charms have been found in many areas, though very little is now known about how they were supposed to work. Astrology, the interpretation of dreams, and predictions were widespread and may have been particularly characteristic of the military – whose lives and careers were even more uncertain than those of ordinary men.

For several centuries the military elites of the Muslim Middle East had been firmly based in cities and towns. Even the Saljuq Turks soon settled into urban citadels and became, like their Arab and Persian predecessors, patrons of culture and religion. The core elites of their armies also lived within cities, though for several generations Turcoman tribal troops tended to live in tents beyond the walls.

In Fatimid Egypt the caliph’s guard regiments had their hujra barracks within the palace grounds. Other regiments were sited elsewhere in the city, though none has yet been identified by archaeologists. The palatial houses of senior Fatimid officers were also defended by personal guards. Evidence from cities like Mosul in northern Iraq suggests that the tents of a large garrison could eventually have been replaced by houses, thus creating a new suburb with its own special markets and other facilities. At the same time, even professional troops would gradually have acquired parallel civilian jobs.

Little is known of life within the hujra or barracks, but information from 10th-century Tarsus shows that some included their own armouries and workshops or even had shops underneath them and used the rents from these to support the volunteer soldiers who lived above. By the 14th/15th century the barracks of Egyptian mamluks had even developed as centres of literary endeavour, poetry and such, alongside the military training. In 11th-century Baghdad the most powerful officers lived in palaces overlooking the river, while over the road were barracks and mosques for their troops, and stables for cavalry horses.

Blocks of apartments and perhaps barracks which characterised great cities like Cairo had much in common with the towering tenements of ancient Rome. But most soldiers may have lived in private houses. This would be in keeping with the concern for privacy which lies at the heart of the Muslim way of life. Many ordinary city houses have been excavated by archaeologists, and, like Roman houses, they faced inwards, built around a courtyard. An extended family unit including several generations usually lived in one house and maintained close links with brothers, sisters, cousins, and clan or tribal members near and far. The harim or ‘sacred area’ was the women’s domain, and the husband had his own room at its edge. The men of the house also needed a guest area for entertaining male visitors (women entertaining lady visitors within the harim). Family life was very close-knit, with business, education, entertainment and even amorous adventures taking place within a closed but extended family. The head of such a family might, like Usama Ibn Muqidh in AD 1154, find himself responsible for 50 people: men, women, his own and his brother’s children, and various servants.

Marriage was a duty for a Muslim; not doing so for any reason other than health was sinful. The choice of a partner was generally left to the mother, a female relation or a professional female betrother. Cousins were seen as ideal spouses because their character would be well known, and such a marriage further strengthened family bonds. A man was permitted four wives, but it was considered better to have just one. The law insisted that each be treated exactly equally, even in the most private matters. Divorce was easier and certainly more acceptable than in Christian society and may have served as a counterbalance to an individual’s initial lack of choice. Yet at the same time, Usama was shocked by the Crusaders’ lack of sexual jealousy and by their lack of personal modesty.Far from being isolated, Muslim women had access to public life – though the public world had no access to them. On at least two occasions the women of Usama’s family seized weapons when Shayzar was attacked, and an 11th-century reference to a lady wielding great political influence ‘because she won over the soldiers’ wives’ suggests that a soldier may have been something less than the master within his own house.The bonds which kept the military classes together were quite distinct from family ties. ‘Asabiyah tribal solidarity was still strong, and played a very important role throughout the 12th century. It could link up with ‘istina’, the sense of obligation between soldiers and a ‘patron’ or commander who was seen as their foster father. In the 10th century the swearing of public mutual oaths of loyalty had been an important way of cementing the relationship between rulers, officers and men, but these were less important during the Crusader era. Gifts of clothes, arms, armour and horse harness enabled a leader to reward his followers, since status was shown by the richness of a man’s dress and weaponry.

Medieval Middle Eastern costume was functional rather than formal; role, sex, religion and ethnic origin were indicated by the quality and colour of cloth and minor variations in the cut of clothes. The variety of dyes, patterns and fabrics was much wider than in medieval Europe, and elite troops wore magnificently distinctive dress, though not real uniforms. Professional Middle Eastern soldiers, though not North Africans, tended to wear Persian and Turkish rather than Arab costume when on duty. The most obvious items of dress were a double-breasted coat, a hiyasa belt incorporating decorative metal plates, and the sharbush stiff fur-edged cap with a triangular plate at the front. This could be replaced by a qalawta cap. In Saljuq Persia another elaborate cap for high-ranking military figures was the dushakh, which had a double-pointed shape.

Military jewellery ranged from the magnificent hafir or turban decoration of a ruler to the siwarayn or bracelets allowed senior officers and the tawq or necklace given to a successful commander. Ordinary officers wore what they could afford, and this, along with the fact that Muslim armies were normally paid in cash, explains the Crusaders’ enthusiasm for stripping their dead foes.Most cavalryman had only one war-horse, and a great deal of effort went into keeping it in peak condition. Mounts were normally tethered in an open air mizalla or paddock with a shaded shelter of palm leaves, but a surprise enemy attack could find the horses dispersed to pasture, as happened to Nur al Din in 1163. However, even a small castle like Shayzar had its istabl or stables for war-horses and pack animals. The animals were hobbled by three legs, rather than four as in Europe, and got their feed in nose-bags rather than mangers on the wall. Qualified staff, listed as military servants, looked after horse and harness, a stable-boy kept the place clean, a sa’is or groom looked after one or more animals and a shaddad or harnessman took care of the tack. A large stable might also have its own resident baytar or vet.