barud - v. the safawids (1)

8/10/2019 Barud - V. the Safawids (1)

1/6

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition

Brd

v. THEAFAWIDS

A consideration of the use of firearms in Persia under the afawids falls undertwo heads: artillery (generic name, tp), and hand-guns; the latter, used by bothcavalry and infantry, comprised arquebuses, muskets and carbines, all of whichwere termed, without differentiation, tufang.

According to the traditional account of European writers, artillery was introducedinto Persia during the reign of Shh Abbs I by the English soldiers of fortune SirAnthony Sherley and his brother Sir Robert Sherley, who arrived in azwn inDecember 1598. Among Sir Anthonys party of 26 persons (Sir E. Denison Ross(ed.),Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, London 1933, 13 and n. 3)

was at least one cannon-founder (Browne, iv, 105). Sir Anthonys steward, AbelPinon, states that the Persians at that time had no artillery at all (Denison Ross,163), but his interpreter, Angelo, asserts that Shh Abbs has some cannon,having captured many pieces from the Tartars; moreover there is no lack of

masters to manufacture new ones, these masters have turned against the Turkand have come to serve the King of Persia(Denison Ross, 29). Purchas, writingin 1624, claims that such progress was made under the guidance of the Sherley

brothers that the prevailing Persian hath learned Sherleian arts of war, and hewhich before knew not the use of ordnance, has now 500 pieces of brass(Denison Ross, 21).

There is abundant evidence, however, in both the European and the Persiansources, that the Persians were familiar with the use of artillery long before thetime of Abbs I. The Venetian ambassador dAlessandri, who arrived in Persia in

1571, states that the Ottoman prince Byazd, who sought refuge with Shhahmsp in 966/1559, brought with him thirty pieces of artillery (A Narrative of

Italian Travelsin Persia in the15th and16th centuries, London 1873, 228).Herbert (A Relation of Some Yeares Travaileetc., London 1634, 298) states thatthe Persians got the use of cannon from the van quised Portugal, and Figueroastates that the Persian artillery was manipulated by Europeans and particularly


2/6

by the Portuguese (Tadhkirat al-Mulk, 33). We know that in 955/1548 thePortuguese furnished ahmsp with 10,000 men and 20 cannon at the time ofthe Ottoman sultan Sulaymns second invasion of Persia (A Chronicleofthe Carmelites, i, 29). Direct evidence that artillery was used by the Persianarmy even earlier than this is found in the contemporary Persian chronicleAsanal-Tawrkh(ed. C. N. Seddon, Baroda 1931). In the afawid army which laidsiege to Dmghn in 935/1528-9 there was a certain Ustd (i.e., master [of hiscraft]) Shaykhthe gunner ( tp) (AT, 212). In a pitched battle with the zbegsneaf Mashhad, later the same year, ahmsp stationed in front of his army thewagons containing the arbzan(probably a type of light cannon, cf. the Mamlkterm arbzna; see D. Ayalon, GunpowderandFirearmsin theMamlk

Kingdom, London 1956, 127, n. 220) and ( tp-i)farang(AT, 214); the gunnersand musketeers ( tpiyn wa tufangiyn) were, however, unable to use theirguns because the zbegs did not approach from the front (AT, 217). In 945/1538-

9 the besieging afawid forces destroyed the towers ( burdj) of the fort of Bridin Shrwn by artillery fire (AT, 287). In 946/1539-40 we hear for the first time ofa tp-bsh(commander-in-chief of artillery), in an action against Amraubd, the rebel governor ofstr(AT, 293). From this time onwards artillerywas frequently used by the afawids in siege warfare, for instance at Gulistn andDarband (954/1547-8) (AT, 321-2). At the siege of Kshnear Shakkin 958/1551-2 the afawids used Frankish cannon( tp-i farang), and in addition a type ofcannon called bdldj(cf. P. Horn,Das Heer- und Kriegswesen desGrossmoghuls, Leiden 1894, 29), and mortars ( azn), which are mentioned

for the first time; the towers of the fort were destroyed after twenty daysbombardment (AT, 350).

It is clear, therefore, that the claim that the Sherleys introduced artillery intoPersia is entirely without foundation. In fact, artillery was in regular use at leastas early as 935/1528-9, that is, within a few years of the accession of Shhahmsp, and fifteen years after the afawid defeat at ldirn [q.v.], a defeat forwhich the Ottoman artillery was largely responsible. It must be emphasised,however, that even before ldirn, the afawids were familiar with the use ofartillery, and that consequently the afawid lack of artillery at ldirn can only

be attributed to a deliberate policy not to develop the use of firearms in thePersian army. The Persians had an innate dislike of firearms, the use of whichthey considered unmanly and cowardly (Nar Allh Falsaf, jang-i ldirn,inMadjalla-yi Dnishkadayi Adabiyyt-i Tihrn, i/2, 1953-4, 93), and inparticular they disliked artillery, because it hampered the swift manuvres oftheir cavalry (Tadhkirat al-Mulk, 33). It is remarkable that, although we havefrequent instances of the use of artillery in siege warfare, little attempt seems to


3/6

have been made to emulate the Ottomans in the use of artillery in the field. At thebattle of Mashhad in 935/1528-9 (see above), the one occasion on which thesources specifically record the use of artillery in the field by ahmsp, itsimmobility rendered it ineffective, and we hear no more of field artillery until thetime of Shh Abbs I. Even under the latter, however, the use of artillery was stillmainly confined to siege warfare (Nar Allh Falsaf,Zindign-yi Shh Abbs-i

Awwal, ii, Tehran 1334 solar/1955, 403).

It seems that in the use of artillery, as in much else, the afawids were the heirs ofthe Aoyunlu. Long before the establishment of the afawid state, the Aoyunlu rulers of Diyr Bakr anddharbydjn had sought to equip their armieswith artillery: the Venetians sent Uzun asan (d. 882/1478) 100 artillerymen ofexperience and capacity, who were immediately sent on to Persia, for in thematter of their artillery the Persian armies suffered greatly from a paucity of

cannon, while on the other hand the Turkish armies in Asia were very wellequipped in this arm, and they could effect much damage in their attack ( DonJuan of Persia, ed. trans. G. Le Strange, London 1926, 98). When a afawid forceof 10,000 men under Muammad Beg Ustdjllaid siege to in Kayfin DiyrBakr about the year 913/1507-8, they made use of a mortar of bronze, of fourspans, which they brought from Mirdin (Mrdn) . This mortar was cast in thatcountry at the time of Jacob Sultan (Yab Suln Aoyunlu, d. 896/1490),and by his orders . and Custagialu (Muammad Beg Ustdjl) also had anotherlarger one cast by a young Armenian, who cast it in the Turkish mannerall inone piece. The breech was half the length of the whole piece, and the mortar wasfive spans in bore at the muzzle (A Narrative of Italian Travelsin Persia, 153).About the same time (probably in 912/1506-7) Isma l sent a force of 10,000 menunder Bayrm Beg (aramnl?) to lay siege to Wn. Bayrm Beg, having twomoderate-sized cannons in his camp, began to batter the castle; but they wereable to do no harm, as the walls were too strong and the gunners too little skilled.After besieging the castle for three months, however, the artillerymen succeededin destroying the source of the defenders water supply, and the castle was thus attheir mercy (A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, 161-3). In 916/1510 Isma lis said to have captured four cannon from the zbegs after his great victory at

Marw (jaml uznl, Trkh-i Nim-yirn, vol. i, Tehran 1315 solar/1936,372; no authority is quoted for this statement). It seems, therefore, from theevidence available, that although the afawids used cannon in siege warfareduring the first decade of the reign of Isma l I, the number of guns available wassmall, and the gunners were as yet inexperienced.


4/6

Sir Anthony Sherley has also been given the credit for the formation of a corps ofmusketeers by Shh Abbs I. In a letter dated 22 April 1619, the traveller Pietrodella Valle says that the corps was created by Shh Abbs a few years agoonthe advice of Sir Anthony Sherley ( Tadhkirat al-Mulk, 31). Sir Anthonysinterpreter Angelo, however, stated in Rome on 28 November 1599 that ShhAbbs could provide horses for 100,000 men, who were armed with bows,arrows and scimitars, and that in addition he had 50,000 arquebusiers; at onetime the King did not use arquebusiers, but now he delights in them (DenisonRoss, 29). Sir Anthonys party left Ifahn about the beginning of May 1599 (seeDenison Ross, 22), and it seems unlikely that a corps of 50,000 men could havebeen organised during the five months which Sir Anthony spent in the Persiancapital. Of the various members of Sir Anthonys party who have left a record oftheir travels, not one claims that Sir Anthony was responsible for the formation ofthis corps, and Sir Anthony himself, in his own account of his journey to Persia,

states (with reference to Shh Abbss victory over the zbegs in hursn on 9Muarram 1007/12 August 1598) that thirty thousand men the King tooke withhim for that warre, twelve thousand Harquebusiers which bare long pieces, halfea foote longer than our muskets, sleightly made .. which they use well andcertainely (Purchas His Pilgrimes, viii, London 1905, 409-10).

Apart from Sir Anthonys own testimony to the existence of a large and efficientbody of musketeers in the Persian army before his arrival in Persia, there isconclusive evidence, again in both the European and the Persian sources, thatPersian troops were equipped with hand-guns and skilled in their use long beforethe time of Abbs I. One of Sir Anthonys companions, Manwaring, explicitlystates that the Persians were already very expert in their pieces or muskets; foralthough there are some which have written now of late that they had not the useof pieces until our coming into the country, this much must I write to their praise,that I did never see better barrels of muskets than I did see there; and the Kinghath, hard by his court at Aspahane, above two hundred men at work, onlymaking of pieces, bows and arrows, swords and targets (Denison Ross, 222).Even earlier (c. 1571) is the valuable account of dAlessandri: they use for armsswords, lances, arquebuses, which all the soldiers can use; their arms also are

superior and better tempered than those of any other nation. The barrels of thearquebuses are generally six spans long (A Chronicle ofthe Carmelitesin Persia,London 1939, i, 53, gives 7 palms = 1.75 m.; incidentally this version of the textcontains an obvious mistranslation), and carry a bail a little less than threeounces in weight. They use them with such facility, that it does not hinder themdrawing their bows nor handling their swords, keeping the latter hung at theirsaddle-bows till occasion requires them. The arquebus then is put away behind


5/6

the back, so that one weapon does not impede the use of another (A Narrative ofItalian Travels in Persia, 227). Herbert (op. cit., 298) states that the Persians hadused muskets since the Portugais assisted King Tahamas with some Christianauxiliaries against the Turk (probably in 955/1548) so as now (i.e., in 1627) theyare become very good shots. In the contemporary Persian chronicleAsan al-Tawrkh, however, there is direct evidence that hand-guns ( tufang) were inuse in the Persian army even before the death of Isma l I: in 927/1520-1 adetachment of the afawid garrison at Hart drove off the troops of Ubayd hnzbeg with arrows and hand-guns ( tr u tufang) (AT, 171). This is the firstreference to hand-guns in this chronicle, and from then on they are mentionedfrequently. In 930/1523-4, the year of Shh Isma ls death and Shh ahmspsaccession, infantry armed with hand-guns (piydagn-i tufang-andz)constituted part of the afawid garrison at Hart, and reference is made to twosuccessful actions against the zbegs in which hand-guns were employed (AT,

186). In 934/1527-8, when Hart was besieged for four months by the zbegs,the zbeg amr al-umarYr Beg was killed by a shot fired from a hand-gunby one of the defenders (AT, 206). In 935/1528-9 ahmsp himself led an armyto hursn against the zbegs, and laid siege to Dmghn; his forces included agroup of Rmltufangs(AT, 212). A few months later, the zbegs laid siege toMashhad; musketeers ( tufangiyn) formed part of the afawid garrison (AT,221). While theAsan al-Tawrkhthus affords positive evidence of the use ofmuskets in the Persian army as early as 927/1520-1, there is a strong indicationinA Narrative of Italian TravelsinPersiathat they were in fact in use even

before the battle of ldirn. In the description of the siege of in Kayfbyafawid forces about the year 913/1507-8, there is a reference to gunswhich, inthe context, can only mean handguns, and we are also told that the defenderspossessed three or four muskets of the shape of Azemi, i.e., of AdjamorPersian design; these muskets had a small barrel and, with the aid of acontrivance locked on to the stock about the size of a good arquebuse, had agood range (op. cit., 153).

It is clear, therefore, that the claim that the Sherleys initiated the formation of acorps of musketeers, if it has any historical foundation at all, can only be true in

the sense that Shh Abbs was the first to create a regularcorps of musketeers,which formed part of a standing army paid from theharevenue, as opposedto the units in existence under Isma l I and ahmsp, which, like the rest of thePersian army at that time, were probably raised on a tribal basis and paid fromthe revenue of thedwn-i mamlik. There is no doubt, however, that thepractical advice of the Sherleys was of great benefit to Shh Abbs, who held SirRobert Sherley in such esteem that, after Sir Anthonys departure, he appointed


6/6

him Master General against the Turks(G. N. Curzon,Persia and thePersianQuestion, London 1892, i, 574). In addition to the corps of musketeers(tufangiyn), 12,000 strong (Chardin, Voyagesdu Chevalier Chardinen Perse,ed. Langls, Paris 1811, v, 305), who were intended to be infantry but weregradually provided with horses, Shh Abbs created two other corps to form partof the new standing army, namely, the artillery ( tpiyn), also 12,000 strong(Chardin, v, 312-3), and the slaves (ullar, ghulmn-i kha-yi sharfa), acavalry regiment recruited from Georgia and Circassia, armed inter aliawithmuskets, and numbering 10-15,000 ( Tadhkirat al-Mulk, 33). The afawidarmy was at its strongest under Shh Abbs I; its numbers declined under hissuccessor af(d. 1052/1642) and were reduced still further by Abbs II (d.1077/1666), who took the extraordinary step of abolishing the corps of artillery;when thetp-bshusayn ulhn died in 1655, no successor was appointed(Chardin, v, 312-313), and artillery does not seem to have reappeared on the

scene until the reign of Shh Suln usayn (1105-1135/1694-1722) (Tadhkiratal-Mulk, 33). At the battle of Gulnbd against the Afghns (8 March 1722), thePersians had 24 camion, under the command of the tp-bshAmad hn andunder the supervision of a French master gunner named Philippe Colombe (L.Lockhart, The Fall oftheafavdynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia,London 1958, 135, who quotes Krusinskis scathing remarks on the incompetenceof the tp-bsh); the artillery was overrun by the Afghn advance, and boththe tp-bshand Philippe Colombe lost their lives (ibid., 142). It is nottoo much to say that the afawids never really made any effective use of artillery

in the field.Bibliography

in the text.

(R.M. Savory)

Cite this page

"Brd."Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel,W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. University of California Berkeley. 09 October 2014

First appeared online: 2012First Print Edition: isbn: 9789004161214, 1960-2007

barud - v. the safawids (1)

Documents