“And the age has come for the great Omar, And the verse of the Koran sounded from the mimbar."
Ferdowsi "Shahname"
In the XII - the beginning of the XIII century. a feature of the Middle East and Middle East regions was not too strong state power and the dominance of a characteristic one-stage system of vassal dependence. The norm, as in the West, was the rule “the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal” [1, p. 127]. Eastern sources say that both emirs and other powerful feudal lords received investiture only from the sultan himself. The Caliph, being the confessional suzerain of the Sultan, participated in this act only if it was a question of asserting the power of one of the very large feudal lords, or investiture was given to a feudal lord of another faith, whose possessions were within the Muslim state. The role of the caliph was purely symbolic and did not mean that vassal relations were established with him [2, p. 127 - 128].
Persian turban helmet inlaid with silver (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
A decree of the Sultan was handed over to the feudal lord on the ownership of land, but it had to be renewed every time the recipient died. The vassals of the Sultan took the oath only to him; the emir's vassals accordingly swore an oath of allegiance to their overlord, and here it was customary to swear allegiance to both sides. For example, in the 13th century in the Sinop region in Turkey the text of the oath to the Sultan of Kay-Kavus I (1210 - 1219) was read: I undertake to give him 10 thousand gold dinars, 5 thousand horses, 2 thousand heads of cattle, 2 thousand sheep, 50 bales of gifts annually. If necessary, I will deploy an army at the request of the Sultan."
Armor from Tibet (Bhutan) XVIII - XIX centuries (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
The overlord should confirm the status of his vassal's lands, and the vassal, accordingly, should regularly pay for the right of possession granted to him and, at the first call, take part in the military campaigns of the suzerain. In case of violation of the terms of the agreement by one of the parties, the other was automatically released from the assumed obligations. There were also many unwritten customs, time-honored. For example, the Turkic nobility had to walk in front of the horse on which the sultan was seated. So, in Asia Minor there was a custom to kiss the hand of the Sultan and the stirrup of his horse. To meet the sovereign, his vassals sent a detachment of soldiers to a distance of five days' journey [3, p. 128.].
Persian turban helmet with nosepiece and aventail 1464-1501 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
The problem was that the knightly army, with all its strength, could not completely replace the people's militia. In Western Europe, for example, the term of service of a vassal to a suzerain was limited to 40 days a year, and in the East it was the same! Thus, in 1157, during the siege of Baghdad by the Seljuk Sultan Muhammad II, a situation arose when the Sultan's emirs began to evade participation in the battle. Time passed, they failed to take possession of the city and … why should they lay their heads under its walls? And they began to return to their estates [22. c. 125]. In 1225, the Khorezmshah Jalal ad-Din found himself in a difficult situation, he had only his small personal squad left, and all the other soldiers simply … dispersed! [23. with. 157].
Armor of a rider and a horse circa 1450 - 1550 Syria, Persia, Egypt. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In addition, the number of the feudal army was small. Some "VO commentators", showing their erudition, like to write that each knight had a lot of servants with him, so he cannot be counted as one combat unit. In fact, all these servants, although they were armed, did not take part in the battle! Prepare a tent for the reception of the master, prepare a bath, lunch, fresh linen and clothes, pluck lint to heal wounds, pick plantain … It was impossible to involve them in working with throwing machines during a siege - these are "other people's servants".
Horse forehead, oriental work of the 15th century. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Archers and crossbowmen were hired centrally and usually were not among the knight's servants. Yes, there were archers among his people, but they … were shooting game for his table! On the battlefield, they were called … to collect trophies, since the knight himself could not loot. And here to finish off someone's dagger was just really needed! But the participation of the servants in the battle was limited to this. And usually two or three people fought, no more - the master himself, the senior squire and the younger. The vast majority of feudal lords simply did not have money for more armor, and fighting in a knightly battle without armor was tantamount to suicide.
Turban helmet from Topkapi Museum in Istanbul.
The same Charlemagne had in the army only about 5 thousand horsemen [24, p. with. 12]. Even the XIV century. few of the European kings could boast of a large cavalry army. Usually tens or hundreds of knights participated in the battles. Under William I (1066-1087) there were only about 5 thousand knights in the whole of England; and a hundred years later this number increased … up to 6400 people. In the battles of the XI-XIII centuries. about several hundred knights gathered on major campaigns under the royal banner. Therefore, even taking into account the servants and hired infantrymen, the number of knightly troops in England never exceeded the number of 10 thousand people [25, p. 120 - 121, 133 - 134]. The troops of the crusaders in the East were also very small in number. In the XI-XII centuries. in Syria and Palestine, the number of European knights was approximately 3 thousand people, which is confirmed by the charters of land holding. About 700 knights fought in battles with Muslims. Only in 1099 at the battle of Ascalon and then in 1125 at Khazart there were a little more than 1 thousand of them. Even adding to them all foot archers and spearmen, we will not get troops numbering more than 15 thousand people [26, p. 92].
Eastern bracers, 15th century (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
But also the Muslim armies of the Near and Middle East in the X-XII centuries. weren't much more. Buyid state, in the X century. considered one of the most powerful, on average it could field from 5 to 10 thousand soldiers; and only in the most extreme case its number reached 20 thousand [27, p. p. 158]. The same Salah ad-Din, who repeatedly defeated the crusaders and founded one of the most powerful states in the East, the army numbered 8-12 thousand people, and this was enough so that other rulers could not resist him.
Indo-Persian work of the 16th century. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In addition, the development of feudalism in the countries of the Middle and Near East in the XIII century. slowed down due to the Mongol invasion. It so happened that in a number of places the local secular feudal lords were replaced by the military nomad nobility. But, for example, in Egypt, where the Mongols did not reach, the Eastern knighthood completely managed to preserve both itself and its traditions. It was there that the remnants of the "Futuvwa" order moved from Baghdad, and that is why in the literature on the knightly art "furusiyya" there are items of knightly weapons of the 13th-16th centuries. and heraldry among Muslims are of Egyptian origin [28].
Persian chain mail. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Well, then in Egypt, as in other places, chivalry acquired a closed and elitist character. Access to the environment of the knights was severely limited, and the position of a person within the knightly "caste" was determined by the size of his land holding. At the very top of the "pyramid of power" were the emirs, who, in turn, were subdivided into three categories. Downstairs there were knights called "khalka" - small feudal lords who had lost their rights to their ancestral estates, earning their living from the Sultan's ikt [29, p. 52]. It is clear that relying on such people was simply dangerous, so the sultans relied not on willful horse warriors, but on disciplined regular troops armed with firearms, which took place, for example, in the Ottoman state.
Chain-plate armor belonging to Al-Ashraf Sauf ad-Din to the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, ca 1416-18-1496. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In this the Egyptian chivalry saw a danger for itself. Since “they did without us there,” they can do without us here too - bad examples are contagious! Therefore, the local nobility actively opposed the use of new weapons, and the Ottoman state considered it a “muzhik”, “… boorish rabble, not distinguishing between a servant and a master” [30, p. 86 - 108]. But this social snobbery had a sad end. In 1516 and 1517. the colorful knightly cavalry of the Egyptians was defeated by the troops of Sultan Selim I, with the result that Egypt became part of the Ottoman Empire. Most of the local knights were simply destroyed, and those who managed to show loyalty were allowed to serve in the Ottoman army on a general basis. Of course, they soon rebelled, but unsuccessfully, because sabers are powerless against guns, after which they were dismissed altogether [31, p. 23 - 47]. This is how, moreover, the history of chivalry in the Near and Middle East ended completely ingloriously.
Persian sword and helmet of the 7th century (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In the XIII-XIV centuries. in the lands of the Granada Emirate in Spain, Muslim chivalry also existed. The Spanish feudal lords believed that Muslim knights were not inferior to Christian ones. However, the end was the same for all. By the XV century. the crisis of the heavily armed cavalry was outlined. The old forms of economy destroyed natural exchange, on which the entire social pyramid of knightly times was based. As a result, cannons, muskets and pistols put an end to chivalry as such. It is clear that it tried to act with prohibitions, declared bombards and arquebuses "instruments of the devil and hell"; captive arquebusiers were cut off their hands and gouged out their eyes, bombardiers were hung on the barrels of their guns, as the most notorious villains. But already in the middle of the 15th century. In Western Europe, a system was formed according to which the troops were recruited not only on the old fief basis (knights), but also consisted of the city militia (militia) and … mercenaries.
"Dagger with ears" 1530 The sixth man of Henry II, King of France, 1540, the French sixth c. 1550 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Already in 1445, King Charles VII of France issued ordinances on the reform of taxation and the organization of the army, which was no longer disbanded in peacetime. Under Charles VIII, the guns became so mobile that they could change positions directly during the battle. The Spaniards turned the arquebus into a musket with a musket, the bullets of which pierced even the most durable knightly armor.
"Hairy Helmet" - Yaro-Kabuto, Japan of the 17th century. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Accordingly, in the XV century. appeared "Gothic" armor, and in the XVI century. - "Maximilian" armor with grooves, which reduced the weight of the equipment without reducing its durability. In the XVII century. the armor reached its maximum thickness [32], but they also could not stand the competition with cannons and muskets. So the knighthood turned into the nobility, from which the command staff was now recruited.
Suji Kabuto. Muromachi period. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In Japan, due to its isolation, the decomposition of feudalism and the development of new capitalist relations were delayed. But even here already in the middle of the 19th century. samurai, as a social stratum, were simply abolished; and they themselves turned, for the most part, into officers of the regular army [33]. This is how the centuries-old history of chivalry ended, the beginning of which we saw in Ferdowsi's poem "Shahname", and the end is shown in "Don Quixote" by Miguel Cervantes. It was one of the most important social groups of the era of non-economic compulsion to work, both in the West, in Europe and in the East, but it was also forced to become a thing of the past due to the development of tools of labor and, accordingly, the emergence of new economic and social relations. … And there is no better epitaph for them than the first lines from "The Tale of the House of Taira" (XIII century), translated by A. Dolin:
The age of those who had become rigid in evil and pride was not long, many now have become like fleeting dreams.
How many mighty merciless rulers
not knowing fear, now gone without a trace - a handful of ashes carried by the wind!
