“The time has come for the true sage
At last he spoke of reason.
Show us the word, praising the mind, And teach people with your story.
Of all the gifts, which is more valuable than reason?
Praise be to him - all good deeds are stronger."
Ferdowsi. "Shahnameh"
The previous article “Knights from“Shahname”(https://topwar.ru/111111-rycari-iz-shahname.html) aroused great interest of TOPWAR readers, who actively began to discuss who is a knight and who is a feudal lord, and how they all differ from each other. Naturally, first of all, the “knights of the East” aroused interest, that is, how was it there? And there it was that the heavily armed Klibanari horsemen from the Sassanid state and the lands of Transcaucasia and Central Asia associated with it were military-service nobility, whose representatives were called Azads (which in Persian meant "free", "noble"). Of course, their armor and weapons were comparable in cost to European ones. That is, if the IX-XII centuries. a knight's weapon and his armor (together with a horse) in Europe could cost 30 - 45 cows [1, p. 3], then in the Near and Middle East, only those who had the appropriate land ownership could serve as heavily armed cavalry, because only in this way could he buy it. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish between earlier chivalry and later. Speaking about the early, the English historians K. Grvett and D. Nicole wrote, for example, that it has not yet had time to amass arrogance and arrogance, and that a knight is, first of all, a person from whom a lot is asked and who exercises a lot with weapons [2, c. 23].
Drawing from the author's book "Knights of the East", published by the publishing house "Pomatur" in 2002. The author of the drawing is the artist V. Korolkov. Despite some conventionality and deliberate "childishness" of the image, all the details of the equipment are conveyed quite reliably and clearly.
In the III-VII centuries. in the Sassanid state, two forms of land holding were dominant: dastgird - hereditary and boastag - conditional [3, p. 91 - 92.]. Large feudal lords owned land by right of dastgird, middle and small nobility by right of boast. Azads were ranked in the second category and belonged to asvars, that is, "horsemen" [3, p. 77 - 78]. There was a special "List of Horsemen", that is, holders of land based on a boast. Asvar could not pass on the land by inheritance, and after the death of asvar, the braggart could be passed on to his sons only if they agreed to remain on this "List" [3, p. 230, 359 - 360]. If a person was given a boast, then he automatically received a privileged social position, although there was no equality among the Assads. There was a hierarchical system in which different categories of Azads had their own "azad-name" - corresponding letters about their privileges. But it is clear that all Azads were considered warriors (in Persian - arteshtaran) [5, p. 76 - 77].
And this is a miniature from Shiraz - "Shahnameh" of 1560. The smallest details of the weapons are very clearly reproduced. (Los Angeles County Museum of Art)
Only a very extraordinary person could get into the number of Assads, without having a fortune, and relying only on his military abilities, and the path to him was closed to ordinary farmers. That is, it was a closed caste and it had its own symbolism and its own morality. Assad had, for example, not only masterfully wield various weapons, but also be able to play equestrian polo and chess.
The famous relief of Ardashir in Firusabad. It depicts warriors in chain mail, sitting on horses, dressed in blankets, 224 and 226 years. AD
Eastern heraldry also appeared among the Assads. On their shields were placed images of animals that had symbolic meaning, and the Sassanids, when distributing hereditary fiefs, gave some local feudal lords special clothes with the figure of an animal, so these feudal lords were named accordingly. For example, Vakhranshah - "prince-boar, Shirvanshah -" prince-lion, Filanshah - "prince-elephant", Alanshah or "prince-raven". Therefore, it can be fully assumed that already in the VIII century. at least in the region of Persia and the adjacent lands, eastern chivalry certainly existed. But then the Arab conquests and "barbarization" of the Sassanian, Transcaucasian, and also Central Asian military-feudal societies began. The main force of the army of the conquerors was lightly armed horsemen, which in the VIII-X centuries. significantly reduced the role of heavily armed cavalry. However, this delay in the history of Eastern chivalry was only temporary, since the same Arabs very quickly learned from the conquered peoples. For example, faced with the Ayyars (in Persian "comrade") - armed servants of the Assads, they made this form of corporate unification the basis for their own similar formations [6, p. 101-112].
The armament of many other eastern peoples, even at very early stages of their development, was also quite chivalrous. The author of the drawing is the artist V. Korolkov.
If we compare the models of the feudal system in the West and in the East, then one can notice clear coincidences in the military and also in the socio-economic history of both the countries of Western Europe and the eastern states of the 7th-12th centuries. Both here and there, to protect the borders, settlements were created, the inhabitants of which became the basis for the creation of a class of warriors [7]. In Western Europe, during the Carolingian era, a significant part of the free peasants could no longer serve in the militia because the price of weapons rose sharply. This is how the beneficiary system began to take shape, based on the reform of Karl Martell, carried out already in the 8th century. Its essence consisted in replacing the donation of land in the ownership of confidants (allod) with the grant of land in benefits for service, and above all service in the cavalry. Then the benefice gradually turned into a feud (flax) - that is, an inherited possession.
Karl Martell's reform was beneficial to the small and medium feudal lords, who now became the main force of the horse militia and the entire feudal army in general. The new cavalry army proved to be excellent in the battle with the Arabs at Poitiers in 732, but they needed metal armor. The free peasantry, of course, could not have them.
It should be understood, however, that in the 9th-10th centuries, when the process of the formation of the knightly estate was underway, in the West not all knights (milites) belonged to the nobility, and not all feudal lords were knights. Moreover, the initial property and social status of the knight was very low. But gradually the aristocracy merged with the owners of the feuds, and the chivalry (chevalerie) began to increasingly identify itself with the nobles (noblesse) [8]. There were also national characteristics. So, in Germany, in the formation of chivalry, an important role was played by non-free service people - ministerials - to some extent an analogue of Japanese samurai [9, p. 31-35].
Meanwhile, the light cavalry of the Arabs in the East in the VII-VIII centuries. only for a while has it achieved dominance on the battlefield. Already from the IX century. the importance of cavalry in heavy defensive armament began to grow, and the basis for its growth was in the same way two forms of land holding: hereditary and conditional. The latter form was called "ikta" (Arabic for "put on"). Ikta were widely distributed and turned into feuds. A similar process was observed in Japan in the 7th century, where, after the agrarian reforms carried out by Emperor Kotoku, feudal land ownership became dominant. Feudal estates (shoyun), which belonged to the owners (ryoshu), arose, who gradually began to inherit the land to their children. By the end of the VIII century. military conscription of the peasants has already been completely abolished. Until the XI century. samurai were heavily armed equestrian servants who received full support from their overlord, and in some cases land. Political instability of Japan in the X-XII centuries.served as the basis for the transformation of the samurai into a knightly estate, and then into a small-scale service nobility, as in the West. Well, after 1192 in Japan, the undivided domination of the samurai was established in all spheres of life, again just like in the West [10].
Rustam kills the dragon. Shahnameh 1430 Bodleian Library, Oxford
Similar events took place in Byzantium in the 9th-10th centuries, where the army gradually also ceased to be a peasant militia, but turned into a professional army from small and medium landowners (stratiots). They formed a similar military-service class and became a social group opposing the rest of the population. It was the heavily armed cavalry of the Stratiots in the Byzantine army that began to play the main role, and it is significant that the Byzantine military treatises even of the 10th century. call them the term "cataphracts" [11, p. 86 - 97]. Since the XI century. Byzantine sources increasingly report that every large landowner has an armed squad of his servants, and fellow countrymen who serve him for pay and land allotments as a reward for service, everything is exactly the same as in the case of the Japanese daimyo [12, with. 7.].
True, it was in Byzantium that the knightly estate never received its final form, since many elements of slavery remained here, there was a strong power of the emperor and a developed bureaucratic system, which could not but affect the process of feudalization. A strong central government did not need competitors in the face of large landowners, so it limited the growth of fief holdings. In addition, Byzantium was at war all the time. In the IX-XII centuries. she was constantly tormented by military attacks. In these conditions, it was more profitable to have a centralized imperial army than the hard-to-control squads of large feudal lords.
"Shahnameh" of Indian origin. Delhi, 17th century (Los Angeles County Museum of Art)
They often talk about the dominant influence of natural and geographical factors on the development of social relations. Therefore, they say, in Japan, with its natural isolation, Japanese chivalry had a characteristic difference from the chivalry of the Middle East and Europe. The main differences were such concepts as hypertrophied loyalty to his overlord and the personal honor of the samurai himself, and not his loyalty to the supreme monarch, patriotic feelings towards Japan as a country or service to his lord while fulfilling those special conditions (40 days of compulsory military service), as in Europe. The samurai selflessly served the lord and had to completely abandon personal interests, but not compromise his personal convictions. If the overlord demanded from him actions contrary to his beliefs, then the faithful samurai should try to convince his liege, or, in extreme cases, commit suicide. That is, the vassal was obliged to sacrifice everything and even his life in order to be considered loyal and worthy in the eyes of the people around him and in his own. However, turning to the history of Japan, you find that all this was more declared than actually observed. Many victories in battles, including the epochal battle of Sekigahara [13, p. 109 - 110], were won at the cost of betrayal, and both suzerains and their vassals became traitors. That is, there was a serious difference between what was declared in words and in various treatises, and what actually happened. And this difference is clearly visible both in Europe and in Japan.
Outfit of the Persian horseman of the XIII century. from Nikolle D. Saracen Faris AD 1050–1250. Osprey Publishing, 1994. Drawing by Angus McBride. In the upper left corner showed a two-layer chain mail belonging to Usama ibn Munkiz and consisted of several layers: bright silk fabric on top, then heavy Frankish chain mail, then a layer of printed fabric, then chain mail of small rings of oriental work and, finally, lining. The helmet always had a cover made of fabric, the legs were enclosed in “leggings” made of plantar leather. On top of all this, the "corset" of plates depicted below could be worn, but, according to Osama, they did not like to put them on at night for reconnaissance because the plates clinked against each other, and during the day such a shell was very hot in the sun. However, in a horse collision with spears, he was indispensable.
Well, mutual contacts in the era of the Crusades contributed to an even greater mutual influence of eastern and western forms and ideas characteristic of chivalry (spiritual orders, knightly tournaments, coats of arms, appropriate etiquette, etc.). In 1131 after the death of Count Jocelyn I, Emir Gazi ibn Danishmend immediately stopped the war with the Franks and conveyed the following message to them: “I am sorry for you and, no matter what they say, I am not inclined to fight you now. For because of the death of your ruler, I can easily defeat your army. Therefore, calmly go about your business, choose a ruler for yourself … and rule in peace in your lands. " And this is instead of taking advantage of their difficulties and crushing the infidels. But no! That would not be chivalrous! In 1192, during the Battle of Jaffa, it happened that the English king Richard I the Lionheart lost his horse. His adversary Saif ad-Din, the son of the famous Sultan Salah ad-Din, immediately noticed this and ordered to send two war horses to his enemy. Richard I responded by knighting his son Saif ad-Din. Moreover, Western European knights have repeatedly invited Muslim knights to tournaments [14, p. 101-112]. That is, knightly honor in this case was even more important than faith!
Late 12th century Turkish warrior from Nikolle D. Saracen Faris AD 1050–1250. Osprey Publishing, 1994. Fig. Angus McBride. Perhaps the most important difference in weapons was that the Persians used a straight sword, while the Turks used a saber.
That is, knights from different countries and different faiths were not ashamed to consider themselves a kind of single and very significant caste, for which neither political, nor confessional, nor ethnic and vassal dependence played a special role. And their contemporaries understood this well. So, knightly novels of the XII-XIII centuries. clearly demonstrate to us the idea of a "world" single chivalry that existed in both Christian and Muslim countries. Reading the memoirs of Osama ibn Munkiz (1095-1188), a Muslim warrior who fought the crusaders all his adult life, it is easy to see that he not only respected them, but also was friends with the “Franks”, including the Templars - the sworn enemies of Muslims [15, p. 123 - 124, 128 - 130, 208 - 209]. Who Osama ibn Munkyz really outrages are their own "men" and "woolly" [16. with. 200 - 201].
Sultan Saladin and his warriors. Rice. Angus McBride.
In the XII-XIII centuries. the war became almost completely the prerogative of the feudal lords, and all other classes were forbidden to carry weapons and ride a horse. To pull out a knight's tooth, the bazaar tooth-master could only sit on a horse, so that at least in this way he could approach him with his nobility. And it is not surprising that in the Arabic-speaking medieval manuscripts, the word "Faris" denoted both a rider and a knight at the same time. In the Near and Middle East, boys - the sons of knights up to 10 years old were taught grammar, history, literature, knowledge of horse pedigrees, and only then the art of horsemanship, weaponry, playing chougan, as well as the ability to swim, run, wrestle, hunting skills and playing chess [17, p.91]. In the XII-XIII centuries. even special instructions were written on the "knightly" art - furusiyya (in Arabic. knighthood). It is interesting that the oriental instructions for teaching horseback riding recommended teaching the boy to ride bareback first and only then let him ride in the saddle [18, p. ten].
Western European knights were taught in the same way to ride a horse, to wield a weapon, to wrestle, to swim, even taught fistfighting, hunting with birds of prey, playing musical instruments, the art of playing chess and even … versification. That is, everything was very similar, in any case there were more similarities than differences. Western Europe borrowed from the East many types of military equipment, the design of throwing machines, and the provisions of military tactics and strategy. The Crusades in this way radically changed the military culture of the West. And the very history of the first knightly military orders is again connected with the same Sassanian era, when, again, in the East, the first and not yet military religious orders arose, similar to European monastic orders, such as Ulvani (766), Hashimi (772).), Sakati (865), Bestami (874). That is, the Catholic Church had someone to learn from and what to learn from.
Some illustrations for "Shahman" are rather crude in their execution. But, nevertheless, they are a valuable historical source. Here, for example, is a miniature from a book from Isfahan of the 1st quarter of the 14th century. Watercolor and gilding. It very clearly depicts clothes and … the execution itself! State Berlin Library.
Already at the end of the XI - the beginning of the XII century. in the East there were also military-religious orders, such as Rakhhasiya, Shukhainiyya, Khaliliya, Nubuviya, many of which the Caliph al-Nasir united the knightly order "Futuvwa" in 1182. It is interesting that the rite of initiation into the order also included a symbolic blow to the shoulder of the neophyte with a hand or the flat side of a sword. Well, the Western European knights were impressed by the activities of the Ismaili order, headed by the "Elder of the Mountain". Note that all the military-religious orders of Western Europe in their structure practically did not differ from the eastern ones [19, p. 52 - 57]. Ibn Munkyz reported that many Franks made friends with Muslims so much [20, p. 139], that it happened that they went to serve the Muslim rulers and even received ikta for this.
The plot “Rustam strikes with an arrow of Ashkabus” was very popular among miniaturists and was repeated in almost all editions of “Shahnameh”, but with local artistic peculiarities. (Walters Art Museum)
In the XI-XII centuries. the rules of knightly duels became common for both the East and the West. It was necessary to use the same weapon. If the spear broke from the blow, you could take up the sword, and then fight with the mace. The tips of the tournament spears were blunt, and the knight's job was to knock the opponent out of the saddle. If the duel was arranged before the battle, the single combat ended with the death of one of the fighters. Knightly duels became an important part of any battle, and if such a duel was not arranged, it was considered that the battle was started "not according to the rules." Already in the XII century. the armor of knights in both the West and the East was approximately the same. The weapon of the knights was a spear, sword, club or mace, and in the East there was also a bow and arrows. In the XII century. there are more knights, defensive weapons are more perfect (shields in the form of "inverted drop"), so spears have become the most effective weapon of the first strike. That Osama ibn Munkyz wrote that then composite spears appeared, fastened to each other so that their length could reach 6 - 8 meters.
Almost the same "knight's castle" as in the West, we can easily see in the East …
That is, in the XII century. both in the West and in the East a system of suzerainty and vassalage was formed, which was far from the same, but, nevertheless, had much in common. So, in France, the feudal hierarchy was very complex. The king was considered suzerain only for his immediate vassals - dukes, earls, barons and knights of his own domain. There was a rule "vassal of my vassal - not my vassal." Possession of the feud required the bringing of homage, that is, an oath of loyalty to the lord and the obligation to serve him [20, p.20]. For this, the overlord promised to help his vassal in the event of an attack on him by enemies not to abuse his rights. The lord's relationship with the vassal was usually established for life, and it was very difficult to terminate them. In England, as in a conquered country, the driving principle of the vassal-fief system was the power of the king [21, p. 7-12]. English knights, whatever vassals they were, took the oath of allegiance to the king as well and had to serve in the royal army. That is, in England the system of suzerainty and vassalage was more centralized than on the continent.
Notes (edit)
1. Delbrück G. The history of military art in the framework of political history. T. 3. M. 1938.
2. Gravett K., Nicole D. Normans. Knights and conquerors. M.2007.
3. Kasumova S. Yu. South Azerbaijan in the III-VII centuries. (problems of ethno-cultural and socio-economic history). Baku. 1983.
4. Kasumova S. Yu. Decree. Op.
5. Perikhanyan A. G. Sassanid Code of Law. Yerevan. 1973.
6. Yunusov A. S. Eastern chivalry (in comparison with the Western) // Questions of history. 1986. No. 10.
7. Razin EA History of military art. T. 2. M. 1957, p. 133; Syrkin A. Ya. Poem about Digenis Akrit. M. 1964, p. 69 - 72; Bartold V. V. Soch. T. VI. M. 1966, p. 421s.; Spevakovsky A. B. Samurai - the military class of Japan. M. 1981, p. 8, 11; Kure, Mitsuo. Samurai. Illustrated history M. 2007, p. 7.
8. Immortal Yu. L. Feudal village and market in Western Europe XII-XIII centuries. M. 1969, p. 146; Barber R. The Knight and Chivalry. N. Y. 1970, p. 12.
9. Kolesnitsky NF To the question of the German ministry. In the book: The Middle Ages. Issue XX. 1961.
10. Spevakovsky A. B. Uk. cit.; Lewis A. Knight and Samurai. Feodalism in Northern France and Japan. Lnd. 1974, pp. 22 - 27, 33 - 38.
11. Kuchma VV Command staff and rank-and-file stratiots in the femic army of Byzantium at the end of the 9th-10th centuries. In the book: Byzantine essays. M. 1971.
12. Kure, Mitsuo. Samurai. Illustrated history M. 2007.
13. Kure, Mitsuo. Decree. Op.
14. Yunusov A. S. Decree. cit.
15. Osama ibn Munkyz. Book of edification. M. 1958.
16. Ibid.
17. Nizami Ganjavi. Seven beauties. Baku. 1983.
18. Nikolle D. Saracen Faris AD 1050-1250. Osprey Publishing, 1994.
19. Smail R. C. The Crusaders in Syria and the Holy Land. N. Y. - Washington. 1973.
20. Osama ibn Munkyz. Decree. Op.
21. Gravett K., Nicole D. Decree. Op.
22. Gravett Christopher. Knights: A History of English Chivalry 1200 - 1600. M. 2010.
