Full text of "T"

See other formats

cditrd and translated 

ty 

george t. scanton 





A Muslim Manual 
of War 

Edited and translated by 

George T. Scanlon 



With a Foreword by 
Carole Hillenbrand 

and a New Introduction by 
George T. Scanlon 



The American University in Cairo Press 
Cairo New York 



Copyright© 1961, 2012 by 
The American University in Cairo Press 
1 1 3 Sharia Kasr el Aini, Cairo, Egypt 
420 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 1 001 8 
www.aucpress.com 

First published in 1961 by the American University in Cairo Press 



All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, 
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, 
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. 



ISBN 978 1 61797 1 1 1 2 



Foreword 



by Carole Hillenbrand 
Professor Emerita of Islamic History, 
University of Edinburgh 



The twelfth to the fourteenth centuries in the Middle East were a time 
of wars and rumours of wars. The peoples of the Fertile Crescent 
lived under a cloud of dread which nothing seemed able to lift. First, 
there were the unheralded wars of the Cross, when Muslims had to 
fight an unfamiliar enemy, the Franks. The Crusades were a phenom- 
enon generated by medieval Christendom with its roots and inspira- 
tion in medieval Europe. Throughout the world today, there is still a 
continuing and genuine interest in the history of the Crusades, and 
these wars between Christians and Muslims still resonate in public 
discourse in both east and west. Close on the heels of the Crusaders, 
from 1 220 onward, came a succession of invasions from another 
alien race, this time from the remote east, with the irruption of wave 
upon wave of Mongol hordes under the command of Genghis Khan 
and his successors. Later in the fourteenth century, this destructive 
cycle repeated itself, with the invasions of Timur, who eventually, 
around 1400, reached the Mediterranean in the west and the bor- 
ders of China in the east before death arrested his career. It is against 
this backdrop of apparently endless wars that the treatise edited, 
translated, and explained by George Scanlon was written. 

When Professor Scanlon's Princeton dissertation about a work 
by a scholar called al-Ansari (d. 1408), which was in manuscript 
form in the Princeton University Library, was published by the Amer- 
ican University in Cairo Press in 1961 as a book entitled A Muslim 
Manual of War, being Tafrij al-kurub fi tadbir al-hurub (The dispelling 
of woes in the management of wars), scholarship on the Muslim art 
of war was still rudimentary. Inevitably, it seems, it focused on the 
period of the Crusades, where the historiography was very one- 
sided and Eurocentric. The success of Runciman's three-volume work 
was well deserved, but without a knowledge of Arabic he could 
draw on only that small number of Muslim chronicles that had al- 
ready been translated into European languages. So inevitably the 



3 



views of this conflict written down by Muslims could not be a major 
part of the narrative. George Scanlon saw the need for good trans- 
lations of key Arabic texts and he became a pioneer scholar with 
his work on the conduct of war seen from the Muslim side. 

Since 1961, however, there has been a steady increase in 
books which have helped to rectify this gap in our knowledge of 
the Crusades, and scholars such as Sivan and Maalouf blazed a 
trail which others have followed. George Scanlon's fascinating 
study of a Muslim military manual was soon joined by the publi- 
cation of editions and translations of other works in the same genre 
by al-Tarsusi in 1 968 and al-Aqsara'i in 1 979. Doctoral theses on 
aspects of jihad in the Crusading era have been written, and many 
more articles on Muslim aspects of the Crusades have been pub- 
lished. Popular graduate courses on Islam and the west, the history 
of war, and the Crusades such as those offered, for example, at 
Saint Louis University in the US, and Royal Holloway and Queen 
Mary in the UK, would no longer contemplate omitting the Muslim 
dimensions of these exciting and important subjects. So the re-pub- 
lication of George's pioneering book— an in-depth study of a key 
primary Arabic source — in electronic form will be warmly wel- 
comed by scholars and students across the world. George Scan- 
lon's book provides an elegant translation of the Arabic text, the 
Arabic text itself, an erudite overview of the history of medieval 
military manuals, and a very useful glossary of military terms. 

Al-Ansari, an influential figure at the Mamluk court, a man who 
held the high office of qadi al-'askar in Aleppo and who suffered 
imprisonment when Timur attacked Syria, presents a fascinating 
picture of how war was conducted in Egypt and Syria at a time 
when the Muslim memory of being attacked by the Crusaders from 
the west and the Mongols from the east was still green. There is no 
reason to doubt that much of the content of al-Ansari's treatise is 
relevant for an understanding of warfare in the immediately pre- 
ceding centuries. Al-Ansari gives advice on a wide range of military 
stratagems, pointing out the importance of good leadership and 
the value of excellent communications and the sending of messages 
by pigeons or by riders on fast horses, mules, and camels. He also 
states firmly that it is preferable to avoid engaging with the enemy 
and that fighting should be a last resort. 

It is a great pleasure— on several counts— to write a foreword 
to this most welcome reissue of George's book. First of all, it is 



4 



good and right to honor a scholar who has worked so assiduously 
in his field for so long. Indeed, this new electronic version of al- 
Ansari's work could be seen as a kind of diamond jubilee cele- 
bration for George's tireless activity in the study and in the field 
alike. Next, it is always good news when an established classic is 
snatched from the jaws of the antiquarian market and made avail- 
able once more to the wider and less wealthy public (including 
students, of course) eager to consult it. George's book has been a 
rarity for decades and has been virtually unobtainable. No longer. 
And with the exponential growth in Crusader history over the last 
thirty years or so, accompanied by a correspondingly increased 
interest in the Muslim side of this extended conflict, this treatise 
can now come into its own for a new generation of readers. And 
finally, thinking of George always involves me in a trip down mem- 
ory lane, to the Oxford of the late 1960s, when his annual visits 
to the Oriental Institute were eagerly awaited by students of every 
stripe — for his fame as a charismatic lecturer on Islamic history 
preceded him. Impeccably tailored and groomed in a distinctively 
dashing style, he would stride into the lecture room, eyes sparkling 
with determination to make Islamic history fun. I still remember him 
describing the early Mamluk state as an eggshell reality balanced 
between the Crusaders and the Mongols, or characterising Jalal 
al-Din, the last of the Khwarazm shahs, harassing the Mongols, as 
"a valorous gadfly on the underbelly of the galloping horde." 

George could make the gravel on the road interesting, and it is 
symptomatic of his catholic interests that his reviews of books on Is- 
lamic history, art, architecture, and of course archaeology are con- 
sistently worth reading for their width of reference, their piercing 
insights, and their style, at once vigorous and elegant. So George is 
a man of parts. He will be remembered as the archaeologist who 
patiently sifted, categorized and explained the treasures of Fustat for 
the benefit of future generations. His translation of al-Ansari show- 
cases his talents as an Arabist. His diverse publications on many as- 
pects of Islamic art and architecture make him a critic to be reckoned 
with in that field too. And running through these multiple contributions 
is his steady accomplishment as a caring, inspiring teacher, a guru 
who will be remembered by the thousands of young Egyptians whose 
horizons he broadened and whose talents he cultivated. His contri- 
butions to his adopted country have been immense. Long may his 
restless curiosity and his sparkling prose continue to entertain us. 



5 



New Introduction to the Electronic 
Reissue of the 1961 Edition 

George T. Scanlon 



A Second Introduction, Half a Century (+) Later! Why? 

This is a facsimile edition of the book, published by the American 
University in Cairo (AUC) Press in 1961, whose source was my 
doctoral thesis, defended and approved at Princeton University in 
September 1959. The conditions under which the 1961 edition 
was printed and distributed were unusually stringent— a direct re- 
sult of new regulations introduced by the Egyptian revolution of 
1953 and the consequent Suez War of 1956. Part of that first 
(and only) edition was lost to thievery, severely tried postal oper- 
ations, and the struggles of the Press to achieve adequate distribu- 
tion. Except for notice of its publication, the volume was but 
sketchily reviewed, though its substance was discussed at the 
1960 Congress of Orientalists in Moscow and Leningrad. 

This rather troublesome nativity was exacerbated by the sig- 
nal shift of my interest and career toward the fields of archaeol- 
ogy and art history, which pursuits proved to be totally 
absorbing, and in which I found satisfaction and pedagogical 
success. I scarcely noticed that my own two remaining copies 
of A Muslim Manual of War had been stolen somewhere within 
the newer termini of my working life (Cairo, Oxford, and various 
teaching posts in the United States). Though my health prospered 
and continued beyond the usual span allotted to most scholars, 

I never returned to the original bent of research occasioned by 
this first publication. 

But time worked its revenge, for on August 31, 2011, I found 
myself in retirement still without a thought of that first, compara- 
tively brief immersion into this world of Muslim warfare. Then ac- 
cidentally a review copy of Dr. Peter Gubser's Saladin (Gorgias 
Press, 2010) reached me, which I read with relish but no honest 
regret, insofar as its author, with unoriginal qualifications, an- 
chored his work in the 'great men of history' theory. While I was 



6 



yet absorbed with Gubser, the Department of Arabic and Islamic 
civilizations at the American University in Cairo (AUC) suggested, 
through the AUC Press, that a facsimile of the original edition, re- 
plete with a newer introduction, would make a fitting compliment 
with which to mark my retirement and would serve those who— 
like myself— had lost the fraught original edition, or desired it for 
their libraries, particularly those dedicated to its arcane subject. I 
would like to thank Professor Nelly Hanna, the department's chair, 
and Dr. Amina Elbendary, who suggested its reissue to the AUC 
Press; and Mr. Neil Hewison, the Press's associate director for ed- 
itorial programs, who accepted it. 

The opportunity now becomes more precious, for very, very few 
scholars after so long a hiatus return to comment on their debut 
publications in a field they had abandoned expeditiously, no mat- 
ter the circumstances. However, the conditions of this reissue do 
not permit internal corrections: whatever was printed originally re- 
mains in the electronic facsimile. Thus my commentary will take 
the form of a) considering the original introduction as an antique 
in itself; and b) providing something of an overview of what move- 
ments in the field have gained visibility since 1961. Neither part 
will be exhaustive, but each will be relevant to points raised in the 
original. The erasers alluded to on page 33 of the first introduction 
have not been handled since 1960 but they will be useful at this 
moment, even after fifty-two years. 

Is the Original Edition and Translation of Tafrij al-kurub 
fi tadbir al-hurub an Antique in Itself? 

By newer sophisticated standards of research, composition, and 
publication, it is. But such a conclusion would be tantamount to 
applying the hard-won norms and techniques of 2012 to those 
available in 1961. The political and economic landscape of Egypt 
after the Suez War was not propitious for sophisticated academic 
publishing. This facsimile edition preserves the truth of that state- 
ment, insofar as the paper, and the incapacity of the fonts to hold 
the ink, are concerned: typos and blurrings abound, and the foot- 
notes are not consistently arranged, so that page layouts appear 
wavering to the eye. Many of these blemishes might have been re- 
solved had I been in Cairo; but I was in Nubia, unknowingly em- 
barked on a totally different career. What might seem somewhat 
slipshod as published was signally less so in manuscript. Hence the 



7 



more egregious errata are now acknowledged and can be seen in 
the final section of this second introduction. Regrettably, any cor- 
rections to the Arabic text of the Tafrij cannot be accommodated in 
the electronic reissue. 

The style of the printed translation within this volume will cer- 
tainly appear awkward to a keen ear. It was pursued at a time 
when idafa and fa' marbuta were stumbling blocks in medieval 
Arabic relative to exact grammatical referencing, made more oner- 
ous in the absence of correct and consistent voweling by the 
scribes. These flaws, of course, could not be corrected within the 
text; but by the utility of brackets and parentheses the exact mean- 
ing would be conveyed in translation. Had a revised translation 
been possible, the keen ear would have found the translation flow- 
ing but no less exact. 

"A Preliminary Glossary of Muslim Military Terms" (pages 1 23- 
30 of the facsimile edition) was deemed necessary by the Press for 
the edited text, in preference to an index of the translation. It had 
formed part of the dissertation, where it represented my experience 
of the terminology discovered in studying the manuscripts surveyed 
in the introduction. The terms do not all appear in the edited text of 
Tafrij, but were broadly common within that range of manuscripts. 
It goes without saying that today the list of terms would have to be 
quadrupled at the very least. And more importantly, such an up-to- 
date glossary would draw on manuscripts in the various categories 
of 'ulum al-harb in Persian and Turkish (in all their written variety), 
plus their equivalents to the terminology in Arabic. 

Overview of Muslim Warfare Studies since 1961 

When a field of academic endeavor achieves both popularity 
and intellectual regard, it gains the almost inalienable right to its 
own channel of publication. In the interval between the original 
edition and this new introduction, the field of Muslim warfare 
now possesses two separate outlets for publishing original 
sources and discussion of what these sources add to the field: 
whether they are formal repetitions, or if they, in sum or in part, 
represent genuine additions to what we know of chronology, at- 
tribution, and the dangers inherent in copying earlier sources. 
These are the Osprey Press in the United Kingdom, and more re- 
cently Kitabat in Cairo; together they contract the number of ex- 
cuses for non-publication to nullity. 



8 



Two scholars, in the interval from 1961 to 2012, have distin- 
guished themselves through their manifold publications on all 
phases of warfare in the dar al-lslam : David Nicolle and Shihab 
al-Sarraf. Dr. Nicolle has been the shaping spirit insofar as his work 
has included practically all forms of military activity throughout the 
medieval world. His early and sustained interest in Muslim warfare 
has recently been capped by the publication of his research on the 
Mamluk military artefacts from excavations at the Damascus 
Citadel: Late Mamluk Military Equipment (Damascus/Beirut, 
201 2), including an exhaustive bibliography encompassing all the 
published materials within the interval alluded to above. In his in- 
troduction he refers to the Tafrij, agreeing with Dr. al-Sarraf that its 
text is really an uncredited excursus on the work of the Abbasid sa- 
vant Ibn Akhi Hizam, whom Dr. al-Sarraf considers the father source 
of all works on furusiyya. 

Had circumstance dictated that there would have been no seis- 
mic shift of my career so soon after the publication of the Tafrij, I 
would be hugely indebted to Shihab al-Sarraf— as are the majority 
of scholars in the interval. His three-volume doctoral dissertation 
on Muslim archery contains a magistral survey of all writings on 
medieval Muslim warfare to the date of its submission ("L'Archerie 
mamluke AH 648-923/ad 1250-1517," 3 vols., PhD diss., Uni- 
versity de la Sorbonne, Paris, 1989). He proceeds well beyond 
the scope of the antecedent scholars surveyed in my original in- 
troduction and conjures the free utility of manuscripts (both the ex- 
tant, and those destroyed or lost but alluded to in later works) but 
in such a comprehensive manner that we see the slow establish- 
ment of reputations unknown to Sprenger, Mercier, and Ritter. 

The most important early masters were well-established Abbasid 
court and literary figures whose works were constantly cited and/or 
copied throughout the Mamluk period (for example, Ibn Akhi 
Hizam, Ibn Harthami, Ibn Manjli, and the author of the Tafrij ) when 
most of the better premodern studies were written, and survived until 
the present day. However, it seems to me that this most valuable ac- 
tivity is flawed by Dr. al-Sarraf's insistence that all the manuscripts 
surveyed in his dissertation be considered exclusively as within fu- 
rusiyya, and no other classification employed by scholars an- 
tecedent to himself can be accepted. His idiosyncratic position is 
fully posited in his article "Furusiyya Literature of the Mamluk Period" 
in Furusiyya, ed. by David Alexander, Riyadh: 1996, vol. 1 : 118- 



9 



34. This is awkward, even illogical within his early research into 
archery, simply because the unmounted archer was always part of 
field tactics, and in Europe (after the battle of Crecy, where the long- 
bow was singularly successful) achieved strategic parity with 
mounted archers. This held true until the introduction of gunpowder. 

This unresolved ambiguity of approach has left the landscape 
of Muslim warfare studies in an unfortunate stasis. It postpones the 
cleanup of attribution, even chronology, and theoretical discussion; 
and finally it exhausts scholarly patience. Dr. al-Sarraf was quite 
right to discern how much of the Nihayat al-su'l, hitherto the lode- 
stone of scholarly approach, was really a restatement of the work 
of Ibn Akhi Hizam. The same holds true of the Tafrij. But not en- 
tirely, because both authors were more redactors (when possible) 
than unscrupulous copyists; after all they were deeply interested 
in the 'manual' aspect of the undertaking. According to Dr. al-Sar- 
raf's trawl of the manuscript sources, there are ten extant copies 
of the Nihayat al-su'l; when carefully edited with redactions, and 
fully translated, the total reality must demonstrate something more 
than plagiarism of a dead author's masterpiece. 

There remain one minor and two major points consequent to 
this republication of the Tafrij. The minor one is quickly resolved: 
in this overview I limited myself to mentioning those trends and 
scholars looming in publications since 1961. Especially in non-fu- 
rusiyya publications, many eminent scholars have made signal 
contributions to our understanding of medieval Muslim warfare. 
Their names and works can be appreciated in the magnificent bib- 
liographies of David Nicolle and Shihab al-Sarraf alluded to 
above. For example, I would cite Robert Elgood's cumulative pub- 
lications within the ancillary field of Muslim arms and armaments; 
the same bibliographies chronicle the utility of newer manuscript 
data within historical publications since 1961, most particularly 
those relevant to the technical aspects of warfare during the Cru- 
sades. When the proceedings of the colloquium on Muslim war- 
fare hosted by the Institut francais d'archeologie orientale (IFAO) 
in December 201 1 are published, this process will become ap- 
parent and apposite to our aims. 

The first of the major points confirmed by the Tafrij is that most 
of the authors of Mamluk manuscripts relevant to warfare were not 
military officers as such but, being the only literate caste at the 
time, probably 'ulama commissioned by the sultan, or a leading 



10 



Mamluk within his entourage, to educate himself about subjects of 
immediate or remote interest— though ones that would require 
what we would deem 'research.' In the introduction to the original 
edition, such an author's work would achieve resonance through 
connections to the masters of the past; but such masters had to be 
consistent in terms of Muslim belief and experience, so our Mamluk 
author would redact what he was reading and copying to conform 
to the mores and mindset of his own day. In my original introduc- 
tion, our Mamluk author is deemed an 'armchair strategist'; if I 
were permitted to reedit that introduction he would be considered 
a well-read and most literate redactor. 

The other major point is as important today as it was in 1961: 
namely that the Muslim masters of warfare, their patrons and 
rulers, their soi-disant strategists, did not view field confrontations 
as opportunities for illogical heroics, but rather as the result of train- 
ing and logical conformations, of knowing when and how to fight; 
one prayed for victory but fought by the book. Essentially they took 
the view that what might come by chance is to be faced with cun- 
ning and hope . . . and correct procedure. The Tafrij confirms that 
the guiding light of a great field commander is not to waste men 
or the addenda of battle, so that even single combat had its rules 
which cannot be forsworn for chimerical rewards. One is left with 
the feeling that jihad per se has no place in the Muslim warrior's 
consciousness once the battle has begun. The reiteration of this 
guiding light throughout the manuscript resources provides the 
ideational penumbra for the consideration of medieval Muslim 
warfare ... a very, very good thing indeed to read constantly. 
Once stated, this one Martian generality would not be gainsaid 
by any eraser conceived by men. 



Errata in the facsimile edition 

p. 4, note 1 1 , line 7: for Murda read Murtada. 
p. 7, two lines above footnotes: for "leads Ritter," read "led Ritter." 
p. 8, ten lines above footnotes: for "Mamlu," read "Mamluk." 
p. 9, line 4: for "tournament play," read "tournament, play." 
p. 20, four lines above footnote: for "ma e," read "make." 
p. 43, line 1 8: for "Antarat," read "Antarah." 



p. 44, line 1 2: for "encircling trenches," read "encircling moats." 
p. 45, note 5, penultimate line: for "the Greek," read "Alexander's." 
p, 46, line 14: for "be t," read "best." 
p. 48, note 9, line 2: for "qu ting," read "quoting." 
p. 49, line 9: for "Halab," read "Halab (Aleppo)." 
p. 5 1 , line 12: for " against him rather for him," read "against the 
ruler, rather than for him." 
p. 52, line 10: remove comma after "about." 
p. 59, two lines above footnotes: for "t ," read "to." 
p. 60, line 14: for "ev ry," read "every." 
p. 62, line 25: for "Yazdagurd," read "Yazdagird." 
p. 71, line 9: for "donned," read "worn." 
p. 74, line 12: the footnote number at the end of the paragraph 
reads " 4 ." 

p. 86, line 26: for "negligence about him," read "negligence 
about it." 

p. 87, line 8: for "that they," read "that some." 
p. 87, line 24: for "un il," read "until." 
p. 87, line 29: for "a a," read "at a." 
p. 1 01 , note 2, line 1 : for "Cf. Machiavellion" read "Cf. 
Machiavelli on" 

p. 107, line 9: for "for he," read "for him." 
p. 119, line 7: for "(Ture)," read "(Tyre)." 

p. 1 22, note 1 , lines 4/5: for "and theory, and both," read "and 
theory; both." 



12 



A MUSLIM MANUAL 
OF WAR 



TAFRIJ AL-KURCfB 
FI TADBfk AL-HUR6B 

by 

‘UMAR IBN IBRAHIM AL-AWSI AL-ANSARl" 



Edited and translated 
by 

GEORGE T. SCANLON 



J. 




Published by 

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AT CAIRO PRESS 
CAIRO, EGYPT. U.A.R. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



List of Abbreviations 

Introduction 

Editor’s Preface 

Translation 

A Preliminary Glossary of Muslim Military Terms 



Arabic Text 




LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 



Atiya 



Ayalon 



El 

GAL 

H. Kh. 



Atiya, Aziz Suryal. The Crusade in the Later Middle 
Ages ( London : 1938). 

Ayalon, David. Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk 
Kingdom (London: 1956). 

Encyclopedia of Islam 

Brockelmann, Carl. Geschichte der arabischen Litter atm 
(2 vols. and 3 vols. Suppl; Leiden: 1938-1949). 

Hajji Khalifah. Kashf al-zunun, ed. G. Fliigel (7 vols; 
Leipzig: 1833-58). 



Hava 

Huuri 



Lane 



MF 



Mercier 



Hava, J.G. Arabic-English Dictionary. (Bayrut: 1951). 

Huuri, Kalervo. “Zur Geschichte des Mittelalter- 
lichen Geschiitzwesens aus Orientalischen Quel- 
len”, Studia Orientalia (Helsinki: 1941). 

Lane, Edward W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 
(London: 1863-93). 

Sprenger, Aloys. Fihrist al-kutub allati narghab an 
nabta'aha. (London: 1840). Generally referred to 
as the Munster Fihrist. 

Mercier, Louis. La Parure des Cavaliers et VInsigne des 
Preux, tr. of Ibn Hudhayl’s Hilyat al-Furssn 
(Paris: 1924). 



Nihayat-al-su'l Muhammad b. Isa b. Isma'il al-Hanafi. Nihdyat 
al-su’l wa ’ l-umniyahfi ta‘lim a‘mal al-furusiyah, Ed. 
Abdul Lais Syed Muhammad Lutful-Huq 
(Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. University of London: 
1955 )- 



vrr 




Ritter 



Steingass 

Wensinck 

Zaki 



Ritter, H. “La Parure des Cavaliers und die Literatur 
iiber die ritterlichen Kiinste”, Der Islam, v. 18 
( r 9 2 9)j PP- 116-154. 

Steingass, F. Persian-English Dictionary (London: 1892). 

Cone. Wensinck, A.P.J. et al , Concordances et indices de la 
tradition musulmane (3 vols. et seq Leiden: 1933-). 

Zaki, Abdur Rahman “Military Literature of the 
Arabs, Cahiers d’Histoire Egyptienne (June: 1955), 
PP- 149-160. 



! 



viii 




INTRODUCTION 



I. Source materials for the study of Muslim warfare. 

War has fascinated the mind of Western man from earliest antiquity, 
and his literature, reflecting his interest, attests the development 
of his understanding of this awesome phenomenon. A work such 
as Machiavelli’s The Art of War represents in the broadest 
terms this development . 1 It integrates the ' military perceptions 
and technical accomplishments of the classical and medieval worlds 
while mirroring the modern concept of war as a gauge of social 
and technological progress. It, and other works of its type, form a 
chain of authorities from Vegetius and Aelian and Arrian to a Kohler , 2 



(1) For an interesting analysis of Machiavelli’sT/ie Art of War as a watershed in military 
thinking see Felix Gilbert, “Machiavelli: The Renaissance of the Art of War”, 
Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Edward Meade Earle (Princeton: 1944), pp. 3-25. 

In his treatise Machiavelli insisted that he was limiting himself to what we 
today would deem the Western European scene. But his concerns and sometimes 
his very language seem to duplicate those of the author of this treatise. Wiistenfeld 
believed that Aelian was available to the Muslim theorists (infra), and Aelian 
preceded Vegatius, the authority most often found influencing Machiavelli’s 
thought. It seems that common sources of authority on military matters were 
appealed to on both sides of the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. 

(The most common classical sources on the art of war, and all employed by 
Machiavelli and his successor-theorists were: Aelian, Greek citizen of Rome who 
dedicated his treatise on tactics to Hadrian c. 106 A.D.; Arrian, who died in 180 
A.D., who also wrote a treatise on tactics and the famous history of Alexander’s 
wars; and Vegetius, who wrote in the 4th century A.D. on the military practices 
of the Romans.) 

It is in his insistence on the tactical superiority of the armed footman over 
the lightest of cavalrymen, an idea derived directly from Aelian and Vegetius and 
their celebration of the phalangial battle formations, that Machiavelli parts 
company with the Middle Ages and with the Muslim military traditions . Apropos 
of the latter, one can point to the Mamluks who suffered defeat rather than reform 
their military organization by giving primacy to infantry-adapted firearms and 
artillery, accessible to them before they were to their Ottoman conquerors. 
(Ayalon, Chapter III.) 

(2) G. Kohler, Die Entwicklung des Kriegswesen und die Kriegsfuhrung in der Rittezseit, 
3 vols. (Breslau: 1886-89). The Muslim activity and contribution is found in Vol. 
Ill, pts. 1 and 2, passim, but only insofar as they relate to fortification.ballistics, 

' and fire-projectiles. The tactics of the Muslim armies during the Crusades and 

1 




2 



a Delbriick, 3 an Oman^ ; a continuum of military history and 
military theory clear and accessible to investigation. And the sources 
pertinent to war, both in its historical and technical facets, have 
been made available to anyone choosing to study European warfare 
from any angle whatsoever. 

Yet should the same person attempt to assess the same subject and 
the same development in a Muslim setting, he would encounter a 
comparatively shallow treatment. The primary sources about Muslim 
warfare were not employed by either Rohricht 5 or Prutz,who depended 
almost entirely on Western chronicles and those portions of the Arab 
historians to be found in the Recueil for their analyses of the Crusades. 6 
In 1848 Reinaud published a cursory and exploratory article on Arab 
military tactics and weapons, and specified those treatises still in manus- 
cript form upon which future research might be based. 7 Wiistenfeld 
published a portion of such a source and its translation in 1880. He 
found the names of Aelian and Polybius mentioned therein and described 
for the first time the relationship between classical tactics (no doubt 
received through the influence of the Byzantines) and the Muslim 
military strategists of the Crusades and post-Crusading period. 6 



those of the Mongols and Ottomans are discussed in pt. 3 of the same volume, 
pp. 136-273 and 401-487. He relates Wiistenfeld’s article on Muslim leadership 
(infra) to later Ottoman tactics (Vol. II, p. 643.) 

(3) Hans Delbriick, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte , 4 vols. 
(Berlin: 1900-1920). In vol. Ill, p. 2 10-231, he discusses the Muslim military 
organization’s relation to the feudal social and political system, and traces, through 
appeal to the work ofWellhausen and Weil, the emergence of the “military-state” 
in the era of the Crusades. As did Kohler, he handles Ottoman tactics and military 
organization by focussing on the battle of Nicopolis, op. cit., pp. 487-496. 

(4) Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Boston and 
New York: 1924). 

(a) Reinhold Rohricht, Beitrage zur geschichte der Kreuzziige, 2 vols in 1 (Berlin- 
1874-78). 

(6; Hans Prutz, Kultur geschichte der Kreuzziige (Berlin: 1883); Recueil des Historiens des 
Croisades, Historiens Orientaux (5 vols: Paris: 1872-1906). 

(7; M. Reinaud, “Del’art militaire chez les arabes au moyen age”, Journal Asiatique, 
\ I serie, no. 12 (1848), pp. 193-237. His main interest, however, was the origin 
and development of “Greek-fire” and the evolution of cannon. His and other 
works on this subject are discussed by Ayalon in the. Introduction to his volume 
on firearms. (Ayalon, pp. ix-xvii). 

(8) F. Wiistenfeld, “Das Hearwesen der Muhammedaner nach dem Arab : schcn”, 
Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen (1880). Thisis an edition 




3 



It is true that military history, or the sources relevant to the Muslim 
military techniques, did not interest the great Orientalists to any extent; 
or if they did, it was only to the degree that they made some political or 
economic or social point clearer. Indeed so great a military historian 
as Sir Charles Oman, disinclined to ferret out and use Arabic sources, 
had to depend on Leo’s Tactica for his analysis of Muslim warfare. 
He was unsure how to gauge the Muslim improvement in tactics and 
armaments between Manzikert and the fall of Acre. What he said of 
the "Saracen” army of the tenth century, 

But they never raised a large standing army, or fully learned 
the merits of drill and organization,”® 

simply did not obtain in the thirteenth and- fourteenth centuries when 
the Mamluks of Egypt, a standing army built into the very structure of 
society, ousted the Crusaders and kept the Mongol hordes at bay. The 
body of manuscripts to be discussed later bears witness to the degree of 
drill and organization to be found among these later Muslim armies, if 
it was not already present in the tenth and eleventh centuries, particu- 
larly in the military reforms and organization of Saladin. 10 



and translation of the second half of Gotha MS 258, f. 1 10-215. 

In an addendum to his edition of the Nihayat al-su’l, Dr. Lutful-Huq contends 
that this fragment is directly related to the work he edited : 

“Das Heerwesen der Muhammedaner consists of the Arabic text of the chapter 
on the different swords of the Muslims from the first section of the second 
half, and the Lessons viii and ix of the second section of the second half, with 
their German translation. These two Lessons with their various diagrams 
are the same, word for word, as those of the Nihayat al-su’l except that some 
chapters are wanting in the former. So it may be that this extract has been 
derived either from a work upon which the Nihayat al-su’l is based, or even 
from the Nihayat al-su’l itself.” 

I his is quoted with the author’s permission (Addendum, unpublished Ph. D. 
thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, Univeisity of London, 1955, 
P- * 55 )- 

In another short article, Wiistenfeld deciphered the stenographic recipes for 
various explosive mixtures and the treatment of certain types of wounds. Tne 
deciphered text compares favorably with Lessons Ten and Twelve of the Nihayat 
al-su'l, wherein explosives, poisonous smokes, wounds and their treatment are 
discussed [infra). “Ein Arabische Geheimschrift”, Nachrichten von der Kdnigl. 
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen (1879), pp. 349-355. 

(9) Oman, op. cit., vol. I, p. 209. 

(10) Gf. H.A.R. Gibb, "The Armies of Saladin' .Colliers d’histoire Egyptienne, III serie, 
•■» . fasc. 4 (May 1951), pp.304-320. In 577-1181 Saladin could call on a reorganized 




4 



Except insofar as jihad was related to jiqh , or the various equestrian 
arts to cavalry training, the Muslim writers up to the Crusading era 
devoted very little of their talents to military affairs. In the Fihrist of 
books relating to war, which Aloys Sprenger compiled in 1 840 in Arabic 
at the request of Lord Munster, the greater part of the first list,, i.e. 
those books relating to military sciences specifically, is given over to 
a discussion of saddles and bridles and stirrups, hunting, the names of 
horses, etc.; while the second list is of various historical accounts of 
wars and battles and famous warriors. It is not until one reaches the 
middle of the eleventh century that one begins to hear of books devoted 
to lance and sword exercises, cavalry practices, archery, fortification, 
missiles, etc. 11 There can be little doubt that the Crusades brought 
home to the Muslims their vulnerability and their need to improve their 



standing army in Egypt of 8,640 men; and, at Hittin, in addition to the 4,000 
trained troops accompanying him from Egypt, he had 7,000 more seasoned men 
from Syria and the Upper Euphrates area, op. cit., pp. 310-315. 

By the middle of the 14th century, an author can describe the great army, 
al-'askar al-a'zam, as numbering 16,384 men, exclusive of auxiliary troops and 
tribesmen, Nihayat al-su’l, p. 148. Oman’s “classic” estimate for the ready army 
of the Byzantines numbers but 4,600 men. Though this figure is for the tenth 
century, one still wonders what he means by fiarge”, especially as it relates to the 
size of the Muslim armies. The “classic” estimate was again irrespective of 
auxiliaries, op. cit., vol. I, p. 198. 

(n) Aloys Sprenger, Fihrist al-kutub allot i narghab an nabta’aha, (London: 1840). This 
was compiled on the request of the Earl of Munster, and is generally referred to 
m the literature on the subject of Muslim warfare as “The Munster Fihrist” 
(hereinafter MF) . The first eighty-two pages are devoted to military terminology, 
weapons, battle formations, camping, single combat, siege machines, etc. The 
drawings prove that Sprenger had seen and studied such treatises as the Nihayat 
al su’l, that on weapons by Murda al-Tarsusi {infra) and those on archery by 
Taybugha and on tactics by Muhammad b. Mankli (infra). Both Reinaud and 
Wustenfeld quote the MF, but its Arabic composition placed it outside the needs 
of the western military historian. 

The majority of the manuscripts mentioned by Ritter and Mercier [infra) 
are not cited in Sprenger’s list, leading one to believe that he did not take into 
account the libraries of the Maghrib and of Istanbul. The Tafrij al-kurub is not 
mentioned 

The first list (pp. 106-160), is entitled “Kutub fi film al-harb wa al-siyasah’ ' 
and contains some 238 titles. The second list (pp. 84-106), called “Kutub fi al- 
ta rikh , cites over 500 titles. To date there has not appeared a critical appraisal” 
of the MF; Mercier, Reinaud and Wustenfeld merely checked titles which th^T 
hud compiled against this earliest of all bibliographies in the field of MusfiST 
military history - — 




5 



military tactics and armaments in the face of the heavier European 
cavalry and more complicated siege machines and weapons. 12 

Professor Atiya, in speaking of the remarkable technical literature 
occasioned by the Crusades, remarked that parts of it were concerned 
with the weapons of war and their proper usage, and other parts with 
strategy and tactics and battle formations. 

•These are intended for the initiation of the ranks and for the 
edification of the generals who led the Muslim battalions. This 
extensive literature imparts the impression of an elaborate system 
of war which accounts for the brilliant victories of the Islamic 
armies ... The material extant in this field is ample enough for 
the writing of a book on the History of the Eastern Art of War. ” 13 

It is this literature which proves that after the eleventh century the 
Muslim armies had a military skill based on something more than 
their numbers and their extraordinary powers of locomotion”. 14 It 
is our purpose here to investigate the extent of this literature and the 
research it has piompted. 

In 1922, Louis Mercier published the second part of a lengthy 
treatise, entitled luhfat al-anfus wa shi‘ar sukkan al-Andaltis (“ L’Orne- 
ment des ames et la Devise des Habitants de l’Andalousie”), by the 
Andalusian savant, ‘All b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Hudhayl al-Andalusi, 
composed sometime in the last decade of the fourteenth century on the 
orders of the Sultan of Granada, Muhammad b. Yusuf VI, who reigned 
between 1392 and 1408. 15 This second section bore, in Mercier’s edition, 
the title Hilyat al-fursdn wa shi'ar al-shuj‘dn (“La Parure des Cavaliers et 
1 Insigne des Preux”). 16 To his translation of this text, published in 1924, 

1,12) See Remaud, op. cit., p. 212 et passim, for the first mention byjan Arab writer of 
the franks’ accuracy with the new, deadly hand-weapon, the zanburak. For a 
wider discussion of the introduction and variety of uses of this weapon and of 
the meaning of this word, see Huuri, pp. 96-97 and note 4. Hava, p. 297 lists the 
word, without plural, as meaning “metal-spiing cock of a gun”. Steingass, p. 623, 
calls it simply “crossbow”. 

(13) Aziz Suryal Atiya, “The Crusades : Old Ideas and New Conceptions”, Sum- 
mary of two lectures delivered in the Oriental Institute of the University of 
Chicago (mimeographed; Jan. 22 and 24, 1951), p. 6. 

(14) Oman, op. cit., vol. I, p, 209. Cf. note 10 supra. 

(15) Louis Mercier, VOrnement des ames : Arabic text (Paris: 1936); translation (Paris: 
' 936 ). 

(16) Louis Mercier, La Parure des Cavaliers : Arabic Text (Paris: 1922); translation 
- (Paris: 1924). The latter is hereinafter referred to as Mercier.Another edition of 




6 



he appended a detailed list of the manuscript materials in Arabic on 
the subjects of hippology, veterinary sciences, falconry and “furuslyah”. 17 
In addition to the material available in Brockelmann, the Fihrist of 
Ibn al-Nad m, Hajji Khalifah, and the Munster Fihrist , he culled the 
catalogues of the collections of Oriental manuscripts in Europe and 
incorporated the bibliography of titles on hippology brought out by 
Hammer- Purgstall in 1855. 18 This represented a considerable improve- 
ment on the Munster Fihrist, and, more than the translation itself, 
revealed to the scholarly world the range of materials yet to be mastered 
before any definitive comment could be made on the subject of Muslim 
military techniques. 

The most penetrating review of Mercier’s work appeared in 1929. 
In it Ritter took Mercier to task for the inaccuracies he detected in 
terminology, but devoted the major part of his review-article to a 
criticism of Mercier’s listing of the manuscript sources . He then proceeded 
to provide an annotated list of the manuscripts present in Istanbul and 
Europe which had been overlooked by Mercier (or listed incorrectly 
by him) and which Ritter felt to be of the first importance on the sub- 
jects of “fiurusiyah” ; archery; and tactics, strategy, weapons and military 
organization. It is this list of thirty-eight separate treatises which forms 
the basic corpus of these subjects. The Tafrij al-kvrub is listed among 
them. 19 

Ritter arranged his list in three categories, and it is convenient 
here to follow his method, making additions or corrections as subsequent 
research has provided : 20 

A. ‘ 'Furuslyah”. It is important here to remember that this subject 
covered the training of the horse, the training of the rider to wield 



= the text, collated from two more MSS than were available to Mercier, was brought 
out by Muhammad c Abd al-Ghanl Hasan (Cairo: 1951). 

(17) Mercier, pp. 432-459. 

(18) Hammer-Purgstall, “Das Pferd bei den Arabern”, Denkschr. d. kais. Ak. d. Hiss. 
{WhtrP , Phil-Hist Kl . I, (1855), pp. 21 1-246. A discussion of the relevant biblio- 
graphy will be found on pp. 212-223. 

f 1 9) Helmut Ritter, “ La Parure des Cavaliers und die Literatur iiber die ritterlichen 
Kiinste”, Der Islam, XVIII (1929), pp. 1 16-154, hereinafter referred to as Ritter. 
The criticism is on pp. 1 16-1 19; the remainder of the article is given over to citation 
and discussion of the manuscripts overlooked or slighted by Mercier. 

(20) Except where otherwise noted the location of the MSS is given in Ritter and/ 
or Mercier. 




7 



certain weapons consummately, e.g., sword, lance, battle-axe, mace, 
bow and arrow, etc., the concerted actions of cavalrymen on the field, 
the technique and variety of single combat, tournaments, and the basic 
elements of veterinary science. 

i. Kitab al-furusiyah wa al-baytarah. 

Though none of the manuscripts available to us antedates the 
beginmng of the 13th century, this work, under a variety of titles, 
provides the basic teaching and practice of Muhammad b. Ya'qub 
b. AkhI Hazzam (or Hizam) al-Khattali. He was the master of 
horse to the 'Abbasld Caliph, al-Mu'tasim (218-227/833-842). He 
admitted the primacy of the Persians in the fields of cavalry 
training and tactics. However, since the manuscripts extant come 
after the Crusades and after the period when Byzantine sources on 
military techniques were available to the Muslims, an investig- 
ation of this body of manuscripts is essential before the question 
of incorporated influences can be safely decided. 21 



2 . 



Kitab al-makhzun (ft ?) jdmi‘ al-funun. 

An abridgement or variation of the above work. Ritter relates 
this Paris manuscript (28263) to Ibn AkhI Hazzam’s work. 22 



3. Kitab al-khayl wa sifatiha wa alwaniha wa shiyatiha etc. 

A compilation based on the work of Ibn AkhI Hazzam by Ibn Abl 
Qptayrah, who flourished in the reign of the Rasulid, Muzaffar 
Yusuf al-Sa‘Id (647-694/1 249- 1295). 2 3 



4. Kitab fi ‘ ilm al-furusiyah wa istikhrdj al-khayl al-‘ arabiyah. 

This covers the same material as the work of Ibn AkhI Hazzam, 
and it leads Ritter to believe that its author, called simply Nasir 
al-Dln Muhammad, might be Muhammad b. Ya'qub b. AkhI 



(21) There seems to be some disagreement about the correct transliteration of this 
man’s name, and whether he held his position under al-Mu'tasim 01 al-Mutawak- 
k.l (Mercier, p. 433), or aI-Mu‘tadid (Ritter, p. 125). Whoever he was, and this is 
a matter that cannot be determined until all the relevant MSS, particularly those 
ascribed directly to him, have been collated, suffice it here to point out that his 
work appears to be fundamental to an understanding of the Muslim art of “furu- 
siyah”. Cf. Ritter, pp. 120-126 and Mercier, pp. 433-35. 

<22) Ritter p. 123, the final paragraph discussing the parts of the majmu ‘contained in 
Welieddin 3174. Cf. Zaki, p. 155. 

■ f 2 3 ) Ritter, j. . 125. 




8 



Hazzam. The manuscripts date from the gth century H./i5th 
century A.D. 24 

5. Qatr al-sayl fl amr al-khayl. 

This is an abridgement of al-Dimyati’s work, Fail al-khayl. The 
author, 'Umar b. Raslan b. Nasr al-Bulqini (d. 805/1402), goes 
beyond the subject of hippology and speaks of cavalry and 
tournament exercises. 25 

6. Kitab al-furuslyah bi rasm al-jihad. 

This is the basic work of the great tournament master and lance- 
jouster, Najm al-Dln Ayyub al-Ahdab al-Rammah (d. 694/1294). 
It was the source book for all future work on the subject of cavalry 
exercises, tournaments, and battle formations. No less than thir- 
teen manuscripts, covering the whole or parts of the treatise, exist, 
many of them illustrated. Of particular note is the exhaustive 
treatment of offensive and defensive lance-and-javelin play. 26 

7. Tawarlkh salatln Misr. 

Rather short historical studies of the wars of the Mamlu Sultans 
of Egypt, from 778 to 841 A.H. (1376-1438 A.D. ). Author anony- 
mous. 27 

8. Tuhfal al-mujahidin fl al-‘amal bi al-mayadin. 

This work by Lajin al-Husaml al-Tarabulsi incorporates the work 
of Najm al-D;n al-Ahdab and adds several variations on tourna- 
ment exercises and lance-play. These jousting-exercises ( band , 
pi. bunud) are illustrated in many of the manuscripts. Brockelmann 
ascribes this work to Muhammad b. Lajin al-Husami al-Tarabulsi 
(no. 9 below), but Ritter contends that there are two different 
authors involved. 28 



(24) Ibid., p. 125 f.; Mercier, p. 456 lists this work as anonymous. 

(25) Ritter, p. 127; Mercier, p. 444; M. Kh., II, p. 238. For a discussion of al-Dimyati 
see Mercier, p. 447 where he notes three authors with this name, one of whom is 
cited in the MF, p. 95; and GAL, I, p. 88 for mention of the Fail al-khayl. 

(26) Ritter, p. 126. Gf. Mercier, p. 441 for different titles of what Ritter believes to be 

the same work, the man and his work are discussed by Ritter on page 127. 

(27) Ritter, pp. 129-130. 

(28) Ibid . , p. 128. Where it occurs in whole or in part, Ritter lists it later in the article 
by simply putting “(8)” after the relevant folios. Cf Mercier, p. 488; and GAL , 
I, 368 and II, 168. 




9 



9- Bughyat al-qasidm bi al-arml bi al-mujahidin. 

This work of Muhammad b. Lajin al-Husami al-Tarabulsi al- 
Rammah is quite similar to no. 8. Numerous illustrations of cav- 
alry exercises with weapons; of tournament play, and types of 
single combat. 29 

10. Hikayat ibtida’ ‘uddal al- jihad. 

Anonymous sketches of not more than a folio apiece on various 
tactics and ruses employed by Muslim generals in the past." 

1 1 . Bunud al-sihabah. 

Anon. A short study of the lance exercises of the masters. 31 

12. Kitabfi al-ghazw wa al-jihad wa tartib al-la‘b bi al-rumh wa mayata‘al- 
laq bihi. 

Another work of Najm al-Din al-Ahdab al-Rammah, illustrating 
the seventy- two basic lance exercises, both astride and afoot. 32 

13. Kildb flhi ‘ilm al-furusiyah wa al-harb wa al-ta'n wa al-darb wa al- 
tabtilat. 

Anon. Almost a book of adab on the proper deportment of the 
cavalier in preparing for war and upon the battlefield. 33 

14. Kitab fihi khamsun band min al-nawadir fi al-harb. 

Anon. A selection from the works of Najm al-DIn al-Ahdab and 
Lajin. The choice fifty exercises from the seventy-odd prescribed 
by the masters. 34 

15. Nihayat al-su’t wa al-umniyah fi ta‘lim a‘mdl al-furusiyah. 

The author, Muhammad b. Isa b. Isma'il al-Hanafl al-Aqsara’i 



(29) Ritter, p. 131; Mercier, loc. cit. The list of works assigned to both Lajin and 
Muhammad b. Lajin pose the same sort of problem as encountered with Ibn 
Akh- Hazzam, supra. Again, only a fuller analysis of the available manuscripts 
will provide a solution. Cf. the lists in Mercier, p. 438 and 456; the citations in 
GAL, II, p. 167L; and Atiya, p. 544, 

(30) Ritter, p. 129 f. 

( 3 1 ) Ritter, p. 131. Considering that no, 12 (infra) is part of the majnOS containing no. 
11, this is no doubt a selection from the lance exercises of the masters. 

(32) Loc. cit. 

(33) Ibid.., p. 132. 

'> f 34 ) Loc. cit . 




IO 



(c. 8oo?/i400?), based this exhaustive work on the military hand- 
books of Najm al-DIn al-Ahdab. Ritter considers it the most 
important of all the sources in Arabic on Muslim military organi- 
zation, training and theory. 5 It is divided into twelve lessons 
(: ta‘litns ) whose titles indicate the amount of material covered in 
the text : 



Lesson One 
Lesson Two 
Lesson Three 
Lesson Four 

Lesson Five 
Lesson Six 
Lesson Seven 

Lesson Eight 

Lesson Nine 

Lesson Ten 
Lesson Eleven 



Lesson Twelve 



: archery. 

: lance-play and maneuvers with lance. 

: exercises in the use of sword and shield. 

: numerous problems relating to the use of the 
shield. 

: handling of mace and sword. 

: military play and exercise for cavalry. 

: various kinds of weapons, and problems relating 
to soldiers in the field. 

: recruiting and formation of the army; the 
strengths of units; their chiefs and commanders. 
: disposition of the army in the battle-field in 
accordance with the circumstances. 

: ruses of war and fatally poisonous smokes. 

: division of booty and various problems of 
Islamic law relating to giving protection ( aman ) 
to the enemy peoples, and the conclusion of 
treaties. 

: various branches of knowledge required by 
fighting soldiers, such as the drawing of augury, 
interpretation of the various signs of nature, 
precautions to be taken on the move, and 
wounds and their treatment with poultices, 
plasters and medicinal powders. 36 



(35) Ibid., pp. 132-135; Merrier, p. 458, lists it as anonymous. Atiya, p. 544, ascribes it 
incorrectly to Badr al-Din Baktut (infra) . In his discussion of the MSS of the 
Mhayat al-su'l, Dr. I.utful-Huq disproves any other ascription but that noted 
above. Ritter calls him a student of Najm al-Din Ahdab, and therefore probably 
writing during the sultanate of Barquq. But Dr. Lutful-Huq thinks him rather 
a student of a student of Najm al-Din, and has placed him chronologically, 
pp. 7-10. 

(36) Ibid., passim. 




Dr. Lutful-Huq based his edition on five of the nine known 
manuscripts. 37 This edition, that of Zoppoth (no. 34 below), 
and this edition and translation of the Tafrlj (no. 35 below) 
represent the only work done on the subject suggested by Ritter’s 
basic list. 

16. Kitab fi ‘itm al-furuslyah wa al-nushshab wa al-rumh wa ghayr dhalik. 
Anon. In composition and illustrations, this work bears a strong 
resemblance to the work of Najm ad-Dln al-Ahdab. 38 

22. Risalah fi al-furuslyah. 

Anon. A short survey of the Greek, Persian, ‘Iraqi and Maghribi 
methods of cavalry training. 39 

B. Archery. These works include descriptions of the various types 
of bows and arrows, their manufacture and operation, the names and 
deeds attached, to the masters. They tend, in general, toward being 
half prose and half poetry in composition, and not a few of them use 
the hunt, rather than the battle-field, as their basis of consideration. 
In this section Ritter depended quite a bit on the exhaustive survey of 
archery literature with which Hein prefaced his monograph on archery 
in the Ottoman era. 49 



( 37 ) That he missed the superb British Museum Add. 18, 866, surely the oldest, most 
beautifully illustrated, and most clearly written of the MSS, is strange indeed. 
The omission was brought to the attention of the present editor in a letter, dated 
24 June 1959, from Mr. J.D. Pearson, the Librarian of the University of London. 

Thus, until Lutful-Huq’s edition is collated with this MS and those in Istanbul 
and Cairo, we cannot be said to possess even yet a first-rate text upon which the 
necessary translation can be based. lor his inability to ut'lize the latter texts see, 
Xihdyat al-su’l, p. 57. 

(38) Ritter, p. 135 and 138. 

( 39 ) Ibid. , p. 140. This is listed with the archery MSS, since it is part of a majrnu' on 
archery. But its very title forces one to place it with the “furusiyah” treatises, 

( 4 °) Joachim Hein, “Bogenhandwerk und Bogensport bei den Osmanen’’, Der Islam. 
XIV (1925), pp. 289-360. This was in turn an analysis and discussion of a work 
by a certain Mustafa Kani, Auszug der Abhandl ungen der Bogenschiitzen (telhis 
retail er-rumat ) . Though aichery is not the subject of this dissertation, it is interesting 
to note Hein’s distinction; p. 309: 

“Das charakteristische der tUr&ischen Werke ist, oass sie im wesentilchen 
nur von Fachleuten aus Iifterease am Bogensport und zur Forderung des- 
selben verfasst sind. Dieses unterschiedet sie von einer grossen Gruppe arabischer 
bien denem religiose Beweggriinde vorherrschen. Die Ausbildung fur den Krieg, 
das Grundmotiv arabischer Worke, tritt vollstandig hinter den Sport zuriick.” 




12 



17. Kitab al-wadih fi al-ramy wa al-nushshab. 

Ahmad b. “Abdallah Muhibb al-DIn al-Tabar! (d. 694/1295). 44 

18. Kitab fi ‘ilm al-nushshab. 

Anon. A compilation in East Turkish of various Arabic works on 
archery. 42 

19. Kitab fi al-musabiqah . 

Anon. A commentary on an urjuzah of Taybugha al-Baklamishi 
(no. 20 below). Composed for the Mamluk Sultan, al-Malik Ashraf 
Sha'ban, who reigned from 764 to 768 A.H. (1363-1376 A.D.) 43 

20. The manuscripts of the works of Taybugha al-Baklamishi al- 
Yunani (d. 797 1 1 394 ) which appear under the following titles : 

a) Kitab fi rimayat al-nushshab wa ismuhu bughyat al-maram. 
Dedicated to al-Malik Ashraf Sha f ban. 44 

b) Ghunyat al-murami. 

Dedicated to al-Malik Ashraf Sha'ban. 45 

-c) Kitab many at al-tullab fi ma’rifat al-ramy bi al-nushshab. 

A work for the most part identical with 20b. Copied in 864/1459 
for the Mamluk Sultan, Al-Malik Ashraf Sayf al-Din Inal 
(857-865/1453-1460). 46 

d) Kitab sharh ghunyat al-murami wa ghayat al-maram li al-ma‘ani. 
This text of Taybugha’s work forms the major portion of a 
majmu ‘ whose overall title is Kitab fi ma’rifat ramy al-nushshab 
wa rukub al-khayl. The other parts are selections from the works 
of Najm al-Din al-Ahdab, Lajin, and the Nihayat al-su’l. Thus 
in one book were combined archery and lance exercises, cavalry 
tactics and battlefield deportment. It is interesting to note 
that the number of lance exercises ( bunud) has reached 108. 
The majmu’ is dated 802/1 399. 47 



(41) Ritter, p, 136 and 141; Hein, op. cit., p. 306. 

(42) Ritter, p. 136. 

(43) Ritter, p. 137. 

(44) Loc. cit. 

(45) Ibid.., p. 138; Mercier, p. 450, Hein, op. cit., p. 306. 

(46) Ritter, p. 138; Atiya, p. 545. 

(47) Ritter, p. 138 f. 




13 



2 1. Irshad al-ikhwan fi ahkdm al-rihan. 

Anon. Comments based on the SharVa, referring to various military 
contests or simple tests of skill, including archery matches. 48 

22. See final entry in section of “furusiyah”. 

23. Urjuzah ft 'ilm al-rimayah or Al-nihayah fi ‘ilm al-rimayah . 

This lengthy poetical work with prose commentary is by Husayn 
b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. “Abdallah al-Yunani 
(d. 650/1252). 49 

24. Hidayat al-rami ila al-aghrad wa al-marami. 

Husayn b. Muhammad b. ‘Absun al-Hanafi al-Sinjari. The 
manuscript noted by Ritter seem? to be unique and was ordered 
by the Mamluk Sultan, Al-Malik al-Zahir Sayf al-Din Jaqmaq 
(842-857/1438-1453). The copy is dated 855 A.H. (1451 A. D.) 50 

25. Hall al-ishkal fi al-ramy bi al-nibal. 

Anon. A commentary on a poetical work on archery. 51 

26. Kitab ramy al-nushshab . 

Muhammad b. ‘Alt al-Sughayyir. The manuscript noted by Ritter 
is dated c. 821/1418, and seems to be a rather free abridgement 
of an unspecified longer work by the same author. 52 

27. Ghars al-ansab fi al-ramy bi-al-siham bi- al-nushshab . 

This work by the celebrated polymath, al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505), 
mentions a work on archery, apparently lost, by ‘Izz ad-DIn b. 
Jama “a (d. 819/1416). The Mamluk Sultan Qa’ it Bay (873-901/ 
1468-1495), possessed this short work of al-Suyutl’s. 53 

(48) Op. cit., p. 140. Hein cites an Abu c Ali al-Haitimi as the author, op. cit., p. 307- 

(49) Ritter, p. 140b Hein, op. cit., p. 306; H Kh., VI, p. 403 uses the latter title. Cf. 
GAL, Suppl. I, p. 905 for a MS with commentary. 

(50) Ritter, p. 141 f. 

(51) Op. cit., p. 141 ; Mercier, p. 454. This work forms the first half of the majmu' which 
contains the Ta’ MS of the Tafrij al-kurub {supra) . The poetical work on archery 
on which this work is a commentary may be that of Taybugha al- 
BaklamishT or Husayn al-Yunani (no. 23 infra) or Minqar al-Halabi {supra). 

(52) Ritter, p. 142; Hein op. cit., p. 306, cites a '“Kitab al-hidayahfi ‘ilm al-rimayah” 
by a Muhammad b. ‘All al-Saghir Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Shahir who 
wrote c. 845/1441. 

(53) Ritter, p. 143, Mercier, p.449, does not include this title among al-Suyuti’s works . 
But the MF, p. 98, does mention a work on archery, ‘‘Kitab ula al-asbab fi al- 
ramy bi al-nushshab” by Ibn Jama'a. 




14 



28. Kitab fada’il al-ramy ft sabil Allah. 

A short and rather pious treatise on archery by al-Hafiz Abi 
Ya qub Ishaq b. Ishaq Ya'qub al-Qarrab. Ritter was unable to 
identify the author and he does not figure in the lists of the 
Munster Fikrist nor in that of Merrier. Neither Hajji Khalifah 
n °r Brockelmann provides any further identity . ^ ^ 

29. Kitab fadl al-ramy wa ta’limihi. 

A collection of hadith about archery compiled by al-Tabara.nl 
(d. 281/892). The manuscript and that of no. 28 are included 
in the same collection which dates from the end of the 12 th century.®®* 

30. Risalat al-ramy bi al-nushshab. 

Anon. A short collection of rules of archery, dated 900/1494. 56 

G. Tactics and Military Organization. These works are given 
over almost entirely to those military procedures to be followed when 
war seems imminent or is actually at hand. Such subjects as fort- 
ification and siege, spying and strategems, camping and picketing, 
battle-formations, qualities and types of commanders, erection and 
operation of battle machines, booty and its distribution, the rules for 
retreat, for pursuit of a routed enemy, and for single combat, etc. are 
covered in whole or in part in these treatises. 

31. Al-tadhkirat al-karawiyah ft al-hiyal al-harbiyah. 

A very thorough study of the Muslim army in the field and under 
siege; in twenty-four books, the titles of many of which resemble 
those of the Tafrij al-kurub. The author, 'All b. Abi Bakr al-Harawi 
(d. 611/1214), covers all the above-named subjects. It is Ritter’s 
belief that this book was most probably composed under the 
influence of the Crusades, and incorporated whatever the Muslims 
had learned about offense and siege-craft. The unique Istanbul 
manuscript is dated 602/1205, within the author’s lifetime. Sections 
of it were copied in 875/1470 for Qa’it Bay. 57 



(54) Ritter, p. 143 f. 

(55) Loc. cit. 

(56) Ibid. 

( 57 ) Ritter, pp. 144-146. There are “books” on ambassadors, spies and agents, protection 
of booty, camping, stratagems to avoid meeting the enemy, ambushing, siege and 
fortification, etc. 




5 



32. Al-adillah al-rasmiyah fi al-ta‘abi al-l arbiyah. 

This basic work by Muhammad b. Mankli, head of the Sultan’s 
guard in the reign of al-Ashraf Sha'ban, discusses the military 
systems and tactics of the Franks, Greeks, Turks, Arabs, and Kurds. 
It includes various sketches of battle-formations, very much in the 
style of those found in the Nihayat al-su’l. The exact date of his 
death is not known, but it is assumed to be c. ‘780/1 379. 58 

33. Al-tadhkirat al-sultaniyah fi siyasat al-sana’i‘ al-harbiyah. 

Another and more exhaustive work by Muhammad b. Mankli. 
A wide-ranging investigation of the tactics to be employed in a 
variety of types of warfare and under a" variety of circumstances. 59 

34. Kitab siyasat al-hurub. 

The Pseudo-Aristotle “Taktik”; written by “Aristu” for “Iskandar 
dhu al-qarnayn”. A comparatively short analysis of tactics by 
an anonymous author. One Istanbul manuscript dates sometime 
after 1000/1592 and was copied for the Ottoman Sultan, Muhammad 
III, who ascended to power in 1003/1595. Another is written in 
a fifteenth-century naskhi style. It is doubtful if this particular 
work could antedate the work of Najm al-Din al-Ahdab and 
Lajin, or of that of Muhammad b. Mankli. 60 

35. Tafrij al-kurub fi tadbir al-hurub. 

Ritter thought the author was anonymous, and the Istanbul 
manuscript, unique until another copy was found in the Yahudah 
collection, now being catalogued in Princeton, carried no author’s 
name. From the Yahuda manuscript it appears to be one ‘Umar 



(58) Ritter, pp. 146-148; Mercier, p. 457, dees not mention either* of the two works 
cited here in Ritter’s list (Nos. 32 and 33), and assigns 1362 A.D. as the year cf 
his death. 

( 59 ) Ritter, p. 148. Both Atiya, p. 544, and Zaki, p. 159, in citing this work, refer to 
the author as “Ibn Minkali”. Like Ritter, Brockelmann prefers “Mangli”, GAL , 
Suppl. II, p. 167. 

(60) Bitter, p. 124 and 149. The text, based on the three known manuscripts, has been 
edited by Gerhard Zoppoth (Unpublished Ph. D. thesis). University of 
Vienna: 1951). Merciei ’s only citation of Aristotle is to his treatise on animals, 
translated irto Arabic, p. 442. 




b. Ibrahim al-Awsi al-Ansari, and the work was written in the 
reign of the Mamlfik Sultan Malik Faraj b. Barquq. 61 

36. Kitdb aniq al-manajiq. 

The author of this treatise on various siege-machines mentions 
Mankli and the taking of various fortresses, particularly in the 
Crusading period. His name, however, was somewhat obliterated 
on the Istanbul manuscript, and Ritter reports it as "... ibn 
Arnbugha al-Zardkash”. There are two dates in the colophon, 
774 and 775, placing either the copy or its composition (since 
the author’s dates are unknown) in the reign of Al-Malik Ashraf 
Sha'ban ( supra ). 62 

37 . Kitdb al-hiyal fi al-/urub wa fath al-mada’in wa hifz al-durub. 

A Pseudo-Alexander treatise: ‘ 'min hikm dhu al-Qarnayn”. In 
whole or in part, this work was copied throughout the thirteenth, 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It seems related in spirit to 
the Pseudo-Aristotle “Taktik” (no. 34 above), but distinct from 
it in composition. 63 

38. Kitdb al-mxibdrak fihi ma‘rifat la‘b al-dabbus wa al-sira‘ ‘ala al-khayl 
‘ind mulaqat al-khasm fi awqat al-hurub. 

Anon. This treatise details the steps to be taken when engaged 
in single combat and the methods of wielding various weapons 
while astride, particularly the mace. The unique copy in Istanbul 
is dated 779 / 1377. 64 

39. A short untitled work about war machines and military implements, 

“Greek-fire” and other pyrotechnics; written relative to experiences 
occasioned by the “Frankish” (Crusader ?) wars. The MS is dated 
871 /1467. 65 

It should be noted that Mercier’s specific interest was hippology, 
rather than any of the subjects noted by Ritter, and he included the 
latter only insofar as they clarified the former subject. Withal, their 

(61) See discussion of MSS and author infra. 

(6?) Ritter, p. 150 f.; Zaki, p. 159, refers to him as “Ibn Arinbugha al-Zardakash”, 
and places the date of the composition on catapaults at about 867/1463. 

(63) Ritter, pp. 151-153; GAL , Suppl. II, p. 167. 

(64) Ritter, p. 152. 

(65) Ibid., p. 153 f. This may be similar to the anonymous treatise on the same subject 
referred to by Atiya, p. 544. 




i7 



two lists, rather than the unspecific one in the Munster Fihrist, constitute 
the fullest survey of the basic materials for a study of Muslim military 
history. 

There are, however, other manuscripts "noted elsewhere, or made 
available since the appearance of their work, which must be appended 
to it to round out this study. In the field of “furusiyah”; Brockelmann 
notes the following : 

a. Two works ascribed to Muhammad b. Lajin al-Tarabulsi : 

1 . Bunud al-ramh min bunud al-ahdath wa al-furusiyah bi rasm al-jihad 
(GAL, Suppl. II, 167). 

2 . Kitab mubarak yashtamil ‘ala bunud .al-rimah wa ghayriha min al- 
fawa’id wa al-mayadin (GAL, Suppl. II, 167). 

b. A work ascribed to Taybugha al-Baklamishi, the authority on 
archery (cf. no. 20 above) : 

Kitab fi al-jihad wa al-furusiyah wa funun al-adab al-l.arbiyah (GAL, 
II, 169). 

c. A work on cavalry practices and lance-play by Badr al-Din Baktut 
al-Rammah al-Khazindari (d. 711/1311) : 

Kitab fi ‘ilm al-furusiyah (GAL II, 168) or, Kitab al-furusiyah wa la‘b 
al-rumh (Mercier, 444). 

Some additional manuscripts in the field of archery : 

a. Another poetical work on archery attributed to Husayn b. ‘Abd 
al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. 'Abdallah al-Yunani (cf. no. 23 
above) - : 

Al-qasidat al-Yunaniyah fi al-ramy ‘an al-qaws (GAL, Suppl. I, 905). 

b. A work composed in the form of 400 rajaz verses on the art of 
archery by Abu Bakr al-Halabl Minqar (d. 887/1482) : 
Al-urjuzah al-Halabiyah fi ramy al-siham ‘an al-qusi al-‘ arabiyah (GAL, 

II, 170). 

c. An anonymous work giving many details on fingering, aiming, 
and shooting, and on the various styles of the masters of archery. 
This manuscript has been edited and translated : 

Kitab fi bayan fadl al-qaws wa al-sahm wa awsafihimd (Garrett Coll, 
no. 793) 66 . 



(66) Nabih A. Faris and Robert P. F.lmer, Arab Archery : An Arabic MS of about A.D. 
1500 (Princeton: 1945). 




i8 

d. Another treatise on archery by Taybugha al-Baklamishi : 

Kitab al-ramy bi al-qaws wa al-nushshab. 

e. A treatise on archery by the famous al-Sakhawi (d. 902/1497). 
Princeton is especially fortunate in having an autograph : 
Al-qawl al-tamm fi fail al-ramy bi al-siham (Yahudah 3551). 6 7 

f. An incomplete MS on archery exercises and competitions by an 
nth century author, Muhammad b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Latlf 
al-Khudayri : 

Kashf al-niqdb ‘an al-musabaqah wa al-ramy bi al-nushab (Yahudah 2312) 

g. A rather late work on archery with commentary by Abu al-‘Abbas 
b. Sibt b. Hirz Allah written about 1000/1591 : 

Kitab hidayat al-rami ila tariqat al-marami 6S 

1 he following additions should be made to the above list of manus- 
cripts in the general field of tactics, weapons, and military organization: 

a. A work on tactics, strategems and ruses by Abu Bakr Muhammad 
b. 'Ali b. Asbagh al-Harawi, whom Brockelmann thinks might be 
the son of the author of no. 31 above : 

Kitab al-bada’i' wa al-asrar fi haqiqat al-radd wa al-intisdr wa ghamid 
ma ijtama‘ at alayhi al-rumat fi al-amsar {GAL, Suppl. II, 166). 

b. A work on artillery, probably composed in the late 15th century, 
originally in Spanish, and then translated into Arabic. It shows 
some knowledge of the development of siege craft and field pieces 
of the Spanish armies, at that time attacking the Muslim positions 
in the south of Spain and along the Maghrib littoral. Its author 
bears the Spanish name of Arribash, and is otherwise identified as 



(67) This was mentioned in the MF, j. . 98, as being anonymous, and reported by 
Mercier, p.456, as such. On the strength of c Awwad’s hasty reading of the Yahudah 
MS, Zaki, p. 157, reported the author as simply Muhammad b. c Abd al-Rahman 
al-Shafi‘i Not only did ‘Awwad miss the more pertinent “al-Sakhawi” of the 
autograph, he also reported it as Yahudah 3088 rather than 3551 . Kurkis ‘Awwad, 
“Al-makhtutat al-'arabiyah fi dur al-kutub al-amirikiyah” . Sumer, VII, no. 2 
( I 95 I )= P- 250- It can also be found cited without author in H. Kh., IV, p. 583. 

(68) Hein, op. cit., p. 306, and note 2, where mention is made of one commentary 
adding the words, “fann al-rimayah fi al-bunduq”. Zaki, p. 159 f., reporting a 
Cairo manuscript, misreads the author’s name and adds to the title, “fi ‘ilm al- 
ramy bi al-bunduq”. 




*9 



Ibrahim b. ‘All Ghanim b. Muhammad b. Zakariyah al-Andalusi: 
Al-‘izz wa al-manafi‘ li al-mujahidin fi sablt Allah bi al-alat al-hurub 
wa al-madafi‘ {GAL, II, 6i 7 f.) . 

c. A treatise on the manufacture and operation of various siege 
machines and weapons, and directions for the manufacture of 
various types of armor. The author, Murda b. ‘All b. Murda 
al-TarsusI, composed it for Salah al-DIn sometime before or after 
the taking of Jerusalem (583/1187). The more important extracts 
of this work have been edited and translated : 

Tabsirat arbab al-albab fi kayfiyat al-najat fi al-hurub {GAL, I, 653). 69 

d . A very interesting treatise dating from the 1 6th century on military 
geometry and surveying, the throwing of missiles, and the digging 
of mines. It was written by the Arab-speaking interpreter in the 
fortress of Bulghar on the Volga, ‘Uthman al-Muhtadi (d. after 
960/1553). The manuscript in the Ganett Collection, probably 
unique, dates from the early 19th century : 

Hidayat al-muhtadi fi ‘ilm al-handas h wa al-misahah wa ramy al- 
khamirah wa hafr al-lughm (Garrett Coll. no. 1056). 

e. A work noted by Mercier and Brockelmann and overlooked by 
Ritter; a treatise on war by Musa b. Muhammad al-Yusufi al- 
Misri d. c. 759/1358) : 

Kashf al-kurub fi ma'rifat al-hurub (GAL, II, 168) 70 . 

f. A very late work on jihad by Ahmad b. Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304/ 

1886) : 

Irshad al-hadir wa al-badd lima ja’a fi fada’il al-jihad 
(Yahudah 2623). 

From this list of over fifty titles, five only have been made available, 
and in varying degrees of quality and completeness, for scholarly 
consideration, viz, Lutful-Huq’s edition of the JVihayat al-su’l, based 
upon five of the nine known manuscripts; Faris and Elmer’s edition 
and translation of the Garrett manuscript on archery; Cahen’s edition 
and translation of extracts from Murda al-Tarsusi’s work on weapons 



(69) Claude Cahen, “Un traite d’armuerie compose pour Saladin”, Bulletin d' Etudes 
Orientates, Tome XII (Beyrouth: 1947-8). 

(70) Zaki, p. 158, refers to the author as one of the “halqa” leaders inlthe time of 
Sultan Jaqmaq. According to Ayalon this would put him in one of the non-Mamluk 

- Cavalry squadrons, p. 62-5 et passim , and note 93 for other references. 




20 



and armor; Zoppoth’s edition of the Pseudo-Aristotle treatise and the 
present edition and translation of the Tajrlj al-kurub. Though not all 
of the works are of equal value, it would appear that between fifteen 
and twenty are of the first importance in Muslim military thinking, since 
the various copies of any single one of them span as many as four 
centuries . 71 It would seem impossible to gauge that renaissance in 
Muslim strategy and tactics which begins with the roll-back of the 
Frankish invaders and reaches its apogee in the Ottoman assaults on 
Vienna without resource to these rich and vital materials. 

Two monographs on the subject of Muslim field and hand weapons, 
both employing some of the manuscripts named above, illustrate one 
phase of the problem of the disinclination of the Orientalist to pursue 
the technical study of Muslim warfare. In his study of the history of 
medieval artillery according to Oriental sources, Kalervo Huuri devoted 
the greater part of his work to elucidating the approximate meaning 
of various military terms, not only those employed in the Byzantine 
and Arabic worlds, but in the Persian, Indian, Chinese and Mongolian 
as well. Thus, he had to trace the terminology for both crossbow and 
arbalest (both under • 'armbruste”), and the separate body of terms 
relative to siege-machinery, e.g., the ballista, the mangonel, the culverin, 
etc. To clarify the difference between light and heavy field or siege 
pieces ( f 'leichte steinwerfende” and rr schware steinwerfende”), Huuri 
made appeal to the illustrations accompanying the manuscripts of Najm 
al-Dln al-Ahdab’s work, and categorized the siege-machines as being 
either traction-fired (‘ziehkraftbilden”) or fired by means of torsion- 
release ( f 1 torsionsschleudergeschutze) . His glossary of hand and field 
artillery is a scholarly landmark of its kind, and any future research 
of the topic will be greatly indebted to it . 72 

Although Ayalon’s purpose in his monograph on Mamluk weaponry 
was ultimately to make a comment more relative to social and intel- 
lectual history, he was forced to ma e a detailed study of the nomen- 
clature of firearms and gunpowder, and to outline the evolution of the 
uses of the words naft and barud from their utility in medieval pyrotechnics 
to their later relevance to the arquebus, the mortar and the cannon . 7 3 



(71) For example, one MS of the Nihayat al-su’l is dated 29 May 1841 whereas the 
earliest one was copied in 1372. Nihayat al-su’l, pp. 1-3, and note 37, supra. 

(72) Huuri, pp. 94-192 passim for the evolution of Islamic field weapons and their 
attendant terminology; pp. 255 If. for the glossary; and cf. illustration nos. 15-19. 

( 73 ) Ayalon, Chapter Two on terminology; Chapter Three, passim, for the attitude 




21 



Since Huuri’s work had little to do with firearms or naptha, except 
insofar as it was used as a projectile, Ayalon’s terminological findings 
are at once original and seminal. In both cases, however, the space 
devoted to assaying terminology points up the inadequacy of the published 
lexicographical and technical literature through which this important 
phase of Muslim development has to be assessed . 74 

It is against such a background of primary and source materials, 
available or still in manuscript, and in terms of the technological and 
terminological problems, that this edition of the Tafrij al-kurub and its 
somewhat problematic translation must be gauged. It proposes to do 
no more than bring to the attention of the scholarly community one 
more original source-book on the subject of Muslim warfare, and to 
illuminate, insofar as the literature makes possible, some of its puzzling 
aspects. 

When all the sources are published and the terminology proven 
accurate, perhaps then Western military theorists will understand that 
the military supremacy of the Mamluk and Ottoman societies was based 
on something more than mere numbers and hit-and-run tactics. These 
societies put primacy upon the military vocation, and their basic security 
was in military success. They maintained the tempo of success, initiated 
by Saladin, throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It must 
have been based on superior patterns of logistics and armament and 
tactics, as their discipline must have canalized their zeal . 75 The basic 
sources discussed above and this present study might be considered as 
fairly contributory to making plain those patterns and defining that 
discipline. 



of the Mamluks towards the new weapons, and their continued adherance to 
furusiyah exercises. The second-hand study of terminology carried out by J.R. 
Partington leaves Prof. Ayalon’s reputation unimpaired : A History of Greek Fire 
and Gunpowder (Cambridge : i960). Chap. V, passim. 

( 74 ) * s interesting that Ayalon could find but two definitions relating naft to barud 
in his study of the evolution of the terminology for gunpowder. These were sup- 
plied by Ibn Khaldun and al-Qalqashandi . Ayalon, pp. 21 f. and notes. 

( 75 ) Atiya’s summation, p. 482, of the military inadequacy of the Chr'stians in the 
1 3th and 1 4th centuries can hardly be bettered or disputed, and forms an interesting 
corollary to Ayalon’s work which proves the disinclination of one Muslim group 
to reshape their formerly successful tactics and weapons. However, the Ottomans 
did make the necessary shifts in weaponry and continued into the 16th century 
the substance of Muslim military superiority. As the sources detailed above 
become available, and as they pertain to the period before 1683, they will comple- 
ment these two seminal studies, and those of Huuri and Smail (supra). 




22 



2 . The manuscripts, the author, the work. 

This edition is based on the collation of the only two manuscripts 
known to the editor. One of them is listed in Brockelmann (GAL, II, 168) 
as an anonymous work written for “al-Malik al-Nasir”. This is some- 
what misleading for it could refer to al-Malik al-Nasir b. Qala’an, 
who is indeed mentioned in the treatise. 1 However, in the eulogistic 
introduction accompanying this manuscript of the work (which is mis- 
sing from the Yahudah text), the ruler is correctly identified as Abu 
al-Sa f adat Faraj b. al-Sultan al-Malik al-Zahir Abu Sa id Barquq. 
Upon his succession to the throne (15th ofShawwal 810/20 June 1399) 
he was given the throne name of al-Malik al-Nasir. 2 

It is number 35 in Ritter’s list of manuscripts and he correctly re- 
ports its composition in the reign of Sultan Faraj b. Barquq. 3 He 
reports it as a large octavo volume of 152 folios with no other work 
included within its binding. Photostats of a film of this MS were secured 
for the editor from the film library of the Arabic Manuscript Section 
of the Arab League in Cairo. The title-page is illuminated with a 
decorative medallion as its center-piece. The tughra of the Ottoman 
Sultan Mahmud I (1 143-1 168/1730-1754) appears to the right, as does 
a remark to the effect that this volume has been made part of the royal 
waqf and has been so recorded by Darwish Mustafa, the superintendent 
(mufattish) of the royal awqaf. Beneath this is the seal-mark of Darwish 
Mustafa. 4 



(1) Book IV, Chap. 1 : p. 40, y (Hereinafter the first page reference will be to the 
translation; the second to the edited text). 

(2) William Popper, History of Egypt 1382-1469 A.D . , Translated from the Arabic Annals 
of Abu al-Mahasin b. Taghri Birdi, Part 11,1399-1411 A.D. (University of California 
Publications in Semitic Philology, Vol. XIV; Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1954), 
p. 1. Faraj reigned twice: 801-808 and 808/814/1399-141 1 . For two months 
and ten days in 808/1405 he was superseded on the throne by his brother, 
al-Malik al-Mansur c Abd al- c Aziz, op. cit., pp. j 19-124. 

(3) Ritter, p. 149. 

(4) An explanation of the seals and of lacunae in Fa' was kindly supplied the editor by 
Dr. Albert Dietrich of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul in a letter 
dated 26 February 1959. Some of the missing words were obviously inscribed in 
gold and have flaked off, or were in a light red or blue pigment which has faded. 
Paper was thin and soft, and a light outline of some words appears on the folio 
beneath, giving one the impression of a palimpsest. Dr. Dietrich found conclusively 
that it was not so. 




23 



The manuscript is undated and was copied by al-Fadl b. Abd al- 
Wahab al-Sinbati, who was undoubtedly an Egyptian. It is written in 
a clear gth/i5th century naskhi with nine lines to a page. Book and 
chapter titles are written somewhat larger and are allotted distinguishing 
lines to themselves. Most of the text is vowelled but not always correctly 
and not completely, e.g. those vowels indicating case ending and tense 
forms are seldom included. The clarity of the copy and the illuminated 
title-page lead one to believe that this copy was destined for the royal 
library and may have been executed within the author’s lifetime, though 
the absence of his name from the copy is puzzling. This manuscript is 
no. 3483 from the Fatih mosque in Istanbul, and will be referred to 
hereinafter as Fa' . 

The other manuscript is contained in the rnajmu. which is numbered 
EES 3954 in the Yahudah Collection now in the process of being 
catalogued in Princeton University. It contains : 

1. f. ib-gia. Hall al-ishkal fi al-ramy bi al-nibal, which is a com- 
mentary on an urjuzah on archery by an unnamed author. 5 
This copy is by the same katib who copied the Tafrij al-kurub, 
and was completed on the 24th of Safar 924 /8th of March 1518. 

2. f. 94b-i53a. Tafrij al-kurub fi tadbir al-hurub, a treatise in twenty 
books on the arts of war by "Umar b. Ibrahim al-Awsi al- 
Ansari The copyist was Muhammad b. 'All al-Rifa/i al-Hasanl 
al-ShafPi who completed his work on the 25th of Muharram 
924/7 February 1518. 

3. f. 1 54b- 1 67b. Kitab raf' al-tashkik fi qawl al-nds al-ra‘dyd ' ala din 
al-malik, a polemical work by a Shaykh al-Isldm identified simply 
as r Ala’ al-Din. The copy dates from 928/1522. 

Various short selections of poetry with commentary or other excerpts are 
copied in the intervening folios. The leather binding and the pages of 
the majmu‘ are severly worm-eaten, but fortunately most of the damage 
is in the marginal area of the text, permitting an almost perfect reading. 
It measures 15 by 21.5 cm 

The script is a rather debased naskhi and is immediately seen as such 
when compared to Fa' . There are thirteen lines to a page except for one 
with fourteen, and two, including the colophon page, where there are 
fifteen lines. There is practically no vowelling, and the incursion of 



(5) See no. 25 of Ritter’s list, supra, and note 51 accompanying it. 




24 



worm holes makes the proper pointing of a word a difficult problem. 
The marginal area of some folios is filled with various medical formulas, 
diagnoses and treatment. They are completely unrelated to the text 
and subject-matter of the Tafrij al-kurub, and are not in the hand of its 
scribe, but rather in a hand which appended commentaries to other 
parts of the majmw This manuscript will be referred to hereinafter 
as Ya’. 

Except for the introduction which forms a part of Fa’ and is absent 
from Ya’, the two manuscripts are in most respects textually identical. 
The differences are ones of word order, more grammatically correct 
forms, and lacunae of from a word to a whole clause. In the latter 
case, and lacking any other MSS. upon which a decision of textual 
correctness might have been' reached, the wording of the more complete 
text was retained. Incorrect forms of the verb and incorrect usage of 
cardinal numbers (e.g., thalath rather than thalathah with fusul ) are the 
most glaring of the grammatical errors, but they occur with such regula- 
rity as to give credence to the belief that during the Mamluk period 
the Arabic language as a literary medium was undergoing some process 
of decay. Stylistically there is little to commend the work. It was a 
work, however, which was meant to convey a good deal of supposedly 
practical information to certain people, and its language is neither far- 
fetched nor abstruse. Except for some words of a purely technical nature, 
this work in its simplicity would be accessible to any literate person in 
the epoch of its composition. 

Though the author is named in Ya’, the given form of his name is 
such that it is difficult to identify him exactly. An ‘Umar b. Ibrahim 
b. ‘Umar al-Ansari al-Awsi al-Mursi is mentioned by Brockelmann, 
but he died in 633/1284. 6 Neither of the two biographical sources for 
this period, viz, al-Sakhawi’s Al-daw ’ al-ldmi‘ and Ibn Taghri Birdi’s 
Al-Manhal al-safi , cites anyone with this particular name. Hajji Khalifah 
lists neither author nor work. 

However, using simply “ ‘Umar b. Ibiahim” as a clue, and knowing 
that the author had to live during the reign of Sultan Faraj, both the 
Daw ’ and the Manhal mention and draw attention to the important 
offices held by a member of a renowned family of Hanafi jurists from 
‘Aleppo. 7 His full name is given in the former as: ‘Umar b. Ibrahim b. 



(6) GAL, II, p. 265 and Suppl. II, p. 378. 

(7) Al-Sakhawi, Al-daw’ al-ldmi’ (8 vols. Cairo: 1353-1355 A.H.), vol.VI, p.65f., 




25 



Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz b. Muhammad b. Hibat Allah al-Kamal Abu 
Hafs b. al-Kamal Abl Ishaq b. Nasir al-Din Abl 'Abdallah b. al-Kamal 
Abi Hafs al-'Uqayli al-Halabi. He was generally known as Ibn al-Adim 
or Ibn Abl Jaradah. The Daw ’ gives his birth date as 754/1353, but 
the Manhal has 760 or 761/1359. These latter dates are cited in the 
Daw ’ but are considered inaccurate. He died in 811/1408. His family- 
tree as deduced from the Manhal is demonstrated by Wiet. 8 In the 
usual manner he studied fiqh and the usul, and with his father and a 
certain Ibn Habib he pursued the study of hadith. 

He was appointed Qadl al-‘askar in the Aleppo district, and later 
deputy to his father, the Hanafi qadl. In 794/1392 he became Hanafi 
qadl in Aleppo and in this position amassed great wealth. He visited 
Cairo, but cut short his stay when he heard that the Tatars of Timur 
Lenk were ravaging the Syrian provinces. He was taken prisoner and 
very badly treated. When Timur withdiew in 803/1401, he attached 
himself to the entourage of the chief Hanafi qadl of Egypt, Amin al-Din 
al-Tarabulsi. In 805 /1403 he succeeded the latter, and held at 
the same time the position of head of the ShaykhunTyah tarlqah. Due 
to his association with the Mamluk amirs and his growing influence at 
court, he was appointed shaykh al-shuyukh in 808/1406. Upon his death 
less than three years later he was succeeded in his office of chief qadl 
of the Mamluk realm by his son Nash al-Din Muhammad. 

Al-Sakhawi maintains in the Daw ’ that he used his position at court 
and his connections with the various amirs to amass great wealth and 
neglected, or performed only perfunctorily, his religious duties. These 
were charges no doubt garnered from al-Maqrizi who esteemed 'Umar 
not at all. Ibn Taghri-Birdi, however, defended him: 

“Cadi Kamal al-Din was a leading and erudite scholar, respected 
and highly regarded by the rulers, sedate, and a man of noble 
qualities and virtues. Shaikh Taqi ad-Din Maqrizi charged him 
with faults of which he was innocent; the charge was the result 
of some difference between them — God pardon them both.” 9 

Though a student of al-Maqrizi’s, Ibn Taghri-Birdi was the son of a 

number 221; Ibn Taghrl BirdI, Les Biographies du Manhal al-Safi, ed. Gaston 
Wiet (Memoires a l’lnstitut cPEgypte . tome XIX; Cairo: 1932), p. 256 f., number 
1706. 

(8) Ibid. , p. 65. 

(9) Popper, op. cit., p. 210. 




26 



leading Mamluk amir, and the phrase f 'respected and highly regarded 
by the rulers” might be construed as betraying a parti pris. 

For purposes of identification, three facts from this biographical 
sketch should be noted. His holding of the position of qadi al-‘askar 
would have made him conversant with army organization and he would 
have ridden with the army in any general operations around Aleppo. 
His presence in Syria during the depredations of Timur, and his conse- 
quent imprisonment, gave him some knowledge of Mongol military 
organization, tactics and strategy. The author of the Tqfrij al-kurub 
is moved to include the mode of Mongol mobilization for battle in his 
discussion of the usual Muslim theory of battle-rankings : 

The Mongols from among the Turkish people accustomed their 
people [ to fight as ] a single squadron of cavalry, so that they 
struggled together against the enemy. Retiring [from the battle] 
and returning [to it ] was denied to each of them. They gained 
from this great experience which was not[ duplicated ]by others.” 10 

And, speaking of the problem of razing captured fortifications, the 
author adds : 

This was the method also of the Tatar rulers, such as Hulaku 
and Ghazan and those after them. They had demolished many 
of the cities and fortresses; some whose rebuilding ensued, and 
some which remained as they were .” 11 

Finally there is the tone of the introduction as related to his com- 
panionship with the important Mamluk amirs and his fulsome praise 
of the Sultan. The author of the Tafrij al-kurub says that he pursued 
his research and wrote his treatise foi two types of readers : 

1. ...he who chances upon it of the [Sultan’s] noble commanders 
and the leaders of his armies”, 

and 

2. He among them who did not experience the path of war, 
because of the youth of his age ...” 12 

In both cases it is directed at the Mamluk military caste, for the second 
group might be thought of as the Mamluks undergoing their training in 
the Citadel. The author did not have sultan Faraj in mind, for “ ... he 



(10) Book XVI, Chap. 3 : p, 103, yy 

(11) Book XIX, Chap. 3 : p. rig, ^ j 

(12) Introduction : p. 41, ^ 




27 



has gone through the wars and experienced them and has known by 
exploits and battles, their conditions and their nature .” 13 Thus' on 
the basis of chronology and these three biographical possibilities, it may 
be that -Umar b. Ibrahim Al-Awsi al-Ansari and the chief qadi of Egypt 
Kamal al-Din Abu Hafs 'Umar b. Ibrahim, known as Ibn al-fAdim 
are synonymous. But even this possibility is rendered yet more tenuous 
by the distinction between “Awsi” and “ ‘Uqayli”. 



, * hc , wh ° le ’ one must admit that there is something deficient in 
the Tqfrij al-kumb. It is a work of the second rank, lacking the detailed 
scope of the Nihdyat al-su’l, the urgency of Ibn Hudhayl’s call to the 
Jlk< * e P^ced warrior’s flair for military exercises and tourna- 
ments and duels which animates the works of Najm al-Din Ahdab and 
Eajin. The work reeks of the library and of the court, rather than of the 
camp and the battle-field. Its tone is that of the observer rather than of 
the participant. Platitudes and amusing stories abound when one had 
oped for more concrete strategy or more varied tactical analysis. 

ough stylistically mediocre, one is moved to count it among the works 
ot adab, rather than those of funun harblyah. 

Although the author contends that he reflected upon the opinions of 
t e military experts and upon their recommendations to future military 
leaders not once does he cite the name of Najm al-Din or Lajin or 
. ay ugha or al-Harawi or Muhammad b. Mankli or Mohammad b. 
sa b. Isma'il al-Hanafl, the author of the Nihdyat al-su’l. It is from the 
books of hadith, of Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, al-Jahiz, Ibn Sa id and Ibn 
a -Athir that citations are drawn. Saladin and Baybars and al-Malik 
ai-Nasir b. Qala’un are mentioned, but are not so prominently invoked 
as are the Persian kings of pre-Islamic times, or Alexander and Mu'a- 
Wl yah. The questions of armor and archery are slighted, while hand 
an field weapons are simply named in passing. Where the Nihdyat 
al-su l describes and illustrates five separate methods of battle for- 
mations, the author of Tafrlj al-kurub is moved to describe only a five- 
me battle array with straight- or curved-line variants . 14 Finally, it 
is only at Book Nine, exactly half-way through the treatise, that the 
army moves out to battle. By then we have been treated to lengthy 
discussions of peace-time vigilance, agents and spies, envoys, deceptions 
and stratagems to avoid battle, consultations about going to battle, 
the qualifications of generals and troops, etc. The adjuncts of caution 



(13) Loc. cit . 

(14) Books XVI and XVII passim . 




a8 



and diplomacy and the exhaustion of alternatives seemed to have 
usurped the place of military action in the thinking of our author. 

Paradoxically it is in the relationship of this last point to the military 
thinking of the Middle Ages that the work makes its soundest 
contribution. All later military historians have looked upon the disincli- 
nation of the Muslim armies to engage in immediate battle, and their 
super-sensitive cautiousness and their appeals to stratagems and cun- 
ning and trickery to avoid open battle as derogatory aspects of Eastern 
warfare. In taking the modern military historians and theorists to task 
for their inept handling of warfare during the Crusades, Professor Smail 
wrote : 

“The interpretation of the events of one age in the light of the 
assumptions and prejudices of another can never produce satis- 
factory history, and the story of medieval military methods told 
wholly or principally in terms of battle is very far from complete. 
It was not an age when commanders in war consciously applied 
strategic doctrine, but they were well aware of the risks involved 
in giving battle, in adverse circumstances they prepared to refuse 
Yet even when they decided against combat, conditions in 
the Latin states were such that by keeping their army in being in 
the neighborhood of the enemy they achieved important military 

objects.” 15 

In an adjoining footnote, he points out that the most widely influential 
military theorist during the Middle Ages was Vegetius, and that he 
“more than once stated that battle was an uncertain business, to be 
rejected in favor of other means unless circumstances were favorable.” 16 

Smail believes that both sides during the Crusades fought along 
principles of “Eastern” warfare, i.e., erection and maintenance of for- 
tified strategic points, a small army ever ready and practiced in quick 
forays, the avoidance of open battles, per se, until the last minute. His 
work points out with singular clarity that the Latin armies lost or were 
put at serious disadvantage only when they veered from these principles 
as a result of rash leadership, personal vendettas, or inaccurate or 
incomplete intelligence about the enemy. The chivalric impetuosity 



(15) R.C. Smail, Crusading Warfare (Cambridge: 1956), p. 15. For the shortcomings 

of the historians of crusading warfare see Chapter One of Small’s work, and cf. 
the first paragraphs of this introduction. 

(16) Smail, op. tit., p. 15, note 2. 




29 



of the Christian warrior appears less than laudable against the intel- 
ligent policy of caution served alike by the Byzantines and the Muslims. 
These latter groups had cognizance of the terrain, particularly of the 
logistical problems of engaging in battle beyond the fortified frontier, 
or between fortified places; of the dependence of the various elements 
of public security upon an army that had to be kept in being and whose 
numbers could not be hazarded at every alarm; and, lastly, of a par- 
ticular type of strategy and tactics, honored by usage and dictated by 
numbers and terrain, which contravened the training and experience 
of the invaders from the West. By constant arrow fire and feigned 
attacks and diversionary ambushes, the Turkish militia on the Muslim 
side generally established whatever superiority they could before coming 
to fight at close quarters. This, contends Smail, was “a natural expres- 
sion of the common sense maxim that, before irrevocably committing 
itself to battle, an army should gain every possible advantage over its 
opponent .” 17 The Eastern warrior thought it “no less creditable to 
retreat than to pursue”; he was like a fly “who could be beaten off 
but not driven away .” 18 Thus if overweening cautiousness was upper- 
most in the mind of an Eastern general, then deliberate tactics of 
attrition were employed by him in confronting an equal or superior 
enemy. 

Battle, then, was the very last resource; and it could not be counte- 
nanced until every other one had been investigated and found nugatory. 
Chapter One of Book IV of the Tafrlj al-kurub affirms the utility of 
deceptions and strategems so as to avoid war by appeal to Law and 
Reason, and then goes on to cite cases from the Islamic past, including 
the words and actions of the Prophet and his Companions, where they 
were employed successfully . 19 In Chapter Two of Book VII, the author 
compares confronting a strong enemy at the very moment of his ap- 
pearance to stirring a serpent from its lair while one is unarmed, and 
says quite distinctly that such action is not permissible. 20 And in the 
same chapter his words form an informing corrollary, as it were, to 
Smail’s thesis about Crusading warfare : 

' ‘In general, the one seeking to do battle against the enemy should 

not move to engage him, but should accept safety and peace as 

(17) Ibid., p. 83. 

(18) Ibid., p. 78 

(19) Book IV, Chap. 1 and 3 passim 

(20) Book VII, Chap. 2 : p. 78, t \ 




30 



long as they are granted to one. The Prophet said, "Don’t seek 
to encounter the enemy; rather ask safety of God. They can 
conquer just as you can conquer.” If you have met them, stand 
fast. One should not become disgusted at the procrastination of 
one’s enemy; for in the interval of waiting is the grasping of 
possible circumstances and what has been concealed of their 
affairs. One does not seek victory by engaging him so long as 
victory can be attained through stratagems. For going out against 
the enemy involves exposing one’s self to danger and the endan- 
gering of one’s wealth and being distant from one’s country, even 
if only to the frontiers of it. Considering what may be in this 
going- forth of expectation of the perishing of self and the courting 
of dangers, and the bearing of affliction, it may be that stratagems 
can do that which battle cannot ...” 21 

This same philosophy attaches to the wiping-up operations following a 
rout, our author going so far as to point out that no soldier should get 
in front of a routed army, nor seek to shunt it from its path of flight, 
nor deny the defeated access to water if they seek it. He says, further, 
that "standing in the direct path of routed warriors is not sagacious ”. 22 
And he cautions the commander of an army laying siege to a fortified 
place : 

"It must also be stressed that the besieger of the enemy is also 
besieged in the sense that he is not secure from their going out 
against him and their hastening to do so when the opportunity, 
during the day or night, presents itself to them; for they desire 
victory as much as the besieger desires it over them. Hence it 
is incumbent upon the commander to be cautious with respect to 
himself and those of the army with him as much as possible .” 23 

It is the Mongols, the various Central Asian tribal conglomerations 
moving as a unit, who bring to the late Middle Ages the military theory 
of "total war”, of total devastation and almost total annihilation. The 
Muslim armies of western Asia and the southern Mediterranean littoral 
and their European medieval opposites, particularly during the Crusades, 
fought the same general type of war, though the tactics differed, as they 
sprang from somewhat analogous feudal societies. Their warfare 



(21) Loc. cit. 

(22) Book XVIII, Chap. 1 : p. 113, 

(23) Book XIX, Chap. 3 : p. 118, 




3 1 



"... but rarely afforded the spectacle of two armies bent on mutual 
destruction; the true end of military activity was the capture and 
defense of fortified places. In its simplest form the struggle could 
be between an army on one side, and a garrison manning its 
walls on the other .” 24 

Both sides came to know that “decision by battle was more likely to 
serve the ends of the aggressor than those of his intended victim .” 25 
Obliquely, the Tafrij al-kurub adds something of note to the most 
ambiguous of the military problems of Crusading warfare, viz., the 
evolution of the role of infantry. Smail emphasizes the lack of conclusive 
proof from the Latin side for the prominence of the pedites, and high- 
lights, in his discussion of the Muslim armies, the almost complete 
tactical dependence upon lightly-mailed cavalrymen . 26 Yet, between 
Hittin, the terminal date of his study, and the beginning of the fifteenth 
century which saw the composition of the Tafrij al-kurub, a tightening 
of the military organization took place, which, while it did not give 
strategic equality to the infantry, integrated their activities more reasona- 
bly in military thinking. Thus in Book VI, Chapter Two, the author 
deems it necessary to include the qualifications of infantrymen. They 
had quite specific places within the camp, and were not grouped with 
either the tribal auxiliaries or the general camp followers. 27 And he 
explains the tactical use of the infantry during the battle and the 
wiping-up operations in Books XVII and XVIII. Though these are 
minimal in comparison to the space allotted the organization and 
operations of the cavalry divisions, it does indicate a tighter organization 
of the various elements of the army, more concern for the infantrymen 
and a wiser use of their capacities. 

Thus one finds in the Tafrij al-kurub a value more relative to time 
and place and to perceptual realities vis-a-vis war on the part of a 
differently motivated civilization than to absolute military considerations. 
It complements the work of Smail, though its ultimate contribution 
may be, like Ayalon’s work on the gunpowder and firearms, in the 
fields of social and intellectual history. Withal, it gives to the study of 
Muslim warfare a wider context and touches, in its best moments, a 
set of generalities heretofore unavailable to the scholar and the student 
of the Muslim East. 

(24) Smail, op cit., p. 39. 

(25) Loc. cit. 

(26) Ibid., pp. 106-120 and 75-83. 

'(27) See the diagram of a Muslim camp in the Nihayat al-su'l. 




32 



3 . Acknowledgements 

This work is substantially my doctoral dissertation. It can be fairly 
said that not one line of it would have been possible without the sustained 
aid of the Department of Oriental Studies of Princeton University. 
To all its members, I convey my gratitude for the sustenance and 
concern rendered on my behalf. 

Dr. Rudolf Mach was the first to rouse my interest in the problem 
of Muslim warfare by making available to me the copy of the text in 
the Yahudah collection, and facilitating its photostating for my use 
while in Cairo. For this and his subsequent assistance I remain much 
indebted. 

The task of checking the collation and correcting the translation and 
of general supervision of the work was undertaken by Professor Farhat 
J. Ziadeh. For all this, I am most grateful. 

Two sets of colleagues did yeoman service on my behalf and some- 
times at a distance of a continent or two: Mr. Majed Sa'id, who checked 
my translation and assisted me in tracking down some obscure references 
in Arabic literature; Mr. Michel Mazzaoui, who typed the Arabic 
text of the edition from pages which carried the corrections and notations 
of a two years’ struggle; and Dr. John A. Williams, who never failed 
me when I needed his opinion or his services in checking the contents 
of works inaccessible to me. To my thanks to these three Princeton 
friends I add the same to the following in Cairo : Dr. Charles Geddes, 
of the School of Oriental Studies of the American University, who told 
me about Dr. Lutful-Huq’s edition of the Nihayat al-su’l ; Mr. Maurice 
Sallbi of the same institution, who read through with me my rough 
translation of the collated text; and Mr. Rashad Abd al-Muttalib, 
of the Arabic Manuscripts Section of the Arab League, who checked 
my unraveling of the Yahudah manuscript, and who secured for me 
photostats of the Fatih manuscript in the files of his office. 

I should like to take this opportunity to thank most respectfully 
Dr. David Ayalon and Dr. ‘Aziz Suryal ‘Atiya, from whose conversations 
and correspondence I garnered the intellectual support to pursue my 
research in the somewhat neglected field of Muslim warfare. 

No one of the above persons or institutions can be considered 
remotely culpable for any errors contained herein ; they are but products 
of my own oversight, haste and ignorance. But, since this does but 




33 



represent the inauguration of more pertinent, and, we trust, less as- 
sailable work, it is Time which will grant the final indulgence and the 
cleansing correctives. 

“Outweariers of Apollo will, as we know, 

Continue their Martian generalities. 

We have kept our erasers in order.” 

E P. Homage to Sextus Propertius 



Cairo, i960. 




EDITOR S PREFACE 



For the sake of convenience the source of the Qur’anic quotations 
was placed after each one in both the text and the translation. The 
translations are those of Professor Arberry’sTfe Koran Interpreted (2 Vols; 
London: 1955). 

The notes accompanying the Arabic text are those prompted by the 
collation only. Explanatory notes and problems of literary sources 
accompany the translation . 

A comparatively short glossary of terms relevant to Muslim military 
nomenclature has been added after the translation. Its scope, however, 
is beyond that of the terminology encountered in the Tafrtj al-kurub. 

Two variations on the Princeton system of transliterating Arabic 
should be noted : “b.” is used throughout for “ibn”, except where the 
latter is the first element of a given name;and ' “Abi” is used for “Abu” 
when the latter appears in the genitive case. Long vowels occurring 
at the end of words were given macrons. 

In the translation, the words between brackets are editorial in- 
sertions ; those between parentheses are either explanatory or convey 
alternate meanings and usages. 



35 




TAFRIJ AL-KURUB 
FI TADBIR AL-HURUB 



TRANSLATION 





The first folios of the Istanbul Manuscript (Fatih 3483) of Tafrij 
al-kurub . 

( V i AT uLJjVi 





The colophone of the Istanbul Manuscript (Fatih 3483). Though 
giving the name of the scribe, it lacks a date. Probably late 9th/i5th 
Century. 

VI £-hJ! y Lfil j . ( y t AY* dbjiag. 

• ^ j~ £ ’ j^ail j o 4jl ^1 jj ^ bcJ' L^- 1 











INTRODUCTION 1 



IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MERCIFUL, THE COMPAS- 
SIONATE ... he is the supporter of Islam by his power, the conqueror 
by the might of his victory ... and the humbler of the nose of the deviator 
from His obedience by quickening his destruction and returning his 
malice to his own throat ... exhibiting to him through the destruction 
of his enemies that by which the wise person is instructed and which 
the contemplator numbers among the miracles of his age ... And [he is] 
the cause of his noble sire’s happiness through the annihilation of his 
enemies, tyrannical and heretical. And God is the determinor of his 
affairs ... [wherein] he brought the nation from hardship to relief ... 
and he raised from [his] subjects, by the kindest rule, every hardship 
and misfortune (contraction of heart) ... and He lightened the hearts 
of the people by the most fortuitous of kings, from the odor of whose 
flowering days, the sweetest fragrance and the most evanescent perfume 
is inhaled. 

I declare that there is no god but God alone, with Whom there is no 
partner: a declaration which the greatest kings inherit, the great from 
the great (i.e. the son from the father) ... The first of them recommends 

(l) This introduction does not appear in Yd' , where the opening takes the following 
form : 

IN THE NAME OF GOD, the Compassionate, the Merciful . Praise 
belongs to God, the Lord of the Worlds and the Reward is for the God- 
fearing. May His blessing be upon our lord Muhammad, the Seal of the 
Prophets, and upon his Family and his Companions; may He bestow upon 
them a Great Benediction. 

This book is entitled “The Dispelling of Woes in the Management of Wars”, 
arranged in twenty books, and in each of these is three chapters about 
the management of wars and what is known of the nature of battles and 
its explication. The author, the humble slave of God, the Exalted, is 
‘Umar b. Ibrahim al-Awsi al-Ansari; may God, the Exalted, have mercy 
upon him . 

Either there are chapters missing from both MSS, and this seems hardly pos- 
sible due to the enumeration of book - and chapter-titles in Fa’, or this is a 
patent addition on the part of the scribe. In thirteen of the twenty books there 
are but two chapters apiece, while in one, Book VI, there are four chapters; 
leaving but six books with three chapters each. 

39 




40 



it to the next in continuity unbroken, and the son undertakes to uphold 
it after the father and he relates it on the authority of the victorious 
to the [oncoming] victor ... I declare that our lord Muhammad is His 
slave and His messenger; favored with [His] support throughout the 
continuation of Time; the Victorious by [reason of] the terror which 
impresses the hearts of the people of unbelief at a distance of a month’s 
journey. May God bless him and his family, whose battles fulfilled for 
the enemy the dates of Destiny, and whose swords gulped the blood of 
unbelief, returning with the saffron of victory and not with the crimson 
of shame; with a blessing [such that] their stars rise in the galaxies of 
stars, and whose form does not change with the passing of Time; if God, 
the Almighty, wills it. And may God bestow a great benediction. 

To proceed: Since the great Sultan, the King, the Victor, the Sage, 
the Just, the Struggler, the Perseverer, the Trail-blazer , 2 the God- 
supported, the Conquering, the Victorious, the Ornament of the World 
and of Religion, the Sultan of Islam and of the Muslims, the Rejuvenator 
of Justice in the Worlds, the Heir of the kingdom of the Kings of the 
Arabs and the Persians and the Turks, Shadow of God in His land, the 
Upholder of God’s sunnah and of His Ordinances, the Alexander of the 
time, the Bestower [of that which is possessed by] the possessors of 
thrones and crowns, the Donor of provinces and countries, the Destroyer 
of tyrants and oppressors and unbelievers, Protector of the two sacred 
places (Mecca and Madinah), Possessor of the two qiblahs (Mecca and 
Jerusalem), the Unifier of the word of Faith, the Unfurler of the banner 
of justice and benevolence, the Master of the Kings of the time, the 
Imam of the pious, the Partner of the Commander of the Faithful: 
Abu al-Sa'adat Faraj, son of the Sultan, the Martyr, al-Malik al-Zahir 
Abu Sa‘id Barquq; may God, the Almighty, through the length of 
days, give long life to his rule and may He give victory, through the 
passing of the ages, to his soldiers and armies and associates. 

He is the one whose constancy and strength subdued the kings of the 



(2) In the MS this word was pointed incorrectly, or to be more precise, incompletely, 
i.e., the td’ should have been a tha' and the ‘ayn a ghayn. That it is muthdghir and 
quite properly so according to Mamluk titulary, see Amari, Diplomi Arabi. (2 vols.; 
Horence: 1858), vol.i p. 165 wherein is given the titulary of Sultan Barsbay in a 
document 01825/1422. Gf. the discussion on titulary in ‘Aziz Suryai Atiya, “Egypt 
and Aragon, Embassies and Diplomatic Correspondence between 1300 and 1330 
A.D.”, A bhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXIII, no. 7 (Leipzig: 1938), 
passim . 




4i 



earth, whose [military] numbering and equipment rendered limit and 
description impossible, and whose fame and mention and repute spread 
to the distant horizons. And Victory surrounded him from every side. 
In the recurrence of battles, his victory and his conquest are recurrent. 
A seeker did not approach him with evil except that he returned a failure; 
and no one cast at him with cunning except that the arrow of his cun- 
ning turned back upon him unerringly. He did not desire the surmounting 
of a difficulty except to achieve in its surmounting the ingeniously 
miraculous. He did not attempt to effect a conquest except that the 
tongue of Victory spoke out to him, “Help from God, and a nigh 
victory”. (61 : 1 3) His well-being through victory is ever assured, and the 
arrow of his happiness in every time recites : 

Gainst a Victor, Oppression’s warriors are worn; 

Stratagems are useless, they work not his taking. 

Who butts a rock all day ends not with its breaking; 

So does the mountain-goat, and splintered is his horn. 3 

I was among those who looked into the books of history in their 
variety, and reflected upon the battles of wars in them with their dif- 
leient types; and upon that which the people of management among 
the chiefs [of wars] had arranged; and upon that which the opinion 
of every one of the shaykhs of war and its experts, • ulama\ had prescribed; 
and upon that which the most learned of writers had cited in the 
recommendations to the leaders of the armies; and upon that which 
happened to the ingenious men of wars of the stratagems of the tricker, 
of the cunning of the ^ cunning. 

This prompted me to contribute to his treasure, may God make it 
piosperous, by the continuation of his rule and the lengthening of his 
life and the elevation of his luminous stars and the shining of his light, 
by a book which I composed about the management of wars and their 
organization; about the knowledge [accrued] about the conditions of 
fighting and their assessment, so that he who chances upon it of the 
[Sultan’s] noble commanders and the leaders of his armies [might] 
be guided by it. He among them who did not experience the path of 
war, because of the youth of his age, can be guided by its [expert] 
informants. [But I did not compose it for the Sultan, for] he, may God 



(3) These lines are by the Arab poet al-A’sha (d. 8/629); see Rudolf Geyer, ed., 
The Diwan of al-A‘shd. (Gibb Memorial Series, New Series, Vol. VI- London : 
1928), p. 46. 




42 



make fixed the basis of his state and put the fate of his heretical enemies 
in his grasp, has gone through the wars and experienced them and has 
known, by exploits and battles, their conditions and their nature (lit., 
news). Good luck has served him and gave him after each battle a victory; 
fortune accompanied him and victory did not desert him, neither while 
afield nor in fixed abode. And victory is not except from God, the 
Mighty, the Wise. 

I have entitled it “The Dispelling of Woes in the Management of 
Wars”, and I have put its materials into twenty books. 4 



(4) There follows a list of book- and chapter-titles, which has been omitted, since 
they appear at the head of each book and each chapter. 




43 



BOOK ONE : About caution in time of peace when the ruler resides 
in his capital. In it are three chapters. 

Chapter One : about the maintenance of caution generally. 

Those knowledgeable in military affairs and their management hold 
that the ruler in time of peace [and] while residing in his capital should 
be in [a state] of extreme caution against and protection from the 
enemy; for, if any enemy moves against him, he would be sufficiently 
prepared ; and, if the enemy does not move against him, the precaution 
will not have been wasted. Injury rarely occurs when precaution is 
taken, but rather occurs with the lack of caution, with negligence and 
complacency. God the Almighty, exalted be His Power, ordained 
caution when He said, “O believers, take your precautions; then move 
forward in companies, or move forward all together.” (4:71). And He, 
Exalted is He, His Power is mighty, said, “'Make ready for them 
whatever force and strings of horses that you can, to terrify thereby 
the enemy of God and your enemy.” (8:60) 

It is related that the Prophet, the Blessing of God and His Benedic- 
tion upon him, said, “Resolution is suspicion.” 1 Of \Antarat al-Fawaris 
it is recounted that he was asked about [ the reason for ] the great number 
of his victories in his wars and the lack of success of his enemies against 
him. He said, “1 never disbelieved any report about my enemy, and 
I did not sleep except with caution about him.” 2 

Generally, one must be suspicious of one’s enemy, in every condition 
taking one’s caution against him; exaggerating his condition to one’s 
self; being ready for him with that which is beyond his power. Verily, 
if one has prepared for him [an amount ] greater than [necessary] 
against him, and then found his power small, this does not injure one; 
and, if one found his [power] great, one would have prepared for him 
what is sufficient for him or more than is sufficient for him. Thus one 
gains mastery over him by preparedness; and victory is from God. 

It has been said that one must not feel secure about one’s enemy 
though he be far from one, nor should one advance carelessly to meet 
him should he approach one. Yet there should be no postponement of 

(1) This saying of the Prophet could not be discovered in the relevant literature. 

(2) The bibliography appended to the article ‘“Antara”, El, 2nd ed., p. 521 f., 
was exhausted without discovering the origin of this story; nor was it to be found 
in any of the standard editions of Shat Antar; see article and bibliography “Sirat 
‘Antar”, El, 2nd ed., pp. 518-520. 




44 



meeting him, when his intention towards one is ascertained. Verily, 
he who neglects doing so at the right time, so that it (i.e. the right time) 
passes, would have wasted resolution. If fear enters one’s spirit, exposing 
ones affair [s] to possible regret, the opportunity rarely repeal itself 
when [once] it has been wasted. Resolution means that one is prepared 
for the affair before its eventuality, so that one finds [resolution] when 
it is needed. 

Chapter Two : is about precaution through the use of the walls and 
trenches of cities and fortresses, and the erection of 
mirrors in high places for observation [of the enemy]. 
As for walls and trenches : kings continued in every age to fortify 
cities and fortresses and citadels with high walls and encircling trenches 
filled with water. It is obvious what there is in this of great benefit 
for defense while undergoing siege, should the enemy storm the city or 
fortress unexpectedly. It has been maintained in the Sahth that the 
Prophet had a trench dug around al-Madinah on the day of al-ahzab , 
the clans , and he participated in its digging. Had there not been 
in this complete benefit, then the Prophet would not have done it. 

It has been seen in the long period of history that many cities and 
fortresses were attacked by great armies and were subjected to severe 
siege, but to no avail. The kings of the Age of Ignorance, al-Jahilyah, 
were always aware of this and applied to [ the art of fortification ] 
the utmost application. Thus it is said that the walls of Antakiyah 
(Antioch) in the lands of the North (Syria) enclosed the city and its 
citadel; and its interior contained five mountains, so that there was 
nothing outside it higher than anything inside it, [no point] from 
which the enemy could prevail against it . 4 

(3) Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim (8 vols; Cairo: 1916), vol. V, pp. 187-89; 
Muhammad b. Isma ‘11 al-Bukhari, Al-sahih (24 vols; Cairo : 1933), vol. XII, 
p. 128 f. Additional material on the trench around al-Madinah will be found in 
Wensinck Cone, vol. II, p. 82 and in the article “Khandak”, El, vol. II, p. 899. 
Surah XXXIII of the Qur’an is called “al-Ahzab” and speaks of this trench. 

(4) This is a somewhat misleading statement. The walls of Antioch went along the 
crests of the hills outside the city, rising to the highest point on Mount Silpius, 
on which the citadel of the city was perched. There were five main and many 
postern gates. The lower defenses of the city faced the Orontes and at one point 
merged with a fortified bridge over the river. E. S. Bcuchier, A Short History of 
Antioch (Oxford: 1912), p. 4, says: “Four mountains were partially enclosed by 
the walls, all of them off-shoots of the Gasian range”; and in his discussion of 
Antioch, Guy Le Strange, Palestin:. Underthe Muslims (London: 1890), pp. 366-77, 
mentions four hills within the city. 




45 



Dalukah, known as al-‘Ajuz, “the Old Woman”, who ruled Egypt 
after the Pharaoh, far‘m , God curse him, [built] in the lands of Egypt 
a wall of unburnt bricks, extending over all of it : from al- Arish to 
Aswan, from the eastern side and the western side along the slope of a 
mountain [range] . She put castles along it and a watch tower for every 
three miles in which she set watchers who could hear one another. 
Thus, if on the side of one of them a single person made a movement, 
one would hear [of it] from the others until the news reached the palace 
of the queen, notifying her in the quickest and shortest time. The ruins 
of this wall remain until now in the eastern and western mountains and 
are called “the Wall of the Old Woman”, ha’ it al-‘Ajuz . 5 

The wall of Cairo, when it was first built, was constructed of unbaked 
bricks. The palace of the Caliph [was] in the middle ofit, in the [present] 
location of the Salihiyah madrasah and what is around it. But this 
[particular] wall was not a [salutary] fortification because it was built 
upon a low place. When al-Sultan Salah ad-Dln Yusuf b. Ayyub, may 
God the Exalted have compassion on him,ruled the lands of Egypt, he 
built the citadel of Cairo, Qal‘at al-Jabal , on a raised site, surrounding 
it and Cairo (the Fatimid city), and Misr (those parts of the city outside 

The long stretches of wall were difficult to maintain adequately, and the 
city could be taken on its river side, if the enemy sent diversionary parties up 
along the walls or attacked any number of its gates simultaneously. For the 
Crusaders’ tactics in capturing the city, see Steven Runciman. A History of the 
Crusades (Cambridge: 1951-54), vol. I, pp. 213-235, most particularly the plan 
of Antioch on page 214 and Plate III, opposite page 220, showing the city from 
across the Orontes. 

(5) The original source for this story was probably Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, Kitabfutuh 
misr; see Le Livre de la Conquete de I’Egypte, ed. Henri Masse (Cairo: 1914), p. 24. 
It was repeated by al-Mas‘udi, Les Prairies d’Or, ed. and tr. Barbier de Meynard 
and Pavet de Courteille (9 vols; Paris: 1861-77), vol. II. p. 398 f. He adds the 
words (tr. p. 398) : 

“On voit aujourd’hui, en 332 de l’hegire, les ruines de cette muraille, qui 
est nominee Hait el-adjouz (mur de la vielie).” 

But when al-Maqrlzi, a contemporary of our author, comes to report the 
story, he makes no mention of any of the ruins. As for its extent, he says, “... s’eten- 
dait des frontiers des Zings a lTfriqiah, aux Oasis et a la Nubie.” Al-khitat ed. 
Gaston Wiet (Memoires del’Institut Franrais d’Archeologie Orientale, Tome 46; 
Cairo : 1 922) . p. 60 f. and Makrizi, Description Topographique et Historique de VEgypte, 
tr. U. Bouriant (Memoires de la Mission Archeologique Irangaise du Caire, 
Tome 17; Paris: 1895), p 410. 

All sources report that she accomplished this task in six months. She is a 
mythical character who is thought to have reigned sometime before the G.eek 
conquest of Egypt. 




4 6 



the Fatimid wall, particularly Fustat), all of them, with a wall of stone. 
The ruins of the first wall remain until today, near the Bab al-Hadid 
and other places . 6 

As for the erection of mirrors in high places for observation : the 
kings [of the era before Islam] were very particular about this in the 
cities along the frontiers, al-thughur. Thus when Alexander built 
Alexandria, he erected in it a tall lighthouse, four hundred cubits in 
height and placed on its summit a mirror of [many] facets. If a man 
looked into it, he would see the region which is opposite to it, such as 
the islands of the sea, and [he would see] what is carried on in them of 
the building of ships and other things, thus ensuring preparedness 
against them . 7 

Matters other than these concerning preparedness engaged the 
attention of kings in the past. God, the Exalted, knows be t. 

Chapter Three : about the seeking of intelligence about the enemy in 
order that one might be prepared for him. 

There is no doubt that seeking information about the enemy is 
among the most important and profitable of affairs. One learns by this 
the condition of one’s enemy, and whether his intention is [to move] 
against one or to desist from doing so; so that one will know what his 
situation is. Hence, for the gathering of intelligence, when the quick 
arrival of reports is sought, there are methods. 

[6) For an exhaustive discussion of the walls of Cairo, see K.A.C. Greswell, Muslim 
Architecture of Egypt (Oxford: 1952), vol. I, pp. 23-33 ar| d 160-217; and for the 
plan of the caliphal palace, ibid., pp. 33 fif. He translates labin as either “sun-dried 
bricks” (p. 21) or “mud bricks” (p. 31). 

That part of the original walls survived until our author’s day (the begin- 
ning of the gth/i5th century), cf. Greswell, loc. cit.: 

“... fragments of Gawhar’s wall existed in al-Maqrizi’s day, and the last 
survivirg piece was destroyed in 803/1400-1”. 

Though Greswell notes the evidence of Nasir-i Khusraw that the brick wall of 
Jawhar had disappeared by the time of his visit to Cairo in 439/1047 (p. 118), 
he thinks al-Maqrizi’s word is valid (p. 1 8 1 , note 5) . He discusses, too, the extent 
of Saladin’s work on the walls (pp. i82ff.), but finds that the Fatimid wazir, 
Badr al-Jamali (d. 487/1094), had already begun the splendid stone walls and 
gates which Saladin was to complete (pp. 160-217 passim). 

A note that the ruins of Jawhar’s wall were extant around the Bab al-Hadid 
(the site of Cairo’s present railway terminal) was added in the margin of I'd’ in a 
hand rather like the scribe’s. This note adds veracity to al-Maqrizi’s statement, 
supra, and gives the lie to Nasir-i Khusraw’s. 

(7) For a thorough coverage cf the Arabic literature on the question of the light- 
house, see M. Asin Palacios, “Una description neuva del Faro de Alexandria”, 




47 



The quickest of these is the kindling of tires on the summits of moun- 
tains; for, if something happened in an extremity of the kingdom, such 
as the movement of the enemy and similar matters, and there were high 
mountains : then, if it happened at night, fire [signals] can be lighted 
on the summit of a high mountain; while by daylight smoke signals 
can be sent from the top of one mountain to the one which comes after it. 
This is repeated until [the information] reaches the place for which it 
is intended. 

In the beginning of the Turkish rule (i.e. of the Mamluks), when 
war broke out between the rulers of the Egyptian lands and the Tatars 
(Tartars), men were stationed on the summits of mountains, paid for 
this work by arrangements with the Sultan (i.e. paid from his privy 
purse), and [concentrated] along a line from the Euphrates to Ghazzah. 
If any movement of the Tatars was noticed, the fire would be kindled 
and they would make smoke [signals], and this [information] would 
be relayed from the Euphrates to Ghazzah in the shortest time. Thus 
it would be known, generally, that an incident had occurred. Then 
pigeons would be sent from Ghazzah to Egypt. News of this event would 
be known in one day. The achievement of peace between the Tatars 
and the rulers of the Egyptian lands obviated this [mode of communica- 
tion] and its [various] components fell into desuetude . 8 

Al-Andalus, I (1933), pp. 241-300, particularly the reconstruction of the lighthouse 
based on these sources, pp. 293-300. For materials available subsequent to Palacios’ 
study, see F,. Levi-Provencal, “Une description Arabe inedite du Phare d’Ale- 
xandrie”, Melanges Maspero III (Memoires de l’Institut Fran^ais d’Archeologie 
Orientale du Gaire, Tome 68; Cairo: 1943), pp. 161-171 ; and Gabriel Ferrand 
“Les monuments de l’Egypte au Xlle siecl e d’apres Abu Hamid al-Andalusi” 
ibid., pp. 57-66. The latter source mentions that the mirror was made of “fer 
chinois” and could concentrate the rays of the sun on any approaching vessel and 
so set it afire (p. 58). 

Most of the authorities agree on a height of four hundred cubits. Al-Maqrizi 
assigns various heights at various times, but believed that it attained a height 
“pres de 400 coudees”; but that time, earthquakes, and rains had diminished its 
height considerably: op. cit : text Wiet, pp. 1 13-125; tr. Bouriant, pp. 444-451. 

(8) Al-‘Umari, Al-laFrif bi a'-mustalah al-sharif (Cairo: 1894), pp. 199-201. Cf. M. 
Gaudefroy-Demombynes, La Syrie a Vepoque des Mametouks (Paris: 1923), pp. 258- 
261 ; and J. Sauvaget, La Poste atix chevaux dans l’ empire des Mamelouks (Paris: 1941), 
PP - 39 ’ 4 ‘ • It is the conclusion of the latter that the men on the signal towers were 
paid by the Sultan and that they, and all personnel of the intelligence and postal 
services, were under his direct surveillance and were sustained by him out of his 
own income (p. 40 and note 178.) 




4 8 



Less speedy is the arrival of news by pigeon, and that is [because] 
the pigeon travels from only one country to another. If in one of the 
countries which have pigeons an incident took place, letters are written 
and attached to the wings of pigeons and sent off'. The pigeons would 
seek the tower which is in their country, and arrive in th; shortest time 
possible. But it is not possible by this method to obtain [complete] 
information, rather the necessity of the matter is merely noted, vital 
information alone being cited. 

It is obvious that pigeons are among the fastest means of com- 
munication because the pigeon covers the distance of twenty days’ 
walking in less than a day. Ibn Sa'id recounts in his book Haya al- 
mahl wajana al-nahl [a story] about the i vaztr Abu al-Faraj Ya'q ub b. 
Killis, the wazir of al-‘Aziz, one of the Fatimid Caliphs. Al-'Aziz said 
to him, T have never seen Ba albak cherries and I would like to see 
them.” The wazir had pigeons from Damascus and in Damascus were 
pigeons from Egypt. The wazir wrote a message and dispatched it by 
one of the pigeons to Damascus. He ordered them in Damascus to 
attach to each wing of the Egyptian pigeon berries of Ba'albak cherries. 
The pigeon arrived with this [message] and they attached the berries 
to the wings of the bird, immediately, as he had instructed them and 
they headed it towards Egypt. The wazir, upon its arrival, went up to 
the Caliph with [the cherries] on the same day that he ordered them. 
This astonished him greatly . 9 But perhaps the pigeons took more than 
this time in passing [over] this distance. 

The author of al-Rawd al-Mi‘ tar fi Khabar al-Aqtar relates that pigeons 
used to be sent from Egypt tc Basrah, and it is further than Baghdad 
to the East: a distance of more than twenty days. 10 Ibn Sa'id also relates 

(9} This is part of a lest work of Ibn Sa'id, and is not listed in either H. Kh. or GAL. 
Gaudefroy-Demombynes, qu ting- al-Qalqashandi, reports the story exactly as it 
appears here, op. cit., p. 252 anc note 3. 

(10) 1 he author of this work is listed in H K.h., v 1 . III. p. 490, number 9557, as 
Abu c Abd Allah Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Himyari. But 
his death is given as happening in the year 900/1494-5, which would be impos- 
sible as a source for our author. Levi-Provencal believes that this was a mistake 
on the part of Huge! and that it should read 700/1300-1 . However, he believes 
that the author might have been a certain Abu c Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd 
al-Mun‘im al-Sinhaji al-Himyari who died in 776/1374. Al-Himyari, in Pe'ninsule 
Iberique au Moyen-Age d’apres le kitab ar-rawd al-mi c tdr fi khabar al-aktar, ed. and tr. 
E. Levi-Provencal (Leiden: 1938), pp. xiii-xviii. It was from this same work that 
he published the extract about the Alexandria lighthouse, supra. 

Though nothing but the materials on Spain and Portugal and the bit about 




49 



in his book al- Maghrib fi Akhbdr al-Maghrib that the wazlr al-Yazuri 
al-Maghribl, the wazlr of al-Mustansir al-Fatimi, the Caliph of Egypt, 
dispatched pigeons from the city of Tunis in IfrJqiyah of the regions of 
the Maghrib. They went to Egypt . 11 Reliance for all these stories is 
upon them (i.e. the authors cited). 

The pigeon towers in the kingdom of the Egyptian regions at that 
time extended from the Citadel in Cairo tc Qus, and to Aswan and 
■'Aydhab, and to Alexandria and Dimyat and Suways (Suez) on the 
Pilgrimage route; and likewise to Damascus and Halab and the rest 
of the administrative districts, al-niyabat. 1 2 That this method had value 
in speeding the dispatch of news is quite clear to a thoughtful person. 

Less swift [than pigeons] in the dispatching of news is the postal 
relay, al-barid. It is the one which conveys lengthy written dispatches 
and detailed information. The band reduces twenty days’ distance tc 
three days, an example of which is reducing the distance from Damascus 
to Egypt to this period. Perhaps it tock mere time than this, for some of 
the relays have gone from Halab to Egypt in lour days. The band had 
been in existence even in the rime of the Kosroes’, the kings of Persia, 
and the Caesars, the rulers of Rum, for they appreciated its importance. 

Then, in [the period of] Islam, Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, one of 
the Companions of the Prophet, established it in the days of his caliphate, 
and it remained after that into the days of the ‘Abbasid Caliphs and 
the Umayyad Caliphs, continuing uninterruptedly [for some time] 
and was suspended in other [times] as conditions dictated. Assigned to 
it were mules with docked tails, as a sign that they be known [and 
treated accordingly] as mules of the band. The rulers of Islam in most 
of the [Islamic] regions maintained this system except the Zankids, 
the rulers of Syria, and the Ayyubids, rulers of Egypt, in that they chose 
excellent swift camels for this [service]. The situation continued thus 
until their regime disappeared and the Turkish regime (i.e. the Mamluks) 
took over. 

the lighthouse have been published from this work, the piece of information 
reported by our author is repeated by al-Qalqrshandi and reported by Gaude- 
froy-Demombynes, op. cit., p, 251 f. 

(1 1) Ibid. , p. 253, where, on the basis of al-Qalqashandl’s account, the name is given 
as “Bazouri”. That it is “Yazuri”, see article “Yazuri”, El, vol. IV, p. 1172 f. 
Cf. GAL, I, p. 4I0 f. for MSS. 

(12) Al-‘Umari, op. cit., pp. 196-igg. For the routes of the pigeon post and of optical 
signals, see Sauvaget, op. cit., p. 36-39, particularly fig. 6. For other pigeon-statiors 
see Gaudefrov-Demombynes, op. cit., p. 253 f. 




50 



When al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars al-Bunduqdari, may God have 
mercy upon him, established his authority and had united the lands of 
Egypt and Syria and Halab up to the Euphrates for himself, he wanted 
information of the kingdom to reach him continuously. He established 
the band in the Egyptian lands and the Syrian regions. Relay centers 
stretched from the “well-guarded Citadel” (of Cairo) to Alexandria 
and to Dimyat and to Q_us; then from Q_us the dromedaries were ridden 
to Aswan and ‘Aydhab. Relay centers were stretched also from the 
Citadel to the rest of the Syrian possessions until it was connected with 
the Euphrates. 13 Of that which is established and known [concerning 
this system], there is no need to mention [such material] here. 

Less speedy than [the band ] are couriers. They are ones who speed 
on foot and travel by circuitous routes, al-mvlattafat, when it is difficult 
for the band to reach a certain part. This [service] is one of the most 
important facilities of the Sultanate and the most difficult. Ibn al Athir 
has reported in his history that the first of the ruh rs to employ couriers 
was Mu'izz al Dawlah b. Buwayh, the first of the Daylamite rulers of 
Baghdad, [sometime] after 330 A.H. The reason was that he was in 
Baghdad and his brother, Rukn al-Dawlah, was in Isfahan, and Mu'izz 
al-Dawlah wanted his brother to have quick knowledge of recent events. 
So he organized a courier service. In his days two couriers grew up 
whose skill had reached [a point] where each of them could run in 
a day more than forty farsakhs . 14 

Slower than [couriers] are informers and spies. [This service] is 
of all the slowest [in the dispatch] of information in that they have to 
seek information and follow up its traces. I will speak of this [in more 
detail] in Book Two, God willing. 



(13) The fullest discussion of the subject of the band is to be found in Suavaget, op. cit., 
in which the points stressed by our author are to be found . A less systematic analysis, 
but one which provided the impetus for Sauvaget’s work, can be found in Gaude- 
froy-Demombynes, op. cit., pp. 239-249. These works are in turn based for the 
most part on the relevant sections of al-‘Umari, op. cit., pp. 184-196; and al- 

, Qalqashandi, Subh al-a'sha (14 vols; Cairo: 1922), vol. XIV, pp. 371-404, who 
discusses all phases of the Mamluk postal and intelligence systems. 

(14) Ibn al -Athir, Chronicort, ed. Tornberg (13 vols; Leiden: 1851-83), vol VIII, p. 425 . 
The swiff couriers were named Fadl and Mar' ush, and the people of Baghdad 
became partisan about these two champions; one was the hero of the Sunnis, 
the other of the Shi'ites, 




5i 



BOOK TWO : about agents and spies and what is pertinent in this 
[matter]. In it are three chapters. 

Chapter One : about the qualifications which agents and spies should 
possess. 

Spies should conform to [certain] conditions whose fulfilment is 
necessary. Among them are: that his counsel and veracity be trusted, 
for, if he be suspected in his [general] advising and be sent to the enemy, 
his information will not be useful, even though it is truthful; because, 
though he reports exactly, he will be suspected about it; thus one cannot 
rely on his word. The counsel will be unavailing for this reason. If he 
were insincere he would cause harm to his dispatcher because he would 
be an informer against him rather for him. 

That he be a master of unerring conjecture, a keen judge, possessed 
of excellent insight in order to perceive by [mere] observation with 
the fullness of his intellect and the soundness of his conjecture the condi- 
tions [obtaining among] his enemy, and what the enemy avoided in 
conversation, deducing some matters from others. If he employs insight 
in a certain matter, and then another supporting conclusion becomes 
apparent to him, the former matter becomes strengthened in his opinion 
and he believes it by having one conclusion fortified by another. 

That he be well-endowed with shrewdness ard perspicacity and 
craftiness; for, by his shrewdness, he can attain all ends, and by his 
cunning, he can penetrate all entrances. He achieves his goal by any 
method available to him. For, were he deficient in these qualities, 
perhaps the eremy might discover him or he might [have to] return 
without having achieved his goal. 

That he be well-traveled and thoroughly acquainted with the 
countries to which he is dispatched so that he need not ask questions 
about them and their people. For, if he asked questions, the enemy 
may become aware of him [and the purpose of his presence]. This 
will be the reason for his perishing. Or perhaps he might be tortured, 
and reveal the condition of his dispatcher. Then he would become an 
informer against him after having been an informer for him. 

That he be conversant with the language of the people of the country 
to which he is dispatched, for he may pick up some of the talk of those 
whom he hears among the enemy having intercourse with him. But 
he should not be of the same race as the enemy. Verily, race inclines 




52 



towards race by nature, and the affair could be disastrous for the 
dispatcher. 

That he be patient about that which perhaps incurs punishment for 
him, in case the enemy seizes him, so that he would not reveal the condi- 
tions of his dispatcher and indicate a weakness in him or in his army; 
[for not even this could] protect him from the hand of his enemy or 
defend him against [the enemy’s] ill-treatment. 

If one finds among spies and informers he who fulfills these condi- 
tions, he would be worthy to be sent on missions to, and for the gathering 
of information about, [one’s] enemies. 

Chapter Two : about what is necessary [by way of] honoring agents 
and spies and capturing their hearts. 

The ruler and commander of the army, if he employs an agent or 
a spy, should evidence affection and sincerity towards him, honor him 
with gifts, promise him rewards, and shower favors upon him on every 
occasion before indicating need of him for [a mission] ; increase his 
honors while he is dispatched on important missions; and take care of 
his family by benefactions in his presence and his absence. In this way 
one possesses his heart and eases his mind, and he will not notice the 
meanness of his position and the smallness of his power, if he be lowly, 
because the matter witli which he is involved is great. 

If the person whom one sends to the enemy should be condemned 
to death or should the enemy seize him, one should honor those whom 
he leaves behind of his family and treat them, by way of benefaction, 
as one would have treated him had he returned, as an incentive to giving 
good advice. Should it happen that [an agent] returns without having 
accomplished his aim, and if he were one of those whose word was 
trustworthy, do not display to him one’s disquiet and do not criticise 
him for this or upbraid him; but accord him fairness and treat him 
honorably. Verily, if he does not accomplish anything for one on this 
occasion, he will accomplish it on another. 

Chapter Three : about what one should do in the management of one’s 

agents and spies. 

As regards the commander of the army: no one of his army should 
be acquainted with any of his spies. Verily, this is among that which 
assists the spreading of information and its discovery. But if he can 




53 



avoid having an intermediary between himself and one of his spies, 
he should do so; and if he cannot, then for each one of [the spies] he 
must detail one of his personal retinue, khawass, to conduct [the spy] 
to him alone. 

And [the commander of the army] must also guard against his spies 
being acquainted with one another; for, if they know one another, 
they might consult about an affair, arrange it [in their own favor], 
and thus report it. When they return, they might reach an agreement 
to help the enemy and incline towards him; which is the opposite of 
the case if they do not know one another. For then each one of them 
submits a report individually, and the true and the untrue will appear 
by the circumstances of the case, [wherein] the defection of some to the 
enemy is not like the defection of all. 

He must pay heed to what each of his spies and agents brings him, 
though their reports vary, and adopt the most cautious [course of 
action] of those upon which his judgment is brought to bear. He should 
not consider their divergence a fault in any one of them; [for], though 
their reports have varied, each one of them is truthful in what he says, 
because each one of them has observed something different from that 
observed by another and heard something other than he heard. 

Should [the commander of the army] happen upon a flaw in one 
of his trustworthy and reliable spies, [he should] conceal it from him, 
and should not seek requittance of it from him or upbraid him, unless 
he see in reproof an advantage. Then he should reprove [the spy] 
in private, remonstrating with him about this in easy concourse. Verily, 
this is the best means towards his correction. 

If the spy presents himself before [the commander of the army] to 
inform him about the enemy, the latter should display self-possession 
and continued calm without manifesting to the one who brings the 
report any [particular] joy at what he has presented to him of news 
about his enemy, or any delight in the report; yet not in such a manner 
as would make him appear light-hearted about [the news]. Nor should 
he display any inattentiveness which might cause him to miss the essence 
of the advice. He should not display to his spy an)’ displeasure at what 
he has imparted to him of disagreeable news. For [the correct demeanor] 
calls for the concealment of secrets from [one’s spies] , [secrets related] 
to disquieting reports [and whose discovery] might lead to harm. 




54 



It is related of a king that he used to bi more bountiful towards 
those who brought him disagreeable news than to those who brought 
him good news, saying. "He who brings me the disagreeable matter 
awakens me to my advantage.” Know that the commander of the army 
is not able to protect his army from the spies of his enemy; so he must 
take precaution against them by concealing secrets as much as possible . 1 



(i) For the treatment of spies, see Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam 
(Baltimore: 1955), p. 107 b 




55 



BOOK THREE : about envoys and what is specified about the character- 
istics of a well-qualified one, and that which he who 
strays from correct procedure deserves. In it are two 
chapters. 

Chapter one : about their qualifications. 

The wise men, the commentators on the conduct of rulers, have 
mentioned that the envoy of the ruler must be sagacious of intellect, 
sound of body, clear-sighted about affairs [of state], aware of conditions, 
and apt in the usages of words. Ardashir b. Babak, one of the kings of 
Persia, used to say, “How much blood the envoy has shed without 
> justification; how many armies have been routed as [a result of] this 
and the greater part of them slaughtered; how many forbidden actions 
have been committed and property plundered and pledges broken 
because of the perfidy of the envoy, and the lies reported by him !” 1 

In the envoy of the ruler [certain] conditions must be fulfilled. 
Among them are: that he be truthful and not too covetous. It has been 
recounted that Alexander dispatched an envoy to one of the kings of 
the East. He returned with a message. Alexander doubted a word in it. 
He said to [the envoy], “Woe to you! Verily, kings are not devoid of 
those who would set them straight if they deviate. You have brought 
me a message exact in wording and clear in meaning. Yet I discover 
in it a word which changes its [meaning]. Are you certain of this word, 
or do you doubt it ?” The envoy said, “But I am certain that he said it.” 
Alexander ordered that the words be written letter by letter and 
returned to the king by another envoy, so that it would be read and 
translated to him. When the letter was read to the king, he came across 
this word and denied it. He said to the interpreter, “Put my hand on 
this word”, and he put it. He ordered a mark [to be put there] and it 
was placed on [the offending word]. This king wrote to Alexander 
a letter, saying in it, “Verily, the veracity of the language of the envoy 
is the foundation of the kingdom ; for it is by his tongue that [the ruler] 
expresses himself; and it is to his ear that [responses] are confided.” 

When the envoy returned to Alexander, he summoned the first 
envoy and said, “What led you [to use] a word by which you aimed 
at the discord of two kingdoms ?” He replied that he had done this 

(i) This is an exact repetition of the lines in al-Jahiz, Kitab al-taj, ed. Ahmed Zaki 
Pasha (Cairo: 1914), p. 122 and tr. Charles Pellat. Le Livre de la Couronne 'Paris: 
■ 954 b P- ' 42 - 







because the king had not given him his due. Alexander said to h ; m, 
“I see that you had acted for yourself, not tor us. When that for which 
you hoped, but did not deserve from the person to whom you were sent, 
escaped you, you made this [a cause] of a feud which you wanted to 
raise in important and lofty spirits.” Then he ordered that his tongue 
be pulled out from behind . 2 

That he be bold and daring; for should he be cowardly, [his 
cowardice] will prevent his taking bad news to the ruler to whom he had 
been dispatched, in fear and dread of him. Among the best [examples] 
which have been handed down about this [qualification of an envoy] 
concerns Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, one of the Companions of the 
Prophet. During his Caliphate he sent an envoy to the king of Rum 
and offered him the blood-wit of two men, diyyat rajulayn, if he would, 
when he had given the message to the king and concluded his discourse 
with him, raise his voice in the adhan in front of him. 

When [the envoy] arrived at the court and had given the message, 
he raised his voice in the adhan in front of him. The ' patricians”, al- 
batariqah, rose to slay him, but the king forbade them. He said, “This 
is not of his [doing], but of Mu'awiyah’s; for he wants this envoy to be 
killed, so that he can slay all of the Christians enjoying security, al- 
musta’minin, in the lands of Islam and demolish all the churches therein.” 
Thereupon he showed honor to the envoy and sent him back to Mu- 
'awiyah. When he had returned to Mu'awiyah, the latter saw him and 
laughed. He told [Mu‘awiyah] the news and reported what the king 
of Rum had said. [Mu'awiyah] said, “By God, I did not wish other 
than what he said .” 3 

That he be well-versed in the proprieties of address and response: 
[skill in] address because, if he be well-versed in its proprieties, he can 
say the right thing in the right [place and time] and can establish the 
case [of his master] against the one to whom he is dispatched. An 
example of this is recounted of the Prophet when he sent Dihyah al- 
Kalbi, may God be pleased with him, to Heraclius, king of Rum, [then] 
in Syria. He said to Heraclius, “I beseech thee, by God, do you know that 
Christ used to pray ?” [Heraclius] said, “Yes.” Dihyah said, “I ask 
you then to whom did Christ pray ?” Notice the convincing speech 
whose argument ; s conclusive, for the Christians believed that Christ 



(2) Ibid : text, p. 123; tr., p. 143 f. 

(3) The source of this story could not be discovered. 




57 



is God. But God does not pray to other than Himself, and only the 
servant prays. When [Dihyah]. made him admit the praying of Christ, 
be forced him to admit that Christ, upon whom be peace, was the 
servant of God . 4 

[Skill in] reply, for, if he be well-versed in its proprieties and a 
question were put to him, he can reply to it with that which refutes 
the opponent and checks him. An example of this is recounted of 
Khatib b. Abi Balta'ah, may God be pleased with him, when the Pro- 
phet sent him to al-Muqawqis, ruler of Egypt. [The latter] asked him 
about the fortune ot the Prophet in battle, and whether he had defeated 
his people (i.e. the tribe of Quraysh) or had they defeated him. He 
replied that the war between him and them was a draw, [victory] 
sometimes to him and semetimes to them. Al-Muqawqis said to him, 
‘•The Prophet defeated !”; and Khatib said to him “God crucified !” 
Al-Muqawqis became silent. This was because al-Muqawqis desired 
to set up a strong argument against Khatib b. Abi Balta'ah [by indicating] 
that [the Prophet] might be defeated in war, and such a thing, in his 
opinion, is not worthy of a Prophet. Khatib b. Abi Balta'ah contro- 
verted him by the fact that the Christians asserted that Christ was a 
God and they say that the Jews killed him and crucified him and this is 
among that which is net consonant with the dignity of God. For, if he 
were God, as they assert, the Jews could not have had mastery over 
him by killing and crucifying, according to their assertion.^ 

If the envoy of the ruler fulfils these conditions and that which is 
intended by them, he would be worthy to be sent on important missions 
and to carry correspondence between rulers. When one of these condi- 
tions is unfulfilled in him, he must not be employed at all as an envoy. 

( 4 ) This story and the following one about the envoy to al-Muqawqis do not appear 
in any of the standard accounts of the envoys dispatched by the Prophet in the 
year 6/628-9. In his translation of the Sirah , Guillaume substituted al-Tabari’s 
account of the deputations for the part omitted by Ibn Hisham Alfred Guillaume, 
The Life of Muhammad (London : 1955), pp. 652-59 and note 3, p. 653. 

In the bibliography appended to the article “Dihya”. El, yol. I, p. 973 f., 
two corrections should be noted. The first entry after “Tabari” should be changed 
from “i. 1755 et seq.” to “i. 1560 et seq.”. The entry for Ibn Hajar should be 
changed from “no. 2378” to “no. 2386”. The latter source places the meeting 
between Dihyah and Heraclius at Hims. Ibn Hajar, Kitab al-isabah fi tamyiz al- 
sihabah (8 vols; Cairo: 1853-1907), vol. II, no. 2386. 

Further references to this and the following deputation will be found in 
Muhammad Hamidullah, Corpus des traites et lettres diplomatiques de V Islam a Vipoque 
du Prophete et des Khalifes Orthodoxes (Paris: 1935), numbers 14-16 and 37-40. 

(5) See article “Al-Mukawkas”, El. vol. Ill, pp. 712-715 and note 4. supra. 







Chapter Two : about the management of the affair of the envoys and 
what should be relied upon in their affair. 

The commentators on the conduct of rulers said of the ruler that he 
should examine his envoy a long time before dispatching him on an 
embassy so that he knows the truth of his character. Then he would 
be certain concerning him; he can rely on him about that which he 
sends him. It used to be the practice of the kings of Persia in by-gone 
days that, if they desired the dispatching of a person on an important 
mission, they first gave him an examination by sending him to one of 
the special officers of the king, khawass al-malik, one who was [in] an 
established [part] of his realm, on some important matter. Then he set 
on him an informer [to report] on that which he had sent him, but 
without his being aware [of it] . If the envoy accomplished his mission 
and returned with its results, the king would question the one whom he 
had sent in [the envoy’s] tracks about his appraisal of [the mission]. 
If the latter’s report tallies with that which the words of the other 
conveyed to him, he became privileged with the king because he would 
be an envoy for him to [other] rulers . 6 

Ardashlr b. Babak, one of the kings of Persia, used to speak about 
the cunning ruler. If he sent an envoy to a king, he was followed by 
another. If he dispatched two envoys, he dispatched two others after 
them. If possible, he would not group his envoys on the same road. 
To be cunning [the ruler] must, when the envoy brings him a message 
or letter which has in it good or ill about which he is suspicious, do 
nothing about it until he sends another envoy to the sender with the 
[sender’s] letter or message, letter by letter, meaning by meaning. For 
it may be that the [original] envoy missed some of that which had been 
conveyed to him and had fabricated the writing and changed what 
had been related to him orally, instigating by this [action] the sender 
against the recipient, and this results in a strong dissension; as has 
been related in the story of Alexander in the first chapter of this book. 



(6) Al-Jahiz op. cit.; text, p. 122; tty. p. 142 f. 




59 



BOOK FOUR : about deception and stratagems which obviate war. 

In it are three chapters. 

Chapter One : about the instigation of deception in war and the strata- 
gems [to be used] in it. 

There is no disputing that deception and stratagems in war are 
required by law and by reason. As for law : it has been cited in the 
two Sahihs, according to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and Jabir b. 
Abd Allah al-Ansari, may God be pleased with them, that the Prophet 
said, “War is deception .” 1 

As for reason: there is no disagreement among men of intelligence 
that victories which have occurred through excellence of stratagem and 
grace of ingenuity, with the self safe and the armies preserved and with 
no expenditure of effort, are the best, more salutary and higher in 
value and degree; because he who goes out to engage the enemy and 
en g a g e [his] cavalry in duels, even if Victory helped him and Conquest 
accompanied him, then in his dangerous adventures involving hateful 
calamities and the biting of swords and the pain of wounds and the 
severity of wars and the contention of warriors is the extreme of hard- 
ship and the limit of peril, for he does not know whether the victory, 
after the hazarding of these hardships, will be to him or to his enemy. 

Among the best of what is recounted about this matter concerns 
al-Malik al-Nasir Muhammad b. Qalawun, may God the Almi ghty 
have mercy on him. In the latter part of his reign, after the peace with 
the Tatars (Tartars), he used to treat them kindly, maintaining relations 
with them and bestowing gifts, both large and small, upon them so 
that he even used to give [presents] to old women in their houses; 
[thus] breaking discord and quenching the fire of war. One day he 
heard some of his personal retinue khassakiyah, conversing together. 
Some were saying to others that the Sultan gave gifts to the Tatars 
out of fear of them. He upbraided them and said, “That which I bestow 
upon the Tatars, all of it, does not equal the cost of the shoes of your 
horses when going out to do battle against them.” They submitted t 
his opinion and admitted the truth in this [matter ] . 2 



(i) Wensinck Cone, vol. II, p. 12; Muslim, op. tit., vol. V, p. 143 and al-Bukhari, 
op. cit., vol. XIII, p. 32 f. 

(s' This story does not appear in any of the Mamluk sources, not even the rather 
full account of his life by al-Malik al-Nasir’s personal friend, the prince-historian 




Go 



Chapter Two : about the manner of [working] stratagems and deceits. 

This [matter], though it is [a subject which] a book cannot [fully] 
investigate, yet the basis of it is politics, al-siyasah, and the apparent 
capture of hearts and the exercise of thought [in devising stratagems] 
for breaking up the ranks of the enemy and instigating differences 
among them and the “leaping” of some upon others through the most 
cunning of stratagems, the best of deceptions; and to act in each 
situation in accordance with what reason dictates. 

Among the best of the opportunities in this [matter] is to perpetrate 
[among] the enemy [various] machinations and [thereby] bring about 
misfortunes. [Another is to] correspond with [the enemy’s] chiefs about 
that which will incline their hearts arid their minds and bring about 
their [possible] disaffection of obedience to their commander by 
promising every reward to them, encouraging their hopes for attaining 
ev ry desire; [promising them] pardon and forgiveness for their trans- 
gressions if they lean towards one [after] forsaking their commander 
and repairing to one’s side; to extend security to all who ask it from 
among them, encouraging them in every way encouragement dictates, 
letting them know that if they remain in opposition until one is victorious 
over them, one will visit upon them the strongest chastisement and 
disgrace and contempt. Then one calls upon them to rise against their 
commander if they can, or to secede from him or fly from him if they 
do not have any power to leap upon him. 

Among that which they (i.e. those learned in the usages of war) 
found useful in this [matter] is that letters be written to some of them 
(i.e. the enemy) as though in answer to letters sent by them to one’s 
self and that the letters be written in their tongues. These letters are 
then thrown in places where it is expected that they will reach their 

Abu al-Pida, Kitab al-mukhtasar fi akhbar al-bashar (4 vols; Cairo: 1907), vol. IV, 
pp. 41-134 passim. On his accomplishment of peace with the Mongols after their 
crushing defeat by the Mamluks at Marj al-Saffar in 702/1303 and during the 
remainder of his reign, see Gustav Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen (5 vols; Mannheim 
and Stuttgart: 1846-62), vol. IV, pp. 299-312 passim-, and Ibn Khaldun, Kitab 
al-Hbar (7 vols; Cairo 1867), vol. V, pp. 430-32. 

Zettersteen calls him “a better diplomat than soldier”; that he sustained 
successful diplomatic relations with both of the main branches of Mongol hegemony 
in the West, viz., the Golden Horde on the Volga and the Il-Khans in Persia, was 
no small achievement: article “Al-Malik al-NasIr”, El, vol. Ill, pp. 864-66. 

For an analysis of the Khassakiyah, see David Ayalon, ‘ ‘Studies on the Structure 
of the Mamluk Army, I”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XV, 
P*- a (1953), pp. 213-216. He translates the term as “bodyguard, select retinue, 
pages.” 




chief. Thus, if their chief notices some of these letter. , his thought will 
bt aroused against them, placing them, in his [eyes], under the pall 
of suspicion. This, then, will be a reason for the dividing off of their 
counsel, and the separation of their company and the changing of their 
minds about their chief or the changing of his mind about them. 
If he should leap upon one of them, or kill him, or spill his blood, fear 
of the chief would possess them and alarm grip them, prompting them 
to flight from their leader to one’s [side]. But should their leader be 
careful and patient, certainly disquietude would remain in the soul 
of any one of them. 

Chapter Three : about the citation of interesting cases of deception and 
stratagems which were employed by people [conversant 
with] the management of wars. 

[The subject of] this book is one cf those without limit. [Examples] 
of it [drawn from] the books of histories and the biographies of the 
kings in the Age of Ignorance, al-Jahiliyah, and [in the period of the 
dominance of] Islam would fill registers to overflowing. 

Among the best and most salutary of these occurrences, with respect 
to origin, is what Ibn Ishaq relates in his maghazi about the Prophet 
on the day of al-Ahzab, "'he Confederates”. The Quraysh and the 
banu Ghatafan left Mecca and its surroundings and went to Medina, 
the Ennobled, in order to do battle with him. The banu Quravzah, 
the Jews of Medina, had agreed to fight him [in their company] . Their 
hemming in and besieging of the Muslims was in accordance with 
what God reported in His saying, “When they came against you from 
above you and from below you, and when your eyes swerved and your 
hearts reached your throats.” (33:10) 

While the Prophet was in this [condition], lo ! Nu'aym b. Mas'ud, 
one of the banu Ghatafan, came to him and said, “O Messenger of God ! 
I have become a Muslim, but my family do not know about me.” The 
Messenger of God said to him, “Go and convince those whom you can 
to forsake [going into action] against us. Verily, war is deception.” 
Nu‘aym b. Mas'ud went out until he came to the banu Qurayzah, the 
Jews of Medina. He had been their boon companion in the Age of 
Ignorance. He said to them, “You know my friendship towards 
you and I am a sincere advisor to you. The Quraysh and Ghatafan 
have come from their city to do battle against Muhammad and his 
Companions, and you have agreed with them to fight him. But it is 




62 



you who dwell in this city, in it are your wealth, your women, and your 
sons; while their wealth and their women and their sons are far off. 
If they see an opportunity they will make the most of it. [But if things 
go badly] they will go back to their own land and leave you to face the 
man in your country and you will not be able to do so [alone]. Thus 
do not do battle against [Muhammad and his Companions] until you 
take hostages from their chiefs who will remain in your hands [as 
security that they will fight Muhammad with you until you make an 
end of him].” They said, "You are sharp of opinion.” 

Then he departed to the Quraysh and the Ghatafan and said, “You 
know my affection for you and that I have left Muhammad. I have 
brought you good counsel, but regard it as confidential. The banu 
Qurayzah have regretted opposing Muhammad and have agreed with 
him against you and promised him that they would take from among 
you a hostage of your chiefs and would deliver them to him so that he 
might kill them. So do not deliver to them a single man from among you. ” 

When the Quraysh and Ghatafan sent to the banu Qurayzah asking 
them for assistance, the latter requested of them the hostage of some 
of their men. When [the Quraysh and Ghatafan] heard this from them, 
they said “Nu'aym b.Mas'ud was correct in what he said.” They refused 
to give them hostages. Thus a breach was occasioned amongst them. 
They were routed and victory was to the Messenger cf God and his 
Companions . 3 

Al-Jahiz recounts in one of his works that Bahram Gur, one of the 
kings of Persia, upon succeeding his father, Yazdagurd, had some of 
his frontier areas conquered by the enemy. He feigned inattention in 
the affair of the enemy and lightness towards it until the power of the 
enemy became strong and marched against him. The ministers as- 
sembled and discussed the matter with Bahram Gur. “Leave him be,” 
he said, “I am more aware of his weakness than you.” 

When the enemy had entered his realm, [the ministers] entered 
unto him to inform him of the event. When he understood what they 
had come about, he took two hundred of his slave girls, appareled them 
in crowns and beautifully dyed cloths, and made each of them ride a 
stick, al-qasabah. And he also wore a dyed garment and rode a stick. 
He went out thus [arrayed], with the slave girls singing in front of him. 



( 3 ) Guillaume, op. cit., pp. 458-60 Ibn Ishaq’s account is fuller, but the main facts 
and the motive are identical. 




6 3 



and he also was singing with them. When the ministers and the great 
men of the State saw him, they despaired of him and left him and went 
away angry. 

He entered immediately after into his apartments and shaved his 
head and dressed in woolen cloth and waited until nightfall. With his 
bow and arrows he departed and reached the area adjacent to the 
scouting party of the enemy. He lay in a place above the road. He 
was an expert shot, so that there did not pass a bird in the sky or a wild 
animal in the brush at which he did not take aim and hit, until there 
gathered to him a great amount of quarry. 

While he was so engaged, the general commanding the scouting 
party of the enemy passed him. He noticed the catch and its number 
astonished him. He said to [Bahrain Gur], ‘ Who are you ?” He said 
to him, “If you grant me security. I’ll tell you.” [The general] said, 
You have security . He said, ‘T am a page, ghulam, a groom, sd’is 
al-khayl. My lord was angry with me and pulled off my garment and 
shaved my head and dressed me in this garment and starved me, after 
he had been good to me. I profited by his carelessness and [am now 
out] to seek something to hunt and eat. This has so engaged me that 
I shot this quarry with all of the arrows which were with me.” 

The general of the scouting party seized him and carried him to 
his ruler and related to him the story. [The ruler] said to [Bahrain 
Gur], “Shoot before me.” He shot and his arrows would fall in any 
part of the game the ruler designated. The ruler was amazed by this 
and his astonishment increased. He said to him, “Is there in this kingdom 
any who can shoot as well as you ?” [Bahram Gur] laughed and said, 
“° king ! I am among the weakest in shooting.” The ruler said to him, 
Your king is ignorant. Doesn’t he know that I have approached his 
realm?” [Bahram Gur] laughed and said, “If the king grant me security 
I will counsel him.” He said, “I have granted you security.” [Bahram 
Gur] said, “Our king allowed this, despising you and in contempt of 
your affair, so that you will proceed further into his country until you 
cannot avoid his grasp. He has one hundred thousand archers, all of 
them finer shots than I.” When the ruler heard this speech of Bahram, 
he said, “You have counselled well.” He commanded the general of 
his army to prepare for returning to his country. 

Bahram returned to his capital by night. When it dawned, he sat 
[in public audience] for the people. His ministers and the gnat men 
of his State entered unto him. He questioned them about news of the 




64 



enemy. They informed him of the [enemy’s] departure. He laughed 
and told them the story . 4 

Al-Jahiz also related that Kisra Abruwiz, one of the Kings of Persia, 
dispatched one of his amirs to engage the King of Rum in battle. He 
rebelled against him and fled to the King of Rum and incited him 
against Abruwiz. The King of Rum set out to fight Abruwiz with four 
thousand [men] . When this [news] reached Abruwiz, he resorted to 
a letter, which he wrote to the amir who had rebelled against him, in 
the land of Rum, saying in it, “When this my letter reaches you, burn 
the lands of Rum, and you and I will rule Rum on such and such a 
day.” He bore a hole in a stick and placed this letter in the hcllow of 
it and summoned a Christian, who was his prisoner and who had 
evinced affection for [Abruwiz]. He revealed to him the matter of 
the letter which was in the stick and handed the stick to him, saying, 
“Go to my amir So-and-so in the land of Rum and give him this stick 
and tell him about the letter which is in it.” 

The Christian departed and came to the lands of Rum. He heard 
upwards of ten thousand [church] clappers striking. The ardor of 
Christianity seized him and he inclined towards his religion. He came 
to the King of Rum and asked permission [to enter] unto him. Permis- 
sion was granted him and he presented this stick to [the King] and told 
him cf the letter. He drew it out and read it. Distressed by it, he turned 
against this amir who had defected to him from the side of Abruwiz, 
and he swore that if his eye fell upon him he would kill him in the most 
awful manner. When this reached the amir, he fled to save himself, 
and the King of Rum returned to his realm. Upon hearing this news, 
Abruwiz, the ruler of Persia, said, ‘ ‘A word which routed four thousand 
men ! Its power is great indeed .” 5 

When there was war between the people of Syria and al-Traq at 
Siffln, and the war had lengthened between them, the people of al- 
Traq were about to defeat the others, and success and victory and 
conquest loomed for them. The people of Sy'ria knew that they were 
surrounded by them and prepared themselves for the [inevitable] rout. 



(4) Al-Jahiz, op. at. : text p. 177 f -1 tr„, p. 143 f. 

( 5 ) Al-Jahiz, op. cit.: text, pp. 180-85; tr., pp. 196-202. 




65 



Then some of the people of Syria quickly raised the pages [of the 
Qur’an] aloft on spears. Difference of opinion broke out among the 
people of al-Traq because of this; some of them saying, “We will fight 
them”, and others saying, “We will not fight these who raise to us the 
pages [of the Qur’an].” By this [action] the fire of war was quenched 
and this is the reason for the victory of the people of Syria over the 
people of al-Traq. 

The stories about this [matter] are numerous; their citation would 
lengthen [this discussion]. 




66 



BOOK FIVE : about consultation in the matter of war. In it are two 
chapters. 



Chapter One : about the inducement to seek consultation about war. 

There is no disputing that consultation about the matter [of war] 
itself is desirable. It has been related that the Prophet said. “He does 
not fail who seeks light from God, and he does not regret who seeks 
advice.” * There is no doubt that in war it is most necessary. God had 
ordered the Prophet about this [matter], though he was the most 
gifted of men in intelligence and the purest of heart among them. He 
said, exalted be the Sayer, “Hadst thou been harsh and hard of heart, 
they would have scattered from about thee. So pardon them, and pray 
forgiveness for them, and take counsel with them in the affair.” (3:159) 
Many of the commentators hold that what is meant by this is consulta- 
tion about wars. 

It is recounted of the Prophet that he often sought counsel about his 
wars. Ibii Ishaq relates in his Sir ah that when the Prophet arrived at 
Badr in order to meet the Quraysh and fight them, al-Hubab b. al- 
Mundhir said to him, “O Messenger of God ! Is this a place which 
God has ordered you to occupy, so that we can neither advance nor 
withdraw from it, or is it a matter of opinion and war and strategy ?” 
The Prophet said, “It is a matter of opinion and war and strategy.” 
[AI-Hubab] said, “This is not a place- to stop. Rouse the men so that 
they will go on until we come to the water nearest the enemy and we 
will alight there. Then we will stop up that which is behind us of quliib, 
(that is, the wells). And we will construct at [that point] a cistern and 
we will fill it with water. Then we will fight them, for we will be able 
to drink and they will not be able to drink.” The Messenger cf God 
said, “You are right of opinion.” Then the Messenger of God roused 
those men with him . He marched until he arrived at the water nearest 
to the enemy and alighted there. He then ordered the wells [behind 
them to be stopped up] . He built a cistern over the well at which he 
had alighted. He fought [the Quraysh] and victory was to the Muslims 
as God had reported in His saying, “And God most surely helped you 
at Badr, when you were utterly abject.” (2:11) 2 

Al-Waqidi relates in his Maghazt that when the Prophet alighted 



(1) Al-SuyutI, Mukhtasar sharh al-jdmi‘ al-faghir (2 vols; Cairo: 1954), vol. II, p. 245. 

(2) Guillaume, op. cit., p. 296 f. 




67 



at Khaybar, [in order] to invest it, he stopped among the palm trees 
near the fort. Al-Hubab b. al-Mundhir said to him again, “O Mes- 
senger of God ! If you alight here and if it be by an order [from God], 
command it and we will not dispute; but if it be by opinion, then we 
will dispute [it].” The Prophet said, “It is by opinion.” [Al-Hubab] 
said, “O Messenger of God! You draw nigh the forts and alight among 
the palm trees. The arrows of the enemy will reach us quicker because 
of [the enemy’s] height in their forts. Since I do not trust their night 
raiding againsj us, through which they can enter the shelter of palms, 
shift, O Messanger of God, to a place free of swamps and pestilence. 
Thus we place the stony tract of land between them and us so that 
their arrows cannot reach us and we will be secure from their night 
raiding and free of the swamps.” 

The Messenger of God said, “You are sharp of opinion.” Then he 
summoned Muhammad b. Musruq and said, “Look for a place removed 
from their forts which is free of pestilence and in which we will be 
secure from their night raiding.” This he did and the victory was again 
to the Prophet . 3 



Chapter Two : about the correct procedure, adab, of consultation about 
war. 

The experts in the matter of wars have stated that matters consulted 
upon be of two types. First : that the matter to be consulted upon be 
such that its manifesting is advisable [when solicited] and whose dis- 
semination is not undesirable, such as consultation about the matter 
of the apparent enemy who [is to be] faced by design. The most 
important aspect is that the advice of the men of intelligence and learning 
be presented. One of the learned had been asked, “Which things are 
the strongest support to the ruler and which are the most harmful to 
him ?” He said, “The strongest support to him [comes from doing] 
three things : consulting the experts, his becoming experienced in 
affairs, and his being thoroughly briefed [about any matter at hand] ; 
and the strongest in harm comes upon him from three things: stub- 
bornness of opinion without [seeking] advice, neglect [of affairs] and 



( 3 ) J- Wellhausen, Muhammed in Medina, tr. of al-VVaqidi’s Kitab al-maghagi (Berlin: 
1882), pp. 267 f. and 273 f. Later the Prophet ordered this palm grove leveled, 
but was dissuaded by Abu Bakr after four hundred trees had been felled : article 
“Khaibar”, FA, vol. II. p. 869 f. The fort was called al-Natah.