Arab Conquest 622 AD - 660 AD (III/25)

1. Reclassify foot warriors as Blades

2. Cavalry dismounting

3. Tethered camels

1. Change Foot Warriors to Blade

Synopsis: Change Foot Warriors from Wb (S) to Bd

Author: Various

Proposal:

Allow C-in-C and Sub-Generals to be Irr Bd (O) @15

Nomad or Settled Foot Warriors – Irr Bd (I) @4AP 34-48

Upgrade Nomad or Settled Foot Warriors as Companions to Irr Bd(O) @5AP

Upgrade Companions to regular Bd(O) @7AP (not sure how many)

Justification:

Neither the historical behaviour of Conquest-period infantry nor even the justification given in the notes to the DBM Arab Conquest army list seem to justify their classification in that list as impetuous Wb (S).

The DBMM appendices already suggest that Arab Conquest foot warriors change from Wb(S) to Bd(I) under those rules. The option to upgrade Foot Warriors to Bd(O) is to allow them to "resist stubbornly", as wearing more armour, or as more motivated Companions (ansar and/or muhajirun). Grading them as Bd(O) would reflect them being able to defeat pagan armies mainly consisting of Bd (I) in the Ridda wars, and as being more resistant to mounted attacks.

Ibn Ishaq, the earliest surviving biography of the Prophet, suggests a heavily-armoured elite force that the translator calls a "dark legion" at the time of the conquest of Mecca in 630, and this suggests that we should have at least the option to have some Bd as better than the others at this early date:

"'Then I took Abu Sufyan to a hollow of the mountain to watch the

apostle and his army pass by. And all the auxiliary tribes passed

first. At last the apostle appeared with the dark legion.' It was

called 'dark', because of all the armour it wore; only the eyes of

the men were visible."

- translation online at http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/22.htm

There are various views amongst the list that Arab Conquest foot warriors should be represented by Bd(I) or Bd(O) with Ps support. However, since in DBMM Bw (O/S) and Bd (O/S) can support each other, Ps support may not be necessary in DBMM.

Does this mean that Bd(O) should disappear once the "good troops" became Cv(O)? Or by that point is the army sufficiently motivated and experienced that all infantry are (O)?

For discussion, see for example the following messages (TNE unless stated): Duncan Head DBMMList 25293; Nik Gaukroger 10826, 11417, 1828; Jim Webster 1829; Phil Barker DBMMlist 39587, 25494; Tim Montgomery 11437

2. Cavalry dismounting

Add to the list notes:

"Generals and other Arab Cv may dismount at any time as Bd (O)."

Justification

Kennedy provides the following examples that would fall in the period of this list:

p.4, Conquest armies "were both infantry and cavalry but the distinction was blurred: the cavalry often fought on foot..."

p.10, at Siffin "...Ali is said to have urged his men to 'accustom yourselves to dismounting to fight...' ... Malik al-Ashtar dismounted and sent away his horse so that he could fight on foot and clinch the day."

p.10, When Ali fought the (original) Kharijites, their cavalry were shot at by his archers and flanked by his cavalry; their cavalry commander then ordered them to dismount, but it was too late and they were ridden down before they could take up formation.

3. Tethered camels

Jandora's article on the Yarmuk, followed IIRC by Nicolle's Osprey, mentions the Armenian historian Sebeos' account of the Arab use of tethered camels as camp-defences:

"(The Arabs), however, had placed part of their army in ambuscades

here and there, lodging the multitude in dwellings around the camp.

Then they drove in herds of camels which they penned around the camp

and the tents, tying them at the foot with rope. Such was the

fortification of their camp. The beasts were fatigued from the

journey, and so (the Byzantines) were able to cut through the camp

fortification, and started to kill (the Arabs)."

- http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm

Sebeos is one of the closest to contemporary surviving accounts of the battle, and although his battle-narrative is brief and unclear, this detail is at least possible. Jandora argues that the defence of the lines of tethered camnels by Arab camp-followers and rallying troops was important in reversing the initial advantage gained by the Byzantines.

Now, under DBMM camels can be used as Portable Obstacles – which is how the Later Moorish camel-barricades are to be handled. So should we:

- Allow Arab infantry camel-mounts to double as PO like the Moors? This has the problem that they weren't apparently taken out into the front lines like the Moors.

- Use them as PO but restricted to deploying round the camp?

- Treat them as camp TF? At the moment the Conquest army doesn't get these. Ditches used as fortification (the khandaq discussed on the Umayyad Arab page) were introduced during the Prophet's life-time from Persian examples. However the best-known, the defence of Medina at the Battle of the Ditch in 627, would be classed as TF defence of a built-up area, not for a camp, in the rules.

- Dismiss them on the grounds that all camel-using armies would tether their camels in camp? This does not take account of Sebeos' description of the camels as a fortification, nor Jandora's suggestion of their impact on the battle.

References

Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State (Routledge 2001)

John W. Jandora, "The Battle of Yarmuk: A Reconstruction," Journal of Asian History 19 (1985), 8-21