"'Ghilman' Cavalry" Topic

This troop type occurs in a number of Islamic army lists in the FoG companion 'Decline and Fall'. Can anyone suggest a suitable catalogue code(s) from the Old Glory 15s range to represent them? Please don't suggest other brands as I only buy OG 15mm figures these days. Thanking you in anticipation.

It's my understanding that the "Ghilman" were, in fact, Ghulams, the standard Islamic Citizen/Slave (opinions differ, but most likely slave children in origin) HC employed by Islamic armies from the Arab Empires through the various Emirates and spin-offs like the Ghaznavids. You could use any suitable HC Ghulam figure from almost any Islamic range and anyone would have great difficulty in saying otherwise. Typically heavy cavalry in a lamellar corselet or possibly mail, may or may not have covered faces (mail or jihlabbah), armed with lance, bow, mace and sword on unarmored horses.

Respecting your wish for only OG figures, try a mix of the following (depending on how many you need): SC02, SC03, SC11, ST2, AC05, ROT22 (be prepared to do a little snipping on the helmets of these last ones to remove renaissance wings). Bear in mind that these figures can be very generic and can be used in many armies, as a small part of an Omayyad army, a major presence in an Ayyubid army, or as the backbone of a Ghaznavid army. Mix as many different types and figures in a unit as you can, vary the wardrobe, give them a standard in a primary color (green, red and black were popular) with Arabic script for a design (no images!) and you can move them freely from one army to another. Even though many army lists refer to the Ghulams as "regular" or "trained" or "elite", this referred to their weapons training and status as paid troops, not their uniformity. An excellent source book on the Ghulams as a class and their evolution in Islamic history is "Soldier of Fortune" by Sir John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha, former commander of the Arab Legion in British and Jordanian service).

While respecting your wish for only OG references, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the wealth of figures now available from companies like Essex, Museum, Khurasan and others. In accumulating figures for my latest Ghaznavid army (my 4th one), I found 12 different figures just from Museum and am adding OG and Khurasan to them. I will end up with 72 Ghulams made up of about 40 different figures, before I do some minor conversions for even more variety.

Bill McHenry

Ghilman is plural of ghulam.

I'd add Outpost to Bill's recommendations.

There's been a bit of a movement to using "ghilman" instead of ghulams as Swampy says….but "ghulams" isacceptable in English – ghilman is the appropriate Arab or Persian or whatever word…but I don't speak that language and English is perfectly capable of making words its own on its own terms.

"Ghilman" is for the PC among us.

Actually both words are Arabic in origin and originate in the Koran (Quran anglicized), describing male slaves or personal servants in the service of God (Allah in their case). Ghilman is indeed the normal plural form while Ghulam is usually used in singular form. This source in the Quran is why we find the same word used for a troop type in many languages in Muslim armies in Muslim India, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Persia and throughout the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf region.

To expand on my reference to Glubb's book above, the book's focus is primarily on the Mamluks as a class and warrior caste, but Sir John rightly begins tracing their origins with the Ghulam system and follows it through its morphing into the Mamluk system. The original Ghulams were simply captives made into guard units, Turks being especially favored. However, since these troops often had divided loyalties, they were involved in more than one change of regime. This continued to be the case with a few notable exceptions where Ghulams were "recruited" primarily from orphaned captives who were made to convert first, notably among the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan. This system was formally refined to what became the Mamluk system under the Abbasids in the 10th century, with "recruits" now being male children primarily from the Caucasus (Georgians being especially favored) and from the Kipchak Turks. These slave-children were converted to Islam and then spent years in training that was very similar to western chivalric training. They also, as a class, were celibate and extremely observant of religion in their training. Their training was actually much more formal than that of their western knightly equivalent however, and included training in medicine, the arts, literature and religion in addition to their martial and courtly training.

Even when the Mamluks became a ruling caste themselves, they usually failed to establish lasting dynasties due to the original celibate status of the soldiers. There were, of course, exceptions, the most notable being the Ghaznavids of Afghanistan started by Rashad al-Din and the later Mamluks in Egypt under Baybars. However, the average length of all of the various Ghulam/Mamluk dynasties was still only seven years, due primarily to this lack of a natural path of succession.

Sorry for the "ramble", just a bit of clarification and trivia relating to the Ghulams/Mamluks. I've always been fascinated by this caste/class of fighting men and the obvious parallels between them and their western religious order counterparts. Carry on ;-)

Bill

I meant, of course, Mahmud as the Ghaznavid ruler. Rashad al-Din was the Persian historian. Must engage brain before putting fingers in drive…

Bill

It is my understanding that the term ghulam (ghilman – pl) is Persian; Mamluke (mamlukaan – dual or 2, mamaaleek – pl) is Arabic. In English, for us of course, it is easier to use our linguistic rules to distinguish between singular and plural – ghulams, mamlukes.

Roughly speaking, both words mean "to be owned." Some ghilman / mamaaleek were trained to become governors, scribes, while others were trained to become soldiers. In earlier rarer cases some were used for sexual purposes -- primarily in the 'ancient Persian' regions. According to D. Nicolle, after they were trained, they were set free, but still served their prior owner, or local ruler.

The two terms have become somewhat interchangeable. Although many of the medieval historians were actually of Persian origin, they wrote in Arabic; the lingua franca of the time.

For those interested in the above named book, you can find it at Alibris.com for a decent price of $3.55 USD
link

shurite;

Not sure about the Persian origin of 'Ghilman' or 'Ghulam', there are numerous references to 'Ghilman' being arabic for son, youth, boy or servant. There are 12 cited references in Quranic verses where the word ghulam is used in reference to the holy sons of characters such as Mary, Abraham, Zacharia and others. There is also a passage describing heaven in which there are young male counterparts to the houris described as ghulamayn and ghilman waiting to serve the faithful.

However, there are references to ghilman as early as the Sassanids that I have seen, in the context of servants or slaves to the ruling house, so who knows.

Bill

Bill,

It isn't surprising to see Ghilman in the Quran. Many of the writers of the time were actually Persian, not Arabs. My Arabic profs (from Palestine & Yemen) likes to point this out. Also, some Arabic & Persian words are similar or interchangeable.

I've come across another term for elite slave soldiers in the Khwarizmian, Khorasan regions – mustakhdamun. Supposably it is a Persian word. But, I haven't been able to confirm this yet.

For the sake of argument, I'll check with my C. Asian prof, who is from Iran, and of course, speaks Persian.

Chris

Chris,

Excellent discussion, although I fear we have hijacked 'Henry Martini's' original thread rather badly ;-)

I suspect that you're correct on the etimology of the words in question. Its not unlike the Christian Bible, with translations over the years from Ancient Latin and Greek to Medieval Latin, to Orthodox Greek, to Classical Latin, to German, to English, etc.; not to mention the Hebrew version of the Old Testament in the Talmud. Modern 'civilization' as we know it has always co-opted language as it suits the moment, with words taking on slightly different meanings in the context of the latest translations. Imagine scholars 1000 years from now trying to understand the phrase "I'm all about that" or "I'm down with that".

Regardless of the specific terminology, or the origin or tense of the word used to desribe them, the warrior class of the "professional slave soldier" that populated eastern armies from the 10th through the 18th centuries is fascinating. Allowing for obvious religious differences, and the misunderstanding that always accompanies such differences, there is little question that this class of warrior is very similar to his western chivalric counterpart, and may have been better trained and educated.

To steer back to the original post somewhat, this is why I have always started new armies in this period with a core of 'Ghulams', usually the largest quantity that I might need for a single army. From this core group I can add specific units or troop types needed to compose any army of the region and period. Other than the works by Hitti, Nicolle, Glubb and a few others, I would love to see a comprehensive book detailing the evolvement of the class from the Abassids through the Ottomans.

Bill

Bill,

Your statement about the translations of the Bible are quite true. Although the Quran was written after the prophets death, it has remained relatively unchanged for centuries. To a degree this has held back the Arabic languange from 'evolving.' In Arabic, if there is a dispute over grammar, they will refer back to the Quran. However it is written in the book will be the "correct" way.

Ghilman were very important to middle eastern & central Asian armies in the 13th century. I've been working on a paper regarding the Khwarizmians, and they seem to have made use of ghilman. They also relied extensively on regional Turkish forces. Since the archaeological and written record in this region are limited at best, it has been difficult trying to determine the detailed composition of the Khwarizmian army.

Chris

"Regardless of the specific terminology, or the origin or tense of the word used to desribe them, the warrior class of the "professional slave soldier" that populated eastern armies from the 10th through the 18th centuries is fascinating"

Starting in the C9th surely – the first Turkish ghilman types being raised by the 'Abbasids during a civil war in the firts half of the century and being rapidly expanded from the 830's onwards.

"…not to mention the Hebrew version of the Old Testament in the Talmud."

Setting aside the rather odd concept of a "Hebrew version"--the books of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim comprise the Tanakh, not the Talmud.

Allen

I stand corrected Allen, and please excuse my slip as regards the 'odd concept'. I find that most 'people of the book' as the Prophet referred to them tend to look upon the others' holy texts as different versions of their own, not correct I know, but it does happen. Again, my apologies.

Bill

I haven't been able to speak with my prof. But I did touch base with Prof. Timothy May, author of The Mongol Art of War. He also speaks Arabic.

Here is his view:
"It is both. To the best of my knowledge, Persian uses ghulam as opposed to mamluk in any circumstance, but basically meaning the same thing. In Arabic, ghulam as been used to refer to a slave, a slave soldier (Abbasid heydey), and also boy (as in a page)…with the same meaning in Pesian, but also a boy who is just becoming mustachioed. Although the root of the word g-l-m makes one think it is Arabic, according ot Steingass' dictionary, the word's origin is uncertain. There could be more information on this in the EI2, but I don't have it in my office."

The three root word he is referring to comes from Arabic. All words have a three letter root. Sometimes it is easy to pick them out, other times it is not.

Chris

Thanks for the codes Bill. As regards the hijacking, considering the historical record concerning such events I'm not really surprised to see that it has taken us to the middle-east. Actually, I'm happy to have sparked some erudite discussion, so please feel free to extend the tangent as you will.

Starting in the C9th surely – the first Turkish ghilman types being raised by the 'Abbasids during a civil war in the firts half of the century and being rapidly expanded from the 830's onwards.

Probably earlier -- both Beckwith and Shaban believe that the Ghilman are directly correlated to the Sogdian and Turkic chakar, servant soldiers (they also reject the notion that the Ghilman were slaves). This would strongly suggest that the Ghilman were simply an Arab employment of the Chakar system, which was a long standing institution in Central Asia.

The chakar connection is weak – IIRC "The Breaking of a Thousand Swords" has a good analysis of why it is probably spurious.

I spoke with my prof (who is a native Persian speaker) today. Ghulam/ghilman is believed to be of arabic origin.

The term was used primarily for central asia and the seljuk realms. Mameluke was used primarily for the Egyptian, Jordananian, Syrian regions.