Aegis DDG
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 0
“The subsequent Muslim conquest of many of the same regions [Syria, Cilicia, Egypt] brought the Arabs to the shores of the Mediterranean for the first time as a great military power and as the inheritors of Sassanian naval traditions. On the other hand the Arabian peoples had a far more active naval heritage than their initially cautious attitude to the Mediterranean might suggest. The pre-Islamic Yemenis and perhaps Omanis had, for example, been raiding Sassanian territory by sea since at least the 4th century AD while various other tribes from both the Gulf and Red Sea coastal regions of Arabia had similar maritime traditions. Here it is worth noting that, following the first wave of Islamic conquest, these same Yemini and other coastal Arab tribes were often selected as garrison troops for strategic coastal bases including Alexandria.
“In response to the challenge by new Arab-Islamic fleets, a more powerful Romano-Byzantine navy would emerge in the late 7th century. The ‘Battle of the Masts’ would not be the last naval encounter between these two rivals. Indeed, later Byzantine attempts to retake Egypt would convince Mu’awiya, the governor of Syria and subsequently the first Umayyad Caliph, of the need for a full Islamic navy in the Mediterranean.
“The first such fleet was built in Egypt, where all qualified sailors were registered for naval service. Although many of these sailors were in fact Christians, the bulk were Yemeni in origin and Muslim in religion. The new fleet used Tyre and Acre as forward bases while Iranian and Iraqi shipwrights were brought from the Gulf to build and man the new or restored shipyards at Acre, Tyre and Beirut.
“Other naval bases and fleets were established in newly conquered Tunisia and later in Libya; the resources of wood, iron and tar essential for naval warfare all being available in North Africa. From the early 8th century onwards these new Islamic fleets undertook almost annual raids against Byzantine territory and islands in the western Mediterranean, mirroring the annual raids undertaken on land.
“If there were any real differences between Byzantine and early Islamic warships, it would seem to have been in the increased height of the forecastle of the latter. This was soon used to mount stone-throwing engines and to provide an advantage when boarding enemy vessels. The main fighting ship was a galley called a shini which, like the Byzantine galleys of the day, had between 140 and 180 oarsmen. It is also important to note that, with very few exceptions, the oarsmen in medieval galleys, be they Christian or Muslim, were paid volunteers not slaves.
“By the mid-8th century such galleys defended themselves against the terrifying Byzantine incendiary weapon known as ‘Greek fire’ using various systems of water-soaked cotton, and would shortly use Greek fire themselves. However, the vessels of the rival naval powers remained remarkably similar, as there was an exchange of both technology and terminology between them.
“The main difficulty facing any Islamic fleet continued to be a lack of timber. Indeed, this lack of resources may have stimulated the construction of larger ships, which were better able to defend themselves and were no longer regarded as expendable assets. Certainly, there was also a change from the hull- or skin-first method of construction to the more economical frame-first method, although this change would not be complete until the 11th century.”
A bit on winter voyaging during this period, since you touch on that point in your article:
Lawrence I. Conrad, “The Conquest of Arwād: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East,” in Cameron et al., Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, Vol I, p. 367 fn: “Winter voyages on the Mediterranean were undertakings of great peril, not only because of the risk of ships being overwhelmed in a storm, but also because persistent overcast meant that navigators were deprived of the usual coastal and celestial sightings upon which they relied for knowledge of their precise location - in particular, how close they were to enemy territory and cruising lanes or to dangerous channels or shoals…. Udovitch remarks (532) that ‘I have not found a single example of a commercial voyage between Alexandria and North Africa in the eleventh century outside the normal months of the sailing season’, i.e. April to late September…. In the seventh and eighth centuries, this problem led Rhodes to impose a strict ban on winter sailings by commercial vessels…” [per Rhodian sea law]
On the Mardaites:
Cambridge History of the Byz. Empire, p. 382: “Another instrument of Byzantine diplomacy took the form of the unruly bands of Mardaites that Constantine IV unleashed to raid along the north Syrian coast and to infest its hills. The hardy Mardaites were few in number, and proved disproportionately successful in disrupting Muslim control over northern Syria. A troublesome and temporary Byzantine tool of the late 680s and early 690s, they were probably of Armenian origin. Their operations on behalf of the Byzantines were all the more effective thanks to the protracted second fitna, which lasted from 683 until 692: the Muslim authorities found it difficult to check the Mardaite raids while they were seriously distracted by their own internal strife. Justinian II (685-95, 705-11) withdrew the Mardaites from the mountainous regions around Antioch and the north Syrian coast sometime around 687, shortly before sending Leontius to Armenia in command of a strong expeditionary force; in 690 Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik restored Antioch to Muslim rule. The city may have slipped out of Muslim hands because of the Mardaite raiding and the distractions of the fitna.”
Nicolle, Romano-Byzantine armies, p. 16: “One group who played a significant role in the early clashes with the Muslims were the Mardaites (Arabic: Jarajima) of the Syrian coastal mountains. Whether the Emperor stirred up their guerrilla resistance is unknown, but the Byzantines certainly took advantage of their actions. These Mardaites have been identified as being descended from Byzantine limitanii, but are more likely to have been superficially Christian mountainfolk who resisted any authority - including the previous Byzantine rulers. After being defeated by the Muslim Arabs in AD 708 some came to terms with their new rulers, others migrated to Byzantine territory to settle as warrior communities in southern Anatolia, Greece and some Greek islands.”
Dixon, 'Abd al-Ameer 'Abd, The Umayyad caliphate 65-86, p. 122: “Another threat to ‘Abd al-Malik’s position in Syria at this time came from the Byzantine Emperor, who, encouraged by the political confusion of the time, stirred up the Jarājima (Mardaites) against the ‘Arabs. According to Balāduri, a Byzantine cavalry came into the Amanūs district (Lukām) and penetrated as far as Lebanon. This force was joined by a large number of Jarājima, Anbāṭ (Nabateans) and runaway slaves. The caliph found himself compelled to make a treaty with them, guaranteeing them a weekly payment of one thousand Dīnārs. Then, following the precedent of Mu’āwiya, he offered peace terms to the emperor.
“The contents of the treaty between them are preserved only by the Christian sources. According to this treaty, the caliph agreed to pay 365,000 gold pieces, 365 slaves and 365 thoroughbred horses; he had also to surrender half of the tribute from Cyprus, Armenia and Iberia. In return, the emperor Justinian II agreed to withdraw the Mardaites, and he recalled 12,000 of them to be settled in Byzantine territory. It is interesting to note here that the Christian sources reproach the emperor for denuding the frontiers in this way.
“Following the account of Balādurī, after signing the treaty, ‘Abd al-Malik sent one of his trusted men, Suḥaim ibn al-Muhājir, to the Byzantine officer commanding the Jarājima. Suḥaim succeeded in winning his confidence by pretending to take his part against the caliph. Then Suḥaim used his troops, which he had hidden, to make a surprise attack, killing the officer and his Greek followers. As for the Jarājima, they were guaranteed Amān; Some went away and settled in the villages of Ḥimṣ and Damascus, while the majority of them went back to the Amanūs; the Anbāṭ returned to their villages and the slaves to their masters, while others entered the caliph’s service.”
On Byzantine naval raids on the Levantine coast during this period:
Lawrence I. Conrad, “The Conquest of Arwād: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East,” in Cameron et al., Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, Vol I, p. 338-39: “In Umayyad times, and especially during he caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik (65-86/685-705), the Greeks mounted raids on various cities along the Syrian coast, including Tyre, Acre, Caesarea, and Ascalon, encouraged Mardaite depredations within Syrian territory as far as Mount Lebanon and Palestine, and maintained pressure on the Umayyads along the frontier. All this provoked extreme anxiety among the Muslims of northern Syria (still, we must recall, a small minority of the population), and it should come as no surprise that in late Umayyad times the possibility of yet another Byzantine seaborne attack was still a matter of considerable concern to them.”
A site you should absolutely check out is this. The government of Oman funded a project to build a replica of a 9th-century Omani seagoing vessel, using traditional materials and methods, and sailed her to Singapore following routes and using seafaring and navigation methods that would have been used at the time. Although it's a couple centuries removed from your period of research (and mine) and is likely a different style of vessel than what would have been used for military purposes, the site is rich with detail about shipbuilding and seafaring methods for the period. Best of all, it includes a wealth of fascinating videos. Vastly interesting.
A vast trove of information on Islamic ships and shipbuilding is here. Much of it will be outside your period and focus, but there may be some useful info in there. Depends on how much you want to delve into that area specifically.
“In response to the challenge by new Arab-Islamic fleets, a more powerful Romano-Byzantine navy would emerge in the late 7th century. The ‘Battle of the Masts’ would not be the last naval encounter between these two rivals. Indeed, later Byzantine attempts to retake Egypt would convince Mu’awiya, the governor of Syria and subsequently the first Umayyad Caliph, of the need for a full Islamic navy in the Mediterranean.
“The first such fleet was built in Egypt, where all qualified sailors were registered for naval service. Although many of these sailors were in fact Christians, the bulk were Yemeni in origin and Muslim in religion. The new fleet used Tyre and Acre as forward bases while Iranian and Iraqi shipwrights were brought from the Gulf to build and man the new or restored shipyards at Acre, Tyre and Beirut.
“Other naval bases and fleets were established in newly conquered Tunisia and later in Libya; the resources of wood, iron and tar essential for naval warfare all being available in North Africa. From the early 8th century onwards these new Islamic fleets undertook almost annual raids against Byzantine territory and islands in the western Mediterranean, mirroring the annual raids undertaken on land.
“If there were any real differences between Byzantine and early Islamic warships, it would seem to have been in the increased height of the forecastle of the latter. This was soon used to mount stone-throwing engines and to provide an advantage when boarding enemy vessels. The main fighting ship was a galley called a shini which, like the Byzantine galleys of the day, had between 140 and 180 oarsmen. It is also important to note that, with very few exceptions, the oarsmen in medieval galleys, be they Christian or Muslim, were paid volunteers not slaves.
“By the mid-8th century such galleys defended themselves against the terrifying Byzantine incendiary weapon known as ‘Greek fire’ using various systems of water-soaked cotton, and would shortly use Greek fire themselves. However, the vessels of the rival naval powers remained remarkably similar, as there was an exchange of both technology and terminology between them.
“The main difficulty facing any Islamic fleet continued to be a lack of timber. Indeed, this lack of resources may have stimulated the construction of larger ships, which were better able to defend themselves and were no longer regarded as expendable assets. Certainly, there was also a change from the hull- or skin-first method of construction to the more economical frame-first method, although this change would not be complete until the 11th century.”
A bit on winter voyaging during this period, since you touch on that point in your article:
Lawrence I. Conrad, “The Conquest of Arwād: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East,” in Cameron et al., Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, Vol I, p. 367 fn: “Winter voyages on the Mediterranean were undertakings of great peril, not only because of the risk of ships being overwhelmed in a storm, but also because persistent overcast meant that navigators were deprived of the usual coastal and celestial sightings upon which they relied for knowledge of their precise location - in particular, how close they were to enemy territory and cruising lanes or to dangerous channels or shoals…. Udovitch remarks (532) that ‘I have not found a single example of a commercial voyage between Alexandria and North Africa in the eleventh century outside the normal months of the sailing season’, i.e. April to late September…. In the seventh and eighth centuries, this problem led Rhodes to impose a strict ban on winter sailings by commercial vessels…” [per Rhodian sea law]
On the Mardaites:
Cambridge History of the Byz. Empire, p. 382: “Another instrument of Byzantine diplomacy took the form of the unruly bands of Mardaites that Constantine IV unleashed to raid along the north Syrian coast and to infest its hills. The hardy Mardaites were few in number, and proved disproportionately successful in disrupting Muslim control over northern Syria. A troublesome and temporary Byzantine tool of the late 680s and early 690s, they were probably of Armenian origin. Their operations on behalf of the Byzantines were all the more effective thanks to the protracted second fitna, which lasted from 683 until 692: the Muslim authorities found it difficult to check the Mardaite raids while they were seriously distracted by their own internal strife. Justinian II (685-95, 705-11) withdrew the Mardaites from the mountainous regions around Antioch and the north Syrian coast sometime around 687, shortly before sending Leontius to Armenia in command of a strong expeditionary force; in 690 Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik restored Antioch to Muslim rule. The city may have slipped out of Muslim hands because of the Mardaite raiding and the distractions of the fitna.”
Nicolle, Romano-Byzantine armies, p. 16: “One group who played a significant role in the early clashes with the Muslims were the Mardaites (Arabic: Jarajima) of the Syrian coastal mountains. Whether the Emperor stirred up their guerrilla resistance is unknown, but the Byzantines certainly took advantage of their actions. These Mardaites have been identified as being descended from Byzantine limitanii, but are more likely to have been superficially Christian mountainfolk who resisted any authority - including the previous Byzantine rulers. After being defeated by the Muslim Arabs in AD 708 some came to terms with their new rulers, others migrated to Byzantine territory to settle as warrior communities in southern Anatolia, Greece and some Greek islands.”
Dixon, 'Abd al-Ameer 'Abd, The Umayyad caliphate 65-86, p. 122: “Another threat to ‘Abd al-Malik’s position in Syria at this time came from the Byzantine Emperor, who, encouraged by the political confusion of the time, stirred up the Jarājima (Mardaites) against the ‘Arabs. According to Balāduri, a Byzantine cavalry came into the Amanūs district (Lukām) and penetrated as far as Lebanon. This force was joined by a large number of Jarājima, Anbāṭ (Nabateans) and runaway slaves. The caliph found himself compelled to make a treaty with them, guaranteeing them a weekly payment of one thousand Dīnārs. Then, following the precedent of Mu’āwiya, he offered peace terms to the emperor.
“The contents of the treaty between them are preserved only by the Christian sources. According to this treaty, the caliph agreed to pay 365,000 gold pieces, 365 slaves and 365 thoroughbred horses; he had also to surrender half of the tribute from Cyprus, Armenia and Iberia. In return, the emperor Justinian II agreed to withdraw the Mardaites, and he recalled 12,000 of them to be settled in Byzantine territory. It is interesting to note here that the Christian sources reproach the emperor for denuding the frontiers in this way.
“Following the account of Balādurī, after signing the treaty, ‘Abd al-Malik sent one of his trusted men, Suḥaim ibn al-Muhājir, to the Byzantine officer commanding the Jarājima. Suḥaim succeeded in winning his confidence by pretending to take his part against the caliph. Then Suḥaim used his troops, which he had hidden, to make a surprise attack, killing the officer and his Greek followers. As for the Jarājima, they were guaranteed Amān; Some went away and settled in the villages of Ḥimṣ and Damascus, while the majority of them went back to the Amanūs; the Anbāṭ returned to their villages and the slaves to their masters, while others entered the caliph’s service.”
On Byzantine naval raids on the Levantine coast during this period:
Lawrence I. Conrad, “The Conquest of Arwād: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East,” in Cameron et al., Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, Vol I, p. 338-39: “In Umayyad times, and especially during he caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik (65-86/685-705), the Greeks mounted raids on various cities along the Syrian coast, including Tyre, Acre, Caesarea, and Ascalon, encouraged Mardaite depredations within Syrian territory as far as Mount Lebanon and Palestine, and maintained pressure on the Umayyads along the frontier. All this provoked extreme anxiety among the Muslims of northern Syria (still, we must recall, a small minority of the population), and it should come as no surprise that in late Umayyad times the possibility of yet another Byzantine seaborne attack was still a matter of considerable concern to them.”
A site you should absolutely check out is this. The government of Oman funded a project to build a replica of a 9th-century Omani seagoing vessel, using traditional materials and methods, and sailed her to Singapore following routes and using seafaring and navigation methods that would have been used at the time. Although it's a couple centuries removed from your period of research (and mine) and is likely a different style of vessel than what would have been used for military purposes, the site is rich with detail about shipbuilding and seafaring methods for the period. Best of all, it includes a wealth of fascinating videos. Vastly interesting.
A vast trove of information on Islamic ships and shipbuilding is here. Much of it will be outside your period and focus, but there may be some useful info in there. Depends on how much you want to delve into that area specifically.
