The Moors

[IceSpeed2]

I was inspired as of late to write about a people
that get portrayed inaccurately. The Moors are portrayed as
medieval terrorists who took over Spain and raped their women.
They are also considered white haters.

The Moors are a far cry from Al-Qaeda or any black
tribes in Nigeria. The Moors were a rather civilized people in
the Middle Ages. Spain in the 800's had been in chaos since the
Romans had left. The Visigoths struggled to maintain order and
oppressed the Roman descendents through serfdom. The
peasants rebelled often and early death was common. A large group
of people appealled to the Moors for help. So the Moors, with
superior cavalry and swordsmanship technology(their swords were
designed for one hand and were stronger than two-handed visigoth
swords) they took Spain.

Moorish Spain was fine for most Europeans.
They had better health care and lived a higher standard of living than
anywhere else in Europe as a whole. Most families had running
water. The blacks, Jews, and Muslims lived in relative harmony
with the white Christians until 1200. Intermarriage was somewhat
common.

Around 1200 muslims and jews gained serious economic
advantages though. The Christians were mostly farmers and could
not take part in the trading and businesses that were emerging at the
time. Naturally, the Jews and Muslims gained resentment from
Catholics. Alfonso VIII then started to drive them out at Navas
de Tolosa in 1212 I think.

There are some major misconceptions about the
Moors. One is the harem. Harems where not fantasy rooms for
the ruling elite. Harems were just where the women lived
including the King's relatives. In Islam, like Catholicism,
genders were separated. Another misconception is that the Moors
were primarily black. The Moors, as a race, were a semetic people
similiar in complexion to the Jews that came with the Moors.
Blacks also traveled with the Moors and were later part of Moorish
society, but were not Berber Moors.

The most important misconception is that they were
fundamentalist Muslims. This could not be further from the
truth. The Moors were very secular and frequently broke Islamic
laws concerning alcohol and board games. Overall, these people
helped Europeans more than they hurt them.

 

[White_Savage]

The Moors were by definition, conquerors. Apparently the Spaniards somehow failed to see their rule as positively benovelent, since they spent 700 years fighting to get rid of them.

I won't address the rest of your post, but your bit about the swords is highly innacurate.

Swords made to be gripped in two hands were not yet common in Europe during Moorish times, nor did they ever become more common than one-handed examples. Europeans had been making INCREDIBLY tough pieces of steel for centuries. In fact, the toughness of the European sword is one of it's most notable traits when compared to say, the Japanese katana. There are Viking swords that can be flexed until the touch the pommel and return to true, and are still keen in the edges despite their excavated state. And we're talking the relative backwater of Scandinavia here. Arab sources from the Crusades often speak of the high quality of Frankish swords, and especially their armor.

As to swordsmanship (I think you meant "sword technology", not swordsmanship technology, but here goes anyway), Europe has had very sophisticated traditions of martial arts and swordsmanship docuementable to Classical times. The oldest technical manual of swordsmanship in Europe is Manuscript I.33, dating to 1295, and containing a very sophisticated and effective method of wielding sword$buckler. Of course, the fighting systems themselves are far older than the surviving manuscripts. Period literature and epic poems contains tantalizing references to the systems and techniques of personal combat in use when they were written, often refferring to certain individuals as "masters" of this and that system and referiing to specific techniques in a way that makes clear the audience was a familiar with them as an average man today is with "jab", "right-cross", "double-leg takedown", "guillotine choke", etc.

 

[IceSpeed2]

At the end of Moorish reign, they became largely
corrupt and that is when Europeans really fought to get rid of
them. Around 900 in cities such as Seville, the Moors lived in
peace with the Spaniards. The Catholics lived in peace with the
Moors and Jews largely until the merchant classes started dominating
the farmers. Catholics were not included in the Merchant middle
classes.



The Vikings were largely cut off from Spain at this
point. Their new superior battle methods were un- known to the
visigoths.

I do not mean to question the toughness of European
swords. The swords were tough. However they were too
heavy. The Moors' swords were lighter and their curved nature
made them ideal for light cavalry. European Swords were superior
in armored hand to hand combat, but the Moors battles were often fought
by surprise attacks before armor could be put on, and was more ideal
for faster horse battles.

 

[White_Savage]

Curved swords of the Shamshir type were not widely used by our opponents in the near East until after they were adopted from the invading Mongols, in the 13th century.

The average European one-handed cutting sword weighed between 1.5-2.5 lbs-about the same as ALL one-handed cutting swords in all cultures that produced swords. I've done quite abit of research on this. Visigothic swords were not inferior to Scandinavian ones of the same time, and indeed, Northern Europeans had been producing tough steel swords as early as 700 B.C. The pattern-welding techniques used to produce the swords of the Viking period date from the Germanic migration period, and remained in use until the more effecient furnaces developed in the High Middle Ages allowed large pieces of tough steel to be produced far more easily. The Medieval European sword is on average slightly lighter in relation to blade length than period Japanese katanas.

 

[IceSpeed2]

The Moors took Spain in 711. Roderic's(the
last Visigoth king) sword was recently uncovered in a swamp by an
archaeological expedition. It was definitely too heavy to carry
with one hand, or so an archaeologist told me. It weighed
significantly more than 1.5 lbs.

WS is correct about Shamshirs and Scimitars. I was mistaken about
use of curved swords. In a book I have, it said the Moors' one
handed swords gave them a tactical advantage. It then analyzes
the history of the Moors' swords and talks about scimitars' advantages
in cavalry battles. It must not have been referring to 711 A.D.
though. The Moors used early ancestors of scimitars
however. These swords WERE ORIGINALLY EUROPEAN and were invented
by Alexander the Great's Macedonian army.

 

[White_Savage]

That was 700 BC, not AD Icespeed.

A falcata is not a shamshir. A falchion or messer is closer, but still not there really.

Frankly, theres so much B.S. floating around about sword and millitary techniques even among some supposedly "reputable" historians that many books are still replete with absurd errors. (Avoid Nichols like the plague for example.) I find the idea of excavating a sword in a swamp and being able to trace it to a specific individual unlikely, especially one of such antiquity as Roderic. The subjective analysis of a sword's weight by a non-swordsman is also highly problematic. I've had individuals pick up swords of mine that weigh between 2-3 lbs and say, "Hey, what's this weigh, 8 pounds?" The fact is that the vast majority of preserved European swords are rather light in weight, even the great two-handers of Rennaisance rarely exceeding 4-7 lbs. The huge ceremonial bearing swords, never intended for combat, sometimes weighed as much as 15 lbs, and these non-weapons were the heaviest swords produced in Europe. I'm no strongman competitor, but I can carry 15 lbs rather easily, even with one hand.

 

[IceSpeed2]

Note: Arian is a herecy of Christianity and has nothing to do with Aryan.

Arian, Visigoth rulers were ruling successfully, but early
Catholics influenced the chaos. In the 600's the Catholics
took Spain and eliminated the little democracy in the visigoth
system. The paid off the Visigoth nobles and they converted to
Catholicism for power. The Visigoths then forced people to
convert to Catholicism, which emphasized an institutional Church much
more than the almost pagan arians. The Spaniards did not like
Bishops wielding that much and oppressing them with wierd rituals so
they asked the Moors for help. The Catholic Church seems to have
gained power in Spain after it became hostile with the Byzantines
during the Crusades. At this time, Muslims were also abusing
power.

 

[IceSpeed2]

This site had a tidbit on swords in Europe. It does not cite its
sources, but it says scimitar's had neither Arabic or Turkish origin.

http://www.realarmorofgod.com/swords-info.html

There are more credible sites about the history of the scimitar.



Anyone can carry 15 pounds, but to fence with 15 pounds is another
story. Fencing foils move wicked fast and in a swordfight , the
person that can move his sword the fastest usually wins since all
swords are sharp enough to kill a man.

 

[IceSpeed2]

The Macedonians did use slightly curved swords
according to most archaeologists and historians. Dr. Evangellos Tzahos
writes:

"Moreover, as the battle went on, the elephants' assaults were
becoming weaker; conversely, the Macedonians were neutralizing the
animals with greater easier, striking their feet with axes and their
curved swords, the "kopides". Then Alexander attacked the enemies from
all sides and vanquished them, while the phalanx was reinforced with
the fresh men who had just crossed the river and were jumping into the
fray. So the great battle of Idaspos which lasted all day, ended in a
triumphant victory for
Alexander."http://www.army.gr/n/e/archive/events/alexan der/alexander.html


Due to Hellenistic influence in Persian culture, I think the Shamshir
must have been influenced by the kopides indirectly. Since many
Persian traditions were affected by the Macedonians.



This has been fun so far.


Edited by: IceSpeed2

 

[White_Savage]

www.swordforum.com Is a good starting point for actual CREDIBLE sites on sword history. As I say, there are still alot of Victorian myths floating about.


"Anyone can carry 15 pounds, but to fence with 15 pounds is another story.

And that's why no one attempted to fight with these monsters.

"Fencing foils move wicked fast and in a swordfight , the person that can move his sword the fastest usually wins since all swords are sharp enough to kill a man."

An over-simplification. Proper understanding of distancing and technique makes the exact weight of your sword a non make-or-break issue...you are not doomed to failure if you have 2.5 lbs cut-and-thrust sword against a 1.5 smallswod for example, the film "Rob Roy" not withstanding. This is evidenced by the fact that no fencing writer of the period treated a smallsword/epee vrs. broadsword/saber match as a foregone conclusion, but instead gave advice for fighting with either weapon.

As to "sharpness", the tendency to make sword blades ever longer and narrower in first rapiers, then smallswords/epee du combat, gradually reduced the cutting power of swords. A late rapier, smallsword, or epee du combat's pronounced diamond or even triangular cross-section reduced it's cutting ability to harassing rather than man-stopping actions, until finally with the smallsword cuts were dropped together and the sword only edge suffeciently to discourage blade grabs, if that.

 

[White_Savage]

Forgot to, the Hellenic "Kopides" you mention was essentially a falcata, which like a Gurkha's kukuri is a short weight-forward blade sharpend on the concave edge, not the convex one, thus it is off-line to be the ancestor of the Shamshir. Curved swords become popular in both the Middle East and China pretty much with the Mongol invasion.