Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition

Brd
v. THE AFAWIDS
A consideration of the use of firearms in Persia under the afawids falls under
two heads: artillery (generic name, tp ), and hand-guns; the latter, used by both
cavalry and infantry, comprised arquebuses, muskets and carbines, all of which
were termed, without differentiation, tufang .
According to the traditional account of European writers, artillery was introduced
into Persia during the reign of Shh Abbs I by the English soldiers of fortune Sir
Anthony Sherley and his brother Sir Robert Sherley, who arrived in azwn in
December 1598. Among Sir Anthonys party of 26 persons (Sir E. Denison Ross
(ed.), Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure , London 1933, 13 and n. 3)
was at least one cannon-founder (Browne, iv, 105). Sir Anthonys steward, Abel
Pinon, states that the Persians at that time had no artillery at all (Denison Ross,
163), but his interpreter, Angelo, asserts that Shh Abbs has some cannon,
having captured many pieces from the Tartars; moreover there is no lack of
masters to manufacture new ones, these masters have turned against the Turk
and have come to serve the King of Persia (Denison Ross, 29). Purchas, writing
in 1624, claims that such progress was made under the guidance of the Sherley
brothers that the prevailing Persian hath learned Sherleian arts of war, and he
which before knew not the use of ordnance, has now 500 pieces of brass
(Denison Ross, 21).
There is abundant evidence, however, in both the European and the Persian
sources, that the Persians were familiar with the use of artillery long before the
time of Abbs I. The Venetian ambassador dAlessandri, who arrived in Persia in
1571, states that the Ottoman prince Byazd, who sought refuge with S hh
ahmsp in 966/1559, brought with him thirty pieces of artillery ( A Narrative of
Italian Travels in Persia in the 15th and 16th centuries, London 1873, 228).
Herbert (A Relation of Some Yeares Travaile etc., London 1634, 298) states that
the Persians got the use of cannon from the van quised Portugal, and Figueroa
states that the Persian artillery was manipulated by Europeans and particularly

by the Portuguese ( Tadhkirat al-Mulk , 33). We know that in 955/1548 the

Portuguese furnished ahmsp with 10,000 men and 20 cannon at the time of
the Ottoman sultan Sulaymns second invasion of Persia ( A Chronicle
of the Carmelites , i, 29). Direct evidence that artillery was used by the Persian
army even earlier than this is found in the contemporary Persian chronicle Asan
al-Tawrkh (ed. C. N. Seddon, Baroda 1931). In the afawid army which laid
siege to Dmghn in 935/1528-9 there was a certain Ustd (i.e., master [of his
craft]) Shaykh the gunner ( tp ) (AT, 212). In a pitched battle with the zbegs
neaf Mashhad, later the same year, ahmsp stationed in front of his army the
wagons containing the arbzan(probably a type of light cannon, cf. the Mamlk
term arbzna ; see D. Ayalon, Gunpowder andFirearms in the Mamlk
Kingdom , London 1956, 127, n. 220) and ( tp-i ) farang (AT, 214); the gunners
and musketeers ( tpiyn wa tufangiyn ) were, however, unable to use their
guns because the zbegs did not approach from the front (AT, 217). In 945/15389 the besieging afawid forces destroyed the towers ( burdj ) of the fort of Brid
in Shrwn by artillery fire (AT, 287). In 946/1539-40 we hear for the first time of
a tp-bsh (commander-in-chief of artillery), in an action against Amra
ubd, the rebel governor of str (AT, 293). From this time onwards artillery
was frequently used by the afawids in siege warfare, for instance at Gulistn and
Darband (954/1547-8) (AT, 321-2). At the siege of Ksh near Shakk in 958/15512 the afawids used Frankish cannon ( tp-i farang ), and in addition a type of
cannon called bdldj (cf. P. Horn, Das Heer- und Kriegswesen des
Grossmoghuls , Leiden 1894, 29), and mortars ( azn ), which are mentioned
for the first time; the towers of the fort were destroyed after twenty days
bombardment (AT, 350).
It is clear, therefore, that the claim that the Sherleys introduced artillery into
Persia is entirely without foundation. In fact, artillery was in regular use at least
as early as 935/1528-9, that is, within a few years of the accession of S hh
ahmsp, and fifteen years after the afawid defeat at ldirn [q.v.], a defeat for
which the Ottoman artillery was largely responsible. It must be emphasised,
however, that even before ldirn, the afawids were familiar with the use of
artillery, and that consequently the afawid lack of artillery at ldirn can only
be attributed to a deliberate policy not to develop the use of firearms in the
Persian army. The Persians had an innate dislike of firearms, the use of which
they considered unmanly and cowardly (Nar Allh Falsaf, jang-i ldirn ,
in Madjalla-yi Dnishkadayi Adabiyyt-i Tihrn , i/2, 1953-4, 93), and in
particular they disliked artillery, because it hampered the swift manuvres of
their cavalry (Tadhkirat al-Mulk, 33). It is remarkable that, although we have
frequent instances of the use of artillery in siege warfare, little attempt seems to

have been made to emulate the Ottomans in the use of artillery in the field. At the
battle of Mashhad in 935/1528-9 (see above), the one occasion on which the
sources specifically record the use of artillery in the field by ahmsp, its
immobility rendered it ineffective, and we hear no more of field artillery until the
time of Shh Abbs I. Even under the latter, however, the use of artillery was still
mainly confined to siege warfare (Nar Allh Falsaf, Zindign-yi Shh Abbs-i
Awwal , ii, Tehran 1334 solar/1955, 403).
It seems that in the use of artillery, as in much else, the afawids were the heirs of
the A oyunlu. Long before the establishment of the afawid state, the A
oyunlu rulers of Diyr Bakr and dharbydjn had sought to equip their armies
with artillery: the Venetians sent Uzun asan (d. 882/1478) 100 artillerymen of
experience and capacity, who were immediately sent on to Persia, for in the
matter of their artillery the Persian armies suffered greatly from a paucity of
cannon, while on the other hand the Turkish armies in Asia were very well
equipped in this arm, and they could effect much damage in their attack ( Don
Juan of Persia , ed. trans. G. Le Strange, London 1926, 98). When a afawid force
of 10,000 men under Muammad Beg Ustdjl laid siege to in Kayf in Diyr
Bakr about the year 913/1507-8, they made use of a mortar of bronze, of four
spans, which they brought from Mirdin (Mrdn) . This mortar was cast in that
country at the time of Jacob Sultan (Yab Suln A oyunlu, d. 896/1490),
and by his orders . and Custagialu (Muammad Beg Ustdjl) also had another
larger one cast by a young Armenian, who cast it in the Turkish mannerall in
one piece. The breech was half the length of the whole piece, and the mortar was
five spans in bore at the muzzle ( A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, 153).
About the same time (probably in 912/1506-7) Ismal sent a force of 10,000 men
under Bayrm Beg (aramnl?) to lay siege to Wn. Bayrm Beg, having two
moderate-sized cannons in his camp, began to batter the castle; but they were
able to do no harm, as the walls were too strong and the gunners too little skilled.
After besieging the castle for three months, however, the artillerymen succeeded
in destroying the source of the defenders water supply, and the castle was thus at
their mercy (A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, 161-3). In 916/1510 Ismal
is said to have captured four cannon from the zbegs after his great victory at
Marw (jaml uznl, Trkh-i Nim-yi rn , vol. i, Tehran 1315 solar/1936,
372; no authority is quoted for this statement). It seems, therefore, from the
evidence available, that although the afawids used cannon in siege warfare
during the first decade of the reign of Ismal I, the number of guns available was
small, and the gunners were as yet inexperienced.

Sir Anthony Sherley has also been given the credit for the formation of a corps of
musketeers by Shh Abbs I. In a letter dated 22 April 1619, the traveller Pietro
della Valle says that the corps was created by Shh Abbs a few years ago on
the advice of Sir Anthony Sherley ( Tadhkirat al-Mulk, 31). Sir Anthonys
interpreter Angelo, however, stated in Rome on 28 November 1599 that S hh
Abbs could provide horses for 100,000 men, who were armed with bows,
arrows and scimitars, and that in addition he had 50,000 arquebusiers; at one
time the King did not use arquebusiers, but now he delights in them (Denison
Ross, 29). Sir Anthonys party left Ifahn about the beginning of May 1599 (see
Denison Ross, 22), and it seems unlikely that a corps of 50,000 men could have
been organised during the five months which Sir Anthony spent in the Persian
capital. Of the various members of Sir Anthonys party who have left a record of
their travels, not one claims that Sir Anthony was responsible for the formation of
this corps, and Sir Anthony himself, in his own account of his journey to Persia,
states (with reference to Shh Abbss victory over the zbegs in hursn on 9
Muarram 1007/12 August 1598) that thirty thousand men the King tooke with
him for that warre, twelve thousand Harquebusiers which bare long pieces, halfe
a foote longer than our muskets, sleightly made .. which they use well and
certainely ( Purchas His Pilgrimes , viii, London 1905, 409-10).
Apart from Sir Anthonys own testimony to the existence of a large and efficient
body of musketeers in the Persian army before his arrival in Persia, there is
conclusive evidence, again in both the European and the Persian sources, that
Persian troops were equipped with hand-guns and skilled in their use long before
the time of Abbs I. One of Sir Anthonys companions, Manwaring, explicitly
states that the Persians were already very expert in their pieces or muskets; for
although there are some which have written now of late that they had not the use
of pieces until our coming into the country, this much must I write to their praise,
that I did never see better barrels of muskets than I did see there; and the King
hath, hard by his court at Aspahane, above two hundred men at work, only
making of pieces, bows and arrows, swords and targets (Denison Ross, 222).
Even earlier (c. 1571) is the valuable account of dAlessandri: they use for arms
swords, lances, arquebuses, which all the soldiers can use; their arms also are
superior and better tempered than those of any other nation. The barrels of the
arquebuses are generally six spans long ( A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia,
London 1939, i, 53, gives 7 palms = 1.75 m.; incidentally this version of the text
contains an obvious mistranslation), and carry a bail a little less than three
ounces in weight. They use them with such facility, that it does not hinder them
drawing their bows nor handling their swords, keeping the latter hung at their
saddle-bows till occasion requires them. The arquebus then is put away behind

the back, so that one weapon does not impede the use of another (A Narrative of
Italian Travels in Persia, 227). Herbert (op. cit., 298) states that the Persians had
used muskets since the Portugais assisted King Tahamas with some Christian
auxiliaries against the Turk (probably in 955/1548) so as now (i.e., in 1627) they
are become very good shots. In the contemporary Persian chronicle Asan alTawrkh , however, there is direct evidence that hand-guns ( tufang ) were in
use in the Persian army even before the death of Ismal I: in 927/1520-1 a
detachment of the afawid garrison at Hart drove off the troops of Ubayd hn
zbeg with arrows and hand-guns ( tr u tufang ) (AT, 171). This is the first
reference to hand-guns in this chronicle, and from then on they are mentioned
frequently. In 930/1523-4, the year of Shh Ismals death and Shh ahmsps
accession, infantry armed with hand-guns ( piydagn-i tufang-andz )
constituted part of the afawid garrison at Hart, and reference is made to two
successful actions against the zbegs in which hand-guns were employed (AT,
186). In 934/1527-8, when Hart was besieged for four months by the zbegs,
the zbeg amr al-umar Yr Beg was killed by a shot fired from a hand-gun
by one of the defenders (AT, 206). In 935/1528-9 ahmsp himself led an army
to hursn against the zbegs, and laid siege to Dmghn; his forces included a
group of Rml tufangs (AT, 212). A few months later, the zbegs laid siege to
Mashhad; musketeers ( tufangiyn ) formed part of the afawid garrison (AT,
221). While the Asan al-Tawrkh thus affords positive evidence of the use of
muskets in the Persian army as early as 927/1520-1, there is a strong indication
in A Narrative of Italian Travels inPersia that they were in fact in use even
before the battle of ldirn. In the description of the siege of in Kayf by
afawid forces about the year 913/1507-8, there is a reference to guns which, in
the context, can only mean handguns, and we are also told that the defenders
possessed three or four muskets of the shape of Azemi, i.e., of Adjam or
Persian design; these muskets had a small barrel and, with the aid of a
contrivance locked on to the stock about the size of a good arquebuse, had a
good range (op. cit., 153).
It is clear, therefore, that the claim that the Sherleys initiated the formation of a
corps of musketeers, if it has any historical foundation at all, can only be true in
the sense that Shh Abbs was the first to create a regular corps of musketeers,
which formed part of a standing army paid from the harevenue, as opposed
to the units in existence under Ismal I and ahmsp, which, like the rest of the
Persian army at that time, were probably raised on a tribal basis and paid from
the revenue of thedwn-i mamlik . There is no doubt, however, that the
practical advice of the Sherleys was of great benefit to Shh Abbs, who held Sir
Robert Sherley in such esteem that, after Sir Anthonys departure, he appointed

him Master General against the Turks (G. N. Curzon, Persia and thePersian
Question , London 1892, i, 574). In addition to the corps of musketeers
(tufangiyn), 12,000 strong (Chardin, Voyages du Chevalier Chardin en Perse ,
ed. Langls, Paris 1811, v, 305), who were intended to be infantry but were
gradually provided with horses, Shh Abbs created two other corps to form part
of the new standing army, namely, the artillery ( tpiyn ), also 12,000 strong
(Chardin, v, 312-3), and the slaves ( ullar , ghulmn-i kha-yi sharfa ), a
cavalry regiment recruited from Georgia and Circassia, armed inter alia with
muskets, and numbering 10-15,000 ( Tadhkirat al-Mulk , 33). The afawid
army was at its strongest under Shh Abbs I; its numbers declined under his
successor af (d. 1052/1642) and were reduced still further by Abbs II (d.
1077/1666), who took the extraordinary step of abolishing the corps of artillery;
when thetp-bsh usayn ul hn died in 1655, no successor was appointed
(Chardin, v, 312-313), and artillery does not seem to have reappeared on the
scene until the reign of Shh Suln usayn (1105-1135/1694-1722) (Tadhkirat
al-Mulk, 33). At the battle of Gulnbd against the Afghns (8 March 1722), the
Persians had 24 camion, under the command of the tp-bsh Amad hn and
under the supervision of a French master gunner named Philippe Colombe (L.
Lockhart, The Fall of theafav dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia ,
London 1958, 135, who quotes Krusinskis scathing remarks on the incompetence
of the tp-bsh); the artillery was overrun by the Afghn advance, and both
the tp-bsh and Philippe Colombe lost their lives (ibid., 142). It is not
too much to say that the afawids never really made any effective use of artillery
in the field.

Bibliography
in the text.
(R.M. Savory)
Cite this page
"Brd." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel,
W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. University of California Berkeley. 09 October 2014
<http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/ba-ru-d-COM_0101>
First appeared online: 2012
First Print Edition: isbn: 9789004161214, 1960-2007