Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 40

355/359

68
68

:
. . , . . , . .

68 . . . : . - .

. . : LEM, 2010. 400 . + 28 . .


ISBN 9965-23-301-2


(
. . ), . 2223 2010 .

,


.

The Role of Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Development of


World Military Art. Scientific Readings in Commemoration of N. E. Massanov: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Almaty:
LEM Publishing House, 2010. 400 p. + 28 p. incl.
This Volume presents the papers written by the Kazakh and foreign scholars the
participants of the International Scientific Conference The Role of Nomads of the
Eurasian Steppes in the Development of World Military Art (Scientific Readings
in Commemoration of N. E. Massanov) held in Almaty on the 22nd23rd of April
2010.
In their papers the authors examined various aspects of military history of the
Eurasian Steppe nomads, studied by them on the basis of a wide range of factual
materials, and highlighted a substantial contribution made by nomadic societies
to the development of warfare and arms technologies in the neighboring countries
and among the other peoples of the Continent over a span of historic time from the
Antiquity Epoch through the Early Modern Times.
355/359
68

ISBN 9965-23-301-2

-

, 2010
LEM, 2010

.-.
(/)

,
(247 . . . 224 . . .). ,
, .
,
. : (hippotoxotai)
(kataphraktoi). (Plut. Crass. 23.8
27.2; Dio. 40.21.124.1), (53 .
. .). , ,
*.

(kataphraktoi). , kataphraktoi kataphrakta, .
III . . . ta kataphrakta
(P. Enteyx. 32; 45 ed. Guraud). V . . . kataphraktoi
, [1]. kataphraktoi
(200 . . .).
, , :
* 40.15.2, 40.2124 kontophoroi,
, .

66

1) ;
2) ( 44,5 ) ( .
Luc. 28). , , kontos.
3) (Polyb. 31.3.9; Sallust. 4, fr. 65; Plut.
Crass. 24.1; Iust. 41.2.10; Arr. Parth. Fragm 20; 47; Heliod. 9.15; Amm.
24.6.8; Aelian. Takt. 2.11; Arr. Takt. 4.1).
A. M. ,
[2]. ,

, :
1) , ;
2) ,
[3].
,
. ,
[4]. .


, , , , , , . , ,
[5].
, [6]. , ,
( )
V . . . [7]
, , , ; , 67

, ,
(479 . . .).
(Hdt. 9.6263).
480479 . . .
. (Hdt. 7.61). ,
, (Hdt. 7.79, 9.20, 9.22, 9.24f., 9.31,
Plut. Arist. 14.58; Paus. 1.27.1).
.
,
: IV .
. .
(cp. Xen. Hell. 3.4.15; Anab. 6.5.29). .
, ,
. V . . . , , .
, 421 . . ., ,
, , , [8].
:
(1.215) (11.8.6) - , thorax [9].
530 . . . (Hdt. 1.201ff.).
(401 . . .) ,
(Xen. Anab. 1.8.6).
, (parameridia)
(palta)
. , ,
parapleuridia (Xen. Kyr. 6.1.50f, 6.4.1, 7.1.2). (equ. 12.2)
. , VIV . . . [10]

68

, ,
. ( ), [11].
V . . .
. (401.
. .) 600 (6000 ). -
(Xen. Anab. 1.8.2228).
, ,
.
396 . . . , ,
, 12 .
12 ,
(Xen. Hell. 3.4.14).
. (dorata) , (palta)
. ,
, , dory. , , (Xen. Hipp. 12.1214. C.
Xen. Kyr. 6.2.1516). (Anab. 1.9.5) ,
(akontion).
[12].
, . ,
. , ,
, ,
(394 . . ., Xen. Hell. 4.3.1520; Diod. 14.84.12). IV . . .
.
.
, . II (359336) , , .
69

III ,
. (333 . . .) (Curt. 3.11.1) [13].
; () (serie lamnarum grave agmen) (Curt.
3.11.15) [14]. 30 000
. ,
16 000 . ,
, .
. ,
. , ,
(Curt. 3.11.1415).
III ,
,
, (332331). (xysta)
(xyphoi), , (Diod. 17.53.1) [15]. , . xyston
, dory.
,
[16]. ,
prodromoi, sarissophoroi, , sarissai, .
. (Diod. 17.55.1).
III . (4.9.3), : ,
70

(Equitibus equisque tegumenta


erant ex ferreis lamminis serie inter se connexis). ,
[17]. ,
(Curt. 4.9.3).

(331 . . .)
.
, , .

, .
III, , . . . ,
- , [18].
( ) .
III [19]. , 8000 , (1000)
(2000).
, . , 1000 . ( , Curt. 4.12.6)
, .
(Arr. 3.5.1).
[20]. (Curt. 4.12.6).
.
- , - ,
(Arr. 3.13.4). , , .
71

(Curt. 4.15.18).
, ,
(Curt. 4.15.21). ,

, . ,
[21].

(Arr. 3.14.56)
[22]. ,
, (Arr. 3.11.4). 2000 1000
(?) (Diod. 17.59.5) [23].
(Curt.
4.16.1ff.). (Diod. 17.60.8; Arr.
3.15.3). , (Curt. 4.16.17).
,
, (Arr. 3.15.12; Curt. 4.16.2025). , (
), ( ).
, , ,
60 .
. , (Curt. 4.16.2125).
,

. . ,
. . III

( ), ()
(, , c.:
Curt. 4.16.32).
72

( , , ), (,
, )
. , (
, ),
. , , ,
, ,
. , ,
, [24]. ,
.

, , ,
,
.
[25].
, ,


.
,
.
e . / (Arr.
4.5.49; 4.6.12; Curt. 7.7.3139). , 2000 300 ,
, .
: .
, , .
73

. (7.7.32f.) ,
: ,
. (Arr.
4.5.5f.). , , .

, .
. , .

.
, ,
, . , .
(Curt. 8.1.35; Arr. 4.16.4f.). , , (600 800)
. , (Curt. 8.1.6, 8.2.1517; Arr. 4.17.12).

.
() . -, .

(Curt. 7.7.3437).
(Curt. 7.7.35)*, . , ,
. , .
* , , II (18.4),
(18.5).

74

, , , . ( , , ) (Arr. 3.13.4).
, ,
,
[26]. - ( , 17 ,
). IV III.
. . [27] , , .
.
, [28].
, ,
, . , , , , .

-- ( ). IV III.
. . [29]
, ,
. , ,
. .
- .
, IV III .
. . [30] , . - 2 [31].
IVIII . . . ( ).
, , IV
III. . . ( ), .
75

(Curt. 8.1.8),
. ,
,
.
-, . ,
, , ,
III , , , .
.
,
. , ,
.

. (329. . .)
,
(Arr. 4.4.29; Curt. 7.8.87.9.16).
: , , . .
,
, ,

. , I. , , , ,
, 1000 , 150 , 160 (60 100 ) 1000 (Curt. 7.9.16; Arr. 4.4.8).
.
, .
(Curt.
7.9.8). (Arr. 4.4.4).
, .

,
.
. ;
76

. (326 . . .) .
, , . :
. .
C 330. . .
,
. , ,
, , , (Arr. 7.6.4).
(7.6.3) , , , : , , , ,
. . (7.6.5) ,
(mesankyla) (dorata) [32].


. , , ,
.
323 . . . (Diod. 18.7.19). (316 . . .) (Diod.
19.26.132.3).
, . (315 .
. .), , , ,
(Diod. 19.39.644.3). I. (301 . . .) 12 000 , [33].
(lonchophoroi) (Diod.
19.29.2). , ,
.
, , 77

, .
.
III . . .: 200 .
. . .
III , . . , , , . - , 10- ,
. (Polyb. 10.49). , , , , ,
,
, .
III ( hippotoxotai ) (200 . ..).
III (Polyb. 16.1819) .
(190 . . .),
6000 1200 ,
(Liv. 37.40). , (App. Syr. 32).
, .
, .
.

.

,
. II (. 230 . . .
Iust. 41.4.910),
III (209 . . .), (Iust. 41.5.7).

69 . . .
,
78

II. , ,
148 . . .
. (69 . . .)
, (Plut. Luc. 2628; Frontinus. 2.2.4; App. Mithr. 85).
, , , , , (Plut. Luc. 26.15).
17 000 *. ,
, , ,
. 20 000 , 10000 , ,
(Plut. Luc. 27.2; Frontinius. 2.1.14; Eutropius. 6.9.1).
, ,
.
(Plut. Luc. 27.56). (Hist. 4.6466, ed. Maurenbrecher) equites catafracti, ferrea omni specie, : Equis paria operimenta erant namque linteo ferreas laminas
in modum plumae adnexuerant. (6.9) (15)
clibanarii. IV .; cataphracti clibanarii [34]. ,

(Plut. Luc. 28.2). .
, , . (Luc. 28.17),
, .
, .
* 20 000 , 55 000
17 000 ,
, 150 000 (Plut. Luc. 26.6). (Mithr. 85)
250 000 50 000 . ,
-, , , ,
.

79

,
, .
.
, .
.

[35].
,
, . , ,
1000 9000 [36].


,
1993 . I . . .,

I . . . [37] ,
,
, . . .
, , . , , I (. 150111 . . .) II
(5534 . . .) [38].
,
. ,
(Strab. 11.5.8). I.
. . ,
, , , . ,
. -, , ,
.
4 -II ( ) [39].

( ) I . . . , II (5534 .
..) 10 000 53 . . .
80


(Plut. Crass. 18.3, 19.1; Plut. Ant. 50.5; Strab. 11.4.4, 11.14.9). 36 .
. . 6000 (Strab. 11.14.9).
(Strab. 11.4.4,
11.14.9).
, (Tacit. Hist. 1.79) (Arr. Takt.
17 ed. Roos),
.
I . . . I . . . , , , , , (Ios. Ant.
20.86) (Arr. Parth. Fr. 46). ,
[40].

.
, . , .
III
(333. . .) (331 . . .).
,
(), , . , , .
III
,
(329328 . . .).

.
,
. , , ,
81

, . ( , )

. .
.

, , .
, , ,
.

.
. , ,
, ,
.
, , .
III , ,
.

, , .
___________________
1. Liddell H. G., Scott R., Jones S. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, 1996,
s.v. Cp.: NikonorovV.P. Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii: Another Look
at the Old Problem of Their Identifications // :
. (25 1998.)/ . . .., ... ., 1998 . 131138.
2. .. . . 2-, . .
., 2008. . 7174.
3. : .. // . 1966. 2. . 2743; -

82

.. . . 75, 93.
: .. (
) // / . . ... , 1995. . 5361.
4. .: RubinB. Die Entstehung der Kataphraktenreiterei im Lichte der chorezmischen Ausgrabungen // Historia. 4. 1955.
S. 264283; .. // . 1968. 1. . 180191; . . . 7180; ..
. . 2743; MielczarekM. Cataphracti and Clibanarii.
Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World. d, 1993; DdyanG. Les cavaliers armniens: du cataphractaire au chevalier// Histoire et
Dfense: Les Cahiers de Montpellier. 18. 1988. P. 1546; NikonorovV.P. Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii; . . C : //
. .9. , 2008. . 272287.
5. . ., . .
VIIV. .. // . 1966. 3. . 3652; NikonorovV. P. The
Armies of Bactria, 700 B. C. 450 A. D. Stockport, 1997. Vol.1. P. 1828.
6. Sekunda N. The Persian Army. London, 1992; Gabrielli M. Le cheval dans
lempire achmnide / Horse in the Achaemenid empire. Istanbul, 2006.
7. Calmeyer P. Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit // Mnchener Jahrbcher. 43. 1993. s. 718; Summerer L. Picturing
Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood // ACSS. 13.
2007. P. 330.
8. Sekunda N. The Persian Army. p. 21.
9. Cp.: Gall H. von. Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinflussten Kunst parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit (Teheraner Forschungen 6).
Berlin, 1992. S. 73.
10. .. // . . / . . ..
..-. ., 1987. . 116117.
11. Sevin N. et al. A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from an //
Studia Troica. 11. 2001. P. 383420.
12. , .: Head D. The Achaemenid Persian Army. Stockport, 1992. P. 37.
P.24c.
13. : Arr. 2.8; Curt. 3.2.19; 3.9.16. : Devine A. M.
Grand Tactics at the Battle of Issus // Ancient World. 12 (1985). P. 3959.
14. , cp.: Schmidt E. F. Persepolis II. Chicago, 1957. 100. Pl. 77.
15. NikonorovV. P. The Armies of Bactria. Vol.1. P. 22.

83

16. Olbrycht M. J. Aleksander Wielki i wiat iraski. Rzeszw, 2004.


P.2.14, 4.8.
17. .., ..
VIIV. .. . 43.
18. .: Griffith G. T. Alexanders Generalship at Gaugamela //
JHS. 67 (1947). p. 7789; Devine A. M. The Battle of Gaugamela: A Tactical and
Source-Critical Study // Ancient World. 13 (1986). P. 87116; idem. Grand tactics
at Gaugamela // Phoenix. 29 (1975). P. 374385; Marsden E. W. The Campaign
of Gaugamela. Liverpool, 1964.
19. : Olbrycht M. J. The Origins of the Arsacid Parthian Cavalry:
Some Remarks // V. M. Masson (ed.). The Role of Ahalteke Horse in the Formation of World Horse-Breeding. Ashgabat, 2001. P. 108111; Vogelsang W. J. The
Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire. The Eastern Iranian Evidence.
Leiden/New York/Kln, 1992. P. 221224.
20. Arr. 3.13.3, 3.14.13; Curt. 4.12.6; Devine A. M. Grand tactics at Gaugamela. p. 379.
21. Arrian (3.13.4) , , . , : Devine A. M. Grand
tactics at Gaugamela. . 379; The Battle of Gaugamela. 106, n. 110.
22. Cp.: Devine A. M. Grand tactics at Gaugamela. . 381.
23. Devine , , .: Devine A. M. Grand tactics at Gaugamela. . 381.
24. .., ..
VIIV. .. . 4243; Olbrycht M. J. The Origins of the Arsacid
Parthian Cavalry.
25. .: Olbrycht M. J. Die Beziehungen der Steppennomaden Mittelasiens zu den hellenistischen Staaten (bis
zum Ende des 3. Jahrhunderts vor Chr.) // Funck B. (ed.). Hellenismus. Beitrge
zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des
hellenistischen Zeitalters. Akten des Internationalen Hellenismus-Kolloquiums
9.14. Mrz in Berlin. Tbingen, 1996. S. 147169; idem. Aleksander Wielki i
wiat iraski. s. 128150.
26. OlbrychtM.J. Parthia et ulteriores gentes. Die politischen Beziehungen
zwischen dem arsakidischen Iran und den Nomaden der eurasischen Steppen.
Mnchen, 1998. S. 5859.
27. NikonorovV. P. The Armies of Bactria, 700 B. C. 450 A. D. Stockport,
1997. Vol.2. P. 4; .. ( ). .2: . ., 2001. . 339.

84

28. , II (
parapleuridia); , . 375350, .: Head D. The Achaemenid Persian Army. . 43 a, c, d.
29. NikonorovV. P. The Armies of Bactria. vol.2. p. 4.
30. IV , .: ..
. 339f.
31. . ., . ., . ., . .
- 2: IVII . . .
.,2004. . 7/147/15.
32. Cp.: Olbrycht M.J. Aleksander Wielki i wiat iraski. s. 120204.
33. .: Olbrycht M. J. Creating an Empire: Iran and Middle Asia
in the Policy of Seleukos I // :
, , , . , 100-
(-, 25 2004) / . .
... ., 2005. . 231234.
34. NikonorovV.P. Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii. p. 136.
35. , (Eadie J. W.
The Development of Roman Mailed cavalry // JRS. 57 (1967). P. 164),
.
.
36. C: .. (
); MielczarekM. Cataphracts a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war // E.Dbrowa (ed.). Ancient Iran and the Mediterranean World.
Krakw, 1998. P. 101105.
37. Treister M. Yu. On a Vessel with Figured Friezes from a Private Collection, on Burials in Kosika and once more on the Ampsalakos School // ACSS. 11.
2005. P. 223240; Mordvinceva ., Treister M. Toreutik und Schmuck im nrdlichen Schwarzmeergebiet. Jh. v. Chr. 2. Jh. n. Chr. (Ancient Toreutics and Jewellery in Eastern Europe). Simferopol-Bonn 2007. Vol. II. S. 4042, cat.-no. A114.
38. Treister II I . . ., .: Treister M. Yu. On a Vessel with Figured Friezes
from a Private Collection, on Burials in Kosika and once more on the Ampsalakos School, 230ff.
39. Mordvinceva ., Treister M. Toreutik und Schmuck im nrdlichen
Schwarzmeergebiet. Vol. II. S. 17, cat.-no. A31.2.
40. . Nikonorov V. P. The Armies of Bactria. vol. 1. p. 5052; Bopearachchi O., Sachs C. Armures et armes des Indo-Scythes daprs leurs missions
montaires et les donnes archologiques // Topoi. 11. 2001. P. 321355.

85


-
(. )


(. -)

(. )

(. -)

-

(. )

382


()


(. -)

XV
XVIII . (
). -, , 1969

.
. I. .-., 1939

(. -)

-1

.
1. . 145. ., 1830

-2

.
2. . 155. ., 18301884

(. )

(. )

383

-
-

, . . .

(. )

(. )

EIr

Encyclopdia Iranica/ Ed. by E.Yarshater. London;


etc.

384



. .-. ., -
, .
. . .
(. )

. . ., , .
.. . (. )

. . ., ()

. . .,
(. )

. . ., . (. )
-
, -
(. )

. . ., , - (. )

. . ., (. )

. . ., ()

. . . (. )

385


. . ., (. )

. . ., (. -)

()

-
(. )

, -
(. )

. . ., -
(.)

. . ., (. )

. . .,
... (. )

(, ),
, -
()

. . ., , . ()

386

List of contributors
Aubekerov Bolat Zhagpharovich
Dr. of Geological & Mineralogical Sciences, Professor, Leading Researcher, Kazakh Scientific Research Institute on Problems of the Cultural Heritage of Nomads, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and also
Head of Laboratory, K. I. Satpayev Institute of Geological Sciences, Ministry of
Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Almaty)
Beknazarov Rahym Aghibayevich
Ph.D, Docent, Deputy Director, Ch. Ch. Valikhanov Institute of History
and Ethnology, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan
(Almaty)
Bobrov Leonid Aleksandrovich
Ph.D, Assistant Lecturer, Chair of Archaeology and Ethnography, Novosibirsk State University (Russia)
Gorelik Mikhail Viktorovich
Ph.D, Senior Researcher, Institute of Oriental Studies of Russian Aca
demy of Sciences (Moscow)
Deom Jean-Marc
Sinologist, Scientific Consultant, Kazakh Scientific Research Institute
on Problems of the Cultural Heritage of Nomads, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Almaty)
Yerofeyeva Irina Victorovna
Ph.D, Docent, Director, Kazakh Scientific Research Institute on Problems of the Cultural Heritage of Nomads, Ministry of Culture of the Republic
ofKazakhstan (Almaty)
Kubarev Gleb Vladimirovich
Ph.D, Senior Researcher, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk)
Kushkumbayev Aibolat Khairslamovich
Ph.D, Docent, A. Myrzakhmetov State University of Kokshetau (Kazakhstan)
Motov Yurii Arkadievich
Senior Researcher, A. Kh. Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Ministry
of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Almaty)
Nefyodov Serghei Aleksandrovich
Dr. of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher, Institute of History and
Archaeology, Ural Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Ekaterinburg)

387

Nikonorov Valerii Pavlovich


Ph.D, Senior Researcher, Institute of History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences
Olbricht Marek Jan
Professor, Department of Ancient History and Oriental Studies, University of Rzeszw (Poland)
Orazbek Ernar Zhumagali uly
Researcher, Kazakh Scientific Research Institute on Problems of the
Cultural Heritage of Nomads, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Kazakhstan
(Almaty)
Sala Renato
Geo-archaeologist, Scientific Consultant, Kazakh Scientific Research
Institute on Problems of the Cultural Heritage of Nomads, Ministry of Culture
ofthe Republic of Kazakhstan (Almaty)
Saparaliyev Doolotbek Bekishovich
Ph.D, Lecturer, Manas Kyrghyz-Turkish University (Bishkek,
Kyrghyz Republic)
Simonenko Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Dr. of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher, Institute of Archaeo
logy, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Kiev)
Smagulov Erbulat Akizhanovich
Ph.D, Chief Researcher, A. Kh. Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Almaty)
Khudyakov Yulii Sergheyevich
Dr. of Historical Sciences, Professor & Chairperson, Chair of Archaeo
logy and Ethnography, Novosibirsk State University (Russia)

388

Summary
The articles included in this Volume represent a publication of papers
dedicated to the recent achievements in scientific research and studies on
the nomadic warfare of Eurasia. The papers were written by Kazakh and
foreign scholars and presented at the International Scientific Conference
The role of nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the development of world
military art: Scientific Readings in Commemoration of N. E. Massanov
held in Almaty on the 22nd23rd of April 2010. The Conference, organi
zed by the Kazakh Scientific Research Institute on Problems of the Cultural Heritage of Nomads under Ministry of Culture of the Republic of
Kazakhstan, was attended by Kazakh scholars and their colleagues from
the USA, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Kyrghyzstan.
The article by A. M. Khazanov, The role of nomads of the Eurasian
steppes in the history of military art, concerns the reasons of the Eurasian
nomads military superiority over the sedentary states. Those reasons were
as follows: the social stratification and the division of labour in nomadic
societies were relatively undeveloped; the organization of their army and
the armaments of their warriors were not highly specialized; their nomadic
way of life was a good school for gaining proficiency in military skills;
and they were not short of riding animals.
A. V. Simonenko in his article Sarmatian warfare in the North Pontic
region examines, on the basis of broad archaeological material, the development of the Sarmatian nomads warfare from the II c. BC onwards.
Every adult Sarmatian man was a warrior, and the external exploiting
(exo-exploitation) in its various forms, such as direct military operations
(raids and campaigns), laying under tribute, controlling over trade routes,
etc., had become for the Sarmatians a principal way to gain a surplus pro
duct. The evolution of their arming complex is traced by the author, phase
by phase, from the Early Sarmatian (III cc. BC) and Middle Sarmatian
(I mid-II c. AD) through the Late Sarmatian Period (IIIV cc. AD).
V. P. Nikonorov in his Notes on the contribution made by Central Asian
nomads to the warfare of ancient civilizations: The case of Iran highlights
the role of nomads from the western part of Central Asian Steppes in the
formation and development of warfare in the Parthian Iran. After the 239
BC, Arsac from the Parna tribe of the Daha nomadic confederation, who
inhabited the steppes between the Caspian and the Aral Seas, had launched
a large-scale invasion into Parthia. By the 140-sBC his dynasty successors
had managed to sequentially expand their power over all regions of Iran
389

and Mesopotamia. In Iran it was during the Parthian period that, under the
influence of nomadic newcomers, the armaments, the structure of armed
forces and military organization, the army employment strategies and the
battle tactics were completely changed following the steppe standards.
The social structures of Parthian society also underwent major changes
that time.
The article by M. J. Olbricht, Notes on the origins of the cataphracts
heavy cavalry in Iran and Central Asia, is dedicated to a role of nomadic
traditions in the formation of the cataphracts heavy cavalry characterized
by heavy armoured horsemen, by the use of long pikes (up to 44,5 )
as the main attack arms, and by defensive horse bardings. Skillful tactics
of the joint actions by cataphracts and horse-archers were used to great
effect.
G. V. Kubarev in his article The influence of military art and armour
of the Central Asian nomads on European warfare (in the light of the Avars migration, and of the formation of the First Turk Khaganate), on the
basis of written sources (Maurices Strategikon first and foremost) and archaeological materials, highlights the influence of armaments and military
art of the Ancient Turks and the Avars on the peoples of East and Central
Europe, as well as on Byzantium. Comparative studies on the archaeological materials of the VIVII cc. allowed the author to identify specific sets
of arms, details and adornments of suits of armour, and also horse bardings of that epoch.
The article by S. A. Nefyodov, Mongolian bows and Mongol conquests, examines one of the most revolutionary innovations contributed
by the Mongols to the field of warfare the invention of a powerful bow
allowing a quick shooting (up to 1012 shots a minute). Despite of their
small dimensions (about 120 cm in length), Mongolian bows possessed a
great power and could be easily made even stronger, if needed, through
adding more bone overlays on bow arches. Mongolian arms, along with
the relevant terminology, were borrowed by the peoples of Eastern Europe. It was followed there by the adoption of Mongolian military organization and battle tactics.
The article by M. V. Gorelic, Military service of Polovtsian nobili
ty in the Golden Horde, concerns a historic background of the military
service by the nobility of the Polovtsian nomadic tribes (Kuman, Kun,
Sary) at the right wing of the Juchis ulus (i. e. in the areas west to Ural
River), whose rulers conquered them in the XIII c. Considering the
Polovtsian burials found at Korolevino place near Tagancha village, in a
390

kurgan near Taborovka village in the Lower Dnestr region, at the Mayaki
II burial ground situated in the Lower Don region and at the Syaronizhnesteblievskii-I burial ground in the area east to the Sea of Azov, the author highlights the roles and posts of different categories of the Polovtsian
leaders (khans, clan chiefs, noble bodyguard and batyrs) in the militarypolitical and military-administrative systems of the Golden Horde, and
the impact of their administrative work on the culture of Mongol Empire.
Y. S. Khudyakov in the article Warfare of the Turk nomads in the
southern regions of West Siberia during Late Middle Ages and Modern
Times describes, on the grounds of written and archaeological sources,
the armament and outfit of the Teleut and Telenghit tribes: long-range arms
(bows and arrows); fighting arms, such as sabres, pikes, spears, hatchets,
daggers, iron maces, leather whips with metal balls (including those
made of bronze) plaited in the tails of leather strips; and the means
of warriors individual defense (iron mails and helmets).
The article by L. A. Bobrov, Late-medieval solid-forged helmets
from the Tobolsk State Reserve-Museum of History and Architecture,
concerns two exceptional helmets from the funds of the Tobolsk State
Reserve-Museum of History and Architecture. The helmets are distinctive
of a hemi-spherical solid-forged body and combined nape- and cheekguards. A typological analysis allowed for a hypothesis that the helmets
were made, most probably, by Tatar or Oyrat armourers in the XVII c.
A. K. Kushkumbayev in his article Some components of military art
of the late-medieval nomads of Kazakhstan examines some principles of
the nomadic art of war. Specifically he regards a structure and practical
operation of the organization of nomadic army: a decimal division system
and the division of armed forces into large units, such as a center, two
wings (right and left), a vanguard and an ambush. The author analyses
martial ensigns, standards (bunchuq), war-cries.
The article by I. V. Yerofeyeva and B. Zh. Aubekerov, Factors of landscape and geomorphology in the offensive strategies and tactics of the
Kazakh nomads in their war against the Dzungars in the 17231730, is
dedicated to the reconstruction of military operations of the year 1727 in
the intercourse of Bulanty and Beleuitty Rivers situated in the north-west
borderlands of Betpakdala Desert. In the 20072010 those geographical
areas for the first time became objects of the complex interdisciplinary
research and studies carried out by a team of scientists from the Kazakh
Scientific Research Institute on Problems of the Cultural Heritage of Nomads. On the grounds of the available historic source material (documen391

tary archives, folklore, historic place-names, archaeological data) and of


the data obtained through landscape and geo-morphological surveys in the
areas of military operations of the past, the authors have reconstructed the
tactical manoeuvres of the Kazakh military leaders.
D. B. Saparaliyev in his article Military art of the Tien Shan Kyrghyz
in the XVIIIXIX cc.: Studies on archival sources has made an attempt
to highlight the state of military art of the Kyrghyz on the grounds of
documentary materials revealed in the archives of Russia, Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan. Besides, the author has analysed some specific archaeological
and ethnographical data related to the issue.
The article by R. Sala and J.-M. Deom Medieval tortkuls of North
Tien Shan and Mid-Low Syrdarya is dedicated to the study of the tortkuls,
i. e. quadrangular fortifications with clear military function. They are connected with the migration and sedentarization of the Turkic tribes in the
valleys of the Northern Tienshan and Mid-Low Syrdarya from the VI AD
onward. Here is presented their typology (shape, size, architectural elements, urban context and functionality), their importance in the settlement
park (number, occupied ha, average ha, and their percentage by region),
their development during 2 main phases of urbanization (VIXIV, XVII
XIX AD), and their general function in relation to the development of the
urban system (control, expansion, new colonization).
E. A. Smagulov in his article The North Gate Bridge of Medieval
Sauran describes the archaeological remains of the city gate and suggests
a reconstruction of the load-bearing constructions of the bridge across the
moat. The bridge was destroyed during military events of the XVI c. In the
20052007 the archaeological research on the strata of cultural layers in
the gate passage failed to reveal any concrete data that would allow a reconstruction of the bridge and a historic interpretation of the archaeological strata of fortifications. This problem was generally solved only in June
2009 after a purposive archaeological clearing of the area in question.
The article by E. Zh. Orazbek, Qamshy as one of most important
elements of the equipment for horse riders, hunters and warriors: Ethnolinguistic aspects, reveals the importance of qamshy (whip, lash) in the
traditional horse-nomadic culture of the Kazakh people. The author describes the techniques of qamshy manufacturing and explains its functional role and spiritual-sacred meaning in traditional customs. Special attention is paid to a doiyr-qamshy (fighting whip), to qamshygherlyq fighting
art, and to a mastership of qamshygher huntsmen and warriors.
392

The article by I. V. Yerofeyeva, The institution of batyrs in the military organization structure of Kazakh nomads, concerns the historic origins of the institution of batyrs, the criteria for awarding this honourary
title, the role and place of batyrs in the structure of military organization,
and the functions they performed.
T. T. Dalayeva in her article Military functions of Kazakh khans and
sultans in the XVIIIXIX cc.: Issues of evolution and transformations
considers military functions of the Kazakh Genghisides as a basis of their
political power. On the grounds of data obtained from archival sources
and published materials, the author has made an attempt to characterize
a process of changes occurred to military functions of Kazakh khans and
sultans during the XVIIIXIX cc. In the course of consolidation of the
Russian imperial power in the Kazakh Steppes, the representatives of
the Kazakh traditional ruling elite had lost their capacity to organize the
armed defense of Kazakh population against external enemies, as well as
their power to arrange military raids into the neighboring nomadic and
sedentary-agricultural regions.
The article by R. A. Beknazarov Hunting in the North Aral Sea region
during the second half of XIX early XX c.: Ethnographic studies is
dedicated to the Kazakh traditional hunting and to a pivotal change occurred to its aims and methods during the XIX early XX c. when it gradually turned from sportsmanship into professional business. Main reason of
that transformation was a drawing of the region into a commodity-money
sphere of the Russian Empire. A number of hunting methods practiced by
the Kazakhs and their ancestors can be generally classified as follows: battue (round-up) hunting; coursing with the tazy dogs (hounds); hawking;
individual fowling with bow and arrows (gradually replaced thereupon by
firelock guns), and also hunting with the use of various subsidiary means,
such as traps, meshes, poisoned baits, etc.
Y. A. Motov in his Notes on the history of firearms in Middle Asia
and Kazakhstan informs about the archaeological findings testifying to
the use of earthen round shots by the Qoqand artillery and supporting
thus the information communicated by the Russian military officer in the
mid-XIX c.

393


. ...............................................................................................5
. .
. ......8
. .
...............................26
. .

( ) . ..............................................43
.-.

..............................................................................................66
. .

(
) ....................................................86
. .
............................................ 110
. .
.........................127
. .

.........................................187
. .

- - ............202
. .

................................................................................212
. ., . .
-
-
17231730 . ..........................................................228
. .
XVIIIXIX .
............................................................................251

394

., .-.
-
........................................................................................263
. .
. ......................................287
. .

( ) . ..................................................................301
. .

- ......................................................................................322
. .
XVIIIXIX .:
.....................................................353
. .
XIX XX .:
..................................................................370
. .

................................................................................................379
.....................................................................................382
....................................................................................385
List of contributors ........................................................................................387
Summary ........................................................................................................389

395

CONTENTS
Preface by the Editorial Board . ........................................................................ 5
Khazanov A. M.
The role of nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the history of military art ........ 8
Simonenko A. V.
Sarmatian warfare in the North Pontic region ................................................. 26
Nikonorov V. P.
Notes on the contribution made by Central Asian nomads to the warfare
of ancient civilizations: The case of Iran ......................................................... 43
Olbricht M. J.
Notes on the origins of the cataphracts heavy cavalry in Iran
and Central Asia . ............................................................................................. 66
Kubarev G. V.
The influence of military art and armour of the Central Asian nomads
on European warfare (in the light of the Avars migration, and of the
formation of the First Turk Khaganate) ........................................................... 86
Nefyodov S. A.
Mongolian bows and Mongol conquests ....................................................... 110
Gorelik M. V.
Military service of Polovtsian nobility in the Golden Horde . ....................... 127
Khudyakov Y. S.
Warfare of the Turk nomads in the southern regions of West Siberia
during Late Middle Ages and Modern Times ..........................................187
Bobrov L. A.
Late-medieval solid-forged helmets from the Tobolsk State
Reserve-Museum of History and Architecture .............................................. 202
Kushkumbayev A. K.
Some components of military art of the late-medieval nomads
of Kazakhstan ................................................................................................ 212
Yerofeyeva I. V., Aubekerov B. Zh.
Factors of landscape and geomorphology in the offensive strategies
and tactics of the Kazakh nomads in their war against the Dzungars
in the 17231730 ........................................................................................... 228
Saparaliyev D. B.
Military art of the Tien Shan Kyrghyz in the XVIIIXIX cc.:
Studies on archival sources . ......................................................................... 251

396

Sala R., Deom J.-M.


Medieval tortkuls of North Tien Shan and Mid-Low Syrdarya . ................... 263
Smagulov E. A.
The North Gate Bridge of Medieval Sauran .................................................. 287
Orazbek E. Zh.
Qamshy as one of most important elements of the equipment for horse
riders, hunters and warriors: Ethno-linguistic aspects ................................... 301
Yerofeyeva I. V.
The institution of batyrs in a military organization structure
of the Kazakh nomads (XVI middle of XIX c.) ......................................... 322
Dalayeva T. T.
Military functions of Kazakh khans and sultans in the XVIIIXIX cc.:
Issues of evolution and transformations ........................................................ 353
Beknazarov R. A.
Hunting in the North Aral Sea region during the second half
of XIX early XX c.: Ethnographic studies . ................................................ 370
Motov Y. A.
Notes on the history of firearms in Middle Asia and Kazakhstan ................. 379
Abbreviations . ............................................................................................... 382
List of contributors ........................................................................................ 387
Summary ........................................................................................................ 389

397


.
. . :

The Role of Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Development


of World Military Art.
Scientific Readings in Commemoration of N. E. Massanov: Proceedings
of the International Scientific Conference

30.11.10. 60901/16.
. .
.-. . 25,00. . . . 19,6.
500 .

Вам также может понравиться