Defensive weapons of nomads of Central Asia and southern Siberia during the late Middle Ages. The terrible weapon of the nomads: a bow without poison - arrows to the wind What weapons should a warrior have owned?

11

Ancient nomads with their mother's milk absorbed the unshakable truth: you can lose wealth, property, but not your land. The Kazakhs were peaceful people, they did not attack, they only defended their homeland from enemy attacks. Therefore, it is not surprising that weapons craft was developed in the Great Steppe.

The whole essence of the weapon classification system of the Kazakh people, and nomads in general, was in one phrase “Er karuy - bes karu” (a warrior owns five types of weapons). TengriMIX invites you to look at the weapons of those times and be convinced of the ingenuity of our ancestors.

Throwing

The main throwing weapons were bows and arrows. The combat bow was assembled from several parts made of various materials: wood, bone, horn, birch bark, sinew and leather. The arrowheads had different shapes: tetrahedral, which could pierce any shield, and wooden cylindrical, used to knock a person off a horse. A quiver for carrying arrows was called “koramsak”, a separate case for a bow was called “sadak”. The same term denoted the entire set with a bow, a quiver and a sword belt for wearing them.

Slashing

Aibalta

To deliver a chopping blow, a “balta” battle ax with a medium-width blade was used. Chopping and cutting blows were delivered with an aybalta ax with a moon-shaped and wide blade. The “shakan” coin had a narrow wedge-shaped blade and was used to deliver splitting blows. And the last variety is a combination of an axe, ax and a hammer.

cutting

Cutting weapons include a straight sword - "semser", a curved saber - "kylysh" and a Kazakh saber - "sapy".

Stabbing

The Kazakhs had two types of piercing weapons: “naiza” - a spear with a wide tip and “sungi” - a long pike with a thin tip, designed to defeat an enemy in armor.

Percussion

Buzdygan

The most ancient variety of this type of weapon was the “shokpar” club, made from one piece of wood in the form of a heavy club with a head bound in metal or studded with pointed spikes. Impact weapons also include: the heavy mace “gurzi”, the flail “bosmoyn” and the mace-six-feather “buzdygan”.

Kalkan - shield

The warriors were protected by the “kalkan” shield, “sauyt” armor and “dulyga” helmet. The latter were very diverse in their shape - with a visor and a silver notch, with a mesh and an ornamented leather cover.

Dulyga - helmet

The best type of helmet was considered to be the "Kulahud" type. It was distinguished by its relatively shallow spherical crown, a sharp spire-finial on the top of the helmet, and two bushings above the forehead of the helmet for attaching jewelry. These helmet decorations were also insignia, emphasizing military rank.

Khans and sultans had plumes made of owl feathers at the top of their helmets - “zhiga”. The Tarkhans were distinguished by the fact that they had flags on their helmets - “zhalau”. Among outstanding batyrs, they could be decorated with tassels made of ribbons and horsehair - “shashak”. Another interesting type of helmet was the tomagap - a helmet with a mask covering the warrior’s face. The masks could be very different, often frightening to the enemy.

Helmet at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York houses a helmet that is one of the five most historically valuable helmets. Scientists believe that it could have belonged to the Khan of the Golden Horde, Zhanibek, or his son. This is proven by the engraved and silvered inscription made in Arabic script at the bottom of the helmet: “Victorious Sultan Mahmud Zhanibek.” The helmet is made of steel, its height is 20-23 centimeters, its diameter is 22 centimeters, and it has sharp edges in the upper part.

In the past, the Kazakh batyrs had a cult of military weapons: they swore allegiance, took an oath, and assigned personal names. Five types of military weapons also served as signs of power; they denoted different degrees of military rank. The khan, who was enthroned, was presented with a golden saber - a sign of power and khan's dignity. A spear with a bunchuk, a saber or a mace was given to military leaders when they were appointed to a position. People who received the right to bear military weapons enjoyed special privileges in society. For example, under Khan Tauk, according to the then existing law of “Zheti Zhargy”, only people who carried military weapons enjoyed the right to participate in the khan’s council: khans, sultans, batyrs, ancestors. Ceremonial military weapons were awarded for military merit.

In addition, military weapons, as a valuable item, were part of the bride's dowry - "zhasau" and the wedding gift for the bride - "kalym". It was included among nine items as the main prize for winning competitions held at traditional holidays and ceremonial funerals. The veneration of military weapons in the Kazakh folk tradition has survived to this day. The descendants of the Kazakh batyrs keep as sacred relics some examples of military weapons left over from their glorious ancestors.

He was demobilized at the beginning of December 1917 (by that time he had become a Left Socialist Revolutionary). Name the name of an active fighter for the establishment and strengthening of Soviet power in Chuvashia.

14. Name the first orphans of the First World War

15. Outstanding Russian fighter ace of the Imperial Air Force during the First World War, the second pilot in history to use an aerial ram and the first to survive the ram. For this feat, on July 27, 1915, he was awarded the Arms of St. George. Say the hero's name.

16. Name the Russian-American chemist, lieutenant general, doctor of chemical sciences, professor, academician of the St. Petersburg Academy (1916). During the First World War, he worked in the field of organizing chemical production, research and production of chemical weapons and methods of chemical protection of troops.

17. The famous simple Don Cossack, who served in the 3rd Don Regiment. The brave Cossack appeared on posters and leaflets, cigarette packs and postcards, his portraits and drawings depicting his feat were published in newspapers and magazines. During the First World War, he was the first to be awarded the St. George Cross.
And the Cossack distinguished himself in the first days of the war in a battle with German cavalrymen near the Polish town of Kalwaria.
He is the prototype of the Cossack in the ensemble of monuments of the First World War.
Who is this hero?

18. Name “Maresyev” from the First World War. Inventor, aircraft designer, Russian aviator, one of the first naval pilots. In the summer of 1915, during a combat mission, he was blown up by his own bomb and was seriously wounded. His right leg was amputated. Nevertheless, he decided to return to duty and persistently learned to walk, first on crutches, and then with a prosthesis.

19.
Indicate the name of the first President of Yugoslavia. Participant of the First World War. In 1915 he received a medal for bravery and the rank of senior non-commissioned officer.
On April 4 of the same year, in a battle on the Dniester near the village of Mitkeu (Bukovina), he was seriously wounded and captured by Russians. After being captured, he spent 13 months in the hospital, then was sent to a labor camp in the Urals. He took part in the Russian Civil War (joined the Red Guard).

III.ACHIEVEMENTS:
20. What was the name of the tunic of arbitrary samples - imitations of English and French models, which received a common name on behalf of the English general, which became widespread in the army during the First World War of 1914-1918?

21. It first appeared with the development of aviation during the First World War. It was first created in Germany. It was necessary for the pilots to be able to escape the cold at altitude. Made from leather. What is it about?

22. What do the following names have in common:
“Shark”, “Lamprey”, “Dragon”, “Seal”, “Perch”?

23.
The legendary Budenovki, known from Soviet films about the civil war, and the Red Army uniform in general, were invented by the artist Vasnetsov for the imperial army. It was planned to dress the soldiers in pointed cloth helmets and overcoats with turns like a Streltsy caftan at the parade in Berlin, planned for the summer of 1917.
When the Bolsheviks seized power, they got warehouses with new uniforms.
What was Budenovka called before the October Revolution?

24. Indicate what new weapon was first used by Germany during the Battle of Verdun.

25. When and by whom was the world's first machine gun invented?

26. With the advent of tanks in the army, a new way of protecting against them appeared. What is this?

27. One of the most famous and widely read German writers of the 20th century. In 1916 he was drafted into the army, and on June 17, 1917 he was sent to the Western Front. In his first novel, published in 1929, he describes the brutality of war from the point of view of a 20-year-old soldier. Based on the novel, a film of the same name was made, released in 1930. For this novel he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1931, but upon consideration, the Nobel Committee rejected this proposal.
Name the writer and the title of his novel.
Several more anti-war writings followed; In simple, emotional language, they realistically described the war and the post-war period.

29. Few people know the poet, owner of the Grif publishing house today. He accepted the outbreak of the First World War with enthusiasm. With his first military conscription he went to the front and took part in campaigns in East Prussia. On the first day of the war with Germany, he wrote the following lines:
There were two Romes in the universe,
Oh, Rus'! Create with your sword
Forever unshakable, imperishable,
The last, pan-Slavic Rome.
Who are we talking about?

In terms of their characteristics, medieval bows are inferior to modern models. But this did not stop the armies of warriors and detachments of steppe nomads from winning amazing victories. The mastery of these weapons was as high as ever, and the battle strategies were extremely well thought out.

One of the most intriguing questions of our time, the answer to which will allow us to better understand what awaits us in the future, is related to batteries. Will experts be able to significantly increase the energy density stored in batteries? There is no chance, some skeptics say, because two centuries have passed since the appearance of the first battery by Alessandro Volta. This means that scientists have already completely improved the design. However, there is a compelling counterargument to this opinion. The first battery created by man, the bow, was invented several thousand years ago, but it was over the last century, with the advent of new materials and technologies, that noticeable progress has been made. However, the technical advantages of modern bows would hardly allow us to defeat, say, medieval nomads. Before the advent of firearms, the art of archery among many peoples was as high as ever.

Bow without poison - arrows to the wind

Archaeological findings suggest that the bow was invented by man at least 10,000 years ago. Ancient bows were small, about 70 cm long, had extremely low efficiency and were used in conjunction with unfeathered arrows. The latter were reeds with a faceted wooden tip. Ancient arrows weighed only 10-15 g, which further reduced the shooting efficiency of a prehistoric bow, due to the lack of materials more suitable for making arrows. Such bows were mainly used for hunting birds and small animals.

There is, however, a well-established opinion that even in those days the bow was used in inter-tribal “showdowns”: the inhabitants of the caves shot poisoned arrows at each other. After all, without poison, a weak bow with light arrows was capable of harming the enemy only when shooting at point-blank range. However, most scientists believe that in those days bows were practically not used for military purposes: only a few tribes had poisons suitable for this.

A step forward in the evolution of the bow was the appearance of arrows with feathers and heavy tips. Arrows with a bone tip weighed about 25 g, with a stone tip - up to 50 g. The greater weight of the arrow led to an increase in destructive power, which, in combination with the almost doubled length of the bow, made the “world’s first battery” a serious weapon. In tribal battles, fighters increasingly used a bow and less often used a spear thrower and sling - the most ancient types of military weapons. What the ancient killers liked most was the fact that the bow could be used secretly - for example, by sneaking up unexpectedly, you could hit a strong enemy without a fight. With other types of weapons such a trick was impossible. The only competitor in this regard was the spear, but it soon lost in the battle with the bow. When shooting at a short distance, the arrow at high speed, entering the victim’s body, formed a deeper wound due to the small impact area. Archer hunters now shot not only at ducks, but also at bison.

A terrible weapon of nomads

With the advent of civilization, weapons continued to develop: to increase the firing range, Europeans lengthened their bows. The British were most interested in increasing size. The medieval English bow reached a length of 180−220 cm.

Unlike settled civilizations, nomadic peoples followed a different path. Preferring to ride on horseback, the nomads preferred a small bow and honed their shooting skills while riding. Soon the nomadic archers became a fearsome force.

The weapon of most nomads - a composite bow - came from Ancient Egypt, where the existence of a similar type of bow was known already in the 2nd millennium BC. The composite bow was made from tendons, wood, horns and some other materials, selecting them in such a way that on the outside (on the back of the bow) there were materials that could withstand tension better, and on the inside (on the belly) that were better able to withstand compression. As a result, despite their relatively small sizes, composite bows had a high firing range.

And large Turkish composite bows have always been record holders in this area: they could throw an arrow 250 of their own lengths.

Riders could only use short bows, so the use of composite bows, which, at the same tension as wooden bows, provided approximately 30% more energy, was fully justified. There was another explanation for the popularity of composite bows among nomads: in the steppes where they lived, trees were almost never found. Therefore, despite the labor-intensive production, the noticeably more durable composite bow was the optimal choice.

The use of a more effective composite bow was only one component of success. High shooting skill was of great importance. The riders trained regularly. Moreover, among the Arabs, archery was even considered a religious obligation prescribed by the Koran. The Prophet Muhammad was himself an archer and encouraged his community to take up horse riding and archery, favoring the latter.

The Scythians were considered first-class horse archers: they knew how to shoot with both hands while galloping. They were the first in the world to use metal arrowheads made of bronze. Small bows of the Scythian type (about 70 cm long) quickly spread among the peoples of the Middle East and Europe. Among others, the Persians and Parthians began to use them. The latter enriched the world's languages ​​with the expression “Parthian arrow,” which meant a well-aimed, insidious blow. The ancient Asian people used cunning in battles - Parthian horsemen feigned flight and over their shoulders hit the pursuing enemy with well-aimed arrows. The skill and cunning of the Parthian archers brought them a number of significant victories in battle. The most famous was the battle of Carrhae, when a small army of Parthians shot a 40,000-strong Roman army led by Marcus Crassus. True, the victory was not easy - the Parthian archers, according to historians, spent more than 2 million arrows per day.

However, the “Parthian arrow” tactic is not optimal from a physical point of view. If a retreating archer shoots at an enemy while galloping, the speed of the arrow is reduced by the speed of the rider and the destructive power of the shot becomes less.

Centuries later, the Mongols used more kinematically correct tactics. They fired as they moved at full gallop. Due to the addition of speeds, the arrow received a noticeable increase in speed, and the range of the shot increased by about 40%, so the arrows of the Mongols were dangerous at a distance of up to 200 m. However, let us return to Europe in the 14th-15th centuries, where during the Hundred Years' War between England and France Interesting events took place related to the history of the bow.

Celebration of big bows

English archers, as already mentioned, used the longest simple bows in the world. The long length provided high destructive power and made the shot accuracy more stable. From the point of view of destructive power, it would have been preferable to use large composite bows in battle, but such weapons were expensive and difficult to manufacture, so the British chose a regular wooden bow. Simple and inexpensive to manufacture, such a bow could be produced in mass quantities and provide weapons to all men in the country. British bow factories were something like a prototype of Henry Ford's assembly line. Everything was done extremely quickly to ensure high productivity. Much attention was also paid to training - during the reign of the Plantagenets, all men were required to practice archery. In the main battles of the Hundred Years' War, several thousand archers usually took part on the English side: this constrained the enemy in his maneuvers, and the soldiers, falling into the rain of arrows, lost their morale. The popularity of the bow was so great that out of three soldiers in the English army, two were archers, and at the famous Battle of Eisencourt, four out of five men were archers. It is curious that in addition to foot archers, the British also had horse archers. In some books they are depicted shooting in the saddle. But this is incorrect: the horse was used for mobility, and they went into battle on foot.

A triumph in the history of the English bow was the Battle of Eisencourt, when the heavily armed French army, which had a significant numerical superiority (25,000 versus 6,000), was defeated, suffering noticeable losses. This result was achieved by the skill of the English archers, who skillfully destroyed the advancing French with a hail of arrows. The Hundred Years' War was in some ways a curious contest between the French crossbow and the English bow. The French considered their crossbowmen an impressive force: their guns were decisively superior to English bows in terms of firing range, lethal force and accuracy. But in battle, the main drawback of the crossbow affected itself - its low rate of fire. While a good archer could fire 10-12 shots per minute, a crossbowman fired no more than four bolts. In addition, the effective range of a crossbow was lower than that of a bow.

However, later, when warriors began to use increasingly better quality armor, more powerful and accurate crossbows began to be used more and more often. True, their life was short-lived: while surpassing the first firearms in accuracy, both the bow and crossbow were distinguished by the slowness of the projectile. It was easier to hit a stationary target with a bow, as demonstrated in 1792 by an interesting bow and gun competition held in England. Out of 20 shots, 16 arrows and 12 bullets hit a target located 100 yards (91 m) away. But it was much more difficult to hit a moving target with a bow! A heavy arrow from an English archer covered the combat distance in 1.5-2 seconds, so the moving “target” had time to move to the side.

At the beginning of the 16th century, the musket began to be used more often than the bow on the battlefield. And by the beginning of the 19th century, bows were completely forgotten among the troops. Therefore, in 1813, in the “Battle of the Nations” near Leipzig, the soldiers were surprised to see Bashkir archers who were part of the Russian army. The French even nicknamed them “cupids.” But, by the way, the archers fought quite successfully. After another four decades, Bashkir archers performed well in the Crimean War. But after that, the image of a warrior with a bow left real life and moved into books and films, and the skill of medieval archers became legendary. A new hobby also appeared: inspired by history, amateurs began to create medieval bows for themselves using authentic technology. In terms of efficiency and ease of shooting, they, of course, are inferior to block carbon fiber models, but they allow the owner to feel like a brave Scythian horseman or Robin Hood...
The legacy of English archers

The victory “V” gesture, two fingers raised up on one hand, which Winston Churchill often used, is not at all an imitation of the first letter of the English word victory (“victory”), as many believe. It turns out that this gesture has an ancient and rather dark history. During the Hundred Years' War, the French were terribly angry with English archers, so captured archers had two fingers cut off with which they pulled the bowstring: the person parted with his profession forever. Therefore, returning home with victory, the archers showed those who met them their two “main” fingers: the fingers are intact, we won!

Myths about bows

Myth 1. An arrow from a medieval bow easily pierced any metal armor.

- Not every arrow (much depended on the tip), not every bow and, of course, not every armor. In principle, this was possible, but rather as an exception than a rule.

Myth 2. Some medieval archers shot so accurately that they could break the enemy's bowstring with an arrow.

- Most likely, this is speculation. Why waste an arrow on damaging the enemy’s weapon if you can kill him with it?

Myth 3. An archer shoots a second arrow before the first hits the target. This is impossible when aiming at short distances.

— The arrow flies for about two seconds; a good medieval archer spent five to six seconds shooting one arrow.

Myth 4. Medieval archers usually shot on command.

“They only shoot like that in movies.” It was difficult to keep the combat bows in a taut position. Therefore, the command was given only once - to start shooting.

The history of the military art and weapons of nomads has been studied extremely unevenly, and if the military history of the Scythians, Turks of the era of the Khaganates and the Mongols of the time of Genghis Khan attracted the attention of researchers starting from the middle of the last century, then other periods of the evolutionary development of the weapons of nomads have either not been studied at all or have been poorly studied until now time. The last group includes the weapons of the nomads of Southern Siberia and Central Asia in the late Middle Ages. The lack of systematized material on this issue has an extremely negative impact on the general concepts of scientists involved in the history of the evolution of defensive weapons of nomads in the foreseeable historical period, especially since the completion of the development of weapons and military art of nomads as an independent historical phenomenon is attributed by the same researchers to precisely this period. At the same time, the late Middle Ages remains an interesting period in the life of the peoples of Central Asia, both for researchers involved in the political history of the ethnic groups of the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe, and for those interested in the military aspects of the history of this period.

Second floor. XVII century - first floor XVIII century known in specialized literature as the period of the “small Mongol invasion”, the time of the last surge in military activity of the nomadic Mongolian tribes, an almost continuous series of wars waged by the Dzungar Khanate, supported by Tibet, with the Manchu-Khalkhas-South Mongol coalition in the East, the Kazakh zhuz in the West and Russia in the North. Without a thorough analysis of the weapons of the steppe warriors, it is impossible to explain their successes and defeats in wars between themselves and their sedentary neighbors. Of particular interest is the defensive armament of the warring parties, which not only does not regress by the end of the developed Middle Ages, as some authors believe (Beheim, 1995, p. 127), but on the contrary continues to develop at the beginning of modern times, which is emphasized by Russian and Chinese written sources of this period, noting the great importance of “heavy” cavalry in the armed forces of nomadic states, which played the role of the main striking force in the armies of the Khalkha-Mongols and was (along with the “musketeers”) one of the two main components of the Oirat troops.

Extensive archaeological material on the topic of interest was obtained during the excavations of V.V. Radlova, I.P. Kuznetsova, Yu.S. Khudyakova, S.G. Skobeleva and others. These archaeological materials (some of which have not yet been published) are supplemented by iconographic and written Russian and Chinese sources. Late medieval weapons are exhibited in Russian and foreign museums. Some of these materials were reviewed in the works of Yu.S. Khudyakov (Khudyakov, 1991) and M.V. Gorelik (Gorelik, 1979), however, the archaeological and iconographic material accumulated in recent years allows us to take a fresh look at the complex of protective weapons of the nomads of Central Asia, to assess the level of equipment of the Kyrgyz, Dzungar, Mongols XVII-XVIII centuries.

Defensive weapons began to be widely used by nomads of Central Asia and Southern Siberia in the early Middle Ages. By the 17th century The eastern, western and southern Mongols, as well as the Yenisei Kyrgyz, already had centuries of experience in the manufacture and use of metal armor and helmets (Khudyakov, 1980, 1986 1997. Gorelik, 1979, 1987). During the aggressive campaigns of Genghis Khan and his successors, the actual Mongolian technologies for their production were supplemented and enriched by Chinese and Central Asian samples. Judging by the assumption of M. Gorelik in mid. XIII century more than half of the Mongol army was equipped with armor of various types (Gorelik, 1987, pp. 170-171). Their evolution, quantitative and qualitative development continued in subsequent centuries.

After the collapse of the Chinggisid empires, the urgent need for the Mongolian tribal unions was to create their own iron-mining bases capable of solving the problems of rearmament of the army. For the Dzungars, one of these bases was the vicinity of Lake Texel, where, according to I. Sorokin, the Oirots “From ancient times, the Turks made sabers, armor, armor, helmets, etc.” Over the manufacture of weapons on the lake. More than a thousand craftsmen worked at Texel (Zlatkin, 1983, p. 239).

Defensive weapons were also produced in the steppes themselves: according to the Mongol-Oirat laws of 1640, every year 2 out of 40 tents had to “make armor”; those who failed to cope with this task could be fined with a horse or camel (“Ikh Tsaaz”, 1981, p. 19 ,47).

Russian chroniclers describing Mongolian life in the 17th century. persistently emphasize the presence of protective weapons among nomads: “...and they go to battle in kuyak, and in helmets, and in bracers, and in kneecaps, and some of the best people and horses go to battle in iron armor and seasonings” (Materials on the history of Russian-Mongolian relations 1607-1636, 1959, p. 286), “...and the Kolmatian people fight with archery and spears, and sabers... And they go to battle in iron kuyaks and in shishaks, and in kuyaks iron boards the width of the floor palms, an arrow from a bow and a saber (“them” - L.B.) does not have” (Ibid., p. 54).

Kuyaks, armor, bracers - constantly appear as gifts sent by the Mongol rulers to the Moscow kings (some of them are still kept in Moscow and St. Petersburg museums). A collection of Dzungarian armor is kept in the Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin.

In Mongolia itself, shells and helmets could be used as part of bridewealth, trophies, they were objects of theft, they were awarded, for the shell saved from fire and water, the owner gave a horse and a sheep (Gorelik, 1987, p. 171).

According to I. Unkovsky, there was a lot of iron ore in the Dzungarian lands:

“...in recent years they began to make weapons from him (Tsevan-Rabdan - L.B.), and they say that there is plenty of iron from which they make shells and kuyaks” and that “all summer they collect from all the uluses in Urgu brings 300 or more women to the kontaisha, and through the summer, for their own money, they sew kuyaks and clothes into their armor, which they send to the army.” (Zlatkin, 1964, p.218).

Apparently, a significant amount of ready-made shells or iron raw materials for their manufacture were collected by the nomads of Central Asia and Southern Siberia as tribute or bought from the Buryats (Batuev, 1996, p. 36), Altaians (Isupov, 1999, p. 9) and even (despite the prohibitions) twice among the Russian “yasak people”, first in 1622, when the Oirats subjugated the population of the “Kuznetsk district” by forcing them to pay tribute in iron products: “... and in that iron they make armor, bekhterets, helmets, spears , spears and sabers of all kinds of iron, besides arquebuses, and those shells and bekhterets are sold to the Kolmatsk people on horseback... and other esaks give iron to the Kolmatsk people..." (Zlatkin, 1983, p. 92), and then in 1644, when Batur -huntaiji organized a massive purchase from the Shors of “kuyaks and helmets, and arrows, and spears, and all kinds of iron” (Zlatkin, 1964, p. 200).

If necessary, weapons could be purchased en masse from the lands of settled peoples. This is what the Khalkhas did in 1690, ordering “iron weapons” from the Qing Empire (Kychanov, 1980, p. 121) and the Oirats in 1750, who, according to the merchant Aibek Bakhmuratov, “under the former owner Galdan-Chirin, they themselves made gunpowder, lead, guns, Turks, sabers and armor, and now they receive it from Great Bukharia” (Zlatkin, 1983, p. 240).

Armor was widespread not only in the Mongol nomads themselves, but also on the northern periphery of the nomadic states. So the Kyrgyz entered the battle on horseback “with weapons, with arquebuses and spears, and with saydaki, in armor, and in kuyak.” Kyrgyz armor was highly valued and bought by Russians (Khudyakov, 1991, p. 88). Armor and Buryats were used; a report from the Verkhovensky fort in 1645 reported:

“And fraternal people come to the prison in war on armored horses, in kuyaks with bracers and in cones” (Batuev, 1996, p. 74).

In 1688 Irkutsk governor A. Sinyavin ordered his envoys to take “... fraternal people of their choice and disperse one hundred and fifty to Irkutsk immediately with horses and with a gun, saadaki, and with kuyaki, and with armor” (Mikhailov, 1993, p. 42). In reports to Moscow, the high quality of Buryat armor was especially emphasized:

“...brotherly men... come to battles in kuyaks and in bracers, and in shishaks [and we - L.B.] and with our thin squeaks we don’t break through their brotherly kuyaks” (Ibid., p.8).

Judging by Russian written sources, the “brotherly people” continued to use “shells and kuyaks” in the second half of the 18th century. (ibid. p.42).

The wide distribution of metal defensive weapons among nomads is also evidenced by the fact that plates from “kuyak” were discovered in the burials of Kyrgyz Kyshtyms, who had never used them before (Khudyakov, 1991, p. 96). Apparently, the nobility's storage facilities contained hundreds of spare sets of armor. So, according to “Ikh Tsaaz”, as a fine, up to 100 shells could be taken at a time from the ruling princes, 50 from their brothers, 10 from non-ruling princes, 5 from officials and princely sons-in-law, standard bearers and trumpeters, etc. (“Ikh Tsaaz”, 1981, p. 15), and when in 1645 a Russian detachment captured the Ekhirit camp, which was abandoned by soldiers who had gone to war, then in addition to 30 women and 18 children, the Cossacks found in the yurts “...11 Kuyaks, 8 Shelomov, 7-bracers, and the sovereign's treasury armor, and a rag of armor..." (Mikhailov, 1993, p. 15).

Thanks to the presence of a fairly powerful production base and the purchase of weapons abroad, the Mongols, apparently, were able to create large contingents of “heavy” and “medium” cavalry. Moreover, the “heavy” cavalry consisted of princes with their numerous relatives, entourage, Central Asian “guests” who were in huge numbers at the khan’s headquarters, elite contingents of vassals, and the “medium” special units of men-at-arms: lubchiten (“kuyachniks”), duulgat (“helmet bearers” ) and degeley khuyagt (“shell-bearers”) (“Ikh Tsaaz”, 1981, p. 15). In addition, commoners who were not part of the shock armored units could also possess metal protective weapons. (Gorelik, 1987, p. 171).

The armored weapons of nomads can be divided into 4 main types: plate-sewn armor, lamellar armor, chain mail and soft armor.

Sewn-plate armor is one of the most popular types of body protective weapons for nomads. It has 2 subspecies: large-plate combined (plate sizes from 10 by 12 to 12 by 12 cm) and fine-plate (from 4.5 by 6.5 cm).

Large-plate combined armor is known from large rectangular, square, trapezoidal and subtriangular plates discovered in the Minusinsk Basin. The cut of the shell and the arrangement of the plates of its components are unknown. Based on the number and shape of the surviving plates, Asian and European analogies, it can be assumed that the shell was a corset - a cuirass with side slits. Large rectangular plates were arranged in 2 rows (3 in a row) and covered the warrior’s chest, and subtriangular, trapezoidal and small triangular plates covered the stomach and sides. This arrangement of the plates makes it possible to most effectively protect the chest from the ramming spear strike of the enemy and at the same time does not restrict the movements of the rider in the cavalry cabin. The plates were attached from the inside to a leather or fabric base using rivets cut in the shape of stars. In Central Asia and Northern India, such a shell could sometimes have no sleeves and hem; in this case, it could be worn over a chain mail shirt or heavy.

Small-plate shells are quite widely represented, both in the form of museum exhibits and among archaeological finds. The latter include Cherdat and Minusinsk plates of square and rectangular shape with grooves and five rivets arranged in a cross. (Khudyakov, 1987, p. 150, fig. 7), as well as smooth “kuyak” plates from the Ortyz monument - Oba in Minus and plates with a side from Mongolia (Khudyakov, 1997, p. 19, fig. 8). The small-plate shell had 2 main types of cut: a Manchu-type “vest” with an axial cut and a short hem, and a “poncho” with a cut on the side and shoulder. The “vest” type armor did not have sleeves, which were replaced by plate-like shoulder pads, and the short hem was successfully complemented by long blade-shaped leg guards. Manchu armor “vests” were also reinforced with “crosspieces”, “aprons”, and sometimes with figuratively carved armpits. A “poncho” type shell could also have quilted leg guards (Gorelik, 1979, p. 99), but could easily do without them, but in this case the length of the hem increased slightly and reached the warrior’s knees (Gerasimov, 1999, p. 17). In both cases, the plates were fastened to the “coat dress” from the inside using rivets.

To strengthen the armor, special “iron plates” were used, known to us both from the Mongolian epic (“Mongolian sources about Dayan Khan”, 1986, p. 52) and from archaeological finds (Khudyakov, 1991, p. 92, fig. 3.2). Sometimes the shell could be supplemented with disc-shaped mirrors, which, among other things, also played the role of a talisman (Mikhailov, 1993, p. 43). Until the 18th century. The Mongols continued to use lamellar armor, and both main forms of cut continued to exist: the corset-cuirass (later “poncho”) and the “robe” (Gorelik, 1979, pp. 96,97). Moreover, judging by the Tibetan and Manchu analogies, it can be assumed that the long-skirted version of the “robe”, characteristic of the Mongols in the 14th century. (and survived until the 17th century in China and Tibet) was replaced by the nomads with its simplified form: “a robe with a short hem to the knees” (Tsibikov, 1919, pp. 210-211). The hem of the shell was sometimes cut on both sides, forming 3 large blades, respectively covering the legs, sides and sacrum of the warrior. The “short robe” was pulled together across the chest using special leather straps, and the shoulder pads were attached to the shoulders and forearms of the armored man using a system of straps. Along the edge of the armor (hem, shoulder pads), protecting against cuts from the sharp edges of the plates, there was a wide leather strip. At least until the middle of the 17th century. among the Mongolian nomads, lamellar armor of the “corset-cuirass” type, consisting of two parts - the “backrest” and the “breastplate”, which were connected by means of belts on the shoulders and sides of the warrior, did not go out of use. Moreover, judging by the Mongolian epic, putting on armor began from its dorsal part (“Abai Geser-khubun”, 1961, part 1, p. 34).

The lamellar shell “poncho” with a belly was usually worn independently (Waddel, 1905, p. 133), although it could also have shoulder pads and a legguard, but judging by the reconstruction of M. Gorelik, their structure most likely was plate-sewn (Gorelik, 1979, p. .96, Fig. 4).

In addition to metal lamellar shells, shells made of leather plates (“huus huyag”) also continued to be used. Their cut can be judged by the synchronous Tibetan and Chinese leather armor of the 17th-18th centuries. (Gorelik, 1987, p. 164, fig. 1.1, 1.5).

Somewhere from the 17th century. The Mongols and their allies began to use chain mail armor quite widely, which received the special name “ilchirbelig huyag” in Kyrgyz folklore (Khudyakov, 1991, p. 95). M. Tatarin wrote that the Transbaikal Buryats have “...especially a lot of chain mail,” he was echoed by S.P. Krasheninnikov “... has all sorts of chain mail, kuyaks and shells” (Mikhailov, 1993, pp. 43-44). Scraps of chain mail were discovered in Minus (Koptyrevo, Kola, Kanygino, Tabat), some of them are kept in Russian museums, whole chain mail is from the property of the D.K. family. Domozhakova is described by D.A. Klemyanets.

It is not possible to classify chain mail armor due to the poverty and poor preservation of archaeological material. However, based on a number of features (a collar with a slit, sleeves up to the middle of the forearm, a significant length of the hem), it can be assumed that the chain mail used by Mongolian and Kyrgyz warriors was not fundamentally different from the synchronous armor of Central Asia and Russia. The Dzungars and possibly the Kyrgyz could wear chain mail either independently or under plate armor (in fact, such a complex was called “double armor” in the Mongol epic).

No ring-plate shells have been recorded in the burials of nomads of Central Asia and Southern Siberia. However, given the close cultural and military ties of the Western Mongols with East Turkestan (at the end of the 17th century, more than two thousand Central Asian “guests” wandered along with the headquarters of the Dzungar ruler (Zlatkin, 1964, p. 332), massive purchases of weapons in the 18th century Bukhara (Zlatkin, 1983, p. 240) and messages from written sources, in which, along with other weapons of the Oirats, “bekhterets” are mentioned, i.e. typical ring-plate shells (Zlatkin, 1983, p. 92)) it can be assumed that that a similar type of armor was used by the Western Mongols, although in very limited quantities.

Until the 18th century. The Mongols also used “soft armor”: “leather shirts” (Chargakh) and quilted “wallets” (which on the northern periphery of nomadic empires were usually covered with fabric - “fanza” or “daba” (Mikhailov, 1993, pp. 44-46). Shells made of organic materials were cut in the form of a robe with an oblique wrap or an axial cut and could be worn either independently or together with “hard armor.”

Mongolian helmets of the late Middle Ages, due to the scarcity of known material, are an extremely difficult subject to study. The tall vase-shaped and pyramidal helmets attributed by M.V. Gorelik to the Mongols (Gorelik, 1979, p. 97, 98), donated to the Russian kings by the Oirat rulers, are clearly of Manchu origin. Russian chroniclers are also extremely cautious about Mongolian combat headpieces, distinguishing among the “Altynov people” only two types of helmets: “shelomy” (headpieces with a high bell-shaped crown) and “shishaki” (low spherical or pyramidal headpieces). Only Mongolian “sheloms” have reached us; they are quite similar in shape and differ in the richness of their decoration. The Mongolian “helmet with dragons”, stored in the State Hermitage, has a box-shaped visor with “wings” (for attaching plate cheek pieces), a hemispherical pommel with a flared sleeve. Along the helmet hoop there are holes for attaching the aventail. Almost the entire surface of the “shelom” is decorated with engraving (Winkler, 1992, p. 254, fig. 327). The Minusinsk helmet is decorated much more poorly; the only decoration can be considered carved overlays covering the joints of the six plates of the crown. The helmet has a visor and holes for attaching the aventail. (Khudyakov, 1991, p.96, fig. 6). Typologically close to the Mongolian ones, the Tibetan “sheloms” have a spheroconic crown, a carved sleeve, and a hoop reinforced with lamellar plates (Gorelik, 1987, p. 164, fig. 1.1).

It is not difficult to trace the genesis of the Mongolian and Tibetan “sheloms”; they all go back to the Mongolian “bell-shaped” helmets of the early 14th century. known to us from Iranian miniatures (Gorelik, 1987, p. 188).

“Shishaks” in Mongolian burials of the 17th century. were not discovered, however, frequent mention of them by Russian chroniclers, Tibetan military headbands of this type that have come down to us (Waddel, 1906, p. 129, 133, Tsibikov, 1919, p. 212), as well as their images in Manchu miniatures speak of their popularity among nomads.

Mongolian helmets of this period had open lamellar, chain mail, lamellar, leather, or three-part fabric aventails (Tsibikov, 1919, p. 212), which could be reinforced with lamellar cheekpieces, and possibly a Manchu-type chin guard. All types of aventail (except lamellar) could be supplemented with spherical or polygonal ears (for example, a chainmail aventail with ears was found by D.A. Klemenets near the village of Medvedskoye). We cannot exclude the possibility that nomads used “deaf” aventails fastened under the chin and “tightly pulled to the collar of an impenetrable kuyak” (Khudyakov, 1991, p. 95). To protect the face, a mask was occasionally used - “tumaga” (known to us from Kyrgyz folklore), apparently of the Central Asian type.

The top of the helmet was crowned with a sleeve for a plume (feathers, horsehair plume, yalovets) or a point (Waddel, 1906, p. 129). Overlays in the form of combs could also be used as decoration). The helmet was worn over a balaclava (a thick quilted cap, sometimes tied under the chin).

Among the protection of the limbs, bracers prevailed, constantly mentioned, along with “shishaks and kuyaks” as gifts sent by the Mongol rulers to the Russian tsars. Judging by the known materials, the “Mongolian bracers” were typologically close to the bracers of the Central Asian type and were a system of long metal strips fastened together with chainmail weaving. Leg protection was used much less frequently by the Mongols; the Russian word for it, “kneecaps,” can be interpreted extremely broadly; “kneecaps” could equally be both the ring-plate leg protection of the Central Asian type and the leaf-shaped leg guards, which were extremely widespread in the entire territory of the eastern part of Eurasia since the middle of the 16th century. It is possible that representatives of the Mongolian nobility could also use the so-called “iron boots”, which according to Behaim consisted of metal plates connected by chain mail weaving (Behaim, 1995, p. 130).

Apparently, the Mongols also used shields quite widely: large wooden ones - easel ones (behind which the riflemen dismounted during the battle took cover) (Mikhailov, 1993) and round rod ones with metal umbons (Waddel, 1906, p. 133).

The “best people” who made up the heavy cavalry could cover not only themselves, but also their war horse with armor. These horse “iron armor and seasonings” are mentioned by Russian chroniclers of the first half. XVII century However, apparently, horse shells did not disappear from the “better people” even in the 18th century. (in Tibet, full horse lamellar and lamellar armor continued to be used at the beginning of the 20th century (Waddel, 1906, p. 130). Mongolian horse armor itself is not known; their cut can be judged from the Tibetan, Manchu and Central Asian armor that was synchronous with them.

Assessing the general level of equipment of the warriors of Mongolia and Southern Siberia with protective equipment, it should be recognized that the latter was quite representative and diverse. Along with small-plate and lamellar armor, chain mail and large-plate armor, “helmets” with lamellar aventails, and fairly effective protection of the limbs began to be used in the 17th century. All these types of armor were not only quite reliable in protecting against edged weapons (as recorded in Russian chronicles), but also relatively easy to manufacture

The distribution of protective equipment among nomads sharply increased the stability of nomads in close combat, which could not but affect the results of military campaigns that allowed the Dzungar rulers not only to maintain independence at the end of the 17th century, but also to go on the offensive at the beginning of the 18th century.

Illustrations

Rice. 2. Kyrgyz armored warrior of the 17th century.

A spherical “bump” with a visor (“tumaga”), plate cheekpieces and a backplate. The combined large-plate “corset-cuirass” (Minus) is worn over a chain mail shirt. Ring-plate leg protection (Tower, London). The horse is protected by a lacquered leather mask (Tower, London), a plate breastplate, a collar and a breastplate.

1. Kyrgyz warrior of the 14th century.

A spheroconic helmet (Mogoy, Uyuk) with a chain mail aventail is worn over a cap - a “kalbak-bert” balaclava. Lamellar armor with short sleeves and hem (Abaza). Wooden bracers and leggings.

2. Kyrgyz kyshtym

Chainmail shirt of the Central Asian type with a short hem and elbow-length sleeves.

3. Noble Kyrgyz warrior of the 17th century.

Spheroconic helmet with a visor (Minus), chainmail aventail and earflaps. The “vest” shell of the Manchu type with an axial cut (Cherdat) is tied with a belt according to steppe custom. According to the Central Asian tradition, the plate armor is worn over a chain mail shirt (Yenisei). The warrior’s hands are protected by “Bukhara” bracers with chainmail protection on the back of the hand (Armory). The chest and neck of the horse are protected by mixed laminar-lamellar armor, worn over a quilted blanket.

1. Bodyguard “hya” in front of the yurt of the sovereign prince

Quilted balaclava "byudelge". Tibetan helmet with leather aventail (Tower, London). A lamellar corset-cuirass with a belly and plate shoulder pads and a legguard (Armory) is worn over an “Algy-ton” fur coat. Bracers of the Central Asian type (Hermitage). According to custom, leather straps with metal decorations and a knife are released from under a silk sash, and “khol-khava” mittens with loops and a pattern are tucked into the belt.

2. Sovereign Mongol prince (mid-17th century)

“Vase-shaped” helmet with a visor, ears and a plate backplate (Armory). Large-plate combined armor of the “corset-cuirass” type (Minus) with a belly. Plate shoulder pads and legguard (Sharipovo), “Mugal” bracers (Armory). The horse is protected by a composite metal mask with cheek pads and forehead protector; its neck, chest and croup are covered with lamellar armor. (Tower, London).

3. Oirat “lubchiten-togchin” during the winter campaign of 1696

The spheroconic helmet with a “box-shaped” visor is decorated with carved plates engraved with dragons (Hermitage) with plate cheekpieces and a backplate. The plate armor - “poncho” is complemented by a quilted leg guard. (Armouries).

Rice. 5. Battle of Dzun - Maud (spring 1696)

Army of Galdan Khan

A). Kyrgyz armored fish - “khoshuchi”.

Spheroconic “shell” with a visor (Minus), chainmail aventail and earflaps of the Central Asian type. Large-plate combined “corset-cuirass” (Minusa), chain mail (Yenisei), “Bukhara leggings” (metal disc, plate-ringed legguard). The horse's neck and chest are protected by a lamellar Tibetan armor of the kuyak type (Tower, London).

B). Dzungarian “lubchiten-tabunan”.

Spheroconic “shelom” with a visor decorated with engraving (Hermitage) with plate ears and a Manchu-type nape pad. Lamellar kuyach armor (Sharipovo) consists of a Manchu-type vest with an axial cut and a mirror, shoulder pads and a legguard (“kuyak dress” made of white felt). Central Asian bracers. (Tower, London).

The horse armor of the Central Asian type consists of a plate mask with lamellar “cheekpieces”, neck protection (mixed laminar-lamellar armor system), a plate breastplate and a breastplate reinforced with metal disks (Tower, London).

B). "Lubchiten-togchin."

Helmet with an open plate aventail. The “corset-cuirass” of the kuyak type is worn over a chain mail shirt.

The horse is protected by Tibetan lamellar armor and an iron mask with cheekpieces and a plume (Tower, London).

G). "Lubchiten."

Lamellar Tibetan cuirass with shoulder guards, long hem and shoulder guards (Tower, London). Spheroconic helmet with a lamellar aventail, reinforced rim and cowl. Leather bracers with metal overlays.

D). Oirat "burechin".

Russian shishak with ears, chain mail aventail and nasal (Armory Chamber). Armored vest (Cherdat).

E). Oirat “tushimel” in “Bukhara armor”.

Spheroconic “bump” with a “tumaga” visor and a chainmail aventail. Bakhterets with a mirror disk (Armory) is worn over chain mail with long sleeves. Central Asian bracers. Ringed - plate protection of the legs.

AND). Dzungarian "hoshuchi".

“Shelom” is made up of six plates with pads (Minus), a plate chinrest and a backplate. Lamellar “poncho” with an apron, plate shoulder pads and a legguard (Armory).

3). Prince Galdan.

Quilted hat with fur trim and metal top. Armor of the “short robe” type with a cross and shoulder pads. Patented leather bracers.

Mongol-Manchu Army of Yin Huacheng

TO). Manchurian officer.

The lamellar “corset-cuirass” (Tower, London) is worn over long-sleeved chain mail.

L). Qing armored man.

The kuyak-type shell consists of a “vest”, shoulder pads and “armpits”.

The lacquered helmet is equipped with a visor, a plate-shaped backplate, cheekpieces, a chinrest and is decorated with a plume made of dyed horsehair.

M). Mongol warrior

Mongolian warrior in a quilted hat with fur trim and a metal top. Lift over your chainmail shirt. (“Manzhou Shilu”).

N). Southern Mongolian warrior.

Helmet with a visor and a “soft” aventail. Plate “poncho” (Hermitage).

ABOUT). Manchurian armored man.

"Vest" type armor with shoulder pads. Steel helmet with laminar lacquered aventail (“Manzhou Shilu”).

P). Qing officer.

A steel helmet with an aventail consisting of earflaps, a backplate and a stand-up collar. Plate armor of the kuyak type with leaf-shaped shoulder pads and figuratively carved “armpits” (from a portrait of Quan Long in military equipment, Beijing) and armored sleeves (from a Russian drawing of the early 18th century from the collections of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts).

R). Khalkha warrior

Khalkha warrior in a lamellar leather robe with a paunch (Tower, London).

WITH). Sovereign Eastern Mongolian prince.

Vase-shaped helmet with visor and ears (Armory), double laminar backplate. Manchu vest with loincloth and leaf-shaped shoulder pads.

Rice. 6. Commander-in-Chief of the Manchu troops in the mid-18th century. (from a portrait of Emperor Quan Long. PALACE MUSEUM); Manchu soldier of the “capital troops” of the 18th century.

From left to right:

1. Commander-in-Chief of the Manchu troops in the mid-18th century. (from a portrait of Emperor Quan Long.PALACE MUSEUM)

Steel spheroconic helmet with linings and gold notching, plate collar and backplate. The armor consists of a vest (plate-sewn armor system), shoulder pads with metal reinforcements, leg guards, armpits and an apron. The shell, over a leather base with plates, is trimmed with yellow silk fabric with images of dragons. Metal plates are sewn into fabric bracers and boots.

2. Manchu soldier of the “capital troops” of the 18th century.

A varnished steel helmet of a pyramidal shape with a visor, cheekpieces and backplate is decorated with a plume of dyed horsehair. Kuyak-type armor consists of a vest (lined with metal plates), shoulder pads, leg guards, armpits and an apron. On the warrior’s side is a broadsword, a quiver with arrows and a bow in the arm, and in his hands is a combat trident “Dan Ji” with a horsetail.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Batuev B.B. Buryats in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Ulan-Ude, 1996.
2. Beheim V. Encyclopedia of weapons. St. Petersburg, 1995.
3. Winkler P. Weapon. Moscow, 1992.
4. Gerasimov Yu.V. Burials with weapons in the late medieval complex of the Okunevo-VII burial ground on Tatarsky Uval // Heritage of ancient and traditional cultures of Northern and Central Asia. Novosibirsk, 1999, vol. 2.
5. Gorelik M.V. Medieval Mongolian armor // Third International Congress of Mongolian Studies. Ulaanbaatar, 1979.
6. Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - first half of the 14th century) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk, 1987.
7. Zlatkin I.Ya. History of the Dzungar Khanate. Moscow, 1964.
8. Zlatkin I.Ya. History of the Dzungar Khanate. Moscow, 1983.
9. Their tsaaz (“great code”). Monument to Mongolian feudal law of the 17th century. / Transliteration, trans., introduction. and comment. S.D. Dalykova. Moscow, 1981.
10. Kychanov E.I. The story of the Oirat Galdan Boshoktu Khan. Novosibirsk, 1980.
11. Materials on the history of Russian-Mongolian relations 1607-1636. Moscow, 1959.
12. Mikhailov V.A. Weapons and armor are drilled. Ulan-Ude, 1993.
13. Tsybikov G.Ts. Buddhist pilgrim at the shrines of Tibet. Petrograd, 1919.
14. Khudyakov Yu.S. Armament of the Yenisei Kyrgyz VI-XII centuries. Novosibirsk, 1980.
15. Khudyakov Yu.S. Armament of medieval nomads of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Novosibirsk, 1986.
16. Khudyakov Yu.S. Defensive weapons of the Kyrgyz warrior in the late Middle Ages // Problems of medieval archeology of Southern Siberia and adjacent territories. Novosibirsk 1991.
17. Khudyakov Yu.S. Armament of nomads of Southern Siberia and Central Asia in the era of the developed Middle Ages. - Novosibirsk, 1997.
18. Khudyakov Yu.S., Soloviev A.I. From the history of protective armor in Northern and Central Asia in the era of the developed Middle Ages // Military affairs of the ancient population of Northern Asia. Novosibirsk, 1987
19. Waddell A. Lhasa and its secrets. St. Petersburg, 1906.

Support us

Your financial support is used to pay for hosting, text recognition and programming services. In addition, this is a good signal from our audience that the work on the development of Sibirskaya Zaimka is in demand among readers.

1. Weapon complex and structure of the army of the nomads of the Southern Urals at the end of the 6th - the turn of the 5th-4th centuries. BC. (I chronological group)

We have at our disposal 425 burials of the 6th-2nd centuries. BC, containing weapons. Chronologically, military complexes fall into three groups. Since absolute dating of nomadic antiquities in the region is extremely difficult, we have identified a number of features that characterize each chronological group.

For group I, the characteristics characterizing the “Sauromatian” culture were identified.

Funeral rite. Burials on the ancient horizon, especially in the eastern part of the area, burnt or burnt skeletons, wooden structures with supporting pillars, simple-shaped grave pits, latitudinal orientations of the skeletons.

Funeral goods. Swords and daggers of the "Scythian" type (types I-III), objects made in the animal style, massive bronze arrowheads of the corresponding types, horse equipment, including bronze cheekpieces made in the animal style, beak-shaped belt distributors, sacrificial tables and beads with mastoid moldings. A small part of complexes with highlighted features are also found at a later time, and in this case special consideration is required.

Based on the above characteristics, we included 141 burials in the first chronological group (late 6th - turn of the 5th-4th centuries BC) [Salnikov, 1952. P.95-96; Sorokin, 1958. P.81; Moshkova, 1962. P.206, 241; Smirnov, 1962. P.83-93; Smirnov, 1964. P.24-74; Moshkova, 1972. P.79-78; Smirnov, Popov, 1972. P.3-24; Smirnov, 1975; Moshkova, Kushaev, 1973. P.262-275; Kadyrbaev, Kurmankulov, 1976. P.137-156; Kadyrbaev, Kurmankulov, 1977. P.103-115; Smirnov, S.3-51; Smirnov, 1981. P.76-78, 82-84; Pshenichnyuk, 1983. P.8-75; Kadyrbaev, 1984. P.84-93; Voronova, Porokhova, 1992; Vasiliev. Fedorov, 1995. P.154-166; Matveeva, 1972. P.259-261; Mazhitov, 1974; Zhelezchikov, 1976; Ismagilov, 1979; Ismagilov, 1980; Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1979; Moshkova, Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1980; Zasedateleva, [p78] 1980; Zasedateleva, 1982; Zasedateleva, 1984; Zasedateleva, 1986; Pshenichnyuk, 1991; Ageev, 1992].

As already noted, the most popular category of weapons in the first period was the bow and arrow. 91.4% of all military burials contain this type of weapon. A selection of quiver sets from the most representative complexes showed that on average a “working” quiver contained about 40 arrowheads (Appendix III). Of the 73 complexes, only in 14 cases (19%) their number exceeded 50 specimens, and only in 6 (8%) - 100 specimens.

As K.F. rightly noted. Smirnov, the bow was the favorite weapon of the nomads of the region and in case of war it was used by everyone - from old people to children. The material indicates that bows and arrows were carried in quivers and bows, less often in goritas. Moreover, judging by the images, the bows were worn on the back, and the quivers were attached to the belt. Arrowheads of the first period are distinguished by their massiveness and weight, which indicates great penetrating abilities. This fact makes us think about the presence of a well-protected enemy.

In second place in the panoplia of the nomads of the region of this time were means of close combat - swords and daggers of the “Scythian” type - 53.9% of the total number of military burials (76 copies). According to the tradition widespread in weapons research practice, when specimens up to 40 cm long are considered daggers, up to 70 cm - short swords, and over 70 cm - long swords, our material is broken down as follows [Melyukova, 1964. P.47]. Of the most informative 66 complexes (see Appendix IV), 26 specimens (39.3%) are daggers, 35 specimens (53%) are short swords, and only 5 specimens, i.e. 7.5%, with long swords. The average arithmetic length of the blade of this period is 46 cm, which obviously reflects reality.

Archaeological material indicates that the nomads of the Southern Urals at the end of the 6th-5th centuries. BC. avoided mid-range combat. This fact is still difficult to explain. We can only say that at this stage of development there was no need for spears, and this category of weapons began to fill the gap in the arsenal of the nomads only at the end of the 5th century. BC. The process of adopting medium-range combat weapons was influenced by military contacts with its neighbors, probably in the north.

The shells were not recorded archaeologically at this time. However, this does not exclude the possibility of using personal protective equipment made from improvised materials - leather and felt, the effectiveness of which has been repeatedly emphasized by both ancient, [p79] and medieval sources. E.V. Chernenko proved the presence of such shells among the Scythians [Chernenko, 1964. P.148]. In relation to the nomads of the region under consideration, such a possibility can also be assumed.

Thus, as a result of the analysis of military burials, it is easy to notice that the weapon complex of the first chronological group was primarily focused on long-range combat. Melee weapons were of an auxiliary nature. Daggers and short swords were used only in the most intimate, close combat, perhaps during forced dismounting, if we assume that they had no infantry at all. A classic example of such a fight is depicted on the Solokhsky ridge.

We do not have data from Greco-Roman authors on the structure of the army of the nomads of the Southern Urals, and in this regard, the only source of information is archaeological military complexes. It is generally accepted that the weapon placed in the grave reflects the real complex of weapons and acts as an exponent of the real military structure (Kirpichnikov, 1971. P.43]. The first steps in this direction were taken by K.F. Smirnov and continued in the work of V.A. Ivanov regarding the military organization of the Finno-Ugrians of the Southern Urals (Smirnov, 1961. P.68; Ivanov, 1984. P.64-33).

Table VIII

Structure of the army of nomads of the Southern Urals in the first chronological period

Based on the achieved reconstruction experience, we will try to understand this issue using the available material. The presented table quite convincingly illustrates the military structure of the nomads.

Almost 47%, or almost half of the combat-ready and armed population during the war were archers. 40.4% used a bow, dagger or short sword in battle. Only 7.8% of warriors [s80] had a sword or dagger at their disposal. Considering the specifics of the “long-range” tactics of the nomads of the Southern Urals of this time, the last fact is somewhat incomprehensible. Perhaps here we are dealing with a military-hierarchical phenomenon, since among the Indo-Aryans the dagger was a symbol of power [Litvinsky, Pyankov, 1966. P.68]. 4.2% of horsemen in the 5th century. BC. expanded their panoplia with a spear or javelin. In this phenomenon one can see the beginning of the process of transition to medium-range combat tactics. It is likely that this incident documents the emergence of the institution of vigilantes or professional warriors, which was further developed in the subsequent period.

We have already written about possible opponents of the nomads of the Southern Urals based on a comparative analysis of the weapons systems of tribes in adjacent territories [Vasiliev, 1993]. Based on this, it seems most likely that the military organization of the nomads of the region in the 6th-5th centuries. BC. was aimed at resolving intra-tribal conflicts that always arose during the division or violation of pasture lands, water resources, natural deposits of salt, and non-ferrous metals. It is quite obvious that the cause of military clashes was the dire consequences of the jutes.

An attack on the Finno-Ugric (Ananyin) tribes could only be successful if unexpected. A very high percentage of Ananyinsky weapons of close and medium-range combat - spears and celtic axes did not leave the steppe inhabitants any hope of success in open battle, taking into account, moreover, the factor of forest terrain and the possibility of defense from behind the ramparts and walls of the forts. However, one should not downplay the possibility of military activity of nomads in the northern direction.

The forest tribes of the Kama region and Lower Belaya were the holders of significant wealth - food, furs. They could also be considered by the Steppe as a profitable “living commodity”, which, by the way, until the end of the 19th century. was sold in the markets of Central Asia and in particular Khorezm.

According to archaeological data, no earlier than the second half of the 5th century. BC. items of Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Iranian imports begin to actively penetrate into the steppes of the Southern Urals. Some of them could have been the result of trade relations between nomads and their southern neighbors in the areas of their permanent wintering grounds in the Lower Amu Darya, Syr Darya, and Ustyurt. However, the other part - especially jewelry, was hardly the result of trade or exchange [Savelyeva, Smirnov, 1972. P.106-123]. At the same time, researchers recorded the spread of bronze arrowheads [p81] of the South Ural “Sarmatian” types on settlement monuments and ancient settlements of Khorezm, Margiana and Bactria [Vorobeva, 1973. pp. 196-206; Tolstov, 1948. P.77-79; Tolstov, 1962. P.98; Masson, 1959. P.48, table. XXXIV, XXXVI; Yagodin, 1984. P.33-57]. A significant number of them were also found in the “arsenal” of Persepolis. These facts allow us to think that already from the second half of the 5th century. BC. certain groups of nomads in the region under study had direct, including military, contacts with the peoples that were part of the huge Achaemenid power. The form of these contacts remains unclear - robbery of sedentary centers or service in the armies of the Persian kings.

2. Weapon complex and structure of the army of the nomads of the Southern Urals in the IV - turn of the IV-III centuries. BC. (II chronological group)

The second chronological group, which included 176 military complexes (see Appendix V), is characterized by features inherent to the Prokhorov culture [Rostovtsev, 1918. P.1-30; Podgaetsky, 1937. P.334; Salnikov, 1950. P. 116; Salnikov, 1952. P.95-96; Smirnov, 1964. P.57-74; Moshkova, 1961. P.115-125; Moshkova, 1962. P.206-241; Smirnov, 1962. P.83-93; Moshkova, 1963. P.5-52; Smirnov, Popov, 1972. P.3-26;. Moshkova, Kushaev, 1973. P.260-265; Smirnov, 1975; Smirnov, 1977. P.3-51; Mazhitov, Pshenichnyuk, 1977. P.52-56; Yagodin, 1978. P.88; Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1978. P.218-222; Smirnov, 1981. P.81; Pshenichnyuk, 1983. P.3-75; Vasiliev, 1984. P.31-36; Ageev, Rutto, 1984. P.37-45; Ledyaev, 1985. P.117-120; Smirnov, 1984a. P.10-11; Khabdulina, Malyutina, 1982. P.73-79; Gorbunov, Ivanov, 1992. P.99-108; Vasiliev, Fedorov, 1995; Ageev, 1993; Ageev, 1975; Zhelezchikov, 1976; Moshkova, Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1978; Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1979; Kushaev, 1983; Kushaev, 1988; Ivanov, 1985; Zasedateleva, 1981; Zasedateleva, 1984; Zasedateleva, 1985; Zasedateleva, 1986; Zasedateleva, 1988; Pshenichnyuk, 1986; Pshenichnyuk, 1987; Pshenichnyuk, 1988; Pshenichnyuk, 1989; Pshenichnyuk, 1990; Pshenichnyuk, 1991; Vasiliev, 1992].

Funeral rite. The spread of burials of this time to the regions of the Southern Urals, as well as the beginning of the development of the forest-steppe zone of the region under consideration. Active use of dromos chambers with complex wooden hollow structures, linings and catacombs of several types, burial pits with shoulders, southern orientation of the skeletons, chalk bedding.

Funeral goods. The dominance of swords and daggers of the early Prokhorovsky types, a noticeable change in the configuration of bronze [p82] arrowheads, the widespread distribution of round-bottomed ceramics with an admixture of talc, the degradation of the animal style. It should be noted that some of the listed features are also recorded in the burials of the first group, but there they do not form any significant background.

In the second chronological period - IV - IV-III centuries. BC, as evidenced by the material, 90% of the warriors (159 complexes) were armed with a bow and arrow. Thus, long-range weapons still occupy a leading place in the arsenal of the nomads of the region. And yet, changes are taking place in this regard. Of the 85 most representative quiver sets, only in 45 cases were there less than 50 arrowheads in the quiver (52.9%), in 26 cases their number ranged from 50 to 100 (30.5%) and over 100 in 14 cases (16.4% ). The number of arrows in the average “working” quiver is noticeably increasing compared to previous times (see Appendix VII).

Table IX

Comparative table of capacity of quiver sets of the first and second chronological groups

While there is a general trend toward smaller arrowheads in weight and size, quiver sets also include heavy "armor-piercing" arrowheads. Their total number increases significantly (Table XI). In second place in the arsenal of the nomads of the Southern Urals are still swords and daggers, which make up 53.4% ​​of the total number of burials (94 copies). However, compared to previous times, significant qualitative changes are taking place in this regard. Of the 68 most informative examples of bladed weapons, only 10% are daggers. The number of short swords is decreasing (48.5%). Long swords are widely used (41%).

A turning point in the military history of the nomadic tribes of the region, in our opinion, is the adoption of spears, as well as iron and bone armor, due to which the weapon complex is oriented towards a wide range of combat operations.

Table X

Distribution of bladed weapons by chronological periods

For the 4th century. BC. We counted 24 spearheads, which is 13.6% of the total number of burials. Both in quantitative and percentage terms, this figure is several times higher than in the previous period. The appearance of armor (4.5%) of all military complexes is associated only with representatives of the aristocracy. One might think that in the 4th century. BC. Among the South Ural nomads, a semblance of military “reform” was taking place, expressed in the appearance of heavily armed cavalry, the spread of spears, the standardization of swords and daggers, and arrowheads. Such a reform can be completely tolerated, given the extremely increased power and authority of the steppe nobility, especially in the Ilek group of tribes. Indirect evidence of the presence of strong power and the corresponding coercive apparatus are the grandiose “royal” mounds, apparently erected at that time throughout the South Ural steppe.

Structurally, the military organization of the nomads of the region under consideration appears to us as follows. Archers, as the most massive contingent drawn from the poorest segments of the population, still make up a fairly high percentage. In 79 complexes (44.8%) only arrows were found. Decreases somewhat compared to the VI-V centuries. BC. a contingent of horsemen armed with a bow and sword - 55 complexes (31.25%). However, as evidenced by the material, this decrease occurs due to a qualitative change in the form of an increase in the specific gravity of long swords. Also, the number of burials (13) where only a sword or dagger was found decreases to 7.3%. As [p84] we wrote above, during this period heavily armed cavalry appeared, operating in battle with both spears and swords, and with a bow (Table XI).

The reconstructed structure of the army, of course, is quite arbitrary. It is unlikely that the nomads of the Southern Urals had a standing army, collected from distant and near nomads, in which the available military contingents clearly corresponded to the proposed percentages. Moreover, judging by ethnographic data, the specifics of pastoral life scattered related groups, especially during the period of migration, over many hundreds and even thousands of kilometers, which in itself made “mobilization” difficult.

Table XI

Comparative data on the structure of the nomadic army of the Southern Urals

In all likelihood, these were extremely mobile small detachments, several hundred soldiers each, engaged in robbery “at their own peril and risk.” There are quite convincing examples in history when passionate groups of nomads, consisting of professional and semi-professional fighters, followed a successful leader, crossing vast steppe spaces in search of prey. It is in such detachments that the supposed military structure seems quite real to us. In ordinary “everyday” inter-tribal clashes, when conflicts broke out spontaneously, the structural picture of military associations (militia) was probably somewhat different.

Changes that occurred in the 4th century. BC. in the weapons complex, they also changed the tactics of combat. The appearance of offensive and defensive weapons made it possible to conduct a battle in echelons, when horsemen-archers showered the enemy with arrows from afar, then an “assault” of the military formation of infantry or cavalry followed with a contingent of heavily armed cavalry, and then warriors who operated bows, short and long, were included in the battle [p85] with swords. In essence, this “shock fist” tactic was traditional for nomads with a developed military organization. Its elements were particularly impressive in the Parthian environment, when the effective interaction of archers, cataphracts and other contingents allowed the legions of Marcus Crassus to be decisively defeated at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. We are far from thinking of identifying the first-class Parthian army of the 1st century. BC. with small squads of nomads of the Southern Urals of the 4th century. BC, however, there are still common features between both.

The activity of nomads in the northern direction is almost not recorded, with the exception of clans whose summer camps were in the Trans-Ural regions. Here the nomads came into direct contact with the bearers of the Gorokhov and Sargat cultures. The latter two have been studied extremely unevenly, which makes it difficult to talk about their weapon complex. And yet it seems to us that, militarily, the “Gorokhovo people” and “Sargat people” could hardly withstand the onslaught of the nomads, who reached in the 4th century. BC. the pinnacle of his power. However, perhaps there was no onslaught. The relations of both could be either allied or tributary. So, M.G. Moshkova suggests that it was the population of the Trans-Ural forest-steppe that produced metal products for the nomads [Moshkova, 1974. P.48-49]. We will probably never know under what circumstances the steppe inhabitants received talc utensils and weapons: through trade and exchange, or direct military pressure.

The forest areas of the Southern Urals were also unlikely to attract militarily nomads. In our opinion, there are several reasons for this, and one of which is the virtual absence of population on the right bank of the Belaya River. For the 4th century. BC. We do not know a single Ananino burial ground and the only real enemy for the nomads of the region in this direction at the turn of the 4th-3rd centuries. BC. could have become carriers of “Gafurian” type ceramics. However, their weak numbers and compact residence hardly stimulated interest in them from the Steppe, especially since the “Ghafurians” could well practice such a very effective type of resistance as active defense.

In the IV and IV-III centuries. BC. Only two directions of manifestation of military activity of the bearers of Prokhorov culture are clearly visible. Western, which K.F. wrote about. Smirnov, is associated with military complexes among the Huts. Sladkovsky and Kashcheevka, Sholokhovsky mound, etc. They record the burials of heavily armed horsemen, whose inventory and burial ritual are largely identical to those of the South Ural [Smirnov, 1984]. K.F. Smirnov [p86] believes that this fact indicates the beginning of the penetration of the Prokhorovites into the Volga-Don interfluve. However, B.F. Zhelezchikov questions the military nature of the resettlement of part of the South Ural nomads and believes that the appearance of early Sarmatian complexes west of the Volga is associated with the development of new territories by representatives of the steppe aristocracy [Zhelezchikov. Zhelezchikova, 1990. P.78-79]. We can quite agree with this, however, judging by ethnographic data, any change in the nomadic route was associated with a military conflict over pastures with the population that traditionally roamed them [McGahan, 1875. P.42].

Ancient sources also indirectly record ethnocultural changes in the Volga region during the period under review. K.F. Smirnov, analyzing the messages of Stephen of Byzantium, Pseudo-Scylacus, Theophrastus and Pseudo-Skymnus, came to the conclusion that these events can be dated back to the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd century. BC. However, one should hardly exaggerate the significance and degree of Prokhorov’s pressure to the west of the Urals during the 4th century. BC. and even more so to believe that the powerful military organization of the nomads of the Southern Urals was created to resolve banal inter-tribal conflicts. The point of view about the beginning of the invasion of the tribes in question into Scythia also seems unconvincing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Scythians of that time were still quite strong, and secondly, all the difficulties of such an event did not justify the efforts expended. In this case, the nomadic detachments had to cross three large rivers (Ural, Volga, Don) and face resistance from the Sauromatians, Maeotians and Scythians. There were no special riches or treasures on this route, other than the possible capture of livestock.

In our opinion, the southern direction looks more preferable. The rich oases of Central Asia and Iran attracted warlike nomads much more than the robbery of the nomadic population of the Volga-Don, especially since archaeological and historical data up to the late Middle Ages indicate precisely the meridional direction of the campaigns of the South Ural nomadic tribes. Moreover, the beginning of this process apparently dates back to the Bronze Age, when the Srubna-Andronovo tribes, carrying out their migrations, ended up in the Aral Sea region and much further south. The weapon complex, the structure of the army, as well as the general historical situation of the 4th and 4th-3rd centuries. BC. indicate that the nomads of the region in question were well acquainted with the advanced armies of that time. Moreover, archaeological [p87] data, direct and indirect, written sources confirm this hypothesis.

For the 4th century. BC. Several complexes of the early Sarmatian type are known, including military ones on the Ustyurt and Uzboy plateaus. This may indicate both the direct infiltration of the nomads of the Southern Urals to the borders of the ancient world, and their direct participation in political events in the territory of the northeastern regions of the Persian kingdom.

The issue of ethnic identification of the early nomads of the region under study has been repeatedly considered in our literature. Most specialists, starting with A.A. Marushchenko and O.V. Obelchenko connected the Prokhorov complexes of Central Asia with the Dakhs, who advanced there from the Southern Urals [Marushchenko, 1959. P.116; Obelchenko, 1992. P.219-229]. K.F. Smirnov, following Yu.M. Desyatchikov and I.V. Pyankov, in his latest works also identified the nomads of the region with the Dakhs and Massagets, who subsequently migrated to the south [Smirnov, 1977. P.135; Smirnov, 1984. P. 16, 117].

Greco-Roman authors occasionally reported on the mentioned tribes, especially in connection with their participation in the grandiose political events that unfolded in the last third of the 4th century. BC. Thus, according to Curtius Rufus, a thousand Dagi (Dakhs) are mentioned as part of the left flank of the Persian army at the Battle of Arbela (Gaugamela) in 331 BC. It should be noted that, despite the general outcome of the battle, the Dahi and Massagetae showed good fighting qualities. They were among the first to attack the Agrian right flank, plundered the convoy and scattered the cavalry units of Menidas and Aretas [Curtius, XV]. Bessus (Artaxerxes IV) also hoped for the help of the warlike nomads, among whom the Dais (Dahi) were mentioned, in his struggle with Alexander [Curtius, VIII, 4, 6]. It is necessary to say about the participation of nomads in the Spitamen movement. In this regard, the defeat of the two thousand detachment of Pharnukh and Menedemos by the Sogdians and allied “Scythians” in Northern Sogdiana is indicative [Arrian, IV, 5, 8]. This fact is noteworthy in that a victory was won over a detachment of a regular and renowned army. Consequently, the nomads were able to apply the necessary combat tactics and skillfully wielded weapons - bows, assault spears and long swords.

The nature of the military operations of the Dakhs in the south, as well as the number of their troops, indicate that small groups of mercenaries or simply robbers who took advantage of the troubled times operated here. This is indirectly supported by the treasure of gold objects from mound 1 of the Filippovsky burial ground, which contains, among others, objects of classical Iranian jewelry, [p88] which, in our opinion, could not be the result of trade or exchange. In this regard, obviously, one should consider Iranian bowls from the Prokhorovsky mound, the Kuganak treasure, etc. It is likely that the iron cuirass from mound 1 of the Prokhorovsky burial ground has the same character of its appearance in the Southern Urals.

There is every reason to believe that at the turn of the IV-III centuries. BC. or at the beginning of the 3rd century. BC. The Dahi-Dai were active in northern Parthiena and Margiana. At this time, Alexandria of Margiana was destroyed by the barbarians [Pliny, VI, 18], and Alexandropol in Nisaya was burned. According to F.Ya. Koske, these Hellenic cities perished with the direct fate of the Daev-Parns [Koske, 1962. P.124]. In addition, according to Strabo, the Margiana oasis, by order of Antiochus I Soter (280-261 BC), was surrounded by a system of long walls 1500 stadia in length [Strabo, XI, 10, 2]. The above facts suggest that the pressure of the nomads on the northeastern provinces of the Syrian kingdom did not stop throughout the first half of the 3rd century. BC.

However, the nature of the military actions of the Daev-Prokhorovites in the 3rd century. BC. is changing. Due to the climate situation, a significant part of the region’s nomads were forced to leave the South Ural steppes in search of ecological “niches.” As a result of their migrations, the carriers of the Prokhorov culture ended up in the regions of the Lower Volga region and Central Asia. In the latter case, “Sarmatoid” sites are represented in the south-eastern Caspian region (Charyshly, Dordul, Kara-Kala) and Sogd (Khazar, Kalkan-Sai) [Yusupov, 1986; Khlopin, 1975. P.51-53; Obelchenko, 1992. 6-34]. The ethnocultural movements of nomads on the outskirts of the ancient world were directly or indirectly recorded by a number of Greco-Roman authors [Strabo, XI, VI, 2; Arrian, History of Parthia; Curtius, IV, xii, 11; Justin, XI, 1, 1]. Taking these factors into account, one can think that the military operations of the Prokhorovites in Central Asia in the 3rd century. BC. were aimed at capturing new territories, the culmination of which was the accession of the Arsacid dynasty and the formation of the Parthian kingdom.

Another direction of settlement of the Prokhorov tribes in the south is recorded. The materials of the Chirik-Rabat culture reveal an undoubted closeness, both in terms of funeral rites and weapons, including protective ones, with the nomadic population of the Southern Urals. This indicates a partial infiltration of the latter to the lower reaches of the Syr Darya. The Chirik-Rabat culture is currently also identified with the Dakhs (Dai) [Itina, 1992. P.60-61]. If this position is true, then maybe the Seleucid commander Demodam, who undertook a campaign for Tanais around 300 BC, reported about [p89] them. (Hennig, 1961. P.235].

3. Weapon complex and structure of the army of the nomads of the Southern Urals in the III-II centuries. BC. (III chronological group)

After the outflow of the bulk of the nomads from the territory of the region, the remaining part of them firmly mastered the forest-steppe, wandering mainly in the regions of the Southern Urals. Almost no monuments of this time have been identified beyond the eastern slopes of the Ural ridge. Moreover, the overwhelming number of burial complexes of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC. concentrated in the Demsko-Belsk interfluve. A small number of them are scattered across the steppe, in the Ural basin (Mechet-Sai, Uvak, Gemini, Lebedevka, Pokrovka) (Fig. 24).

The burials of the third group are characterized by the following features.

Funeral rite. The mounds of this time are the “tombs” of large family or clan groups. The location of a large number of graves under one mound. Circular arrangement of burials around the central grave. Inconsistency in the orientation of the dead with a predominance of south-facing skeletons. The graves are undercut and simple in shape.

Clothing material. The complete dominance of swords and daggers with straight crosshairs and crescent-shaped pommels, the predominance of bronze arrowheads with a narrow triangular head, very often in combination with iron bladed ones over other types, the presence of bronze mirrors with a narrow, clearly defined ridge and pin handle, as well as a significant number of “censer burners” ". Some of the listed features, especially in terms of funeral rites, can also be found among burials of group II [Sadykova, 1962. P.242-273; Sadykova, 1962a, P.88-122; Moshkova, 1963; Smirnov, 1975; Pshenichnyuk, 1983. P.3-75; Ageev, Rutto, 1984. P.37-45; Voronova, Porokhova, 1992. P.229-235; Vedder J. et al., 1993. pp. 28-54; Sadykova, 1959; Mazhitov, 1974; Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1977; Moshkova, Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1978; Moshkova, Zhelezchikov, Krieger, 1980; Zasedateleva, 1981. P.8-9]. As we noted above, the change in traditional nomadic routes was obviously caused by climatic reasons in the 3rd century. BC, which in turn led to the movement of the bulk of the remaining nomads deep into the forest-steppe. Until now, monuments such as Starye Kiishki and Bishungarovo, compact in location and numerous in number of buried people, have not been identified in the entire region. To these we can add several more identical mounds located in the Dema-Bel interfluve (Staro-Kalkashsky, Allaguvatsky - excavations by I.M. Akbulatov and F.A. Sungatov).

Global ethnocultural movements of nomadic tribes could not but cause a certain transformation of the established worldview, funeral rites, traditional ties and, as a consequence, military affairs.

According to our data, out of 108 recorded military burials (see Appendix VI), arrowheads were recorded in 88 cases, which is 81.4%. Thus, the bow and arrow still occupy a leading place in the arsenal of the nomads of the region in question. True, significant changes are taking place here. Iron arrowheads are actively being adopted. In our opinion, this can be explained by several factors. Either more powerful bows are beginning to be produced, as the weight of the tip becomes heavier, or the population is experiencing difficulties with raw materials for making bronze ones. Concluding a brief review of hand-held throwing weapons, it should be said that the number of arrowheads in quiver sets of this time was significantly reduced. This can be seen in both bronze and iron specimens, despite the poor state of preservation of the latter.

In the III-II centuries. BC. The importance of melee weapons increases noticeably. Swords and daggers were found in 81 complexes, which is 75% compared to the lower figures of the two previous periods. Moreover, in the burials, three blades were recorded at the same time twice, and in eight cases, two. The distribution of this category of weapons by parameters shows that out of 69 recorded specimens, 32 are daggers (46.3%), eighteen are short swords (26%) and 19 are long swords (27.5%) (Table HP).

Table XII

Distribution of bladed weapons by period

					III period
Short swords
Long swords

[p91] This picture indicates that more than half of the owners of bladed weapons preferred the closest, apparently dismounted combat, although at the same time a third of the warriors could successfully operate a sword from a horse. We do not have any data regarding other categories of weapons. Iron and bone shells were not identified during this period, and a fragment of a spear tip was recorded only in the Pokrovka VIII burial ground [Vedder J. et al., 1993. P.121].

Structurally, the reconstructed military organization of the late Prokhorovites appears to us as follows. Arrows alone were recorded in 35 complexes, which is 32.4% of the total. This means that the contingent of archers has noticeably decreased to one third, against higher indicators of the first and second periods (Table XIII).

The number of burials where only bladed weapons were found has doubled compared to previous times. It was recorded in 20 cases (18.5%). There was also a very noticeable increase in the number of warriors armed with a bow, sword or dagger. These categories were identified in 53 burials (49%).

Table XIII

Comparative data on the structure of the nomadic army of the Southern Urals in periods I-III

At one time A.M. Khazanov suggested that long swords, which clearly had a piercing function, were used in battle as spears [Khazanov, 1971. P.69]. However, this seems unlikely to us.

Archaeological material indicates that the nomads of the Southern Urals in the III-II centuries. BC. acted in battle, both at close and long range. Moreover, judging by the sharp increase in the proportion of daggers and bladed weapons in general, their tactics were aimed at close combat, as the decisive phase of the battle. It can also be assumed that the decrease in the contingent [p92] of archers recruited from poor segments of the population indicates the cutting off of this social category from military affairs and, perhaps, a higher “professionalization” of military units, given that the bow is still plays a dominant role in the arsenal of the nomads of the region.

The reconstructed military structure also made it possible to conduct echeloned combat. In this case, the archers launched a massive shooting attack on the enemy, after which the swordsmen joined the fight. Warriors armed with daggers could act in a hurry, finishing off the wounded, etc. Military formation of nomads of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC. there could have been either lava or a “carousel”, but it is quite obvious that during the period under review the “shock fist” tactics, which were based on a contingent of heavily armed cavalry, were no longer used. Consequently, the complex of weapons and tactics of the late Prokhorov tribes did not allow them to conduct a successful battle with detachments or armies that knew the correct military system. A clash with heavily armed infantry or cavalry was obviously doomed to failure.

The geography of the military activity of the late Prokhorovites appears to us as follows.

Northern direction. During the period under review, III-II centuries. BC. The population of the Karaabyz culture increases significantly, at the end of this time early Pyanobor monuments appear. According to V.A. Ivanov, the military organization of the tribes of the Karaabyz culture was at a fairly high level [Ivanov, 1984. P.72-73], in contrast to the drunken fighters who lived to the north. The complex of weapons and the structural organization of the inhabitants of the settlements of Central Bashkiria, taking into account local specifics (the possibility of active defense due to shelters), did not leave the nomads a chance of success in open military clashes. Despite the fact that armed conflicts could have taken place, in general the relations between both seem to us to be peaceful. Funerary monuments illustrate the facts of mutual penetration of two material cultures.

Western direction military campaigns of nomads of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC, in our opinion, was unpromising. The absence of the incentives listed above during the period under review was supplemented by another, in our opinion, important obstacle for dangerous military enterprises beyond the Volga. We mean a sharp increase in the number of Volga-Don nomads, explained by the mass migration of Prokhorov tribes from the Southern Urals. Judging by the archaeological material, the complex of weapons of the Lower Volga [p93] nomads was not inferior in its range to those of the South Ural. The former, in the event of war, could have a significant numerical advantage. According to M.G. Moshkova, for 1974 [Moshkova, 1974. P.10] burials of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC. in the interfluve of the Volga and Don there were 305, while in the Urals - only 96. Over 20 years of field research in the South Ural steppes, the situation has not changed significantly, while in the Volga region, materials from the period of interest to us continue to increase.

South direction. Only indirect evidence suggests the existence of military contacts between the nomads of the period under review and their southern neighbors. For example, the construction of a network of border fortresses and fortified settlements in the left bank of Khorezm, clearly anti-nomadic in nature, indicates that the population of the oases of the early Kangju time could have become the object of robbery by northern nomads. The appearance of “Sarmatoid” complexes of the late Prokhorovsky appearance in the region of the Sarakamysh delta of the Amu Darya (Tuz-Gyr) and Sogd (Lavandak, Kyzyl-Tepe, Kuyu-Mazar) indicates the constant presence of steppe inhabitants on the borders of Khorezm and their direct infiltration into the Zarafshan basin [Trudnovskaya, 1979. P.101-110; Obelchenko, 1992. P.221, 227]. Numerous items of Central Asian imports found in burials of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC. confirm the thesis of clearly established economic ties, which in itself does not exclude relations of a military nature.

The period under consideration is a time of turbulent political events in the arena of the ancient states of Central Asia, separated from the burial grounds of the Southern Urals by only 30-45 days of “caravan” movement, events where, according to generally accepted opinion, nomads played a leading role. This is the time of formation of the young Parthian kingdom, which took place in fierce wars with the Seleucids, the time of the defeat of Greco-Bactria. We do not have direct evidence of the participation of nomads of the region in question in these events, however, K.F. Smirnov hypothetically admitted this possibility [Smirnov, 1989. P.175]. Another researcher of Central Asian antiquities O.V. Obelchenko, relying on significant archaeological material from the territory of Sogd, directly speaks of the conquest by Sarmatian tribes of the areas that were controlled by the Hellenes, and believes that these nomads took a direct part in the collapse of the last Greek kingdom in Asia [Obelchenko, 1992. P.227, 230] . [s94]

Publication:
V.N. Vasiliev. Armament and military affairs of the nomads of the Southern Urals in the VI-II centuries. BC. Ufa: Gilem, 2001