Up 'til now, I've always seemed to favor building forces that are at least vaguely "good guys" and clearly underdogs. Thus, I have painted and based ancient Hebrews, dark ages Khazars, Napoleonic Poles, the early American Sailing Navy, etc., and am now working on the Maccabbees.

Recently, however, I found myself perusing the various published army lists looking for some really nasty medieval bad guys with a bit of extra punch in their Order-of-Battle. Given my taste for Eastern stuff, I sought out the armies that linked with the Silk Road. When I saw the Ghaznavid list, I thought, "Hmm… Slower moving than the huge light horse Asiatic hordes, but that large line of elephants (!), and that artillery (!)…. Hmm… Lots of trained heavy cavalry (HC), and some trained heavy infantry (HI)…. Hmm… Fair amount of archers…. Skirmishers, both horse and foot….

Hmmm… There's potential here for some combined arms tactics…."

These profound thoughts sent me to my bibliographies, which activity ultimately put another dent in our long suffering household budget with the purchase of the books listed below as the references for this article. Keeping one eye on the Ghaznavid O.B., my readings gave rise to thoughts that might be of some passing interest to those who like to give a miniature army a little extra color and class.

Of course, the first thing that happens to any "instant expert" is a disagreement with the published army lists. In this case, it seems that our MW list has all the Ghaznavid generals listed as HC, and characterizes a large percentage of the irregular troops as Arabs. To the contrary, my readings put the Sultan and a couple of his field commanders up on elephants. (The WRG, Age of Hosts, and Shock of Impact army lists all would seem to agree with this assessment.) I also came up with a different group of constituent ethnic army units, reducing the relative size of the 'Arab' element. Please note, however, that neither of these differing perceptions involves any challenge to the substantive numbers, quality and balance of the current MW army list. But let's back up a little and see who these 'nasties' were, and then examine how identifying the various constituent ethnic units makes them a potentially snazzy army for the wargamers' table.

With the approach of "Y1K," some Afghanistan based Turkish ghulams (i.e., 'slave-soldiers') rebelled against the Samanids, a Khurasan based, Islamic Persian dynastic power whose leader, the Amir, ostensibly served at the will and pleasure of the Arabic Caliph in Baghdad. Without going into the reasons for the decline of Samanid power, suffice it to say that nature abhors a vacuum and the rush to fill this particular political-military vacuum resulted in a new, independent, overtly Islamic state with its capital in the city of Ghazna. Within a very short period of time, these 'Ghaznavids' created a large standing army of ghulams and mercenaries, which conquered an economically juicy slice of Central Asia. This empire stood astride the Silk Road's main east-west artery, as well as its connecting highway into India – a very cool spot for collecting tariffs.

The height of Ghaznavid power in Eastern Iran & Afghanistan was achieved during the years 994 to 1040 C.E.. Thereafter, a combination of bad leadership, stupid strategy, sleazy diplomacy, and new rebellions and invasions led to their abandonment of Eastern Iran, resulting in a shift in military objectives and a renewed empire encompassing Afghanistan and Northern India, which lasted 'til 1186.

The first Ghaznavid ruler, Mah'mud, assumed the title "Sultan," the first usage of this title by any regional Islamic leader, making clear his assertion of independence from Baghdad. His kingdom was fundamentally his army - with a state attached as the means by which to maintain the army. Ghaznavid army organization was different from that of Sassanid and Islamic Persia in that the latter's traditional cavalry consisting of hereditary nobles and landed gentry was replaced with a standing army of ghulams and mercenaries whose loyalties adhered strictly to their paymaster, i.e., the Sultan. The sole function of the civilian population (including the feudal nobles and gentry), in the eyes of the Sultan, was to pay taxes to maintain his army (plus some not inconsiderable luxuries for his court). The imperial imperative was nothing more than extensive and continuous razzia for the purpose of loot and/or a larger tax base.

This empire was not, as claimed in Iranian histories, a resurgence of Persian language and culture. In fact, Arabic remained the official language of Ghaznavid government and diplomacy. Nor was it the first 'crusade' to Islamicize northern India, as often claimed in Islamic histories. Despite maintaining an ostentatiously orthodox Sunni Muslim façade at court, the Sultan's army included pagan Turkish ghulams and Tadjiki ghazis (i.e., volunteers), Hindu ghulams, Shiite Daylami and even Khurasani Jewish mercenaries, as well as Sunni Islamic Arabic mercenaries. And, it was the Sultan and his army that defined the empire. The land under Ghaznavid control expanded, contracted, and extended in new directions in accordance with the vicissitudes of continuous war. Their primary, nay – only focus in governmental administration was to squeeze as much tax as possible out of the populace.

In short, the Ghaznavids had no redeeming social values, made no contribution to the advance of civilization, and were apparently nothing more than culturally challenged robber barons. We're talking classic "bad guys" here…. Sort of proto-Timurids…

As stated above, my intention is not to question the numbers and balance of the various constituent forces in the published MW Ghaznavid army list. Nevertheless, some comment on army size, as gleaned from the texts listed below, is in order.

Army Size and Composition

The core of army organization was the ghulams – the highly trained slave-soldiers. Mostly Turks from Khurasan and Transoxiana, plus Indians and some Afghanis, the ghulams have been estimated at a maximum of 30,000. They provided the Heavy Cavalry and Elephant troops. Some 4,000 to 6,000 of the HC served as the elite Palace Guards.

It should be noted that many of the most famous Asian breeding grounds for horses fell within the Ghaznavid sphere of influence. Camels were also bred in Ghaznavid territory, but these were used mainly as beasts of burden – the elitist ghulam cavalry regarding them as too lowly for battle usage.

As for elephants, the Ghaznavids learnt their usage from India, and were the first Islamic dynasty to use them in large numbers for battle. Some Islamic histories list Ghaznavid elephant deployments at individual battles ranging from 400 to 700 - each elephant carrying up to four mailed spearmen and archers. Continuous supplies of these huge war beasts came from both plunder and tribute. For example, battle records note various captures of 350, 185, and 580 elephants at specific battles in India. Several Hindu Princes had to hand over more than 100 elephants per year as tribute. Records of different regional army reviews list the presence of 1,300 and 1,670 war elephants ("all plump and ready for action") in the years 1023 and 1031 respectively. The capital garrison at Ghazna held a standing force of 1,000 elephants.

That's a lot of elephants…. And, they were armored…. They also hauled siege weapons, battering rams, and artillery.

The Sultans had a "permanent force of infantry, who were esteemed enough to be mounted on swift camels . . . dismounting to fight" (Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 114 – see below for full reference). While Indians and Daylamis were prominent in the infantry, the indigenous populations of Afghanistan and Khurasan were recruited locally for specific campaigns. Thus, we see shielded heavy infantry forces coming from such cities and regions as Sistan, Ghazna, Ghur, Balkh, and others.

The volunteer elements of this army, i.e., the "ghazis," were plunder-seeking adventurers who were attracted by the repeated successes of the Ghaznavids. In one campaign through the Kabul valley into India, some 15,000 cavalry and 5,000 foot from Khurasan, consisting mainly of Turks and Tadjikis, joined the army as ghazis. Other campaigns, in 1001 and 1018, saw the numbers of ghazis at 10,000 and 20,000 respectively.

Recognizing the need to take statistics in medieval records with the proverbial grain of salt, one such notice asserts that the Ghaznavid standing, regular army (during one of their rare periods of peace) totaled over 100,000 ghulams and mercenaries.

As for armament, the regular infantry carried the recurve bow, and for close fighting, they used maces, short swords and spears. Mailed coats and leather-covered or metal shields allowed them to form a close, solid battle line. The cavalry carried recurve bows, battleaxes, maces, lances, long curved swords, and even lassos. Horse armor was not common. The mace seems to have been the favored weapon of Ghaznavid heroes.

The revisions in the MW army list given here below primarily involve an attempt to provide a more particularized identification of the various "troop types." The only substantive proposed change is to put half of the permitted number of generals up on elephants (increasing the point costs somewhat). My primary intent is to provide a guide for perusing miniature figure catalogues for someone who wants to build this army in a creative and colorful manner. Ghaznavids (mid-10th to late 12th centuries C.E.)

Ghaznavids
Stands	Troop Type	Armor	Morale	Training	Weaponry	Figs/ Stand	Point Value
1-3	Sultan/CiC & Gen'ls	El	Vets	T	J/B/P	3	59/44
0-3	Gen'ls	HC	Vets	T	L/B/Sh	3	39
8-24	Turkish Horse Ghulams	HC	War.	T	L/B/Sh	3	12
0-6	Upgrade Turkish Horse Ghulams to Palace Guards / Veterans						+2
0-8	Indian Elephant Ghulams	El	Vets	T	L/B/P	2	19
4-20	Marvazi, Ghazna &/or Balkh Mercenaries	HI	War.	T	Sp/B/Sh	4	8
Any	Add horses or camels to upgrade HI to Mounted Infantry						+2
4-16	Tadjiki &/or Oghuz Lt Horse Ghazis	SC	War.	-	L/B/Sh	2	5
0-4	Indian Lt Horse Ghulams	SC	War.	-	J/B/Sh	2	5
0-6	Arab Horse Mercenaries	UC	Fanatic	-	L/Sh	3	11
0-8	Arab Lt Horse Mercenaries	SC	War.	-	L/Sh	2	4
4-12	Kurdish &/or Indian Spearmen Mercenaries	UI	War.	-	LSp/Sh	4	4
0-8	Yehudi Archer Mercenaries	UI	War.	-	Bow/Sh	4	4
0-12	Daylami Mercenaries	UI	War.	-	Jav/Sh	3	3
0-12	Afghani Ghazis	SI	War.	-	J/Sh, B/Sh or CB/Sh	2	2
0-2	Bolt Shooters	Art'y	War.	-	Catapults	2 crew	10
0-2	Stone Throwers	Art'y	War.	-	Ballista	4 crew	16
0-4	1st Supply Train	-		-	Pack Camels	-	+15
0-4 each	Additional Supply Trains	-	-	-	Camels, Horses, Donkeys &/or Elephants	-	+10 each additional train

Notes:
(1) UI spearmen and archers may be in mixed units.
(2) 'Ghulams' were trained slave-soldiers who, together with the paid mercenaries, formed the large standing army of the Ghaznavids.
(3) 'Ghazis' were volunteers who served for plunder.

References

1. Barthold, W. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion. Third Edition. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1992 (originally published in 1968). See pages 254-304 for survey of Ghaznavid involvement in Central Asian history.
2. Bosworth, C. E. The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, 994-1040. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1992 (originally published in 1963 by Edinburgh University Press). See Chapter III, "The Army," pages 98-128.
3. Bosworth, C. E. The Later Ghaznavids: Splendor and Decay, The Dynasty in Afghanistan and Northern India, 1140-1186. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1992.
4. Nicolle, David. The Armies of Islam, 7th-11th Centuries. Men-at-Arms Series No. 125. London: Osprey Publishing Co., 1982.
5. Nicolle, David. Armies of the Caliphates, 862-1098. Men-at-Arms Series No. 320. London: Osprey Publishing Co., 1998. Both Nicolle books have colored representations of Ghaznavid soldiers.

Ghaznavid Miniature Figure Availability