Slitherine

I read that the Agulani are classed as Ghilman in the lists. Can I ask why this interpretation was used given the accounts of them being in full metal and sword armed only ?

Should they not be Cataphracts with sword only ?

Cheers

To quote "Swords and Scimitars":

Western accounts of the First Crusade mention 3,000 troops called Agulani within the Seljuk armies "who feared neither lances, arrows, nor arms because they and their horses were wearing iron armour, and they fought only with swords". It is most likely that "Agulani" is a corruption of ghilman/ghulam by Crusaders unaware of what they actually were (they are also identified as a people) and that these were no different from other similar troops who on occasion disdained the use of their bows and fought with hand-to-hand weapons only.

Opinions on this will differ, but it is FOG list policy to deal with anomalous troop types on the basis of the most likely explanation (in our opinion obviously).

Hello Scrumpy

The fact is that nobody really knows! Richard's explanation is logical and based on what everybody else in the area at that period was doing/looked like. It would have been more noteworthy by people at the time (other than Crusaders) had these "Agulani" been different to other ghilman.

The ghilman training would allow differing forms of combat to match the appropriate phase of a battle; area "shower" shooting, direct volleys, lance charge, sword/mace charge, so it is likely that these ghilman were simply doing what came naturally (well after years of training!).

Yours disgracefully

Pelagius