Matrakçı Nasûh

Matrakçı Nasûh
Born	Nasûh ibn ʿAbdallāh late 15th/early 16th century Modern day Bosnia
Died	958AH/1551CE
Pseudonym	Matrakçı, Maṭraqī, Ṣilāhī, Naṣūhī
Occupation	Janissary, Scholar
Nationality	Ottoman Empire
Education	Enderun Palace School, Constantinople
Influences	Mamluk Martial Arts Literature Lāchin b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ṭarablūsī
Genres	Military manual
Language	Turkish, Arabic
Manuscript(s)	Süleymaniye Ktp., Esad Efendi Kol., Nr. 2205 Millet Ktp., Ali-Emiri-Askeriyye, Nr. 219 İstanbul Belediyesi Atatürk Kütüphanesi, Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları, O.50 The Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Török, Nr. O.128

Despite being one of the most celebrated polymaths of the so called 16th century “Golden Age” of the Ottoman Empire, not much is known about Matrakçı Nasûh’s life for certain. We cannot verify his name, birth date, and birth location based on present source materials. The most common name throughout all treatises ascribed to him is Nasûh ibn ʿAbdallāh. Based on contemporaneous histories and prosopographies, his death date is most likely 958 AH/1551 CE. Overall, Nasûh is known for being a polymath during the reign of Suleiman I (r. 1520-1566 CE), authoring works in mathematics, poetry, travel, and martial arts and translating seminal Arabic language histories into Turkish. More recent studies have shown that while we can be certain that Nasûh authored the works of poetry, history translations, and his martial arts treatises ascribed to him, the other works are difficult to confirm as Nasûh’s.

Biographies that appear more than 50 years after his passing ascribe Nasûh’s birthplace to the Balkans, more specifically modern-day Bosnia. It is clear that Nasûh was sent to the Enderun palace school in Constantinople during the reign of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512 CE), during which time he studied under a notable poet. According to later histories, during this time Nasûh ostensibly became well versed in combative games to the point where he stood out among other students. Due to his success in martial arts, he was sent to Egypt to assess the troops there under a certain Hayr Bey (unknown), and to train them. Nasûh returned to Constantinople in 1530 in order to participate in the celebrations for the circumcision of the crown princes of Suleiman I. During this time, Suleiman I recognized Nasuh with a Title of Privilege (Tur. Berat) signifying him as a “leader of arms-masters” (Per./Tur. Silahşor) in 936/1530. The document describes him (as “Nasûh the weapons-master, Nasūh-i ṣilāḥī) as one who could not be bested by any of those he encountered while in Egypt. In fact, the Berat claims that Nasûh instructed those he defeated in “elegant Arabic.” While it documents Nasûh’s mastery of the sword, mace, javelin, and bow-and-sword (with the sword balanced in the shooting hand), the Berat showcases Nasûh’s greatness in lance exercises. All in all, the Berat hails Nasûh as the “ultimate master” (Tur. Üstad-ı ser-amed) and “Head of (Martial) Artists (Tur. reis-i hünermend). In honor of the circumcision ceremony, Nasûh wrote a work of cavalry combative exercises and overall strategy, which he published in 938-9 AH/1533 CE. Entitled Ṭuhfat al-ghuzāt “Treatise dedicated to the Holy Warriors,” the 42-folio work was written mostly in Turkish with some sections in Arabic.

Nasûh then accompanied Suleiman on his campaign in Iraq in 940/1534, during which time he took to writing history and translating seminal Arabic language histories into Turkish. We can confirm from numerous sources that Nasûh passed away in 958/1551. Many works bearing his name, or various permutations, appear after his death – including mathematical works, travelogues, even miniature paintings for which Nasûh has become celebrated. Whether or not Nasûh authored them, or whether others with the fairly common name Nasûh penned the works cannot be determined given the available information.

Later historians describe Nasûh as having been a master of maṭraq, a cane fighting art meant to train swordfigthing. Some even claim that he was its inventor. Nasuh’s association with the art became such that he is often called “Matrakçı Nasûh” or “Nasûh the Master of the art of maṭraq.” essentially cane fighting meant to train one in the proper use of sword arts. While documents such as the Berat praise Nasûh’s exceptional performance in many different combat exercises, maṭraq or any similar art is not called out. Likewise, the cavalry-focused Tuḥfat al-ghuzāt does not feature exercises that resemble maṭraq.

Treatise

The mostly Turkish language “Treatise dedicated to the Holy Warriors” follows the genre-defining precedents that previous Arabic language martial arts texts have set. Recent scholarship has drawn on the three available manuscripts in collections in Turkey and Hungary as well as contemporaneous treatises featuring Ottoman cavalry exercise to present a critical edition, complete with limited illustrations. The work bears a colophon dating to 938-9 AH/1533 CE and has script that is consonant with Nasûh’s translations of Arabic language histories. By and large, Nasûh’s material is his own as far as scholars can tell, but he draws on several Arabic language works on ḥadīth and histories for certain sections. In others, he makes use of one Mamluk Arabic language treatise (Lāchin b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ṭarablūsī (738/1338) Ṭuhfat al-mujāhidīn fī-l-ʿamal bi-l-mayādīn) and now lost Turkish-Arabic treatises that seem to be translations of Arabic furūsīya materials (ʿUmdat al-ṣilāḥ, and Ṣilāḥshurnāma). Nasûh cites Ṭuhfat al-mujāhidīn by name throughout Ṭuḥfat al-ghuzāt to showcase his knowledge of furūsīya material and also to situate his own work within the lineage of masters who came before him.

It is clear that Nasûh wrote this work to celebrate the circumcision festival of the crown princes of Suleiman I, and perhaps to cement his career among the palace guard. In terms of form and content, Nasûh clearly writes to place himself in the tradition of Arabic-language furūsīya authors, most notably Mamluk-era authors (r. 1250-1517 CE). In doing so, I would assert that Nasûh participates in efforts to legitimize the Ottomans as the new leading polity in the western Islamicate. Ṭuhfat al-ghuzāt is meant to demonstrate that Ottoman cavaliers are successors to their defeated foes, most notably the Mamluks in Egypt after 1517 CE. It is also meant to be a work that supersedes previous treatises.

In typical fashion for Furūsīya treatises, Ṭuhfat al-ghuzāt begins with benedictions, an introduction praising those who support and participate in Jihād, and lamentations over the state of soldiery. It offers general pedagogical exhortations to remedy such issues that can be gained by reading the treatise – summarized in an “Ode to Weapons-bearers” (Qaṣīda-yi ṣilāhshurān). Following convention, Nasûh’s work is organized into four chapters (Ar. faṣl) dealing with particular weapons —in order: Bow, Sword, Mace, and Lance— and one chapter on troop organization, deployment, and tactics. Each chapter on weapons has a history of the weapon and exercises (Tur. ḥovpare) devoted to it meant to be performed by troops in the maydān – a space for military exercise in Constantinople’s Hippodrome (today’s Sultanahmet Meydanı in Istanbul). All exercises are performed on horseback, and assume that the riders are also utilizing shields (kalkan, ḥaddād) that can be maneuvered around the body and held in the left hand while shooting a bow. Nasûh equates his Exercises (Tur. ḥovpare) with Forms (Ar. band, pl. bunūd)—a term that Arabic-language authors have used to describe formulaic exercises that one carries out against a compliant or semi-compliant partner (not unlike paired kata in Japanese martial arts traditions).

Featured here is Nasûh’s section on the Sword. As the reader will notice, the exercises have far more to do with the use of the sword as a sidearm to the bow than they do with swordplay in and of itself. However, from a more general perspective, Nasûh features sword techniques that are relevant to the development of saber-play overall. Most notably, the so called “mangonel cut” (manjanīq, meaning in Arabic and Turkish in general a “catapult”) in Form 2 and Form 9 can be considered a kind of mimicry of a catapult or trebuchet arm – that is, a descending molinello from the shoulder after threatening first with an ascending cut from the right as a feint.

Sword

Draft Translation by Hamilton Parker Cook, PhD
Concerning Knowledge of the Use of the Sword—A Section that is Comprised of Ten Forms (Ḥūpāra) (Turkish) This second section is a description of the Forms of the Sword (kılıç). Know that from the time of the Prophets, peace be upon them, God has decreed from His sublime infallibility and lordly wisdom that humans should work against the corruption of the earth that is caused by the misguidance of infidelity. Humans should endeavor to purify the world from the grave sin of ignorance. God has decreed that the religion and state of Muhammad and the pillars of the religious Law of Ahmad (i.e., Muhammad) are as a single sword (shamshir), with which social harmony and political order might be established (nizam ve intizam bula).
Quatrain: It is the lowly dust of the earth that makes one corrupt. This same dust of the earth, made into swords, can render one pure. For within the sword is found: We sent down Iron (Qur’an 57:25) About the sword God said: It has mighty power (Qur’an 57:25) It is the sword that foils all enemies. The sword upsets foes. Like a falcon, it rips apart ranks of troops. Whatever I say of the sword, in sum: it is the Sultan of weapons. Whatever is said about other weapons (like the spear) is vain boasting. For the roses of the sword are the shield of Heaven’s Garden. The sword’s hyacinths descend from Paradise’s lilies.
Know as well that God, the Truth, most mighty and exalted, gave the first sword to the Prophet Seth, by means of the angel Gabriel. This is also found in the Risāla-yi Ṭuhfat al-mujāhidīn (“Treatise dedicated to the Mujāhidīn”): (Arabic) “Indeed God, most mighty and exalted, made the sword descend from heaven by means of trustworthy Gabriel, to the Prophet Seth. God said to Seth ‘Take this tool (ʿidda). Let it be for you a means of succor, and an aid in establishing religion.’”
(Turkish) At that time, swords were entirely straight [that is, double edged and straight]. Later, at the time of the Sassanian Shah Yazdegird I (r. 399-420 CE), sword makers began to make swords curved (eyri, i.e., single edged and curved). The reason that curved, single edged swords were produced was because of Zahhak, the paternal uncle of Yazdegird. The king entrusted a sword made of silver to Zahhak. However, a servant betrayed him. In the throws of a deep sleep, the servant found two opportunities for treachery: taking up the sword, he cut off the head of Zahhak, and then took the fine blade for himself. These affairs became known to the Shah Yazdegird. Thus, the king commanded in response, “From now on, let swords be stretched so that they are crooked. It does not befit swords to be straight if a servant can cut off the head of a master with the master’s own blade.” Some swords still remain straight even after this treacherous affair. Straight, double edged swords are nonetheless the most original form of the weapon.
As for the Sword: Dhū-l-Faqār (Zulfikar) They say that the famed sword of the Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 40AH /661 CE), the Prophet’s cousin and son in law, was double edged and fullered. The sword was not forked in its tip, as the heretical Shiite “Rejectors” of the Rightful Caliphs say. Ali’s sword was instead fullered for the purposes to make it lighter (khafīf). It is also said that at the Battle of Badr (2 AH/ 624 CE), Ali took it as a part of his share of the war spoils. It is also said that Prophet of God took it for himself. In one narration, the Sassanid Emperor’s vicegerent in Alexandria, Muqawqis, sent it as a gift to the Prophet. Now, it has been explained here the significance and history of swords. After this section several Forms (hovpare) are mentioned, as well as their summaries (mukhtaṣar) culled from various Fighting Forms (bunūd al-ḥarbīya) and Essential Plays (luʿūb aṣlīya).
Poem: Of all manner of armament (yarāq) that exists, the greatest is the sword. With a sword, one cannot be overcome, even if one’s state seems beyond salvation (dirigh)! When a sword is drawn for combat, it is an act of glory. It is the sword that wafts the fine perfume of blood to Heaven.
The First Form – Winding In This Form is that of Winding In, the way it is employed is as follows: The riders should wind in from the right and from the left [ranks in which they stand in the maydān]. When they arrive at the entrance of the maydān, they should turn and attack [with the sword], and then retreat by circling around, ending up back where they were in the maydān. At the end, they should shoot a bodkin arrow (ḥarbīya) then attack [with swords].
The Second Form – The Baldric This Form is that of the Baldric, the way it is employed is as follows: One rider should shoot at the opponent’s shield [kalkan] twice with bodkin arrows. After this, the opponent should shift his own shield behind his back, at which point the rider should seek to cut under the opponent’s armpits three times, ending with a Mangonel Strike [manjanīq, to the head – a molinello from the shoulder] followed by shooting a bodkin arrow. He should end in the maydān without further attacks.
The Third Form – The Bodkin Arrow This Form is that of the Bodkin Arrow, the way it is employed is as follows: Shoot a bodkin arrow at the opponent’s knee. After this, stay in place, and prepare to hit with a shield strike [to defend against an incoming blow after shooting], turning the shield to the left and the sword to the right [to maximize defensive cover], then fire five bodkin arrows [as you circle the opponent]. Wheel back to the same location and shoot a bodkin arrow, followed by a sword strike.
The Fourth Form – Intercepting from the Right This Form is that of Intercepting from the Right, the way it is employed is as follows: The rider should stay in one place and fire a bodkin arrow. After this, he should turn and attack from the right. Then he should follow wind in further and seek to strike the opponent. The opponent will keep his sword behind him and over his knees [in defense]. Thus locking up any openings as the rider approaches the opponent’s legs, the two riders disperse from the maydān.
The Fifth Form – Interception from the Left This Form is that of Intercepting from the Left, the way it is employed is as follows: The rider should shoot a bodkin arrow and then strike the opponent while initiating an attack from the right. At that moment, the opponent will seek to parry by putting the sword at the head then riposting with a turn toward the rider. When this occurs, the rider should parry the incoming blow with the metal boss of his shield (ḥaddād), and then enter into striking distance of the leg. The opponent should parry this, and right after, shift the shield behind him against any blows from behind. Placing their swords over their knees, the riders disperse from the maydān.
The Sixth Form – The Oblique This Form is that of the Oblique, the way it is employed is as follows: The riders should turn toward each other and circle one another, with one seeking to attack with a turn out of the circle (hov döne). During the second circling, one rider should enter in and bind the opponent’s blade [who is trying to attack and turn out of the circle]. After this, the rider should have his horse stamp its foot, and seek to enter in the aforementioned way in the maydān. The opponent will take up the shield [in surprise], in which case the rider can strike under it. The rider should take up his own shield over the right shoulder, because a riposte from the opponent will come. After this, the riders should disperse and fire bodkin arrows.
The Seventh Form – Pursuing This Form is that of the Pursuit, the way it is employed is as follows: riders in the maydān should circle around each other. They will then open up the maydān and seek to attack each other one on one. After that, the riders should wheel around, and get within the distance of their respective opponents’ heads. The opponent will lean away from the incoming threat of the sword, at which point the rider should hit the head of the opponent with a Baldric cut [an ascending cut from the left; i.e. "a cut from the sheath on the baldric"]. After this strike, the opponents should disperse and fire a bodkin arrow.
The Eighth Form – The Eternal The way it is employed is as follows: When one encounters a Baldric Cut [ascending cut from the left; i.e. “a cut from the sheath on the baldric”] wrapping in toward them, they should turn their shield behind them [over the right shoulder]. Then, they should take up their shield and strike the opponent’s leg with the sword. The opponent should lift their own leg and return to the maydān. After that, the opponent should reach at the head of the rider, but then they will disperse and fire a bodkin arrow. Or, the rider will place his sword behind him, and seek to reach the head of the opponent from the side, and then reach the maydān as the opponent parries the blow.
The Ninth Form – The New This Form is that of The New, the way it is employed is as follows: the riders should circle around each other and fire bodkin arrows. After this, one rider takes up entering in by coming in from the side. This rider should reach the distance of striking the opponent’s head. He should then pass his left foot to his right, placing the sword behind him, and strike with his shield, then use it to defend his knees. After that, as he passes again to reach the head of the opponent, the rider should bind up the opponent and get to a point where he can reach the opponent’s legs. While he is defending, the rider should be able to parry with his shield, and should be able to strike with the Mangonel Cut to the left and to the right. After this, the riders should turn and shoot a bodkin arrow.
The Tenth Form – The Essential This Form is that of the Essential, the way it is employed is as follows: One rider takes up entering in by coming in from the side, and should have his horse stomp its foot. After doing this [entire phrase of actions] around three times, the opponent should move his sword behind him, and strike at the back of the Teacher [i.e., the rider], and in response, the rider should take up his shield and turn and shoot a bodkin arrow. The rider should again take up his shield, move it behind him, and strike at the opponent’s leg. The opponent should stand still - moving his shield to his back and to the front as need be. In this manner, he should stand taking up his shield, attacking by turning to the left, protecting his back with his shield, again turning [to attack], again placing his shield on his back and to the front as need be. After this, he should protect his knees [with sword or shield], and the riders should disperse while attacking. In doing so, this Form becomes complete.
Concluding Remarks Now, these Forms of Combat in Battle (bunūd al-ḥarbīya) are ten. They have been explained in summary fashion. To complete one’s perspicacity in such matters, each Form should be performed in its proper location in the maydān (maḥallinde), all the while looking for the right opportunity to take advantage of the opponent by shooting as many bodkin arrows at them as is feasible (harbīnin akthar ṭarīqi oldur).

Copyright and License Summary

For further information, including transcription and translation notes, see the discussion page.

Work	Author(s)	Source	License
Translation	Hamilton Parker Cook, PhD	Wiktenauer
Transcription

Additional Resources

The following is a list of publications containing scans, transcriptions, and translations relevant to this article, as well as published peer-reviewed research.

None.

Matrakçı Nasûh, Tuhfetü’l-Guzât: Bir Silahşorluk risalesi, Ümran KARADENİZ ed. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2019) -pp 8-12 for biographical information on Nasuh -pp 62-64 on critical edition of sword section.

Hüseyin G. YURDAYDIN, Matrakçı Nasûh (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1963) -pp. 2-11 for biographical information -pp. 70-71 for text of Berat

Shihab al-Sarraf, “Mamluk Furūsīyah Literature and Its Antecedents,” in Mamlūk Studies Review Vol. VIII, No. 1 (2004). -Overview of Furūsīya literature, core elements of the genre, and major authors:

Agnès CARAYON, “La Furūsiyya Des Mamlûks: Une élite sociale à cheval (1250-1517), Doctoral Thesis in History (Arab World, Muslim, and Semitic Studies), Université de Provence Aix-Marseille, June 26 2012. -Best catalogue to date concerning Arabic-language martial arts literature from the 9th – 16th cent.