https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 5, 2025
1191
MILITARY SUPPLY IN THE BUKHARA KHANATE
Samadova Gulzoda Naim kizi
Master’s student at Qarshi State University
gulzodasamadova@gmail.com
Annotation:
This article covers military supply in the Bukhara Khanate based on historical
sources and literature.
Keywords and phrases:
troop supply, navkars (military servants), material needs, treasury,
military actions, booty, weapons, Shaybanids, clothing, horses, gold, silver items, nog‘ora
(drum), tug‘ (banner), kuloh (helmet), camel, peshkash (tribute/gift), to‘bichoq (saddle),
Abdullaxon
The issue of troop supply in the Bukhara Khanate has always served to ensure the military power
of the country throughout all historical periods. During the Shaybanid era, no sharp changes in
troop supply or its improvement compared to previous periods were observed. The form of
supply appropriate to the position of troops, typical for all medieval times, especially in Turkic
statehood, is also relevant to the history of the Bukhara Khanate during the Shaybanid period.
When discussing troop supply during the Shaybanid era, attention should also be paid to the
sources and quantity of supply, and to the adherence to principles of justice in troop provisioning.
Naturally, as in all periods, the loyalty of the troops to the ruler (or central government) was
directly linked to the level of their supply. From high-ranking administrative-military officials to
ordinary navkars and auxiliary soldiers, their material needs determined their military service
and loyalty to their duty. Shaybanid rulers, when envoys came from their subordinate estates,
seriously inquired about the prosperity of the province and people, as well as the troop supply.[2]
When talking about troop supply, it is necessary to distinguish between times of military
campaigns and peace (such peace was rarely observed during the Shaybanid rule) because there
were some differences in supply matters. Of course, the main source of troop supply was funds
allocated from the state treasury. From the treasury, troop leaders, military officials, and navkars
were given a certain amount of annual salary. The amount depended on the rank of the salary
recipient, their position in the administrative-military hierarchy, and their service to the state.
Analysis of source data shows that military personnel were rewarded by the ruler according to
their rank in the army as follows: 1) high-ranking officials received embroidered coats (zardo‘zi
to‘n), belts decorated with precious stones, swords and daggers with hilts made of precious
stones and metals, gold coins, tents, and saddles decorated with precious stones, to‘bichoq
(horseback), saddles, drums (nog‘ora), banners (tug‘), helmets (kuloh), camels, and prisoners
turned into slaves; 2) ordinary soldiers in the ranks were sometimes gifted swords or other
weapons by their superiors for bravery, in addition to military equipment, footwear, coats and
other clothing, horses, gold and silver items, porcelain dishes, and cash payments.[1]
Besides the annual salary paid from the treasury, a portion of the booty gained during military
campaigns was also distributed among troop leaders and ordinary navkars. The supply of
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 5, 2025
1192
weapons was also at the state's expense. Sources mention that during military actions, weapons
were brought from Bukhara and distributed among the troops.[1]
In addition, booty obtained from military campaigns was a supplementary source of income for
the soldiers. The collected property was divided among participants in the campaign, with
mounted soldiers receiving more than foot soldiers.[6] One of the main incentives for soldiers to
stay ready and encourage military actions was the permission to seize booty or loot following
victories. Many historical sources mention cases where victorious soldiers were allowed to loot a
captured city or region for a certain period and to a certain extent.[2]
Even before capturing cities, looting was allowed during siege to support the army and their
horses with food found in nearby neighborhoods, as historian G‘iyosiddin Khondamir wrote.
This practice was called “yurtovul rasmi” in historical sources.[2] After the city was captured,
confiscated property was sometimes sold to the surviving city population at multiple times its
value to fund soldiers’ salaries and purchase military equipment and weapons.
If looting was forbidden, tax collectors were appointed to conquered cities to record material
wealth compensating for military and moral damages caused by the battle and to collect the due.
For example, after the city of Herat was captured by Muhammad Shaybanid in May 1507, tax
collectors were sent to seize hidden money and valuable items from the population (mainly the
upper class). According to Khondamir, collectors seized precious jewels, rubies, sapphires, gold,
and other shiny goods. Looting was often replaced by a “moli omon” tax. All wealth collected
through “moli omon” was distributed among soldiers, taking into account the severity of injuries,
with special attention given to the wounded.[1] If looting was not allowed, soldiers were
forbidden from taking even a single stick from the conquered city or region.[1] Violators were
harshly punished.[1]
Often, capturing some fortresses, villages, or towns was done directly to supply the army. During
times without battles and victories, commanders held loyalty and obedience through such means.
For example, in 1551, Abdullaxon (then active in military campaigns) captured territories
belonging to the Nasaf government to supply officials; in 1581, Bobo Sultan (son of Navro‘z
Ahmadxon) temporarily seized villages around Jizzakh fortress to feed his army and horses.[1][2]
In similar cases, diplomatic relations were established with stronger local governors and cities
surrounding the target object or territory, and measures were taken to bring food and fodder from
their lands.[2] Also, before or after military campaigns, local governors brought peshkash (gifts
or tributes) to the khan. Various fabrics, horses, livestock, books, and sometimes slaves were
presented as peshkash. Fazlulloh ibn Ro‘zbehxon noted that peshkash collected before the khan
was divided into three parts: one part given to a prominent sultan (a member of the dynasty), the
second among the khan’s close associates, and the rest kept by the khan himself.[7]
Personal property of soldiers was exempt from taxes. The right to collect kharaj (tax) from
certain property (sometimes for a limited period) was also granted as tarxon or waqf to soldiers
and clergy. If they committed any offense, even powerful military commanders, wealthy nobles
of tribes, and army amirs were subject to confiscation of property and punishment.
In this period, physical training, handling military weapons, hunting, fighting, horseback riding,
and playing chavgon (polo) were the main activities for men. According to Zayniddin Vosifiy,
education programs for future heirs to the throne included general education and training in
military exercises from youth, including archery, wrestling, and horseback riding. For example,
Baroq Sultan was appointed as a trainee under Vosifiy and trained this way.[3]
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 5, 2025
1193
In conclusion, from the 16th century, firearms in the Bukhara Khanate were improved, and
several new types were created. At that time, several small cannons (arroda, zarbzan) appeared,
which differed from the large cannons of Amir Timur’s time in that they were suitable for use in
battles on flat terrain (Amir Timur’s cannons were large and mainly aimed at fortress walls).
Thus, the improvement of military weapons changed battle methods as well.
List of Used Sources and Literature:
1.
Hafiz Tanish al-Bukhari. Abdullnoma. Book 2. pp. 211, 190, 227, 292, 45
2.
Muhammadyar ibn Qataghan. Musakhkhir al-bilad. pp. 368, 386
3.
Vosifiy, Zayniddin Mahmud. Badoe’ ul-vaqoe’. p. 69
4.
Muhammad Tolib. Matlab ut-tolibin. p. 156
5.
Ivanin M. Two great commanders. p. 145
6.
Petrushevsky I.P. Agriculture and agrarian relations in Iran in the 13th-14th centuries.
Moscow-Leningrad, 1960. p. 45
7.
Fazlullah ibn Ruzbihan Isfahani. Mikhman-name-yi Bukhara. p. 214
