Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GRCooper t1_j3yhl3q wrote

There was also a lot of fractiousness in the Muslim world during the era of the first crusade. It was probably difficult to keep control if the guys next to you wanted to fight you almost as much as the crusaders. The crusaders, on the other hand, were more unified in purpose (without factoring in things like dropping out of the road to Jerusalem to found the principality of Antioch ;) )

Good book?

39

DJacobAP OP t1_j3yo6sa wrote

That one did pop up in my mind because asbridge mentioned that a similar problem plagued saladin's army at Acre during the third crusade. But Saladin's army was more geographically diverse than that of a regional bey like Il Ghazi.

The book is nice, a fun read. I have read other works by asbridge previously and he is a good writer, also uses both islamic and Christian sources to provide a good balanced perspective.

18

MaleficentDistrict22 t1_j3yxjen wrote

Keep in mind that Saladin ruled one of the greatest Muslim empires, Il Ghazi meanwhile was the governor of a Syrian city. He simply did not have the resources to maintain his army to the same extent as Saladin.

8

nykgg t1_j40v50x wrote

I’m very surprised and pleased by your thread because he was my undergraduate dissertation advisor. I’d also obviously recommend reading his work (especially The Crusades), but also another book he put me on to: Saladin: The Triumph of the Sunni Revival by Azzam. Potentially the best Saladin biography I’ve read

2

DJacobAP OP t1_j416tbo wrote

I have already read The First Crusade and The Crusades by him. I'll check out the one on Saladin

1

Ataraxia25 t1_j3yppq7 wrote

Are you sure bc that logic doesn't track with facts of history- like the European powers were constantly fighting each other back in Europe way more than the the powers in the Middle East fought each other. So by your logic the crusader armies should be harder to maintain in the field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#1st%E2%80%9310th_century_AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East#Medieval_times

8

GRCooper t1_j3ys1p9 wrote

Yeah, but the crusaders weren’t in Europe at the time. They were, to quote Jake and Elwood, on a mission from god

Yeah, I’m sure they didn’t always get along, but if you and your men decide to go it alone in the Levant, you’re a thousand miles from home surrounded by people who want to kill you. That’s a big incentive toward working together

Additionally, the crusaders kind of congregated in Constantinople. Much of the trip they’d have been with their own guys, and probably wouldn’t have seen their European enemies until they’d entered enemy territory.

It’s a lot easier to bug out and go home if it’s a few dozen miles away.

11

failsafe07 t1_j3zapad wrote

The crusaders were a deeply fractious bunch almost from the get go though. It would repeatedly bite them throughout the period. It didn’t during the first crusade in large part because the region was, if anything, even more fractious than the crusaders were, and to top it off, the specific parts of the region were something of a liminal space between the major powers of the region so after Antioch there wasn’t really anybody with any particular ability or will to stop the progress of the crusade to Jerusalem, so all the infighting wound up not really mattering

5

mrgoyette t1_j40lr1m wrote

Yes, in fact the Fatimids arguably encouraged the Crusaders to make progress to Jerusalem. The political situation in the region at the time was far more complex than many responses here are making it out to be.

2

Irichcrusader t1_j414719 wrote

In addition, the leaders of the First Crusade deserve credit for (mostly) putting their differences aside and trying to work as a unified army. Bohemond, due to having the most war experience, was voted as the overall commander, but he still had to consult the other leaders when a big decision had to be made.

By contrast, a lot of later Crusades included several Kings with large egos that made it very difficult to work with one another. Of course, that's only one factor in why later Crusades failed. The Fourth Crusade, for all its twists and turns, showed remarkable cohesion and that may well be because it was a "Princes" crusades made up of Counts, Dukes, and whatnot that were prepared to fight under a single elected leader.

1

DJacobAP OP t1_j3yqkme wrote

No they aren't wrong I'd say. Levant was deeply fractured when the crusades began, with the seljuq sultanate in a decline and local warlords vying for power

4

Mackntish t1_j3zlg4v wrote

>List of conflicts in Europe

Are you joking? Arabs had a different take on the feudal system (Itqa) that was less centralized. The had multiple heads of faith, mostly terrestrial kings an emperors claiming the titles. They had a different marital structure leading to more pretenders to claims. They had a different succession system, often favoring the bold and ruthless. They lived on totally different lands with different forms of sustenance gathering. If you buy into Marx's substructure and superstructure, their dominant economic activities were different, changing every fabric of their society when compared to Europeans. Their armies were drafted differently, paid differently, drilled differently, comprised of different types of units, with different oaths to their lords, and with religion playing a different role.

You can't just wave that away with a chronological list of wars. It's not even relevant! Army cohesion is an internal affair. War is an external affair. What you've said is the worst type of history. It sounds plausible at first blush, but could not misrepresent the situation more if you had tried.

4

Borne2Run t1_j3zhcj2 wrote

This isn't really the case, its more that the Crusaders were an endless tide of religiously motivated semi-nomadic pillagers that descended upon Anatolia and the Levant. They were effectively a check on Muslim expansion in the region as a Christian antithesis to the nomadic Turkic armies of the period.

The Crusader counts were constantly betraying each other, and the Byzantine forces under Alexios Komnenos. Their heavy cavalry often won the day if they could actually get in close. Otherwise, they were prone to charging in recklessly and getting ambushed.

6

mrgoyette t1_j40leoc wrote

Specifically regarding Antioch, the Crusaders were definitley not 'unifed in purpose'. Other leading Crusaders disputed Bohemond's claim as 'Prince of Antioch'.

But, there was such an anarchy unleashed in the region at the time that Bohemond basically squatted in Antioch while the other Crusader elements and Byzantine forces were busy pursuing different aims (securing the Cillician borderlands, marching on Jerusalem).

2