DJacobAP OP t1_j3yrfl9 wrote
Reply to comment by Roland_Bootykicker in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
Thank you, this is the sort of answer I was looking for. That makes sense, the 'Franks' would've been bound to their land and lord whereas these nomads were more mobile and the prospect of a long siege, especially against a city like Antioch wouldn't have seemed very appealing. Infact now that I think about it, I haven't read about any long siege of a major crusader city until very late into the period, whereas the crusaders had pretty much taken Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli by siege. Long and brutal ones in the case of the latter two.
Roland_Bootykicker t1_j3ys7qh wrote
No worries - really happy to help! For a detailed breakdown of military organisation in the 12th century Levant, check out The Crusader Armies by Steve Tibble. For some more detail on Il-Ghazi, the classic reference is a biographical article by Carole Hillenbrand (whose work on the Islamic perspective on the crusades is essential reading imo).
naim08 t1_j3zy8b8 wrote
Your answer was terrific. One minor note: if sieges weapons or mines are being used, then you’d prob need engineers, possibly blacksmiths, possibly sappers, etc whom all require upfront payment. Especially during the latter of the medieval age and gunpowder revolution, such was the case.
Lord0fHats t1_j407fro wrote
It's worth noting this is a fairly common issue facing generals throughout history and not unique to Il-Ghazi.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments