Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Stalins_Moustachio t1_j3ytmq2 wrote

There are so many inaccurate statements and generalizations here, that I don't know where to start addressing them. A few of the main ones:

  • Grouping up the multitude of medieval Muslim kingdoms into one generalized category;

  • Arguing that Muslim armies had little to no strategy due to "Jihad", which contextually makes no sense here as a translation or tenant;

  • Muslim armies had no specialization;

  • Medieval Arabs were all "Tribes" who maintained a nomadic lifestyle;

  • Arab political figures only trusted outsiders as fighters.

And more. Please people, it's better not to answer than to make up history as we go!

178

divaythfyrscock t1_j3zcef5 wrote

Yeah what I’m seeing here is a broad mix of things that were true in certain parts of the Middle East at certain times all jumbled up together to represent the failure to repel the initial crusades (none of which is historical). And also lmao to Jihad being a military doctrine

37

DJacobAP OP t1_j3yucwd wrote

Yeah I originally asked it on the ask historians subreddit for this reason but didn't get an answer there

19

SmarterThanMyBoss t1_j3z557p wrote

Try asking again with perhaps slightly different wording in a week or two. This sub has some good comments sometimes but often (especially with very complex subjects that are "popular") people here know just enough to misconstrue the facts.

11

jumpmanzero t1_j41ueub wrote

Thanks for reminding me that we're not in ask historians, and thus have a bit more leeway in our cites:

>Sieges against Antioch had a history of costly failure. It was well known that the complicated instructions and long deployment time of their weaponry made Antioch's military an ineffective field force. At home, however, these disadvantages were irrelevant; with time for a careful, deliberate deployment, their "holy" hand grenades proved decisive against invaders, human and animal alike.

MPATHG (Cleese et al, 23.19)

6

Foul-Ole_Ron t1_j42qc1b wrote

>but didn't get an answer there

Try /r/AskHistorians again, and read their wiki on how to formulate a question. This sub will give you answers, but half of them will be based on racial stereotypes, and the main sources will be movies or 'I read somewhere.'

6

mrgoyette t1_j40l3ol wrote

Thank u for pointing these out.

There's a lot of framing in these responses that it was the Muslims who were landless raiders in the First Crusade. The reality is the opposite. Especially when you are considering the specific case of Antioch.

Bohemond (founder of Antioch) was an Italo-Norman from the Hauteville family. The Hautevilles were raider/mercenaries who emigrated to southern Italy and took their land by the sword. The Italo-Normans left French Normandy because of their inability to pursue landed claims there.

Bohemond is frozen out of his own Italo-Norman claims by his father Robert Guiscard. Guiscard had remarried and declared Bohemond a bastard. Bohemond spent the following decades pursuing (and failing to secure) Byzantine lands for himself in Southern Italy and the Balkans. His campaigns often failed due to his inability to maintain supply, pay, and discipline among his men when attempting to seige strongpoints like Larissa in Thessaly (sound familiar??).

The First Crusade 'starts' while Bohemond is sacking Amalfi (again). He decides his prospects are better sacking the Byzantine/Muslim lands in Asia Minor, gathers a crew, and joins the Crusade.

Bohemond's successes in the First Crusade are won by realpolitik. He prevents his men from pillaging the Byzantine heartland and swears an oath of obedience to the Emperor Alexios. This helps him move in to position in the Byzantine borderlands that he's allegedly winning back for the Byzantines.

When the main Byzantine forces are occupied elsewhere , and Bohemond and his men join the siege of Antioch, he realizes his political opportunity. He opens negotiations with the commander of Antioch once the Byzantine representative leaves. Bohemond cuts a deal with the commander of Antioch (a non-Turk who was stifled by the Seljuk Turk ruling administration of the region). Bohemond pays him off and gains access for himself and his men into Antioch, circumventing the need for a long siege.

Bohemond then declares himself 'Prince of Antioch'. The other Crusaders and Byzantine operatives in the region are otherwise occupied in the anarchy of the moment of the First Crusade. No one disputes Bohemond's claim, likely because these disparate and unaligned forces are focused on the rest of Syria, the Cilician borderlands, and pushing their way to Jerusalem.

Bohemond stays put. He cares about establishing a claim to 'his' land, not 'saving' the Holy Land. After 20 years of fighting (for and against!) Byzantines, Lombards, Venetians, Turkish Muslims, Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, and his own Italo-Norman bretheren, he finally won some land for himself.

13