DJacobAP
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yuujl wrote
Reply to comment by JonhaerysSnow in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
Would you like to suggest any particular text? I know there is a difference but they weren't trapped. If the king of Jerusalem disbanded his levies they didn't go back to Europe
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yucwd wrote
Reply to comment by Stalins_Moustachio in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
Yeah I originally asked it on the ask historians subreddit for this reason but didn't get an answer there
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.
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yqkme wrote
Reply to comment by Ataraxia25 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
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
DJacobAP OP t1_j3ypwiw wrote
Reply to comment by JonhaerysSnow in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
Most of them either returned after the first crusade or settled in the Levant since their lords founded their own states or acquired lordships. Besides they were connected by the sea.
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yplq7 wrote
Reply to comment by Low_Ad487 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
That's a valid point. The Turks during this period would've definitely relied mostly on horse archers mounted on light horses while the European/Frankish forces would've had an elite core of knights (who were still in a very early stage of development)
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yoo49 wrote
Reply to comment by Low_Ad487 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
Weren't European forces the same too? Raising levies during wartime and disbanding afterwards?
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yoir0 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
So in 12th century Syria you would've come across Turks more than Arabs. And secondly Jihad as the main motivation against the crusader states didn't become a major thing until the zengids took power in the region so that take seems off by a few decades on either side
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yo6sa wrote
Reply to comment by GRCooper in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
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.
DJacobAP OP t1_j416tbo wrote
Reply to comment by nykgg in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
I have already read The First Crusade and The Crusades by him. I'll check out the one on Saladin