Crusaders and Saracen Fighting Strategies

 

My question is, why didn't the crudader's adopted the horse archer strategy and why didn't the saracen's adopted the heavily armored knight?

 

Was is technological, cultural, or other?

 

To say heavy cavalry did not exist amongst Arabs and muslims is not true. They existed since day one but why were they a European phenemenon is easily explained. The horses.

 

Europeans until the 16th century use the huge European breed for the cavalry. Such horses not only can carry the knight, they also can be armoured and trained to gallop quite fast even when fully armoured. They were indeed the tanks of the old days.

 

However, The Arab breed was light and only certain breeds that were limited in supply were able to do what the European breeds do so Islamic states, the large Islamic states like the Ayubids and Mamelukes could afford such diverse units of cavalry. Most of the 120 fuedal principalities that faced the first crusade (there were no central authority, the largest army that these warring principalities could muster was 5000 men compared with over 100 000 crusaders) did not have horses and if they did the only units they could afford were light cavalry.

 

 

 

Al-Jassas

 

 

Then we are back to the question as to why neither side adopted the tactics of the other.  Or was it that both tactics had their own advantage and weaknessess that neither one had total domination of the the other.  In this case, it comes down to cultural and preference. 

 

I read somewhere that the Saracens knew how powerful a knight charge was.  Something akin to "When the Franks charge, not even the walls of Babylon can withstood them."  That is why Islamic armies never stand their ground when faced by a cavalry charge.

 

On the otherhand, muslim archers did a lot damage to the Crusader armies.  The Knights Hospitallier had records of large amounts of arrow inflicted facial wounds.  Furthermore, Islamic armies are trained to attack the horse, which tend to have a very life expectant rate, in order to destroy the Crusader's main offensive weapons.  In the battle of Hattin, no horses were capture while many knights surrendered.

 

The Turks gave crusader cavalry the title of "Iron Men", as they were covered in a great deal of armour and plating. The Muslim light cavalry, as I stated earlier could out strengthen the armoured horsemen by using loose formations. Muslim horse archers could also wound and often kill opposing knights. One such case being the Battle of Dorylaeum, where the Muslims incorperated the advantages of surprise, terrian abusment, and hit and run tactics. A portion of the Muslim army invaded the European camps when they were unaware of their existance. The attack killed a significant portion of the crusader army. Most of the casualties inflicted were upon footmen, as opposed to knights. The Muslims retreated accross the marshy terrian of the Thymbris river. When the crusaders chased the Muslims, they discovered a defect in their army. The armour, which they wore to protect them, turned out to be their enemy. The armour made their mount heavier, and therefore would sink into the soft soil of the marsh. The Muslims, had an abundant supply of arrows, and therefore could fire numerous vollies of arrow fire. After a period of time, the knights, no matter how well armoured, fell, as a small number of arrows found defects the the armour. You can say this was simular to numerous battles in the Greco-Persian wars, where Persian arrows found their targets after firing a series of projectiles. In the end the crusaders were victorious after the arrival of their awaited ally, Raymond arrived with a number of reinforcements. The Europeans were then able to make a flanking move. You could say each army had their own advantages and weaknesses, and therefore could be countered by another. You could also say the war was a war of tactics, rather than of units. The Muslim tactics in the Battle of Dorylaeum were very impressive, and because of their tactics, inflicted more casualties upon the crusader army than their own. The crusaders used the flanking tactic to steal victory away of their Asian opponents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Gesta Francorum ("Deeds of the Franks", written by a crusader in Bohemond's entourage) the Turks routed when a Frankish force appeared behind their lines. This force, led by Archbishop Adhemar, was sent around the Turkish lines with the express purpose of outflanking them ("the Bishop of Le Puy approached by way of another mountain and thus the unbelieving Turks were surrounded on all sides. "), you are right, and in my opinion this was the best move they could have made.

 

You say the knights' armour turned out to be their enemy. Certainly, being weighed down can be a disadvantage, but fact is the Franks withstood a heavy barrage of arrows prior to the victory, and had it not been for their armour I suspect the casualties in this early phase would have been much higher, and possibly the battle would have been lost (especially considering the Franks couldn't counter the Turkish firepower).

As for the casualties, they must be seen in relation to the size of armies. The crusader army is usually estimated between 10 to 15k fighting men (the total following was much larger), the majority infantry and an elite core of a few thousand knights. This means that the estimate of about 3000 casualties, mainly among the infantry, is quite high in itself. However, it would depend on the size of the Seljuk army, which is a matter of some dispute. Traditionally the Seljuk army has been estimated at between 25 to 30k fighting men,  and if that was the case then 3000 casualties in an army twice as small, who in the end won, is not bad at all. Other estimates say the entire Turkish force concisted of somewhere between 6 to 8k mounted men. If this is true it would of course put the whole matter in a different light. The Gesta Francorum on the other hand claims the Turkish host numbered 360k men.  In any case, despite being victorious the Franks were clearly impressed with the Turks' prowess in battle:

 

"Who will ever be wise or learned enough to dare to describe the prudence, prowess, and valor of the Turks? They believed they could terrify the Frankish race by threatening them with their arrows, as they had terrified the Arabs, Saracens, Armenians, Syrians, and Greeks. But, please God, they will never be as powerful as our men. Indeed, the Turks say that they are related to the Franks and that no man ought by nature to be a knight save the Franks and themselves. I speak the truth, which no one can deny. that if they had always been steadfast in Christ's faith and in Christianity, if they had wished to confess one triune Lord, and if they had honestly believed in good faith that the Son of God was born of the Virgin, that he suffered and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven in the presence of his disciples, that he has sent the perfect comfort of the Holy Spirit, and that he reigns in heaven and on earth; if they bad believed all this, it would have been impossible to find a people more powerful, more courageous, or more skilled in the art of war. By the grace of God, however, we defeated them."

 

If anyone is wondering where I have these numbers from they're taken from the book I mentioned above; John France's "Victory in the East".

 

The Gesta Francorum can be found here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gesta-cde.html

 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Well, this is what happens when you get history from Hollywood films. Saladin was an excellent warrior and a great military commander. He killed Reynold with one blow as ibn Al-Athir, who was present at Hattin, said.

 

Perhaps the sources are conflicting? The story I've always encountered is the one where Saladin, having won the battle, offers King Guy de Lusignan a drink, then when the King passes the cup on to Reynald Saladin says he did not offer the cup to him, and strikes him down with his blade. Saladin then tells Guy that the insolance of Reynald was just too much.