[Suggestion] muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

[Abul'Khair]

Sorry. I got carried away. Matmohair is wrong in his assertions that crusaders were inferior. The Crusader States faced far greater threats, from all sides, and were always outnumbered. It is rather impressive they survived for 2 centuries. The Muslims in Spain did not face very significant threats from Christians. The "reconquest" is not much of one, relations between Muslims and Christians were very good, until 1492 when Isebel and Ferdenand decided to kick them out under pain of death. The History of Crusades and Jihads, given all circumstances, seems fairly even. The fact that Turks were used as professional troops decesively advantaged Muslim factions. Given all of European armies' handicaps (equipment is NOT one of them) it is rather shocking the Christians ever won any battles at all. If the Near East wasn't flooded with Turkish mercenaries, later appropriated into professional armies, our world today would probably be a Christian one, since Christians were steadily taking back the territory stolen from them by the heirs of Muhammad.

[matmohair1]

[matmohair1]

our world today would probably be a Christian one, since Christians were steadily taking back the territory stolen from them by the heirs of Muhammad.

stolen from who - Catholics or Orthodox
you seem to be passionately confused with nationalism


please stick to the main topic

[Dago Red]

I'm not sure why did you bring Seljuks of Rum to the table, as they were not an object of the first crusade, they hadn't actually defend themselves against a direct attack.

The Seljuk Turks of Rum? They most certainly were! All my quotes from the past few days on this thread are regarding engagements with the Turks of Rum and their Anatolian allies (Danishmandids, some Greeks, Armenians, etc). After defeating the unwashed rabble of the Poeple's Crusade with little trouble, Sultan Arslan was alerted to a new, more powerful group of Crusaders assembling at Constantinople in 1097.

He assembled an army with his rivals, the Danishmandids, united to meet the Crusaders, whom he considered to be a mercenary army of his honorable enemy, the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire as they assembled outside of Nicea after crossing the Bosphorus. The battle of Nicea -- resulted in a defeat with heavy losses for the Turks. (The Crusaders immediately began atrocities, severing the Turks heads and flinging them over the walls of Nicea to terrorize the garrison, which eventually surrendered but was provided safe escort out by the ERE, much to the disdain of the fanatical Crusaders).


Later in the year, the Turks of Rum met the Crusaders again at battle of Dorylaeum, their capitol at the time. This time Arslan took his time and gathered a larger army to meet them. Again, he was defeated. More battles followed, including many ambushes by the Turks.

The Crusaders fought the Turks of Rum / and depending on where you draw borders, elements of the Great Seljuks, the entire way across Anatolia.

To conclude that knights had better armours and better weapons is far-fetched, in my opinion. That they were not annihilated during their first crusade was not a matter of their equipment but of strength of their opponents, who were so busy with figthing with each other that they even supported Europeans if they only fought against their enemies.

You can't have it both ways. The Turks of Rum relied heavily on tribal horsemen and Turcoman ghazi's who, at this time, were simply not up to defeating a fanatical, and heavily armed and armored opponent. As we have agreed many times, the political situations were a very large part of developments, I agree. but it was hardly a factor in the initial fighting across all of Anatolia, in which to the contrary.... the Turks of Rum were able to summon allies and even rivals, to combine their forces and unite... still they were defeated.

I'm not sure what do you mean by claiming that Turkish arrows didn't make much of a harm to crusaders, and then claiming that in fact crusaders doubled their armour in order to protect themselves from arrows. I know the difference lays in distance, but I don't think that warriors who were reportedly really skilled horse archers were so dumb to not to see that difference and to not to try to come closer in order to inflict some serious damage on crusaders, and instead were wasting their arrows.

I see why that seems contradictory, but the two facts are not mutually exclusive. Just because the Turks arrows were not dealing significant casualties didn't mean that they weren't still killing and wounding enough for the Crusaders to take further measures against them. As someone pointed out, many took up lamellar and paired it with their chainmail. others who could afford it, doubled up their chainmail, etc.

Turks too, took the armor of Crusaders in return when they could. The Nicea garrison, lowered hooks down along the walls and grabbed up bodies of Crusaders when they fell after failed attacks, and striped them of their armor, then dropped the nude bodies back down from the wall, presumably under longbow fire from the Crusaders and those severed heads I mentioned. -"The 1st Crusade," David Nicolle, page 33

Also, Turks didn't form one-formation army. We know that all Turkic rulers were using Turkoman tribal warriors' help whenever that was possible, but each ruler had his contingent of elite troops, plus regional professionals - askaris.

I know, and I have learned much from BC about this. Even if I'd read things 10 times before it doesn't always sink in until you can see it and hear it. But what my position is is that these standing armies, these askaris and Ghulams were the only ones wearing heavy armor. The rest of these armies were not heavily armored in the western middle east (I'm NOT talking about the Ghurids and the massively armored Khwarazem, etc).

[Abul'Khair]

David Nicolle suffers from an obnoxious anti-Christian bias. Regardless of any technological "advance" the Muslims had, (briefly), it doesn't make up for the fact that the Christian armies wore more armor, and therefore were better protected. What Muslim arms and armor have in asthetic value, they lack in utility. Chainmail was never supplanted in the Muslim world. For good reason, since it is better than lamellar in close combat. If Muslims were somehow more advanced, they would have kept up with metallergy praticed in europe from the 15th century onwards. The fact remains that we see several examples of smaller Christian Armies defeated a much larger Muslim one, the reverse is extremely rare. I've only seen one battle, I forgot which one, in which an Ottoman force defeated a larger European one.

[matmohair1]

David Nicole is not racist and we are all not anti-christian, we respect all religions & creeds

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

here we go then - how about Ian Heath "armies & enemies of the crusades"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Russian history books

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

historical manuscripts

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Abul'Khair]

I don't see how lammellar +mail will trump Padding, Mail, Mail, and a coat of plates. Even without the coat of plates the mail would still be better.

-It woud be great if a moderator could just delete all of the irrelavent posts.

[Prince of Judah]

Okay it looks like my thread has been besieged.

I am under the impression that mid-late 13th century middle eastern armor is more advanced and easier to repair, but I doubt it provides little if any advantage over western equivalents. I am willing to conceed that Mamluks probably wore lamellar, but the type of lamellar used on the Royal Mamluk cavalry looks like it is 1400s+.

[Tureuki]

1300+ is the last breath of the lamellar armour, survived until mid of the 14th century then lamellar armour almost disapperead in following years.

[Prince of Judah]

could you provide links?

[wudang_clown]

Guys, keep it civil, please.

No personal remarks here.

Abul'Khair, I have no idea what are you trying to prove, but there were several instances when Muslims defeated much bigger Christian armies, especially in initial phases of spreading of Islam. I can only say about one battle from time closer to BC, and that's battle of Manzikert.

About the battles in general - we can only assume about strength of armies, but in most cases those were rather equal, with few exceptions. At least that's my impression.

Also, reference to XV c. is off-topic here.

Dago Red, I'll reply on your post later; now I'd only like to say that the battle of Dorylaeum was almost lost by the crusaders and it was lost by Turks because of their indecisiveness and because they were surprised by new advancing columns of the crusaders, not because they were inferior in close combat or had worse equipment.
Similar factor (surprise and subsequent panic) was decisive during battle of Harran.

[matmohair1]

the basic forms of chainmail, lamellar & khazgand armor used in the middle east

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Prince of Judah]

If you check wikipedia ( I know wiki isn't very reliable), there are many more battles, regardless of who won, in which Islamic armies are outnumbered by Christian ones. This is my observation. I Haven't counted. Anyway, Tureki, doesn't Dago's thread with pictures of armor disprove your thesis?

@ matmohair, The chainmail in that image looks like it is as think as cloth. I am not sure that is accurate.

[matmohair1]

the second image is of a mail lined khazgand which can sometimes incorporate 2 layers of chainmail

[Abul'Khair]

I'm not trying to make any point other than that western armies tended to wear more armor, not higher qualilty armor. I'd like to add that I'm not talking about elite units or heavy cavalry either. I am refering to an entire army as a whole.

[matmohair1]

Arms & Armor evolutionary comparison - posted before but know updated with more info

11th century- (crusaders arrive)

Saracens

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Crusaders

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

12th century- (stalemate)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

13th century- (crusaders leave)

Saracens

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Crusaders

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14th centuries

middle east

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Europe

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

15th - 16th centuries- (crusading totally impossible !)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Late Middle-Eastern Armor

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Prince of Judah]

None of this proves Muslims had superior equipment. It all looks very similar to me. In all of the body of literature I have read, and it tends to portray an unfavorable view of crusaders, the crusaders have left a better account for themselves, facing stacked odds. This doesn't prove anyone is superior it it anyone, but it disproves any alledged Islamic superiority.

[matmohair1]

because its not supposed to prove the superiority of anything
no one was superior

- there was an arms race going on and tactics had to adapt and evolve
- the political atmosphere was unstable and unpredictable
- therefor commanders on both sides had to deal with several chaotic elements at the same time
- choosing the right battlefield or moment of impact were also an issue

its not about armor

"An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep" - Chabrias

[Prince of Judah]

Alright I misunderstood. We are in agreement then.

EDIT: Teruki, if possible, please post some links that say lamellar wasn't used post 1300. I really don't know since there seems to be assloads of arguments for and against it.

[Abul'Khair]

Is it safe to assume that Armenia and other eastern Christian factions would be armored similarly to Muslim factions?