Why were medieval armies/commanders so unsuccessful?

[intel]

He also annihilated a Polish army that tried to invade Bukovina in 1497.

...he didn't. It's a myth. Polish forces suffered losses, but not nearly close to anihilation. Also, Poles wouldn't lose if it weren't for Stephan's betreyal.

[+Marius+]

...he didn't. It's a myth. Polish forces suffered losses, but not nearly close to anihilation. Also, Poles wouldn't lose if it weren't for Stephan's betreyal.

Incorrect.

It was John Albert who accepted Stephen's conditions for retreat and it was him who decided to break the arrangement.

Thus, on October 26, Stephen ambushed the Poles while they were marching on a narrow road passing through a thickly wooded area known as The Cosmin Forest. The several phases of battle lasted for three days, with Stephen routing the invading army, which was forced to flee in disarray, harassed all the way by the forces of the prince. At the same time a Moldavian contingent intercepted on October 29 a hastily assembled Polish relief force and completely annihilated it at Lențești. However, once back in open space, the Poles were able again to take advantage of their heavy cavalry, and that part of the remaining troops which managed to retain a measure of order and discipline succeeded in crossing back into Poland – despite Stephen's last effort to engage the remnants of the king's army in a battle of annihilation when they were trying to ford the Prut river at Cernăuți.

The casualties of the Poles were so horrid that after the failed campaign they no longer threatened Moldova for the rest of Stephen's reign.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-medieval-army
I would suggest that these two threads be combined.

Why do you keep mentioning Saladin?

He was incompetent and was humiliated by numerically inferior troops multiple times.

His massive elite army was annihilated at Montsigard by a detachment of a few hundred knights and some infantry support led by a 16 year old boyking with leprosy and at Jaffa the crusaders only lost 2 men.

The man was a great leader overall but a horrible military commander who relied solely on the numerical superiority of his troops to win battles.

Saladin was not an incompetent commander, aside that it is my opinion and the opinion of many others I think that the facts support that Saladin was not incompetent.
Strategically he was an extremely skilled commander, due to his strategies he was able to wipe out Guy de Lusignan's army at Hattin and then was able to take Jerusalem without opposition from any force in the field.
His strategy would also have provided him with a very high chance of winning the battle of Arsuf (despite the fact that he ultimately lost that battle tactically). Saladin's battle plan at Arsuf was quite ingenious but only because Richard noticed and exploited the flaw in his plan did Saladin lose. Saladin's strategies and flexibility outside of the battle field prevented Richard from attacking Jerusalem.
It cannot be denied that he lost battles and some were quite the embarrassment but the truth is he won a fair share of battles. Even if he wasn't a tactical mastermind that doesn't make his strategic, logistical, organizational or operational skill any worse.

But the main reason for why Saladin lost battles was because of the composition of his military force being a wide range of light cavalry and infantry and slightly heavier infantry. Due to these reasons Saladin's tactical options were quite limited when faced with opponents such as the Crusader states which could field extremely powerful heavy knights that essentially melted the majority of units in Saladin's army in close combat. However due to the light composition of Saladin's army this gave him a huge strategic advantage against the Crusader states which was a far more mobile force in the terrain of the Middle East with a wide array of flexibility as well as operational and strategic options. Saladin's army could not even compare to the Crusader armies as in terms of training his troops would be at a disadvantage, in terms of armaments his mostly Turco-Arab force was still at a disadvantage. The whole of his campaign plans hinged on quickly raising a large force (his army having a small core of elite veterans and filled up with cheap infantry and cavalry) and moving rapidly through the terrain to attack a city or army at a disadvantage, as his army provided for these strategic options he was rather successful and led to many armies being caught off guard or encircled (Hattin, Arsuf, multiple battles against the Zengid Emirs). Going from that point Saladin experienced huge amounts of success against the Zengids despite many cities being able to hold out long sieges. Compare this to the rather logistically strained Crusader armies which were limited to traveling along the coast.

I'm sorry but the simple fact is that the average Ayyubid/Turco-Arab soldier was no match against the average knight; in battle Saladin was always at a disadvantage against them even if he could bring numerical superiority to bear. Look at the First Crusade and its aftermath or the other battles of the Third Crusade where Saladin did not take part and it looks very much the same. The Crusaders might as well have been Martians with laser cannons when compared to the Middle Eastern armies and the strategic realities of the time in the Crusader State vs Emirate vs other Emirate scenario.
If anything the fact that he recognized these defects and worked within his strategic limitations as well as everything which he accomplished regardless proves that he was quite good.

Yaaaas;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_III_of_Moldavia

Took out the huge Hungarian army, beat the humongous Ottoman armies and above all;

"30,000 Tatars under Meñli I Giray. The Tatars, who called for a Holy War, attacked with their cavalry from the north and started to pillage the country. The Moldavians took chase after them, and routed and killed most of them. "The fleeing Tatars discard their weapons, their saddles and clothes, while some, as though crazed, jump into the River Dniepr." Giray wrote to Mehmed that he could not wage more war against Stephen, as he had lost his son and two brothers, and had returned with only one horse."

Took out an army of 30 000 Mongols with several thousand peasant levies, some mercs and some knights, the man was a beast.

Stefan cel Mare was a very good tactician as demonstrated and employed some unorthodox strategies when defending his territories from enemies (such as ambush). Even still Stephen couldn't project his military power into offensive actions against his neighbors. He may well have won in Moldovia but there he would stay. For example his attack against Wallachia and Vlad Tepes failed and was forced to retreat. That's not to detract from him but rather to point out the strategic and military reality of his time and area. Even if Stefan was God tier his little army with a budget of $2 and a potato wouldn't be retaking Constantinople in the name of Christendom any time soon.

[+Marius+]

Saladin was not an incompetent commander, aside that it is my opinion and the opinion of many others I think that the facts support that Saladin was not incompetent.

We was a brilliant leader and politician, but a below average military commander.

Which is obvious solely from his command at Montgisard.

Strategically he was an extremely skilled commander, due to his strategies he was able to wipe out Guy de Lusignan's army at Hattin and then was able to take Jerusalem without opposition from any force in the field.

Well he did have a significant numerical superiority, but yes, he indeed won that battle because of proper planning.

His strategy would also have provided him with a very high chance of winning the battle of Arsuf

A solid chance?
Yes.
"a very high chance"
Doubt it.

Saladin's strategies and flexibility outside of the battle field prevented Richard from attacking Jerusalem.

True.

It cannot be denied that he lost battles and some were quite the embarrassment but the truth is he won a fair share of battles. Even if he wasn't a tactical mastermind that doesn't make his strategic, logistical, organizational or operational skill any worse.

Alright.

But the main reason for why Saladin lost battles was because of the composition of his military force being a wide range of light cavalry and infantry and slightly heavier infantry. Due to these reasons Saladin's tactical options were quite limited when faced with opponents such as the Crusader states which could field extremely powerful heavy knights that essentially melted the majority of units in Saladin's army in close combat.

Not really, Saladin had more heavy cavalry than the Crusaders had soldiers combined.

Apart from Hattin(which has very arguable numbers for Crusaders), the Kingdom of Jerusalem rarely fielded more than 2000-3000 men in total, 200-600 of which would be knights.

Saladin, on the other hand, had over 8000 professional Ghulams in Egypt alone, his "Empire" was dozens of times larger and had far more manpower, a good part of which was not even required to be domestic but was hired from abroad.

However due to the light composition of Saladin's army this gave him a huge strategic advantage against the Crusader states which was a far more mobile force in the terrain of the Middle East with a wide array of flexibility as well as operational and strategic options.

I disagree, crusader armies moved just as fast and just as effective, it is merely their doctrine that was different.

in terms of armaments his mostly Turco-Arab force was still at a disadvantage.

This is true.

The whole of his campaign plans hinged on quickly raising a large force (his army having a small core of elite veterans and filled up with cheap infantry and cavalry)

In his early career yes, later on, no.

He became very wealthy and his army became very powerful over time, he hired thousands of mercenaries and a lot of them were very heavily equipped.

Compare this to the rather logistically strained Crusader armies which were limited to traveling along the coast.

Crusaders were not logistically strained, they were manpower strained.
They also traveled along the coast because it is far easier to maintain a supply line with a fleet than with a giant baggage train.

Their state was an elongated territory along the coast, logically they would travel alongside it.

If anything the fact that he recognized these defects and worked within his strategic limitations as well as everything which he accomplished regardless proves that he was quite good.

Alright, that is a good point.

Even if Stefan was God tier his little army with a budget of $2 and a potato wouldn't be retaking Constantinople in the name of Christendom any time soon.

Nobody said that he would, though one of his successors came really, really close

We were merely pointing out that "defenders" are often overlooked in favor of conquerors.

[Ringeck]

This.

People often have a delusional depiction in their mind of militias being peasants armed with farming equipment.

The historical description and pictorial sources nearly always paint a different picture;


Mid 14th Century depiction of the "Battle of Golden Spurs" from 1302, in which the town militia of the cities of Bruges, Ypres and Ghent in Flanders, with a little help from regional knights, smashed the French nobility;

The depiction of the Battle of the Golden Spurs closest to the event in time is likely the Courtrai Chest, a 16th century chest with an early 14th century front panel (the wood has been dendrochronologically dated to the late 13th century). It has as its theme the battle itself:



This page has some details:
http://www.liebaart.org/oxford_e.htm

The flemish militia is wearing a mixture of textile armour and helmets as well as some maille hauberks over textile armour. They are all helmeted and most have maille gloves and coifs. Several are carrying the "Goedendag" club-spears of flemish fame, and crossbowmen are also shown, as well as pikes. Falchions, swords and bucklers are also present. Overall, the militia is well armed and armoured.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

He was a brilliant leader and politician, but a below average military commander.

Which is obvious solely from his command at Montgisard.

There are different types of military commanders and not all of them are best suited to front line command or fighting battles.
Most would agree that Saladin was not a Richard type of military commander who led his troops in battle, Saladin was more the chess player who orchestrated large scale strokes.
But that aside one battle isn't really enough to say that a commander isn't good. Even if that one battle showed a commander's limitations that doesn't mean that they would not improve or learn from their mistakes. Some generals don't work well under pressure either. But Montgisard in itself was the result of Saladin's baggage train being bogged down and then being taken completely by surprise. Had Saladin's army been in a compact formation there is nothing that Baldwin could have done but due to the circumstances there is very little which Saladin could have done save for abandoning his baggage train and retreating or trying to protect the baggage train and there were basically no other options.

Well he did have a significant numerical superiority, but yes, he indeed won that battle because of proper planning.

It doesn't matter if he had numerical superiority in a tactical engagement, that doesn't detract from him at all. It wasn't just his numbers since the Crusaders were also fatigued, hungry and thirsty. He set it up at Hattin so that he could have every advantage and exploited it epically. According to Sun Tzu this such victory is the greatest type of victory.

A solid chance?
Yes.
"a very high chance"
Doubt it.

All Saladin needed at Arsuf was the enemy commander to order a charge to push the Ayyubids from the field and he would have hit them like a wrecking ball and most likely won the battle with resounding success.

Not really, Saladin had more heavy cavalry than the Crusaders had soldiers combined.

Apart from Hattin(which has very arguable numbers for Crusaders), the Kingdom of Jerusalem rarely fielded more than 2000-3000 men in total, 200-600 of which would be knights.

Saladin, on the other hand, had over 8000 professional Ghulams in Egypt alone, his "Empire" was dozens of times larger and had far more manpower, a good part of which was not even required to be domestic but was hired from abroad.

True heavy cavalry the likes of the Crusading Knights was not present in the Middle East, heavier cavalry than what was mostly seen in the Middle East was available in areas such as Iran. If we compare Medieval knights to the later Cuirassiers the heavy cavalry in the Middle East would be comparable to Napoleonic era Dragoons.

I disagree, crusader armies moved just as fast and just as effective, it is merely their doctrine that was different.

Crusaders were not logistically strained, they were manpower strained.
They also traveled along the coast because it is far easier to maintain a supply line with a fleet than with a giant baggage train.

Their state was an elongated territory along the coast, logically they would travel alongside it.

Of course they had to travel on a north to south axis because of the position of their kingdom, but how many Crusader armies successfully invaded Syria or broke out of Palestine? Not that many to be honest. The Second Crusade was an utter failure when it came to capturing Damascus. Even during the First Crusade the Crusader armies were starving as they traveled through Anatolia and of course the most famous example was the Crusader defeat at Hattin (despite the fact that Hattin was within their own territory inside of Palestine).
However I concede that the Crusaders did not always have weak logistics.
When it comes to Saladin however he and his army were not limited to campaigning within Palestine and Jordan as his military operations also ranged to Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Northern Iraq and Arabia and that was what Middle Eastern armies of the time were for (not campaigning against European castles littered across a small area).

In his early career yes, later on, no.

He became very wealthy and his army became very powerful over time, he hired thousands of mercenaries and a lot of them were very heavily equipped.

Fair enough but I don't think any of Saladin's troops were heavily armoured enough to take on the heavily armoured knights of the Crusaders.

Nobody said that he would, though one of his successors came really, really close

We were merely pointing out that "defenders" are often overlooked in favor of conquerors.

I wasn't implying that this was anybody's argument though I was pointing out that despite Stefan's tactical brilliance that doesn't mean he was conquering anything any time soon. Though it should be said that invading Wallachia and Moldovia was not exactly a simple task due to logistical constraints, the vast forest areas and the fortresses scattered up on hill sides (for example as the Ottomans experienced).

And yes defenders are neglected. While everyone is talking non-stop about Subutai no one even remembers Mukhali who led multiple campaigns but also managed to hold onto the territory of Xi Xia and organized that area into an important source of manpower. In his own lifetime Mukhali was probably Genghis' most powerful subordinate and most likely considered the best of them (in a time when Subutai was acting as Jebe's subordinate).

[+Marius+]

There are different types of military commanders and not all of them are best suited to front line command or fighting battles.
Most would agree that Saladin was not a Richard type of military commander who led his troops in battle, Saladin was more the chess player who orchestrated large scale strokes.

Alright.

But Montgisard in itself was the result of Saladin's baggage train being bogged down and then being taken completely by surprise. Had Saladin's army been in a compact formation there is nothing that Baldwin could have done but due to the circumstances there is very little which Saladin could have done save for abandoning his baggage train and retreating or trying to protect the baggage train and there were basically no other options.

The battle was not only the assault on the baggage train, there was an entire frontal engagement which the forces of Saladin lost despite a vast numerical superiority.

But then again, it is only one battle.

According to Sun Tzu this such victory is the greatest type of victory.

Alright.

All Saladin needed at Arsuf was the enemy commander to order a charge to push the Ayyubids from the field and he would have hit them like a wrecking ball and most likely won the battle with resounding success.

That makes absolutely no sense since that is exactly what happened and Saladins army was crushed.

True heavy cavalry the likes of the Crusading Knights was not present in the Middle East, heavier cavalry than what was mostly seen in the Middle East was available in areas such as Iran. If we compare Medieval knights to the later Cuirassiers the heavy cavalry in the Middle East would be comparable to Napoleonic era Dragoons.

That is arguable, they had a very similar set of equipment, it is merely their tactics and doctrine that were different.

We have plenty of sources describing full frontal heavy cavalry charges done by the Muslims fighting crusaders, they just lacked "the punch" for some reason.

Second Crusade was an utter failure when it came to capturing Damascus..

That was solely the result of idiotic leadership.

When it comes to Saladin however he and his army were not limited to campaigning within Palestine and Jordan as his military operations also ranged to Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Northern Iraq and Arabia

Yeah, because those were all parts of political entities that he conquered, they were added parts of his "Empire".

Crusaders did not do this because they simply were not in the state of mounting large offensive campaigns.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The battle was not only the assault on the baggage train, there was an entire frontal engagement which the forces of Saladin lost despite a vast numerical superiority.

But then again, it is only one battle.

The frontal battle had Saladin and his front line commanders struggling to organize a line with which to confront Baldwin's forces. Where as at the time Saladin was trying to organize a second line of defense.

That makes absolutely no sense since that is exactly what happened and Saladins army was crushed.

Yes but Saladin's plan hinged on the Crusaders rushing out to try and wipe him off of the field and he would wear them down with skirmishing and upon being disorganized a mass charge would have crushed them. Instead the Crusaders kept up their defensive stance at which point Saladin chose to try and lure them with charges and skirmishing but the Muslim forces exhausted themselves and Richard ordered a counter attack which completely disorganized and melted Saladin's force.

That is arguable, they had a very similar set of equipment, it is merely their tactics and doctrine that were different.

We have plenty of sources describing full frontal heavy cavalry charges done by the Muslims fighting crusaders, they just lacked "the punch" for some reason.

Usually Saladin employed two main commanders to lead his troops in battle (though he had many others): his nephew al-Taqi and his general Gokbori, both of which were known for being highly aggressive field commanders. As Saladin's army was mostly composed by Kurdish and Turkish mercenaries as well as Mamelukes and then filling up the ranks with Arab recruits (both professional soldiers and militias). The Arabic troops however were considered to be rather poorly equipped and of poor quality and mostly used for garrisoning cities or as light infantry. As the armies of the area were dominated by Turkish troops and doctrines.

The concept was mostly that of maneuverability on and off the field of battle and had lots of emphasis on projectile weapons such as arrows and javelins. Tactics such as those used at Arsuf were tried and tested methods which Saladin used before (however most of his tactics seem more in line with Hattin) and which the local Emirs had employed successfully against the Crusaders (such as Nur ad-Din Zengi). Technically Saladin had the advantage that he had more control over his forces and vassals as compared to the rather less cohesive forces of Jerusalem and the Crusaders.
As you said Saladin increased the size of his coffers and army meaning that he could train his forces over time and had a very good core of troops. Saladin also tried to follow European standards of armaments and armour to make heavier troops and equip them with things such as crossbows. That said their cavalry definitely lacked the punch of Knights and was mostly used to attack a flank (usually attacking the enemy's left flank) but not before trying to wear down the enemy with projectiles so that they would crumble before the cavalry charge.

Yeah, because those were all parts of political entities that he conquered, they were added parts of his "Empire".

Crusaders did not do this because they simply were not in the state of mounting large offensive campaigns.

Exactly and my point is really that Saladin was able to campaign this far and conquer these areas.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Third Crusade was borked by political events on the Christian side. Had Richard a more trustworthy brother, and been able to control his temper around Philippe and the Austrian Archduke, regaining Jerusalem was just a matter of time, and judging how his Reconquista of France went, he would have secured the Holy Land in a ring of new fortresses, possibly pushing on to Damascus. He might have outlived Saladin.