CTW Development: Knightly Armies VS Other Armies, a battle list 950-1500

[Destraex]

Hi guys this is a spin off thread from the "Were European Knights any good? How to simulate in this mod?" thread.
The aim is to provide enlightened research for the mod and any other passers by who are interested in the historical development of this mod.

The below is a quick summary of the major battles of the Medieval Period from around 950 that were between European "Knight" armies and other armies with a couple of comments about the knights role where I thought needed. Some battles between countries where I was not sure the armies were BOTH Knightly or both Other have been left out. Usually these countries were between the east and west.
Obviously battles between similarly armed armies have not been included. For example Tannenberg where both armies included a contingent of knights armed in the western style.
I also have very little information on the Spanish medieval battles and armies, so if somebody could help here I will amend the post.
Another niggling omission is how I should consider the north western most cultures such as Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Norway, Sweden. For a large part of the era these countries did not really have well what we consider "knights", thus these battles have also not been included but may have merit enough.

Medieval European armies that included knights victories against non-Europeans armies:
Purpose, to compare or give a description of how European armies that included Knights faired against the rest of the world that they encountered in battle with particular interest in the role of the knight and its effect on the battle.
I went up to around 1500 hundred as I think this is when Handguns really started to take a commanding role on the battlefield (correct me if I am wrong .

1 955 Battle of Lechfeld - August 10 - Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor defeats Magyars, ends invasion of West.
Knights Involvement:- Mounted Knights repulse Magyar Horse Archers who are silly enough to make a frontal assault on them.
It is interesting to note that their was enough discipline in Otto's army that he was able to order the rearguard to about face and destroy some Magyars
attacking the baggage train in good order and without any panic from the rest of the army seeing their whole rear formations leave

21041 Monte Maggiore - Norman mercenaries rebel against the byzantines, their charge destroys the much larger Byzantine army. It is interesting to note that
spearhead formation was used by the Norman Knights.

31063 Battle of Graus Castile and Aragon defeat Zaragoza

41071 Byzantines lose Bari, their last possession in Italy, to the Norman Robert Guiscard.

51081 Battle of Dyrrhachium - Robert Guiscard defeats the Byzantines.

61097 Battle of Dorylaeum - July 1 - First Christian victory of the First Crusade.

71097 Battle of Nicea - The Crusaders defeat Kilij Arslan in a long pitched battle as he tries to break the siege of Nicea.

81097 Battle of Antioch - The Crusaders sally out of Antioch and defeat Kerbogha, breaking the Turkish siege of the city. Interesting that the Crusader horses
stamped out flaming branches as they ran over them lit to hamper their pursuit of the enemy.

91099 Battle of Ascalon - August 12 - Crusaders defeat the Egyptians at Ascalon. A surprise attack by chance, Crusader cavalry charged in so Fast the enemy
horse archers only got off one volley before contact.

101101 Battle of Ramla - Crusaders defeat the Egyptians

111102 - Ramla & Jaffa - After defeat at Ramla re-enforcements were joined with survivors at Jaffa. Knights repeated charges and the fact that their infantry
held together even though surrounded the whole time so that they could regroup after each charge meant that eventually the Muslims were defeated. Interesting
to note that the crusaders were too few in number to pursue the enemy.

121105 Battle of Artah - Crusaders defeat Aleppo.

131115 - Sarmin (Tel Danith) - Frankish army surprises Seljuks from ambush. THe Seljuks were encamped and scattered while the Crusaders emerged from ambush and
attacked in echelon.

141115 Battle of Sarmin - Crusaders defeat Turks.

151119 Hab - This was a draw but I will call it a victory for the knights because of their many successfull controlled charges during this marching battle.

161123 Ibelin (Yibneh) - A much larger Fatamid army (16000 compared to Franks 8000) broke and fled almost before the Frankish charge had hit

171125 Azaz - Frankish Armour and Physique we are told tell in destroying this Syrian confederation of amirs who voluntarily closed for close combat being
confident their superior numbers would win the day

181126 - Marj Es-Safar - Damascene\Turcoman largely infantry army defeated by Franks after horse archers almost destroy Franks. Franks Rally and Franks archers
kill a lot of the Damascene cavalry horses disorganising them. THe Frankish knights then charged destroying the damascene cavalry and breaking the rest of
the army. A phyriic victory however as Baldwin lost do many men that he did not have enough men to continue the campaign to Damascus and instead retired to
Jerusalim with much booty.

191153 Battle of Ascalon - Kingdom of Jerusalem captures Ascalon from Egypt.

201164 Battle of Harim Antioch defeats Nur ad-Din.

211177 Battle of Montgisard - November 25 - Saladin is defeated by the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Knights charge beats half formed enemy army who even attempt to change formationas the franks charge. Knights slaughter Saladins army, complete victory however the knights also lost many according to the Master of the Hospital.

221081 Durazzo - Byzantine Defeated by Normans - Italian cavalry charge defeated by the Varingians(some English). Crossbowmen and knights destroy varingians
when they venture too far to their front in their enthusiasm. Italian and Norman cavalry then charge the main Byzantine army and break it defeating it.
Interesting to note that a 3 day street fight ensued after Dyrrachium gate were opened to the Normans by Venetian trator

231191 Battle of Arsuf - September 7 - Richard Lionheart's forces repel Saladin's attack.
This is where a marching shield wall formation would be good for RTW, Richards infantry were purposely packed tightly together to protect the rest of the army.
The military orders\rearguard here are twice refused a request to Richard to allow them to counterattack, eventually they do so just before Richard orders his planned charge, this unfortuneatley allowed the enemy army to get distance diluting the planned countercharge. All muslim counterattacks were replulsed
The crusaders reformed and continued to march being attacked later in the day as they pitched camp, but this was also repulsed.
An indecisive battle really. Certainly not a crowning victory.

241192 Battle of Jaffa - August 5 - Richard I defeats Saladin.
Hardly any knights in this battle mainly Geonese sailors. Only 20 or so mounted knights. Certainly an infantry win. Saladins Mamuluk and other cavalry charged the formation in 7 scuccessive waves, their attacks lasting until mid-afternoon. But all were defeated by spearmen protecting crossbowmen, Richard on foot led a counter charge of spearmen with a couple of other dismounted knights.
Geonese Sailors will certainly be in my army

251212 Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - July 16 - Moors expelled from most of Iberia by a joint army of the Christian kingdoms of Castile, León, Portugal,
Navarre and Aragon. Very large mix of european knights in this battle ioncluding many Western Europeans. Knights charges initially repulsed with heavy losses
Interesting to note that Negro infantry fought on after the battle was lost as they could not run away due to being chained together!! The battle lasted for
three days!!!

261231 Battle of Jerez - Castile defeats Moorish forces of Abu Jafar Ibn Hud

271305 – Apros – A Byzantine Army is defeated by the remnants of the Catalan company.

281340 Battle of Rio Salado -October 30 -Alfonso XI of Castile and Alfonso IV of Portugal defeat the Marinid under Sultan Abul-Hassan and the Granadine under
King Yusuf I.

291348 Strawe – A Lithuanian army is defeated by the A Teutonic army which included English and French crusaders. Would you believe that the enemy were prevented from escaping because of a thawing ice river LOL the irony is not lost.


301356 Battle of Wolmar - The Teutonic Knights, supported by several thousand allied Prussian infantry, crush a confederation of Prussian tribes.

311370 Rudau – Teutonic Knights defeat Lithuanian army, this was apparently a very bloody battle, the Tuetonic knights losing their grand master before dispersing the Lithuanians.

321378 Battle of Sallinwerder - The Teutonic Knights and assorted infantry repel a siege force of Prussians three times their size.

331379 Siege of Kaunas - The duke of Prussia, and Teutonic allies, storm a Prussian castle recently captured from HRE troops.

341401 Battle of the Vilnius River - The Teutonic Knights repel an invasion force of confederated Prussian tribes.

351442 Hermanstadt – Hungarians(Transylvanian led) defeat ottomans

361442 Vasaq – Hungarians defeat ottomans again

37[b]1443 Nish (Morava) – Hungarians (inc poles, germans,) defeat ottomans, even though outnumbered once again

381444torviolli – Albanians defeat 25000 ottoman turks

391456 Belgrade – 75000 poorly armed German crusaders with 10000 well armed troops defeated a ottoman army of the same size. This was basically a siege defence though as their was a lot of street fighting.

401462 The night of Terror – Dracula’s Wallachian army night attacks an ottoman attack and then pulls out having killed many ottomans and having the ottomans so confused they were killing themselves apparently. Wallachians knights???

411467 Kroya – Albanians defeat Turkish army which offers to surrender but against commanders orders the Albanians attack.


421475 Vaslui (Racova) – ottomans defeated by maldovians

That's 42 European knightly victories. Alhough I did leave some where I was not sure whether that country used European knights in the regions between hungary and the ottoman empire. I am also not sure whether to include defeats on Prussians who may have been more knightly?

Now let's look at the defeats in the same period:

1982 Cotrone - Ottos army defeated by arabs. Ottos chargeing cavalry breaks the enemy while a hidden enemy force attacks ottos army in the flank and defeats
it

21102 Ramla & Jaffa - 20,000 arab cavalry and 10,000 sudanese infantry destroy King Baldwins force of 200 knights (no infantry) that pressed on to battle even
after they heard that they had misjudged the size of the enemy which they thought was only a 1000 men originally. Interesting to note that they originally
gathered only 200 knights to attack 1000 enemy.

31086 Battle of az-Zallaqah - October 23 - Almoravides victory over Castile.

41104 Battle of Harran - Baldwin II of Jerusalem is captured by the Seljuk Turks. Undisciplined charge into an Ambush causes defeat, interesting to note that
the crusaders had planned their own feigned retreat.

51105 - Third Battle of Ramla - Crusaders defeat Fatamid Army

61108 Battle of Ucles - Almoravides victory over Castilians.

71119 Battle of Ager Sanguinis (the Field of Blood) - June 27 - Ilghazi defeats Crusaders. Turks torture to death most of the prisoners while some richer
Knights were kept for ransom.

81148 Mount Cadmos – French army defeated by Seljuks - An unruly charge from the march by the Vanguard (Royal mercenaries and a contingent of Templars) who disregarded the order to stop separated them from the main body. Seljuks in ambush then proceeded to attack the middle body of infantry who had slowed in confusion when losing sight of the Van. The French King with 40 knights of the rearguard however charged in and checked the ambush. A messenger was sent to retrieve the vanguard but too many non-combatants fleeing the ambush were in the way. Night was falling as the rearguard got back and the Seljuks melted away. Interesting to note that the king had to fight his way back on foot after being unhorsed and losing most of his men. Something I wish Rome Total war could do – especially dismounting mounted men for siege assaults.

9[b]1149 Battle of Inab - June 29 - Raymond of Antioch killed in battle against Nur ad-Din. Surrounded by superior forces a knights charge up a hill with dusty wind in their faces was surrounded and wiped out.

101155 Andria - Small Norman army destroyed by Byzantine army. Knights charge breaks out of army encirclement only to be cuaght and destoyed by the pursuit
when they turned to fight rather than entering an city unprepared for a siege. Interesting command and control here in discipline to turn around so close to
safety.

111164 Harim (Harenc) – Nur Ed-Din raises siege when he hears of combined Byzantine\Crusader army approaching. Crusaders cavalry charge against advice at the retiring Nur Ed-Din army. Nur Ed-Din then destroys the infantry before attacking the cut off cavalry. Most were killed (all the military brethren) or captured

121167 Battle of al-Babein - Crusader invasion of Egypt is defeated.
Knights charged after a feigned flight under King Almaric while the main body was encircled and attacked, charged knights rallied and came back to help army retire in good order.

131167 Semlin - Hungarian army with 15,000 knights defeated by Byzantine army

141179 Battle of Jacob's Ford - Saladin defeats the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Saladins raids returning to the main army were intercepted and defeated by crusaders waiting for the main army to catch up. Encouraged by this the knights charged in pursuit under the master of the temple and came up against the main enemy army which hit them before they could reform. They held on for some time before numbers finally broke them.

151187 Battle of Cresson - May 1 - Saladin defeats Crusaders.
Templars and Hospitallers catch enemy watering horses and charge without waiting for infantry into enemy outnumbering them considerably (7000 of saladins men to 140 knights). Even if the infantry had caught up they would still have been outnumbered many times over.

161187 Battle of Hattin - July 4 - Saladin destroys Crusader army.
Knights repeated charges come within an ace of success, I do not know whether this means in battle or breaking out of the battle.

171189 The Great Battle Of Acre – Whilst acre was besieged by saladin, knights succeeded in breaking the entire army of Saladins, first the flanks broke (or feigned) and drew of a good deal of knights including the order knights and then the centre broke as saladin attempted to draw men from it to reinforce his flanks. However franks reached Saladins camp and dispersed to plunder, Saladins army regrouped and fell upon the plunderers who broke in panic.
It is interesting to note that the Christian commander anticipated an attack on his camp and had a substantial enough force guarding it and this prevented total disaster

181190 Acre – OK this Acre stuff is really sieges but where it includes field battles outside the defences I think this is ok.
A large number of Frankish infantry hearing that the ememy right was weakened decided to march out from their !!entrenchments!! and attack the muslim army against the will of their leaders. They smashed through the muslim right before the knights could even arm and mount and made it to the enemy encampment and proceeded to loot before the enemy rallied and counterattacked. The infantry held for a while before breaking.
An interesting study of the confidence of Frankish infantry!!!! Impetuous Frankish infantry!!!

191195 Battle of Alarcos - July 18 - Almohad victory over Castile. Takes knights three charges to finally break through the Almohad line, once they did the
Almohads surrounded them thus cutting them off from their infantry and destoyed the army Master of Santiago amongst the killed.

201219 – Daimetta – another siege as such but a sally field battle all the same. After infantry again forced their leaders to sally out the inexperienced infantry were defeated by the muslim army, only a rearguard action by the military orders and some French and English knights prevented total disaster

211221 Fifth Crusade is defeated at Al-Mansurah.
An interesting example of Flooding the area to bog down a crusader break out and retreat. Tuetonic knights are blamed for advertising the retreat by setting fire to their tents LOL

221236 Saule - Sword Knights Brotherhood defested by lithuanian tribesmen. Pressure from visiting crusaders to raid causes these knights to fight a battle in
marshland only 10% of the brotherhoods army survived.

231237 Darbsaq – A crusader force besieging a muslim fortress is surprised and defeated by a mulsim relieving force even though they had been warned of its approach and ignored the warning. It is alleged that the muslims lost far more men than the crusaders however??

241239 Gaza – Attacking what the crusaders thought was a smaller enemy force and turned out to be a large enemy force the crusaders in sand dunes initially looked like fending off horse archer attacks before running out of Crossbow bolts!!! It is remarkable at this stage that some native Syrians realising the mistake abandoned the infantry. However Count Henry the Christian commander refused to leave them and instead to escape the barrage charge into a protected valley and scattered enemy infantry who tried to hold them. However now the Egyptian cavalry arrives and feigns flight to draw the crusaders back into the open. A short slaughter ensues count henry among the slain .2000 crusaders were killed.

251241 Battle of Liegnitz - Mongols of the Golden Horde defeat feudal nobility including Knights Templar in Silesia.
A charge drives off the mongols but it is a trap and the cavalry are killed piecemeal. Interesting to note that the knights did not in fact charge until
their entire vanguard was forced back and had to rally on the second line by the mongols.

261241 Mohi - Numerically inferior Mongol army beats the Hungarian army. A wagon larger was used by the hungarians chained together and the mongols used
catapults, naptha fire throwers and rumoured to have had gunpowder artillery.

271244 Battle of La Forbie - October 17 - Crusaders defeated by Khwarezmians.
Most of the crusaders allies (Syrians, homs contingent and Bedoiwins) fled shortly after battle was joined leaving the crusaders to experience their second HAttin like disasterous defeat.

281250 Battle of Fariskur - April 6 - Egyptians defeat Seventh Crusade forces of Louis IX of France.
Another Frankish charge where complete disobey of orders was the order of the day.
After crossing a ford the knights of the vanguard 1500 strong were told to wait (included 200 english and 290 templars) for the main body to cross. But instead charged straight for the enemy camp routing everything in sight until they reached the town of where they were routed themselves by two mamluk regiments and archers firing from the rooftops. Although the Christian army held the river crossing for a time after the decision to retreat was taken they were surrounded and destroyed in a running battle. Prisoners being massacred mostly but some ransomed.

291260 - Durben - Livonian Tuetonic Knights heavily defeated by Semgallians & Sarmagitians. All on the knights side fought mounted but their allied Prussian
auxillaries deserted them shortly after battle was joined and the army was defeated after three hours of put down the resulting Prussian revolts.

301261 Jaulan – A large Templar force consisting of most of the kingdoms Templar Brethren and some lay knights under Jean D’Iblin mounted an attack on a Turcoman camp but news got to the camp and the knights were ambushed along the way and defeated.

311266 Carboulier – Military Orders and Mercenary French are defeated by Mamluks, The Christian vanguard including Hospitallers got separated from the main army in search of loot and as a result the whole force was destroyed by local castle garrison. A night attack followed by local Bedoiins and destroyed the rest.

321365 Marica – A Hungarian led Christian army is surprise attacked while encamped after crossing the river marica by a smaller ottoman army and defeated after a night of feasting to celebrate the unopposed passage. The ottomans considered this a very decisive victory.

331396 Battle of Nicopolis - September 25 - French-Hungarian "crusade" defeated by Ottoman Empire.
An amazing charge by knights unsupported again against advice and orders that broke through the enemy infantry and a second line of cavalry before finally succoming to a counterattack in their flank by 40,000 turks. The second and third Christian battle lines also inflicted massive casualties on the turks until their Serbian allies emerged from ambush and struck down the commanders banner upon which the Christians retreated. The turks were apparently so enraged by casualties they took that they massacred the majority of the prisoners.

341426 Khirokitia – Cypriots defeated (including European crusaders) by Mamluks. Not sure if the Cypriots were European armed

1428 Golubac – Hungarian army surprised and defeated by ottomans. Geonese and Lombard Crossbowman cover withdrawal

351444 Varna – Crusader army of Hungarians and poles and some french defeated by ottomans. The turks losses are claimed to e substantially higher than the Christians

361448 Kossovo – Hungarians defeated by ottomans but German\bohemian handgunners hold a rearguard to cover retreat well. Turkish losses are again said to be higher than the Hungarians.

371455 Berat – Relieving Ottomans surprise a besieging Alabanian army and kill all but 200 arogonese.

381476 valea alba (Razboieni) – Moldavians heavily defeated by ottoman turks

So that's 42 non-European victories over knightly armies to 37 defeats at the hands of European knightly armies. Not that this proves anything but is interesting to see how they went. Something I would like to add is the numbers on both sides in each of these battles.
Somebody with more in depth knowledge may care to extrapolate this list.
I still have not found a good source for Spanish Medieval Warfare

[Greek Fire 19]

Well researched list, very useful though it sortof lacks chronological pacing. It might have been easier to follow if you had put them in chronological order with WIN or LOSS beside them. Ah well, still an awesome piece of work.

The obvious conclusion is that a heavy charge of knights was a battle-winning force if used correctly against an unprepared enemy, but beatable with the right tactics.

[Kakhaber]

you must include battle of Didgori(1121ad 12 august) _ great Georgian King David IV the Builder by 56 000 soldiers (40 000 Georgians, 14 000 Kipchaks cavallery, 1500 Allan wariors and 500 Frankish Crusaiders) defeated coalition muslim army(200 000- 300 000 soldiers) by lied muslim emmir Nejm-add-din-il-Ghazi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didgori
Didgori was fought between the Georgian and Seljuk armies at the place of Didgori sixteen kilometers northwest of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia on August 12, 1121. It ended in the greatest military victory in Georgian history.

King David the Builder of Georgia had been gradually forcing the Seljuk garrisons out of his kingdom, having recaptured the Seljuk-held fortresses of Zedazeni (1103), Samshvilde (1110), Rustavi (1115), Gishi (1117), and Lore (1118). The Kingdom of Georgia had been making intensive preparations for a decisive battle aimed at liberating the Muslim-held city of Tbilisi.

Alarmed by David’s advances, Sultan Mahmud b. Muhammed Tapar (1117-1131) sent a strong coalition army under the esteemed general Artuklu Ilgazi to regain the lost lands in Caucasus and defend Tbilisi from the Georgian attack. The Sultan’s brother Turgul, the Melik of Ganja, Atabeg Gundogdu, and Dubeys b. Sadaka were among the Seljuk commanders. A number of the Seljuk army (300,000-400,000) given in the contemporary Georgian and Armenian chronicles seems to be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the Seljuks had a crushing superiority in numbers compared to the Georgian army.

King David’s army consisted of 40,000 Georgians, 15,000 Kipchak auxiliaries, 500 Alan mercenaries and 300 French Crusaders.

Ilghazi invaded and reached the vicinities of the town of Manglisi in mid-August, 1121. The two armies clashed at the Mount Didgori on August 12. The Georgian generals encamped in the deep forest and blocked the passage of the gorge to prevent their soldiers’ retreat. Prior to battle, King David sent 200 cavalrymen to the enemy’s camps. They pretended to be renegades and attacked suddenly as they reached the center of the enemy’s camps. Meanwhile, the Georgian main forces under the king and his son Demetre (the future King Demetre I) attacked the Seljuk flanks despite being vastly outnumbered. The fierce, three-hour battle ended in a crushing victory of the Georgians. Myriads of the Seljuks were annihilated and many of the survivors were enslaved. Ilghazi himself was severely wounded in his head.

After the battle, King David expelled the remaining Seljuk garrisons from the country and reconquered Tbilisi after heavy fighting in 1122. The victory at Didgori marked the beginning of the Georgian golden era which would last until the invasion by Mingburnu in 1225.

In commemoration of the 1121 victory, an impressive memorial monument was erected at the place of Didgori in the early 1990s. Georgians to this day celebrate the victory annually as a holiday of Didgoroba (“the Day of Didgori”) on September 2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King David the Builder’s appeal to his warriors just before the battle (according to the French knight and historian, Galterius):

"...Soldiers of Christ! If we fight with abandon, defending the faith of our Lord, we shall not only overcome countless servants of Satan, but the Devil himself. I will only advise you one thing that will add to our honor and our profit. And raising our hands to Heaven we will all swear to our Lord that in the name of love to Him, we will rather die in the battlefield than run....”

[Kakhaber]

Battle of Basiani(1203ad)

The Battle of Basian was fought between the Georgians and the Seljuk Turks of Rüm at the place of Basian, 60 kilometers northeast of the city of Erzurum (in modern Turkey) in 1203. Alarmed by the Georgian advances, Sultan Rukn ad-Din of Rüm allied himself with the neighbouring Seljuk rulers and marched to the southwestern borders of the Georgian Kingdom. Queen Tamar of Georgia sent her husband David Soslani with approximately 90,000 men to meet the enemy in the Basian region. The Georgians repelled the Seljuks desperate attacks and counterattacked successfully, but had to retreat being outnumbered threefold by the Sultan's reserve forces. Ultimately, the Georgian main forces repulsed Rukn ad-Din's offensive and crushed him decisively. Both sides lost several thousand men killed and wounded. The Sultan himself fled to Erzurum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basian

[Ubu Roi]

It also seems that muslims armies were huge but had low quality units (slaves, militias, peasants, etc.) compared to crusaders armies

[lithuanian]

Hey, you forgot The Battle of Tannenburg, 1410: Polish/Lithuanian army beat a hell of the Teutons. Of course polish had some knights too

[Ab Urbe Condita]

Originally Posted by Ubu Roi

It also seems that muslims armies were huge but had low quality units (slaves, militias, peasants, etc.) compared to crusaders armies

Intuition tells me that this is far from accurate; if that was the case, then how was Islam able to conquer the Sassanid Empire and the eastern half of the Byzantine Empire in the span of a few decades? Perhaps the political fragmentation at the time of the First Crusade led to a decreased budget for the military.

[Zhuge_Liang]

Numbers certainly seem to play a huge role. It seems that the muslim armies were huge in comparison to the crusaders, and turkish armies in general seem to have been much bigger. The poorer quality or discipline of troops probably played a part, plus they were less expensive to equip than the knights (who had mega armour).

[Boba_Freakin_Fett]

Well, I'd certainly say the arab armies were rather poorly equipped as they first started to rise. However, when that huge empire collapsed, the splinter states had to develop better equipped and better trained armies.

By the time the 1400s rolled around, the muslims had some of the best troops around (Jannisaries for example).

But most muslim armies, in my opinion, only did well against the much more armored European armies because they fought mostly in terrain unsuited for armor. They traded protection for comfort in the desert and speed. However, had they been fighting in european settings, only the speed would have made any difference, and it wouldn't have made much.

One battle you might want to include is Charles Martel's victory over the Arab Empire at Tours/Poitiers 732. It was the first real show of a feudal army in battle though I'm not sure how many knights the Franks had. Anyway, it is the most important battle in history so it does spring to mind.

[Polemides]

That's a hell of a lot of research you put into this. Bravo. One thing, however.

Originally Posted by Destraex

So that's 42 non-European victories over knightly armies to 37 defeats at the hands of European knightly armies.

You have this wrong. You list 42 knightly victories and 38 defeats, not 37 victories and 42 defeats.

I also find it curious that you bother to include certain battles where knights were defeated when hugely outnumbered, such as this one:

21102 Ramla & Jaffa - 20,000 arab cavalry and 10,000 sudanese infantry destroy King Baldwins force of 200 knights (no infantry) that pressed on to battle even
after they heard that they had misjudged the size of the enemy which they thought was only a 1000 men originally. Interesting to note that they originally
gathered only 200 knights to attack 1000 enemy.

I don't really think it matters WHO they were, fighting at 150:1 odds means victory is impossible, especially in medieval warfare.

[Destraex]

I wanted to show what kind of odds knights were capable of facing in their impetuousness while also being as comprehensive as possible.
As for the totals a couple of battles were added after the fact and so the totals could well be wrong

[Ubu Roi]

Originally Posted by Ab Urbe Condita

Intuition tells me that this is far from accurate; if that was the case, then how was Islam able to conquer the Sassanid Empire and the eastern half of the Byzantine Empire in the span of a few decades? Perhaps the political fragmentation at the time of the First Crusade led to a decreased budget for the military.

Intuition? What about checking some battles like the last siege of Vienna, the siege of Constantinople, the battle of Tour or the battle of Antioch to see if your intuition matches the facts

[Karmipoka]

Originally Posted by Destraex

31063 Battle of Graus Castile and Aragon defeat Zaragoza

Sorry, but it is not true. In the battle of Graus, Castile and the moorish Kingdom of Zaragoza defeat Aragon. The King Ramiro I is died in the battlefield.

[Karmipoka]

Desoled for my quote. I am a noobie in the forum. Sorry.

[Destraex]

I got this Graus from ThiudareiksGunthigg in an earlier post. Spain is one of the areas I am not yet versed in when it cmes to Medieval history

[Karmipoka]

Not problem and thanks for your job, Destraex! Here (at bottom of page) are medieval battles of the Iberian Area for Viking Invasion (MTW) -and images of aragonese soldiers-, but the description is in castillian langue :

http://www.telefonica.net/web2/varioteca/TWSeries.htm

[Keyser]

Don't forget that most of the comments about those battles come only from the knights side.
That doesn't means the other side sources are more accurate, but that help put things in perspective, the ennemy is always vastly superior in number when he wins... Otherwise how could he have won ? I mean, he is the ennemy !

Now, the muslims army during the crusades and the ottoman conquest were usualy larger, it's true.
However i doubt they were as large as most western sources tell us (Ottoman army on campaign in Europe were anywhere from 40 000 to 100 000, almost never more. Though it's still larger than most of their european opponents of the time).

The weakness of the muslims armies weren't really "bad quality" troops, in the middle east they had many well armored (probably as armored as knights if not more) horsemen.
However there is, i think, two facts, one is that they were more polyvalent fighters tactically (but not in training, knights were quite polyvalent fighters too, but their tactic as units were quite straightforward), often using bows too and relied less on frontal charges, meaning they were more reluctant to agressively charge themselves (why close when you can pepper the ennemy ?) and less confident when charged.
Then the last point, and the more important according to me, is that they also had armies feodal in nature (each lord coming with his own troops) and they lacked the feodal bonds between a vassal and the liege found in european chivalry (as weak as those bonds may have been from time to time).
Due to the fragemented nature of the middle east during the crusades, any muslims army of the time who was united to fight the crusaders was under the order of the strongest leader of the area, many of the contingents were there by fear of the power of the leader rather than by will to fight the "franks". Most of them were very reluctant to fight for their leader and would flee or betray at the first possibility. That's why muslim armies often had a bad morale (despite having larger numbers) compared to the crusaders.
However when most of the army for whatever reason had the will to fight...

Now the Ottoman.
The ottoman armies were raised around a core of disciplined troops, spahi (by the way, neither spahi or mamluks are a direct copy of knights, they are the result of a long eastern and steppe tradition of heavy cavalry), janissary, engineers etc.
The turkish armies were usually more disciplined and more mobile strategically than european one, that's a first asset.
Then the key to victory for the turks wasn't to send men after men at the ennemy, it was to canalize him with the light cavalry against a "strongpoint" manned by shooters (janissary) and artillery while the heavy cavalry would make an encirclement manoeuver and the various irregulars forces would join the fray for the final blow.

The battle of Nicopolis is exemplary because, as often, the impetuous charge of the knights while being very powerfull (they indeed entered into the janissary in front of them like in hot butter) meant they had lost the battle (the rest of the turkish troops isolating them from the rest of the army).
It's also interesting to see that while suffering horrendous loss, the janissary held their ground against the charge of the knights and that after the charge has lost the momentum the knights were butchered in close combat by what was essentially light infantry.

Last point, the sultan did execute most of the prisonners (exepted those that could afford a ransom like the heir of Burgundy, John the fearless) and the story indeed goes that it was because he was enraged to loose so many janissary (he didn't care as much for the other turkish loss). They costed a lot of money and time to the state to be formed.
But it should be noted that at a previous battle the "crusaders" had executed all their prisonners including officials, that was more probably the main reason behind this decision.

I don't think the knights were a useless kind of troops, just that they weren't unique as a heavy cav and were more often than not too impetuous and reckless to be a winning force (despite their strenghts).

Edit

Last thing about Nicopolis, the original plan, iirc, was to engage the turkish center (the janissary) with the hungarian and mercenary heavy infantry to destroy the strongpoint it represented and provoke a reaction from the turkish cavalry while the knights were kept in reserve to counter that reaction. The burgundian, french and german knights participating to the crusade decided it was dishonourable to let the infantry begin the battle and charged... The rest is history.

[Randarkmaan]

This topic is a little old, I know. But there's just some things I have to post!

61097 Battle of Dorylaeum - July 1 - First Christian victory of the First Crusade.

Actually the turks were outnumbered in this battle, and for quite a while they seemed to have the upper hand. Fortuanately for the crusaders the Turks didn't know about the rearguard which had been lagging behind and then arrived and took the Turks by surprize and gained the first crusader victory. It should also be mentioned that the crusaders did do really well in the battle anyway as they used their infantry and their cavalry effectively together.
Anyway the CRUSADERS actually hailed the turkish perofrmance in the battle, these quotes are from the Gestae Francorum, "The Turks crept up, howling loudly and shooting a shower of arrows. Stunned and almost dead, and with many wounded, we immediately fled. And it was no wonder, for such warfare was new to us all!" "Woever will be wise or learned enough to dare describe the valour, skill, and fortitude of the Turks ... I shall speak the truth, which no one will dare deny. Certainly, if they had ever been firm in the faith of Christ and holy Christianity ... no one could have been more powerful, braver or more skilful fighters than they.". I think this says alot about the supposed poor combat skills that many of you think that the turks(and other saracens) had.

71097 Battle of Nicea - The Crusaders defeat Kilij Arslan in a long pitched battle as he tries to break the siege of Nicea.

This battle was also won by the numerical superiority that the crusaders posessed, though the knights propably deserve credit. and Kilij Arslan also made a number of tactical mistakes, so it can't be claimed that the crusaders won the battle only because of numerical superiority.

81097 Battle of Antioch - The Crusaders sally out of Antioch and defeat Kerbogha, breaking the Turkish siege of the city. Interesting that the Crusader horses
stamped out flaming branches as they ran over them lit to hamper their pursuit of the enemy.

This battle the turks did have numerical superiority, because the crusaders had suffered heavy casualties, it's also interesting to note that almost all the knights had lost their horses, though some had been able to aqquire new ones. What happened in the battle was simply that Kür Bagha was betrayed by many of his subordinate commanders who feared he would become too powerful if he won, they preferred that the Crusaders win, and therefore they fled the field(this was a result of the fragmentation of the Seljuk state). Many of the crusaders were in some sort of a religous ecstacy and thought they saw angels drive away the Turks. What remained of Kür Bagha's force was mostly infantry who were ridden down by the knights who still had horses and then slaughtered by the now numerically superior crusader foot soldiers. It seems however that some of Kür Bagha's elite ghulam cavalry remained, and many of them were taken captive, most likely as they fled(which I believe they would do seeing the rest of the force leave the field), here is another account from the Gesta Francorum "The agulani[ghulams] numbered three thousand[exaggeration?]. They feared neither spears nor arrows for they and their horses are covered all over with plates of iron[lamellar armour]". Supposedly some converted to christianity and propably fought later in the First Crusade.

161123 Ibelin (Yibneh) - A much larger Fatamid army (16000 compared to Franks 8000) broke and fled almost before the Frankish charge had hit

I don’t know about his battle, seems to be a great victory. But, the Fatimid army here is HORRIBLY exaggerated, as the Fatimid army never totalled more than 40-50 000 soldiers! And even if that number of troops had fought there and lost horribly, the Fatimid army should have been crippled and it seems they weren’t as they fought in later battles. I’d say that the army that fought there most likely was around 10 000 strong, maybe it could have been 15 000 strong, but that seems unlikely as large Fatimid expeditionary forces rarerily exceeded 10 000. Anyway, many medieval writers were known to horribly exaggerate the number of troops, especially those on the opposing side.

EDIT : Oh, crap, thought it said 160000 not 16000! Well in that case, sorry...

211177 Battle of Montgisard - November 25 - Saladin is defeated by the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Knights charge beats half formed enemy army who even attempt to change formationas the franks charge. Knights slaughter Saladins army, complete victory however the knights also lost many according to the Master of the Hospital.

Yes, this battle is worthy of mentioning as a homage to the knights. 80 Templars and 500 knights broke Saladin’s 10 000 strong cavalry army! This battle happened in a gorge, the knights and the templars charged down amongst the saracens and took them completely by surprize, and because of the tight space the saracens’ speed and manoevraebility did them no good. I also remember reading somewhere that there was fog and because of this the one who led the smaller force had a great advantage.

151187 Battle of Cresson - May 1 - Saladin defeats Crusaders.
Templars and Hospitallers catch enemy watering horses and charge without waiting for infantry into enemy outnumbering them considerably (7000 of saladins men to 140 knights). Even if the infantry had caught up they would still have been outnumbered many times over.

I read somewhere that the Saracen's actually numbered 700 not 7000, but I may be wrong. Anyway 700 does seem more likely as the size of the saracen armies are constantly exaggerated.


I’m not going to comment more battles now...
Anyway the Saracen armies were by no means a bunch of unruly barbarians, on the countrary they usually consisted of professional soldiers, and because of this the armies were smaller than usually imagined. Also did you know that most of the Saracen cavalry were equipped for close combat with lances and swords(and armour. The bedouins were the ones who did not like armour) rather than horse-archery? Horse-archery was more of a Turkish speciality, most horse-archers in arab service were Turkish mercenaries. The Saracen armies also focused on professional soldiers(mostly cavalry) either recruited from slaves and then given a high amount of training(after their training they were freed and they were also paid, either in cash or with fiefs) or they were simply mercenaries, the fatimids even used some Western European mercenaries as did the Seljuks. The infantry of the Saracen armies was not much worse than the crusaders it's just that they relied less on them in battle, as the crusaders needed infantry to protect the knights' unprotected horses, the saracens usually rode barded horses. But the saracens did field some professional foot soldiers, most notably the Fatimids who used many Armeninan(many of them were also cavalry) and Nubian mercenaries, also a few Genoese crossbowmen I have heard. As with the Europeans(whose foot soldiers were mostly levies as well) foot soldiers always wore lighter armour than the cavalry and in many cases did not wear armour at all.
The Turks also had heavy cavalry though, most notably the ghulams who sometimes also performed as horse-archers in addition to being heavily armoured.
The reason for the knights having a more devasting charge than the Saracen and Turkish heavy cavalry would be the fact that their charges were massive all out attacks usually with nearly the entire cavalry force. If an army didn’t manage to avoid or stop this, this type of attack was unstoppable and truly devasting, but it was risky and sometimes these charges went horribly wrong.
The Muslims and Byzantines used mored “advanced” tactics with smaller forces of heavy cavalry who charged and retreated repeatedly to cause confusion and also inflict quite alot of damage, they also used feigned retreats and especially encirclements. If they had used the the same tactics as the knights they could undoubtely have achieved the same results as the knights did, but as said earlier that type of massive charge was very risky.
One factor making the knights' charge deadlier was also the fact that their lances were longer and heavier than that of the Muslims.

But most muslim armies, in my opinion, only did well against the much more armored European armies because they fought mostly in terrain unsuited for armor. They traded protection for comfort in the desert and speed. However, had they been fighting in european settings, only the speed would have made any difference, and it wouldn't have made much.

Oh, believe me, speed does make a difference, particualarily in open terrain. Anyway it wasn't the supposed much lighter armour of the saracens that made their cavalry faster it was the far superior quality of their horses.

Again, I just had to say all this...Sorry for bumping an “old” topic

[Publius Scipio]

Nice list

[Yanis A.]

Originally Posted by Boba_Freakin_Fett

Well, I'd certainly say the arab armies were rather poorly equipped as they first started to rise. However, when that huge empire collapsed, the splinter states had to develop better equipped and better trained armies.

By the time the 1400s rolled around, the muslims had some of the best troops around (Jannisaries for example).

But most muslim armies, in my opinion, only did well against the much more armored European armies because they fought mostly in terrain unsuited for armor. They traded protection for comfort in the desert and speed. However, had they been fighting in european settings, only the speed would have made any difference, and it wouldn't have made much.

One battle you might want to include is Charles Martel's victory over the Arab Empire at Tours/Poitiers 732. It was the first real show of a feudal army in battle though I'm not sure how many knights the Franks had. Anyway, it is the most important battle in history so it does spring to mind.

Sorry but this a bunch load of really odd cliches .....

First , it wasn't the Arabs that invaded Spain , but the Berbers , which means that the armies and most of the generals were orginating from Coastal North Africa , people with Numid , Roman ( Roman mixed themselves and stayed 7 centuries there before getting assimilated to the local populations ) , Carthaginians , Vandals , and Byzantine origins and ultimately Arab and Jew origins :Coastal North Africa has the approx same weather and landscape (mountains , fertile plains , ports ) as southern France for example

These guys (Coastal Berbers ) had the finest cavalry of the Antique Mediterranean world , and were all but desert warfare men , they had a good infantry , a millenary electing and voting system (Aguellid election ) and a language called Tamazight old of more than 2000 years ,sharing common roots with the ancient Egyptians and Greek .
Arabs are Semitic , like the Jews , Berbers are Hamitic like the ancient Egyptians , it's a totally different people .


Among the Berbers ( a people composed of many very different tribes all across North Africa ) you indeed find some Desert people (Tuareg , Sahraoui ) , but they were far from being the backbone of the armies that submitted Spain for more than 6 centuries , they were special units , kind of elite .

The battle of Las Navas de Tolosa won by the Spanish against the Berber did take place because the whole Almohad empire was full of rebellions all across current Algeria and Tunisia and was considerably weakened economically and had very few troops available to take care of the Spanish , instead they had to gather armies to fight the Merenids , another Berber entity in current eastern Algeria .. it was a huge Civil war for the Almohads , and a great opportunity easy to seize for the Spanish ..

Almost all the units of theses armies were Berber , the Arabs had only the honorific economical or political positions in the cities , or provided some generals sometimes , but for instance , the greatest general that colonized Spain was Ibn Zyad Tariq , a 100% Berber .

The Spanish would have never ever won anything against them otherwise , and would have continued to be submitted like they were for the past 6 centuries ...

When you talk about Charles Martel , again it wasn't against the Arabs , but against the Berbers whose political ruler was indeed an Arab at the time , but apart from a few cavalry units , the whole army was full of North African Berbers (coastal not desert ) , mainly from Marocco .
These armies had to make their way through the whole Spain and France and won countless battles before facing Martel at Poitiers (centre west of France , not far from Paris ) , they were hungry , exhausted from this journey , and outnumbered ...


To conclude , thinking that being Muslim makes you Arab , or that Arab armies were only made of desert units during the crusade , or that the Arabs were a united force against the crusaders , or that the Arab didn't have as much armored units as the Crusader is really a Big big mistake , sorry but it had to be said ..

regards ,