Crusader Weapons

[Fenix_120]

Ok, so I just got a new book today called “illustrated Combat melee weapons” and it covers everything from the Katana’s and Yari’s of Japan to the flexible short spears used by the Zulu’s.


In my book there is a large section about the crusades.

In this section it shows some pictures of some of the more famous Islamic and Crusader weapons, but in a small pictograph it points out that when the crusades were at their high point (when Richard the lionhearted just landed and won the battle of acre) that Islamic weapons and armor were a inferior quality to their European counterparts, even though Islamic society was more advanced all-around than most European society at the time, European’s were more advanced in warfare.


It then goes on to point out that the only Islamic city that could produce arms that could match European quality was Damascus.

It then quotes Saladin praising the quality of Christian armor and weapons and their merchants for selling his army weapons and armor (someone else on these forums has pointed this out)


Anyway I’m not trying to start a fight, I was just playing Kingdoms and Damascus has a large amount of weapons to trade (which is historical) but the Crusader states do not have any weapons or armor to trade…

Even if the Crusaders are at war (which they were not at war the entire time of the Crusades) then Saladin would trade for arms with the Byzantines.



So I was wondering how or if this trade would be implemented in Broken Crescent?

It was a major point in history as for the first time in ages western Europe and the middle east had a thriving trade with each other.

And many technologies and other things that had been lost in the east and west were relearned by both cultures.

[The Mongol]

"European merchants supply the best weaponry,
contributing to their own defeat."

A good quote, as for how it's going to be in game, I'll leave that to a team member. Game balance has to be taken into account so I'm guessing KoJ isn't going to have godly weapons.

[AlphaDelta]

How is arms trade simulated in Kingdoms? As a building? Or as a map resource?

To my knowledge we are limited on map resources to what is available in vanilla. A building that simulates arms trade would be good.

Cheers

[AlphaDelta]

but in a small pictograph it points out that when the crusades were at their high point (when Richard the lionhearted just landed and won the battle of acre) that Islamic weapons and armor were a inferior quality to their European counterparts,

In the levant, this may of been true. But throughout the rest of the Islamic world it certainly wasn't.

A good quote, as for how it's going to be in game, I'll leave that to a team member. Game balance has to be taken into account so I'm guessing KoJ isn't going to have godly weapons.

KoJ has a good mix of armour across it's roster, but at the top end it can't complete with the many of the Islamic and Eastern Christian factions using mail + scale + lamellar + armoured horse.

The strength of the crusader force are it's morale, low tier armour, crossbows, and of course, heavy charge.

There's no distinction in BC between weapons of different origins or quality. A sword is a sword, a big SOB two hander is a big SOB two hander.

Cheers

[Son of Mao]

AD: Tobolight RELAX!!! Please don't attack people on our forums. I have edited your post with a new first line.

You are so COOL. Thanks for starting a new thread about this interesting issue.

but other than that who says the crusaders had better armor why were the ottomans able to take all of southeast europe for around 350 years with until the decline stable control.on the other hand when the west tries to take a stab at the holy land they struggle to hold it for 200 years before getting destroyed. back then eastern warfare was far supperior to western warfare in that period of time.

[Miraj]

To be honest I have my doubts about that "Europeans supply the best weapons quote" that's attributed to Saladin. I included in my quotes file anyways since it sounds cool.

But during BC I have seen so many images of examples of Islamic armour, helmets, axes, swords and bows and the intricate care and detail that metal-workers put into them - ie even the calligraphy etched into the metal is top notch. And it thus seems odd that Salahuddin, lord of Damascus (renowned for its smiths and swords) would be buying weapons from Europeans.

And when you go even more east in the lands of the Persia and India its clear indigenous metal-working skills were excellent. Survivng examples of Timurid and Indian armour and weapons are a testament to those skills.

So that's just my two cents, albeit I'm no historian and I'm sure more knowledgable individuals like Ahiga or Randarkmaan could tell us more.

[Beauchamp]

simple: crusaders lost

someone close thread please

[Randarkmaan]

Much of the Middle East (at least Syria and Egypt) was acutely short of materials (iron) to make weapons and armour, I think the closest place where this was plentiful was Anatolia, (where people mostly used it for themselves). That meant that many rulers bought weapons and iron and steel from foreign merchants, trading with India you could get excellent quality iron and steel (Damascus steel was made from Indian steel), also European merchants could provide lots of iron and weapons. Many Syrian and Egyptian rulers usually demanded weapons and armour, or materials as tribute or they took it off defeated enemies (armies that Saladin defeated often had to leave their weapons and armour), this was either reused in the same form or reforged into new equipment.

It then goes on to point out that the only Islamic city that could produce arms that could match European quality was Damascus.

Many European sources however say that Damascus's weapons were far superior to European weapons, I guess you have heard of Damascene steel? Many cities in Syria and Egypt had their own armsmaking quarters, but they had to get the materials from elsewhere (India, Europe, Anatolia) and sometimes in times of war it was simply as good to just reuse captured or gifted equipment (The Byzantine emperor once sent Saladin the captured equipment of a defeated Norman army as a gift). As far as I know it seems that many of the blacksmiths in these cities were at least as good as Europeans, sometimes better or a lot better (Damascus), but they did not have as readily acess to materials and had to trade for it or capture it.

but the Crusader states do not have any weapons or armor to trade…

They wouldn't have. The Crusader states were not major arms manufacturers, they had to trade for Europe for everything (mostly with Italian merchants) and I think they mostly got it fully forged and ready to crack skulls and I'm pretty sure some of them bought from Islamic merchants as well (like other Syrian and Egyptian rulers they had take whatever they could). Towards the end of their time the Crusader states were so short of resources that they depended on economic aid (or trade) from European states for even the most basic necessity (food)

[Blingerman]

Best Medieval swords came from Spain, Toledan's steel was famous. Crusaders lost cause they were in minority but the western weapon tech was far better.
This difference was with the years passing more and more true. However, the western heavy armor was of very poor use in arid or mountain regions. So the question is not who had best weapons and armor but who had the best suited weapons and armor for the terrain and these were clearly muslims.
For instance read a comparisson of Toledan vs Damascus steel:

"In other parts of the world, craftsmen have tried to imitate the perfection of Toledos steel, but they all failed. Damascus steel was too hard, not at all flexible, because it contained only iron and carbon and wasn't refined of all the mineral impure elements."

source:
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/ama...om_toledo.html
University of Kiel Germany

And for AD in Kingdoms weapons trade is treated as a map resource

[whhyy]

I thought Europeans learnt alot of Metal working from the peoples in the mid east.

[Son of Mao]

The west lost the east won thats how it was back then because the east was better

[Blingerman]

The west lost the east won thats how it was back then because the east was better

Not in Reconquista. Terrain and number of troops were as in almost all the wars the key for the defeat of Crusaders

[Orretje]

The west lost the east won thats how it was back then because the east was better

The better side can still lose you know, just look at the Germans in World War 2, better individual soldiers, equipment and tactics around 1943 but still they lost from a qualitatively inferior, but numerically superior enemy. Maybe the same applies for the Crusader states, they certainly didnt have the numbers on their side.

On topic I think Blingerman is right, I remember reading that the heavy armor in use in European climates was simply too hot for the desert, thats why they got disatvantaged or had to change to a more breathing type of armor.

BTW, calligraphy on armor doesnt indicate to a high level of arms manufacture, even the Goths and Gepids from the 5th/6th century as well as the Romans engraved their armor and weaponry with ornaments and runes etc. Maybe European armor and weapons were better because they had access to Swedish iron ore, which is AFAIK (one of) the best in the world.

[Randarkmaan]

On topic I think Blingerman is right, I remember reading that the heavy armor in use in European climates was simply too hot for the desert, thats why they got disatvantaged or had to change to a more breathing type of armor.

You have to remember that European armour was not on the whole more heavier than armour used in the Middle East, at least not until the late 13th century (when early versions of plate armour came into use). Europeans used chain mail, Middle Easterners used chainmail, and you have to remember that the entire place is not a desert and some places are not significantly more hot than for instance Spain, Italy or Greece (though it is hotter).

Maybe European armor and weapons were better because they had access to Swedish iron ore, which is AFAIK (one of) the best in the world.

The world was not so globalised back then, bringing in ore from Sweden for everything would have been difficult, and I think Spain was one of the more popular spots for iron ore. I can well believe that Toledo blades were very good, but also that used to be a Muslim city until the 1080s-1090s (or so), and very likely it was the same people who made blades for Christians as for the Muslims.

I haven't heard much to indicate that European weapons or armour was better than Muslim weapons and armour, and vice versa during the crusades. I think that both sides would have bought and looted what they could use, and apart from that quote by Saladin saying that European merchants supply the best weapons and countless sources by Europeans saying that a sword from Damascus cuts never gets worn (it supposedly gets stronger as it is used) and can cut the hardest materials without much effort, it seems that most are indifferent to what weapons they use. Usamah ibn Munqidh (a soldier and writer during the 12th century) mentions his equipment as a kazaghand armour made from a short Arab mail hauberk and a longer Frankish hauberk worn over each other, and also a lamellar cuirass for further chest and back protection. Supposedly Muslim and Crusader soldiers could be confused with each other, because their equipment was really similar and one often had to get a look at banners or get pretty close.

The better side can still lose you know, just look at the Germans in World War 2, better individual soldiers, equipment and tactics around 1943 but still they lost from a qualitatively inferior, but numerically superior enemy. Maybe the same applies for the Crusader states, they certainly didnt have the numbers on their side.

quantity is a quality of its own...
But I don't believe that's why the Crusaders lost, they weren't as outnumbered as is often claimed (numbers tend to be horribly inflated), they did well to start with because the Muslims were all too glad to fight each other and they happily formed alliances with the crusaders if it meant crushing their enemies. Anyway I won't write much about this now.

Also you could say Saladin was the type of man who won his battles before he fought them (uniting Egypt and Syria to fight the Crusaders by conquering the other city-states and emirates, uniting his people by Jihad, having some sort of casus belli, being lucky enough to have an idecisive leader, Guy, arrayed against him, etc)

I thought that the mail Europeans wore was double or triple layered mail? This mail worn over a cotten gambersom and a boiled leather breast plate was better than scale or lammerlar.

Wearing a padded shirt under armour was actually copied from Muslim soldiers (in Spain or Sicily, I think), Muslims often wore the padded shirt on top though or with the mail armour sewn into the cloth, usually two or three layers, thats called a kazaghand (I think it was copied in Europe with a latinized name as well), it was good for those fearing assassination attempts as it made you appear unarmoured, though your clothes looked a little stiff. In battle richer soldiers would wear lamellar armour or a lamellar cuirass over this again, to be better protected.

the hauberk was hot in the desert climate but Crusaders found clever was to get around the heat, such as wearing white tunics to reflect the heat.

This was another thing learnt from the Muslims who wore clothes over their armour to avoid it from getting hot. Hence why they could appear unarmoured, as they wore it on their arms as well, not just as a sort of ponco.

[Fenix_120]

"European merchants supply the best weaponry,
contributing to their own defeat."

A good quote, as for how it's going to be in game, I'll leave that to a team member. Game balance has to be taken into account so I'm guessing KoJ isn't going to have godly weapons.

I never said they should have godly weapons, all I said was that many Muslim soldiers bought their weapons from mostly Anatoloin merchants because it was a better quality.

In the levant, this may of been true. But throughout the rest of the Islamic world it certainly wasn't.



KoJ has a good mix of armour across it's roster, but at the top end it can't complete with the many of the Islamic and Eastern Christian factions using mail + scale + lamellar + armoured horse.

The strength of the crusader force are it's morale, low tier armour, crossbows, and of course, heavy charge.

There's no distinction in BC between weapons of different origins or quality. A sword is a sword, a big SOB two hander is a big SOB two hander.

Cheers

Thank you for pointing those out alpha delta, despite all my knowlage I'm still trying to learn about the crusades because people simply will not talk about it.

I thought that the mail Europeans wore was double or triple layered mail? This mail worn over a cotten gambersom and a boiled leather breast plate was better than scale or lammerlar.

AD: Tobolight RELAX!!! Please don't attack people on our forums. I have edited your post with a new first line.

You are so COOL. Thanks for starting a new thread about this interesting issue.

but other than that who says the crusaders had better armor why were the ottomans able to take all of southeast europe for around 350 years with until the decline stable control.on the other hand when the west tries to take a stab at the holy land they struggle to hold it for 200 years before getting destroyed. back then eastern warfare was far supperior to western warfare in that period of time.

The Ottomans used mass-numbers to attack their neighbors, Ottoman armor was very poor compaired to Mamluk or European mail(let alone plate).

The best thing the Ottomans had going was thier guns, the Ottoman empire saw the use of guns, a simple and easy to use weapon that could bring down a man in armor from a safe distance.

Eastern warfare was supperior to western in terms of tactics, what I said was that western weapons were of higher quality.

I'm sorry if I upset you

simple: crusaders lost

someone close thread please

Did they lose? or did they pull out because they
Accomplished their goal of removing Jerusalem from Turkish hands?

Best Medieval swords came from Spain, Toledan's steel was famous. Crusaders lost cause they were in minority but the western weapon tech was far better.
This difference was with the years passing more and more true. However, the western heavy armor was of very poor use in arid or mountain regions. So the question is not who had best weapons and armor but who had the best suited weapons and armor for the terrain and these were clearly muslims.
For instance read a comparisson of Toledan vs Damascus steel:

"In other parts of the world, craftsmen have tried to imitate the perfection of Toledos steel, but they all failed. Damascus steel was too hard, not at all flexible, because it contained only iron and carbon and wasn't refined of all the mineral impure elements."

source:
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/ama...om_toledo.html
University of Kiel Germany

And for AD in Kingdoms weapons trade is treated as a map resource

I thought Europeans learnt alot of Metal working from the peoples in the mid east.

It was the other way around, the middle east has a pity-ful amount of carbon and iron ore, both of which is needed to make steel.

The west lost the east won thats how it was back then because the east was better

Tobolight, I do not beleive anyone is better than anyone.

If you think that the East won because it was "better", you go on ahead and think that.

But they sure didn't do it with eastern weapons.


If you read about the first Crusader-Turkish battles, Turkish soldiers threw away their famous Turko-Mongol steppe sabers for a short sword that resembled the gladuis, becuase the saber was totaly useless against even the lightist armor.

The Persain shasmir was an excellent blade, and for fighting from horse back in the desert against a un-armoured man it was the perfect sword at the time... But even the poorist Crusader had some money to invest in some kind of protection.

Crusaders had a ton of resources at their disposal, including toledo and Milaness and Germanic steel, which all was of a higher grade than what was found in the middle east, needless to say they had a lot of metal weapons and armor.


The most common armor found in Crusader armies was the gamberson, this complex light armor was cheap and sturdy.

It was made from a quilted battle haubergon that was worn over boiled leather body armor.

Something in the make-up of quilted cotten stops arrows fired dead in its tracks, and the cotten was hardened which made even the powerful compond bow useless unless fired at dangerously close range, which put them in range of javelins.

The boiled leather protected from spears and swords of course, Knights and
Sergeants wore a mail hauberk over this, the hauberk was hot in the desert climate but Crusaders found clever was to get around the heat, such as wearing white tunics to reflect the heat.

Hope you found this info helpful.

SMILY BATTLE!!!

[AlphaDelta]

On topic I think Blingerman is right, I remember reading that the heavy armor in use in European climates was simply too hot for the desert, thats why they got disatvantaged or had to change to a more breathing type of armor.

Armour such as? In the period of the crusades European armies did not use full or even partial plate. They used mail, as did most middle eastern armies (although middle eastern armies also made use of lamellar and scale aswell). The difference between the crusaders and their native foe was simply that an Arab, Turk, Syrian or Kurd would of been used to the heat. A Knight fresh off the boat from Northern Europe would of struggled in the heat.

Cheers

[Randarkmaan]

Both sides actually used the same types of armour and weapons in the cruades, it seems both Muslim Syrian and Crusader cavalry wore mail hauberks (from one layer to three layers), they also preferred lances and wielded long swords. Turks usually made do with a lamellar cuirass, a bow, lots of arrows, a spear, a mace and a sabre, though many places they were more of an elite rather than the most numerous troops (and as you can see they were quite well armed).

[Fenix_120]

Both sides actually used the same types of armour and weapons in the cruades, it seems both Muslim Syrian and Crusader cavalry wore mail hauberks (from one layer to three layers), they also preferred lances and wielded long swords. Turks usually made do with a lamellar cuirass, a bow, lots of arrows, a spear, a mace and a sabre, though many places they were more of an elite rather than the most numerous troops (and as you can see they were quite well armed).

...And every thing but the bow and saber(which I have already said they found to be quite useless and threw away) they bought from European merchants.


Which is the point of this thread.

[Randarkmaan]

...And every thing but the bow and saber(which I have already said they found to be quite useless and threw away) they bought from European merchants.

I'm pretty certain some could have bought it from European merchants, some might have bought it from Indian merchants, soem from Anatolian merchants some directly from a weapon-maker in Damascus, Aleppo, Bagdhad anywhere, some might have taken it off defeated enemies, some might even have made it themselves, for some the weapons may have been an heirloom and for some people they were given it as standard issue. Muslim armies actually also had a whole army of merchants travelling with them who would sell food, weapons, armour, horses, etc to the soldiers (very... commercial warfare...)

Also the bow does not seem to have been useless (find out what it is said about the Turkish attack at Dorylaeum in the Gesta Francorum for some info on that).

And I'm quite certain the maces used by the Turks were not made by Europeans (heck the weapon was not even popular in Europe at the time), and for Turks maces were almost mythical weapons, with heads made to look like animals and the like.

And if everything was bought from Europeans, how come there is mention to Arab mail hauberks and the like? And not to mention Damascus swords, and those typical spears and lances made of bamboo?
Anyway I'm quite certain that European soldiers would use Middle Eastern weaponry as much as Middle Eastern soldiers would use European weaponry (during the first crusade many crusaders picked up and used Turkish maces and the like, and many also took their horse-harness, though that is not weapon or armour)

It was the other way around, the middle east has a pity-ful amount of carbon and iron ore, both of which is needed to make steel.

Which is why... They bought the ore! For an example from India, Anatolia and Europe. Damascene steel was actually Indian steel/iron, but it was forged into weapons in Damascus.

[Fenix_120]

The maces the Turks used were made in anatolia.

And everything was not made from Europeans.

Arab mail hauberks were very popular with Muslim soldiers.

But was it the quality of a European hauberk?

As for the spears European spears had a "bat-wing" shaped blade under the head, this wing shape allowed a soldier to pull a rider off his horse or pull a weapon or shield out of an enemies hand.

The bamboo spears could have had the shafts made locally but the heads imported.