The Real Crusades Question

[strife1013]

I've always wondered this about the real crusades. Why travel on foot instead of boats? Think about it, I think it would have been quicker, the army would have been more rested than walking thousands of miles on foot and than fighting, what a moral killer that would be, etc... any ideas?

[delra]

Too costy?

[strife1013]

I thought about that but dont see how it could cost more than feeding all those guys those extra days it would have taken.

[Landwalker]

For one, when you're traveling by land, you can live off the land, instead of having to live off supplies--you can't pillage the countryside in a boat in the middle of the Mediterranean. Similarly, consider that even a dedicated transport ship could probably transport no more than two hundred non-sailors, and that the First Crusade involved over 40,000 soldiers, not to mention the number of hangers-on, camp followers, and non-fighting pilgrims who accompanied them and pushed the total number well over 100,000. This would certainly involve far more ships than anyone could muster at one time, and probably more pure transport ships than even existed at the time.

Finally, there would have been no port for the ships to land in the East (until after the First Crusade, at least) except for Constantinople--and then they would have had to march across all of Anatolia and Syria anyway.

I'm sure there were other reasons, but these are a few of the most likely culprits that pop into my mind. Remember, however, that after the First Crusade, a lot of "crusaders" (not necessarily those involved in the "official" crusades, but the ones who trickled in) did take ships, since it was more feasible both in terms of supplies and quantity.

Cheers.

[strife1013]

For one, when you're traveling by land, you can live off the land, instead of having to live off supplies--you can't pillage the countryside in a boat in the middle of the Mediterranean. Similarly, consider that even a dedicated transport ship could probably transport no more than two hundred non-sailors, and that the First Crusade involved over 40,000 soldiers, not to mention the number of hangers-on, camp followers, and non-fighting pilgrims who accompanied them and pushed the total number well over 100,000. This would certainly involve far more ships than anyone could muster at one time, and probably more pure transport ships than even existed at the time.

Finally, there would have been no port for the ships to land in the East (until after the First Crusade, at least) except for Constantinople--and then they would have had to march across all of Anatolia and Syria anyway.

I'm sure there were other reasons, but these are a few of the most likely culprits that pop into my mind. Remember, however, that after the First Crusade, a lot of "crusaders" (not necessarily those involved in the "official" crusades, but the ones who trickled in) did take ships, since it was more feasible both in terms of supplies and quantity.

Cheers.

But if that is the case how did the Persians do it against the Greeks and so forth? Their armys were way bigger than the ones we're talking about now.

[IceBeast]

But if that is the case how did the Persians do it against the Greeks and so forth? Their armys were way bigger than the ones we're talking about now.

They walked. Well actually, they built a bridge of boats and crossed the Hellespont. Hannibal went from Iberia, through the alps, into Italy to fight Rome instead of the more direct sea route, fearing storms and the larger roman navy. It wasn't until Rome's Ascension that you really see large armies traveling by sea (Pompeys flight to greece, Caesars pursuit, Octavian's invasion of Egypt (even this was a major effort and battle in it self)), and even then it was dangerous. Imagine how dangerous it is when Egypt or Turkey, or any one with something against the Christians learn of a large international Christian fleet sailing for Acre. Wouldn't have been good.

[Kyias]

But if that is the case how did the Persians do it against the Greeks and so forth? Their armys were way bigger than the ones we're talking about now.

Part of that persian fleet got sunk because of storms, which is part of the reason the Greeks were able to win their sea battles.

[*Atlas*]

Part of that persian fleet got sunk because of storms, which is part of the reason the Greeks were able to win their sea battles.

Yeah, IIRC they lost a third in one storm in the Aegean, then another large portion in another storm @ Artemisium, and then whilst docked that night the sea and wind washed the wrecked ships in amongst the moored ships causing further damage. It was a lot of bad luck.

[The_Richini]

Nice topic Strife1013, it's always great to discuss subjects and share theoroies.

I agree with Landwalker, there probably wasent enough ships in Europe to transport the thousands of people let alone Warhorses and armor and all the food.

I'm not an expert on naval history but I beleive navigation technology wasent up to the point where ships could sail with no view of the shore and so maybe this would have caused the Moors of the far south Mediterranean to pirate those ships.
Anyway just some food for thought

[Willowmound]

I'm not an expert on naval history but I beleive navigation technology wasent up to the point where ships could sail with no view of the shore

Well, Norwegian sailors had been doing just that for at least 300 years already at the time of the first crusade, so I don't think that's the reason.

I think Landwalker pretty much nailed it.

[whhyy]

Option 1:

Take the land route

Risks:

• Turkoman Horse Archers or a full blown Turkish Army
  
• Difficult to navigate (Enemy armies make this even harder)
  
• Arab army
  
• Harsh alien climate
  
• The Byzantines may not even let you past
  
• The Byzantines may not give you any supplies
  
• The Byzantines may cut off your supplies

Advantages:

• You won't die to a random storm at sea

Option 2:

Take Italian ships

Risks:

• Lack of ships
  
• You may have to pay upfront
  
• Enemy Ships
  
• Storms
  
• Pirates (?)
  
• Slave traders (?)
  
• Poor captians
  
• Poor living conditions

Advantages:

• No supply lines
  
• No Turkish armies
  
• No Arab armies
  
• No desert

[delra]

Don't forget plagues. They didn't have luxury liners back then...

[Kyias]

I could be wrong, but isn't the Mediterranean have a lot of storms on its seas? If I'm remembering correctly that it does, then cost and the actual cost of lives would be more risky than land routes.

[Septimius The Bold]

Kyias is correct. Sea travel was VERY risky nad there was a good chance you would never make your destination.

[delra]

It's far easier to get through Bosphorus only than to sail all the way from let's say France to Egypt...

There's also a problem that you need to leave a lot of folks with your fleet as sailors instead of using them as soldiers.

[whhyy]

And if you where a child you where sold to slavers :O

[delra]

Sea transport is one of many things screwed in this game.

One galley can carry a full stack of troops and it can sail with insane speed if on a crusade.

If you learn history from the game, you may get wrong impression of this being very easy... It really wasn't.

[strife1013]

Oh I wasn't thinking because it was easy in a game it was easy in real life lol. I know there are a lot of things that play a factor into travel both by land and by sea.

[THEMANMAN]

Whats also risky about sailing by boat is if your enemy learns of where you tend to dock your boat. They could destroy your boat and then you could really be screwed. But even if you couldn't dock your boat and had to take row boats ashore an ambush could be a very likely event if your enemy learned ahead of time that a massive invasion fleet was on its way.

[Hmz..]

Sailing long distances was Very difficult indeed. Ships had no rudders and were usualy confined to coast hugging. Sailing openseas was not suitibly for troops transported in there thousands.

Also Depleted troops form months at sea stand no chance against a well orginised army who can just sit and wait in a well supplied enviroment. If you go by land at least you can concour citys so you can resupply and have a base of operations you can retreat to.