First Crusade

[Green]

Well christof139 and I have had a pretty interesting discussion so far on the First Crusade. What should we discuss?

[Sher Khan]

Well, why not point us to this discussion, and perhaps bring up some questions raised for starters?

[Norge]

Well, why not point us to this discussion, and perhaps bring up some questions raised for starters?

It was widely discussed whether Muslims were advanced super-humans and Christian Europeans were barbaric sub-humans. It was concluded that the only reason the first crusade suceeded was because the cavemen Christians managed to ally with the advanced Muslims who helped them reach their goals.

And knowing your earlier posts, you would definitely agree with this.

[Sher Khan]

It was widely discussed whether Muslims were advanced super-humans and Christian Europeans were barbaric sub-humans. It was concluded that the only reason the first crusade suceeded was because the cavemen Christians managed to ally with the advanced Muslims who helped them reach their goals.

And knowing your earlier posts, you would definitely agree with this.

Good thing you don't know a thing about me, among other things...


The success of the First Crusade is a subject better fit for a book than an internet post (and it's a widely done subject already), but maybe a few points can be hinted at...

It was not a model campaign, and its entire venture has been judged by later Medieval generals to be ridiculously perilous to attempt again. The entire campaign was on the brink of collapse and defeat several times over, but each and every time something or someone brings it back running. The crusade endured perhaps the knife's edge in attrition and starvation, but always pulled through in the end.


1) Competent commanders and knights:

The crusade suffered from the rivalries between princes now and then, but despite this most basic of army killers the campaign held together. Should one consider the uncoordinated movement of each Latin regional contingent, we get a better picture. This wasn't a single army on the march, rather it was several armies lead by several princes who allied with each other. The Southern Italians and Normans followed Bohemond, the Aquitanians followed Raymond, the Northern French and Normans followed Robert, and the Flemish and Germans followed Godfrey. Most all of these seemed capable commanders or fighters in their own right (even the unfortunately unlucky Stephen of Blois), and some had special advantages on top of good generalship. Bohemond could count on previous knowledge of Byzantium and the Muslim world, previous battle experience against and alongside Muslim forces, some family members who could speak Arabic, and the most likely number of translators and aides in contacting Eastern Christian populations. Raymond of Toulouse, even in his old age, was well respected from his great experiences in battles, and had money to spare.

2) Morale

I'm not here to say the crusaders were Jesus-freaks 24/7. They weren't, and clearly had their ups and downs in their resolves in holy war. The trick was to keep their morale up whenever it went down and recover from periods of bad luck and inactivity during siege. Most armies break before ever recovering lost morale, but the religious element of the crusade certainly saved dying hope more than once - especially during the siege before Antioch.

3) Usually unhindered foraging

When the crusades couldn't count on local markets or aide from Byzantium, they relied on simple local foraging and raiding. Such tactics are effective only if one's foraging party is unmolested and safe from attack, and except for a few moments on the march to eastern Anatolia and during Antioch the crusaders could forage afar from locals - peacefully or by force - and keep up their meager food resources. By the time they defeated Kerbogha and massacred Ma'arrat, the local emirs were too afraid to challenge the crusader host and simply shipped food to them without the messy work of raiding.

4) Masters of siege warfare

While military tradition in the Middle East had somewhat declined from the ravaging wars between Seljuks and Fatamids, it's true that Muslim forces could rely on a bit more advanced technique and technology when it came to supplying their army on the march.

The problem is, the Muslim forces could hardly count on such an advantage when the battles were in a around sieges. At the same time, the crusaders had to face one ambush from a Turkish host, came out of that luckily, and then rarely fought in an open field against a huge force. Centuries of warfare in Europe made them masters in assaulting fortifications - or at least very determined to do so.


And this has little alone to do with martial prowess. Time and again the crusader chroniclers had only praise for the Turks and their martial prowess (besides the condemnation at their lack of Christian faith). Their enemies lacked neither bravery or ability or even armor, but siege warfare is a slow battle to see who breaks first, and the crusaders won out on that one.


5) Finally, yes, the lack of unity and recognition among the Muslim Levant.

This isn't too complex. Seljuk didn't like Fatamid, and Fatamid didn't like Seljuk. After the invasions of the Turkish dynasts, there existed no more unified caliphate for Sunni Syria, and the Seljuk empire was on its decline while busy with matters further east. This left local powers like Kerbogha, Ridwan, and Kilij Arslan to their own devices and their own battles. Each had his shortcomings that decisively ended their chances for victory. Kilij the poor chap had the poor fortune to first think the Prince's Crusade was anything like the people's crusade (and the People's Crusade was actually manned by competent knights and soldiers, his victory there isn't something to detract from his ability), so he loses Nicaea to the Greeks, and then had the further luck to think Bohemond's vanguard force was the entire crusader army, causing his men to lose once the rest of the army appeared behind his forces and flank him. Ridwan was embittered in a three way feud between rival Seljukid governors, and had doubts about whether to request their help. In the end, he failed against Bohemund's battle prowess.

Kerbogha was simply overconfident, his coalition abandoned him and forced him to retreat into ignominy, and failed to overcome Bohemond tactically at the gates of Antioch.


Perhaps an even greater factor? Sheer luck working in their favor at opportune times.

[Green]

Well, why not point us to this discussion, and perhaps bring up some questions raised for starters?

Sure, page 9. We were discussing the reasons why the First Crusade was so successful. I tend to think that it was the disorder of the Muslim nations, followed closely behind by the determination, ingenuity and fanatical belief in the righteousness of their mission that got them as far as it did.

I would like to know accurate ethnic and religious demographics of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Levant and Cilicia post First Crusade, I learned that there was a massive depopulation of Jews, Muslims and even some Orthodox Christians

Hard to say. I don't know about massive depopulation, but up until 1110, the Crusaders had a policy of massacring the citizens of the cities they captured. That might have helped swing demographics their way.

The Franks had a 'significant presence' in the Crusader states, but I really don't know much more than that. Jerusalem was forbidden to the Muslims, so you'd expect the Franks to be dominating the demographics then.

In the 1160s, John of Wurzburg listed the nationalities in Jerusalem: Franks, Lotharingians, Normans, Provencals, men from the Auvergne, Italians, Spaniards, Burguindains. There was a German church/hospital of St Mary. In the religious community, he recorded Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Celts, English, Navarrese, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Bulgars, Italians, Hungarians.

There were the Armenian Christians and Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians, both very prevalent in Antioch. Syrians (Christians speaking Arabic/Syriac) was the catch-all term the Franks used for the Orthodox Melkites, Nestorians, Monophysite Jacobites in Palestine. There were also the Monothelete Maronites in Lebanon.

The settled Muslim population were called the Saraceni. There were large populations of Muslims in Tyre and Tripoli, they probably outnumbered the Franks there. The Bedouin living in the fringes of Frankish Outremer were known as the Arabi.

As for the Jews, the native communities suffered a sharp decline after 1099 because of harrasment, limited economic opportunities and discrimination, although they were still present in places like Western Galilee.

Tyerman's 'God's War' is the source.

Wikipedia has much more detail about the demographics of the later Crusades. For example, the Kingdom of Jerusalem.But you could use that to get a rough idea of what the post-First Crusade Crusader states looked like.

[St Naffatun]

Sure, page 9. We were discussing the reasons why the First Crusade was so successful. I tend to think that it was the disorder of the Muslim nations, followed closely behind by the determination, ingenuity and fanatical belief in the righteousness of their mission that got them as far as it did.

Could one say the arabs suffered 2 successive barbarian invasions?

First the Turks - who by threatening Byzantium actually helped trigger the crusade in the first place via the Byzantine Emperors call to Rome for more soldiers to help expel the Turks.

Then the second barbarian wave of europeans. The arabs were under turkish rule - even before this each city had it's own ruler, it took a long time before they were united by the actions of Nuradin via Shirkuh via Saladin and thanks in part to Raynald de Chatillon's pillaging raping baby-eating antics.

[gaius valerius]

The Turks were by all means muslims. And if you are to believe Ibn Khaldun they were not a menace but a blessing. They re-united most of the muslim heartland but on the eve of the crusades they had once more descended into inner turmoil.

Calling it a barbarian invasion however means adding a moral connotation, which is always flirting with a-historicality. I'd just call it an invasion by ppl that obviously had a less developped society, but not Barbarian invasion. I wouldn't call the Turks Barbarians but just nomads.

The Franks had a 'significant presence' in the Crusader states, but I really don't know much more than that. Jerusalem was forbidden to the Muslims, so you'd expect the Franks to be dominating the demographics then.

How could that possibly be? Even if the first crusade was a massive exodus of "Franks" (numers between 60-80000 up to a 100000) from west to east and the amount that actually got there (about 20-30000 survived), that could NEVER EVER EVER be enough to replace the indigenuous population, if with massacring a few towns. You know that is demographic nonsense. Even with all subsequent travelers from east to west the Franks were never more than minority. They were highly depended on the locals, both muslim and christian. Especially the latter where of great importance, even military.

Sure, page 9. We were discussing the reasons why the First Crusade was so successful. I tend to think that it was the disorder of the Muslim nations, followed closely behind by the determination, ingenuity and fanatical belief in the righteousness of their mission that got them as far as it did.

Don't forget this very very important fact: the Byzantine/Roman logistic support. Without the crusaders wouldn't have gotten past Anatolia. It is something ppl often forget.

I'd say that until 1110, they actually did have a policy of ethnic cleansing.

That's because it didn't happen.

Indeed. There never was a 'policy' for massacring cities. A policy would imply some centralised leadership which in any case, the crusades lacked . More seriously, sacking cities was normal, it was the act of the day, obviously during the crusades there was of course the religious connotation, after all they were on a penitential act as J. R-S said 'where the killing itself was the act of penitance'. When one took a city it was his godforsaken right to plunder it, unless decided otherwise. You also need to keep in mind the context of the "great massacres". Hunger, starvation actually, drought, death, long sieges, far away from home in a hostile environment, religious zealotism, etc. These weren't exactly regular situations. It isn't suprising given the circumstances that certain wacko's went a little bit insane and ate ppl. Suggesting a policy is over the top.


If the first crusade had one policy, it was simply that it had no policy. (apart from taking Jerusalem and giving back lands to emperor at least till 1098 )


Furthermore the Jerusalem massacre has been subjcted to criticism these past years, there is a possibility that the numbers we've held as standard up untill now are a gross exaggeration.

[St Naffatun]

The Turks were by all means muslims.

Which precludes them massacring arabs of course, because all muslims are "in it together". It's us verses them

Classic case of objectivity clouded by contemporary attitudes.

[Prince Rodrigo]

I would like to know accurate ethnic and religious demographics of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Levant and Cilicia post First Crusade, I learned that there was a massive depopulation of Jews, Muslims and even some Orthodox Christians

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Hard to say. I don't know about massive depopulation

That's because it didn't happen.

, but up until 1110, the Crusaders had a policy of massacring the citizens of the cities they captured. That might have helped swing demographics their way.

They didn't have "a policy of massacring the citizens of the cities they captured". That happened in Jersusalem only, and was standard operating proceedure for a city or stronghold that had been offered quarter and refused it.

Jerusalem was forbidden to the Muslims, so you'd expect the Franks to be dominating the demographics then.

No, Jerusalem was not forbidden to Muslims.

[Green]

They didn't have "a policy of massacring the citizens of the cities they captured".

I'd say that until 1110, they actually did have a policy of ethnic cleansing.

That happened in Jersusalem only,

Antioch and Ma'arrat al-Nu'man.

Saruj was captured in 1101 and as Ibn al-Qalanisi elaborates, "The Franks then advanced to Saruj, recaptured it, and killed and enslaved its inhabitants, except those of them who escaped by flight."

He also states that Arsuf was captured in 1101 and the population was driven out afterwards.

Jonathan Riley-Smith mentions in page 62 of The Crusades: A History that the Muslim populations of Tilbeşar (Tell Bashir), Ravandah and Artah were 'slaughtered or driven out, but the indigenous Christians were allowed to remain'.

and was standard operating proceedure for a city or stronghold that had been offered quarter and refused it.

I am not making an ethical judgement on the Crusader's actions. Attacking a city that offered resistance is expected and common. Killing (or dispelling) the inhabitants of the city after capturing it was less so at that time and place.

No, Jerusalem was not forbidden to Muslims.

I apologise for vague terminology, I meant Muslim residents - it should be obvious now what I meant in my post:

The Franks had a 'significant presence' in the Crusader states, but I really don't know much more than that. Jerusalem was forbidden to the Muslims, so you'd expect the Franks to be dominating the demographics then.

Muslim could not live in Jerusalem proper.

[RollingWave]

what i don't get is how in the world did everyone agree on this mad undertaking in the first place ?

Were they at least somewhat knowledgable in the Muslim's own internal feud and the Levant's situation of dissaray? if that was the case then why didn't the Muslim know of the magnitude of the incomming army?

Was it really faith that driven them? or was it something else? from a modern standpoint it would seems ridiculas to go on a long march to unknown lands fighting unknown enemies for a city in the books and legends

[Sher Khan]

For the most part, almost all Muslim parties involved thought of the First Crusade as a limited campaign of barbarian mercenaries under the command of the Eastern Romans. Few hardly saw the host as they themselves saw it, and sought to treat with them for agreement.

As for the why, I made a lengthy post on that a while ago.

Here it is in its entirety:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the most part, in common education, the Crusades are portrayed negatively (if at all) because of the works of past historians who believed thus. The world of Middle/High school curriculum and hard-cover textbooks takes a long time to catch up with modern understanding on some issues. Problematic, perhaps, but nothing all too new. Then of course comes a general prejudice to the basic ideology behind crusading that is completely against a Secular Western Protestant background - that a religious figure directed and ordered wars ordained holy and righteous on the basis of their religion. Heroism today is closer to humanist values, and thus against traditional crusader understanding where religious values became the prime motivator. To the general public, it's perhaps hard for them to be unbiased about such history even if they had all read and understood Riley-Smith's current research.


However, I'm apprehensive about some reactionary criticism on the 'Crusades as an evil enterprise' concept. The pendulum swung too far left is just as bad as the pendulum swung to the far right. The Islamic powers of Syria and Palestine are perhaps not strangers-turned-victims in a random act of Latin violence, but I do not agree with ideas bordering on thoughts like, "they deserved it" or that, "it was a backlash to their actions."

Two wrong answers do not make a right one.


As I've come to see it, the crusading movement - at least in its birth and early days - was a part of the papal reforms begun and spread by the Gregorian monks and priests of the orders of Bec and Cluny. It was a phenomenon, but not an individual one. It was an attack on the Muslim world, but not as a reaction to previous Muslim conquest. In the same frame as the Investiture Controversy, the crusade was born in the attempts of several 11th century Cluniac popes to reform world order as they say it.

As the Peace of God and Truce of God movements were meant to bring peace, it also instilled a duality where peacebreakers could not be included in this peace and were legitimate, clerical-approved targets. Such movements, first started out of benefit to church property and wealth, gave the Church a form of rule over the armed forces of Europe - defining when and where fighting could take place, and legitimizing peacebreakers (in simple terms, enemies of the Church) as targets for neighboring just rulers. That there existed two swords, one real and the other spiritual, and that a secular ruler owned his real sword, but it could only be legitimately drawn by approval of the Church, which held the greater power of the spiritual sword. To this end the Church used its new authority (whenever it wasn't challenged by the German Empire) for one, perhaps noble, purpose: to stop the shedding of Christian blood by those who call themselves Christian.

Perhaps the issue was not a major, vastly commonplace problem, or perhaps the church had no voice and authority yet to declare it wrong, but Christian-Christian wars were less a problem before the 11th century. This is when much of Europe was not yet Latin Christian and where invasions on all frontiers by non-Christian populations were commonplace. However, with the end of these invasions and the subsequent spread of Christianity within Europe (conversion of the Scandinavians and Magyars), the only enemy a Christian lord most likely warred against were their Christian brothers, and just wars against infidels for those in the European heartlands far away from Italy, Spain, and Lithuania were likely in short demand. A terrible thing, especially in light of the new papal concept of 'Christendom' - that there was a body of Christ composed of all Christians. The fact that one part of this body might attack and spill blood of another part of the body was detestable, and equatable to attacking and spilling the blood of Christ himself.


The greatest enemy of the Church at this time, then was not the multitudes of Arabs, Turks, Saracens, and Moors in the East and South, but the enemies of the Church within the body of Christ itself - the peacebreakers. No sin the infidel could commit was equal to the hatred the Latin Church saw in the lay Christian soldier fighting against his 'blood-brothers.' It was in this regard that, if the soldier could not become a monk and spend his years repenting for his sins as a man of the Church, then he should turn his blade on the only targets acceptable by the Church and the only blood worth spilling (meritorious even) in the eyes of Christ: the non-Christian. If the man could not devote his life to attain the heavenly Jerusalem... then perhaps it'd be best if he strive for the earthly Jerusalem instead.

At last we have the goal of the Crusade - liberation and elimination of infidel presence in the Holy Lands, a massive relic itself in the eyes of Medieval Catholics. That Jerusalem was held outside the peace of Christendom was deplorable and shameful to God, and non-Christians of course had no place in the peace of Christendom. It is here that I must comment: the Crusades were borne out of peace, out of pacifism even. However, internal peace is separate from peace with the external world...



So, why the Muslim? Contrary to the idea of the crusade being launched in direct opposition to Muslim expansion - or even in reaction to it - the Medieval Latin world did not give Islam any special significance over any other non-Christian world before the 11th century. We Muslims were evil for being sinful non-Christians of course, but hardly the infidel par excellence we became after the start of the crusading movement. Before such we were pagans among the multitude of gentiles outside Europe, and the Church was not all that concerned with the condition of the earthly Jerusalem (in truth, many during the first Crusade outside the Cluniac reforms still thought so and looked on at the rabble of the People's Crusade in apathy, seeing the heavenly Jerusalem the only goal worth pursuing).

By the time of Pope Gregory VII, we were seen more and more as the quintessential enemy of Christ, even if the borders of Islam and Christianity had remained static for decades. He, however, sought his greater enemy within Christendom. Urban II, however, was a peaceful man who did not pursue Christian enemies with anywhere near as much zeal his predecessor did, but he had no such patience for those outside Christendom.

His call to crusade, then was the natural result.

We were, of course, spilling the blood of Christian brothers in the East, a crime that went 'unpunished' while European nobles committed this same sin against each other. Urban merely suggested changing victims for a win-win situation. Injustice and evils of all kinds were inflicted by us Muslims on the Christian East.

There is, of course, not substantial evidence of this great calamitous harm done on Christians in the East. Perhaps a culmination of folk gossip over the last few decades when the Seljuks came into the region that bloated possible instances of suppression and violence against Christians. The Seljuks were, of course, new converts. Perhaps they, in their zeal, did not take too kindly to seeing Christianity in great concentration around Syria and Jerusalem.

Yet, other than the mad actions of Hakim of Egypt, I don't see many instances were the tales of Muslim violence in the East can be substantiated, and so the above remains just speculation on my part.

[christof139]

Dorylaeum and the Battle of the Lake (where the first Moslem relief army was defeated by a mere 700 knights) were not near a siege line. The Europeans excelled in close combat and many were as well and better armored than the muslims, and most were not so equipped, plus the Franks were on the average bigger and stronger than the Muslims. Original Muslim sources attest to their great bravery and strong will and fighting ability.

It was the Crusader's fanatical faith that kept them together and drove them on.

The dissension amongst the 1st Crusaders was usually solved even though Bohemund stayed at Anticoh and Baldwin went to Edessa, and the fact that this split occurred actually helped secure the 1st Crusade's rear. Bohemund became the military leader during the siege of Antioch (though he was not the elected overall leader) and Count Raymond of Toulousse (Provence) also stepped to the fore (mainly with money) at times as did others. They were a loose knit bunch, but it was their fanatical faith and the goal of reaching Jerusalem that held them together.

Of course the 1st Crusaders ALWAYS argued and even came to blows with each other a few times, just as the Muslims and eveyone else did. Was the way of the world.

Also, Jerusalem was not forbidden to the Muslims as they were allowed back not long after the capture and sack of the city. Later, the Templars even allowed their Muslim business and intellectual associates to have places of prayer on Templar property. Many Muslims came back and settled in Crusader lands becuase the laws became just and the Crusaders used local Muslim legates etc. to govern Muslim villages, plus the taxes were I believe a little less than in Muslim lands and even the Muslim sources attest to the fairness and justness of the Franks, that is after the initial capture and mad sacking of Jerusalem, which the Christian leaders did not wish to occur but their troops were uncontolable after they gained entrance through and over the walls of the city. Some interesting and amazing interaction occurred.

Another good book is: Crusader Warfare, Volume I, Byzantium, Western Europe and the Battle for the Holy Land, by David Nicole. the second volume dealing with Islamic forces is not yet available as far as I know.

Chris

[Sher Khan]

Dorylaeum and the Battle of the Lake (where the first Moslem relief army was defeated by a mere 700 knights) were not near a siege line.

Dorylaeum was won thanks to Bohemond's leadership in holding fast and the luck of the crusade in having had their forces split in two.

The relief army was defeated during the siege effort and was attacked before they could properly assault the crusader camp near Antioch. 700 knights in an ambush is more than enough to kill an army of foot soldiers on the march unable to form ranks quickly enough.

The Europeans excelled in close combat and many were as well and better armored than the muslims, and most were not so equipped,

This is myth, as knights and Muslim nobles/slave warriors were equally well equipped. Only skirmishing Turkomans were lightly armored and only for speed. The crusaders had to face some Turkish troops that were far more heavily armored than they themselves. And according to the fighting on walls in our chronicles, the Turks fought just as well as the crusaders.

plus the Franks were on the average bigger and stronger than the Muslims.

What? This is ridiculous.

Original Muslim sources attest to their great bravery and strong will and fighting ability.

Arab sources attesting to Frankish strength in arms is little different compared with their praise of Turkish soldiery. That they were good fighters is no doubt, but hardly something like 'superior close quarters fighters.' They were not the 300 facing hordes of Persian levies.

It was the Crusader's fanatical faith that kept them together and drove them on.

It was an advantage, yes, but it was not switched on 24/7. This faith faltered many times. The trick to their success comes from the ability to raise that faith back to fighting strength just in time.

The dissension amongst the 1st Crusaders was usually solved even though Bohemund stayed at Anticoh and Baldwin went to Edessa, and the fact that this split occurred actually helped secure the 1st Crusade's rear.

They resolved only after a year of non-action and being forced into agreement by the host too tired for any more bickering. Edessa helped with supplies, but hardly did it secure the rear. Recent work by Asbridge notes that Kerbogha's 2 week foray in Edessa was not nearly as decisive in the crusade's survival as once thought, and Edessa actually threatened the crusade because of Baldwin's hiring of rogue knights for his new kingdom, draining manpower from the expedition on Jerusalem.

Bohemund became the military leader during the siege of Antioch (though he was not the elected overall leader) and Count Raymond of Toulousse (Provence) also stepped to the fore at times as did others. They were a loose knit bunch, but it was their fanatical faith and the goal of reaching Jerusalem that held them together.

Hardly in the case of Bohemund and Raymond, however. Bohemund wouldn't dream of leaving Antioch, and as such kept Raymond stationary as well. It was the fanatical faith of the soldiery that kept the dream of Jerusalem alive - because Bohemund could certainly care less.

Another good book is: Crusader Warfare, Volume I, Byzantium, Western Europe and the Battle for the Holy Land, by David Nicole. the second volume dealing with Islamic forces is not yet available as far as I know.

I would not recommend military history for such a topic, and I suggest reading Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade for a better in-depth read.

[roy34543]

Sheer luck.
They should have never suceeded in capturing jerusalem. But all the muslim disorganization at the time and the crusaders own morale helped them do what should have never suceeded.

[christof139]

The majority of the Muslim cities along the coast did not wish to fight and readily supplied the Crusaders with horses, food, and even armaments. The Muslims at this time were in some awe of the Crusaders as the story of their victories and ferocity etc. preceded them. Plus they had formed what appears to be an alliance with the Fatamids of Egypt.

The Muslims respected the military capabilities of the Crusaders, and visa versa.

Chris

[christof139]

And hard fighting by the Crusaders, and perhaps overconfidence and bad reconnaisance of the Turks.

The 700 knights crashed into the flank of the advance guard that was composed of CAVALRY that outnumbered them and threw the advance guard back onto the main body that included more cavalry and infantry also, and then the battle swayed to and fro a bit until Bohemund led his last squadron of about 100 knights into the fray and shttered the Turks. Shattered the Turks with a meree 100 knights in a melee in which the turks vastly outnumbered the 600 Crusader knights already engaged. Also, the Crusaders' horses were in much worse shape than the Muslims. The ambush was a very wise tactic, and that is what you try to do in warfare, and the Turks did it to the first part of the Crusader host at Dorylaeum.

Have you ever read original Muslim sources or parts of them?? They usually do not belittle the fighting ability of the Franks, just as the Christian sources usually do not belittle the fighting ability of the Turks and other Muslims.

It is not a myth that the Crusaders were on the average larger and stronger , especially the knights who recieved more and better food than the commoners throughout their lives, and the knights were heavily armored in comparison to the mainly lamellar armor of the Turks, even though the knights' horses bore no armor. Plus the Frankish kite shield was larger than the Muslim kite shield. At this time it seems the Turks were using lighter armored cavalry, even if some of the Turkish nobles and bodyguard cavalry had some horse armor. The horses of both sides were near the same size, and it is a myth that the Franks had huge warhorses at this time in history.

It was the fanatical faith and willpower that held the Crusade together over all the arguing and infighting etc. Bohemund stayed in Antioch because he was angry with Raymond and he withdrew from the Crusade period, so he broke his vows to a degree, but later I do believe went to Jerusalem to complete his vows. The only thing that held the Crusade together was the desire and fanatical faith of the majority of the Crusaders to reach Jerusalem, otherwise the whole Crusade would have split apart and not just Bohemund and Baldwin and some others leaving it. The majority held together because of their fanatical faith.

Chris

[Green]

It was the fanatical faith and willpower that held the Crusade together over all the arguing and infighting etc. Bohemund stayed in Antioch because he was angry with Raymond and he withdrew from the Crusade period,

Bohemund stayed in Antioch because he had materialistic concerns - he wanted to secure his hold over it.

so he broke his vows to a degree, but later I do believe went to Jerusalem to complete his vows.

At Christmas 1099.

The only thing that held the Crusade together was the desire and fanatical faith of the majority of the Crusaders to reach Jerusalem, otherwise the whole Crusade would have split apart and not just Bohemund and Baldwin and some others leaving it. The majority held together because of their fanatical faith.

Chris

I agree with Sher Khan, it was the weight of the leader's followers that forced the issue of marching to Jerusalem, not necessarily the religious devotion of the leaders themselves. Whilst Raymond was off trying to bribe other leaders, his followers took matters in their own hand and began dismantling the walls of Ma'arrat, to force him to leave for the south. They were successful of course.

[christof139]

Bohemund stayed in Antioch because he had materialistic concerns - he wanted to secure his hold over it.

At Christmas 1099.

I agree with Sher Khan, it was the weight of the leader's followers that forced the issue of marching to Jerusalem, not necessarily the religious devotion of the leaders themselves. Whilst Raymond was off trying to bribe other leaders, his followers took matters in their own hand and began dismantling the walls of Ma'arrat, to force him to leave for the south. They were successful of course.

Of course he had materialistic reasons!!! They/we all did, including the Muslims!!

Yes, it was indeed the fanatical religous belief and drive of the MAJORITY of the Crusaders to continue on to Jerusalem as I previously stated, so you are not saying anything different than I did.

Yes, the Crusade would have failed without Bohemund and Raymond, and without the support of the Byzantines, Armenians and many Muslims in the area. However, that does not dismiss the fact that the Crusade overcame starvation and greater numbers of foes and mountains and weather to reach and take their objective, which made the campaign of the 1st Crusade a great, a tremendous feat accomplished against great odds.

The Reason the knights' armor was heavier was because on the average the knights were larger people, and the chainmail they used had large and thicker and heavier links than much of the Turkish mail. You see what I am getting at.

Also, at this time, it seems that most Turks were not wearing heavier armor, and it is known that Muslim armor and weapons such as battle axes became heavier in later years due to years of fighting with the more heavily armored Frankish knights etc. and Byzantines. Seems that only the Nobles and their bodyguards and a few select units of the Turkish forces had heavy armor approaching that of the knights, and that is also taking into account the larger and heavier Frankish kite shield (some still used round shields though). Many Turkish swords were already large and heavy and effective at the time of the 1st Crusade.

You make no points that are not already known and established.

Chris