Army Composition of the First Crusade

[St Naffatun]

A comment made by another forum member challenged my lazy assumption there was a sizeable contingent of heavily armoured mounted or dismounted troops on the first crusade under their various leaders.

I am avoiding the word knight because of the social status of the term, rather my assumption was the Princes of the First Crusade had amassed fighters for whom war was a way of life.

My hasty interweb search has not yielded much in the way information on army composition, just rough numbers. If you post a wikipedia article, I will basically kill you. Just kidding but seriously does anyone have any info. Thanks.

[motiv-8]

Hrmmm? Hard to employ the tactics that they did at Dorylaeum or Ashkelon without a sizeable contingent of armored troops on horseback.

The barons had their retinues of regular fighters, yes, but they were hardly a mass, or even anywhere near the majority, of the people who accompanied them.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

A comment made by another forum member challenged my lazy assumption there was a sizeable contingent of heavily armoured mounted or dismounted troops on the first crusade under their various leaders.

What comment?

I am avoiding the word knight because of the social status of the term, rather my assumption was the Princes of the First Crusade had amassed fighters for whom war was a way of life

.

"Men-at-arms" is probably the best term. That includes magnates, lords, knights, their retinues and followers and other mounted, armoured troops that they supported.

My hasty interweb search has not yielded much in the way information on army composition, just rough numbers. If you post a wikipedia article, I will basically kill you. Just kidding but seriously does anyone have any info. Thanks.

What info do you need? Numbers? Proportions of men-at-arms to other troop types? Whether there were substantial numbers of men-at-arms at all? The numbers of men-at-arms that were able to fight in their usual style reduced as the Crusade went on, especially after the crossing of Anatolia depleted the numbers of horses. But, as Motiv-8 has already pointed out, the use of heavy cavalry was key in several of the Crusade's key victories shows that there were still substantial numbers of men-at-arms in the Crusading army and they were highly effective troops.

[motiv-8]

But, as Motiv-8 has already pointed out, the use of heavy cavalry was key in several of the Crusade's key victories shows that there were still substantial numbers of men-at-arms in the Crusading army and they were highly effective troops.

Do you think the effectiveness was more a result of inherent quality and employment of said troops or the inexperience of the Seljuq and Fatimid forces to such formations?

[Mythos]

Do you think the effectiveness was more a result of inherent quality and employment of said troops or the inexperience of the Seljuq and Fatimid forces to such formations?

I don't think the Seljuks had any inexperience dealing with armored horsemen. The Eastern Roman Empire had plenty of them, even though their numbers were greatly diminished at the time of the first crusade. Same goes for armored infantry, similar to what western Europeans fielded.

[antaeus]

I don't think the Seljuks had any inexperience dealing with armored horsemen. The Eastern Roman Empire had plenty of them, even though their numbers were greatly diminished at the time of the first crusade. Same goes for armored infantry, similar to what western Europeans fielded.

i'm fairly sure the seljuks would be well familiar with western heavy cavalry (and infantry)... certainly by reputation and possibly through direct confrontation... alexios had to deal with the rebellion of a frankish governor of one of the anatolian provinces before his reign in what was a bit of a 3 way standoff if i recall... i wish i could recall his name.. been a while.

(not the nikephoros rebellion...)

[motiv-8]

i'm fairly sure the seljuks would be well familiar with western heavy cavalry (and infantry)... certainly by reputation and possibly through direct confrontation... alexios had to deal with the rebellion of a frankish governor of one of the anatolian provinces before his reign in what was a bit of a 3 way standoff if i recall... i wish i could recall his name.. been a while.

(not the nikephoros rebellion...)

Yes, good point! Roussel de Bailleul. In imperial service since the 1060s, present at Manzikert, fought for and against the Turkish invaders afterwards; so yes, I would say it was likely that the Seljuqs had knowledge and experience in Western European troop forms and tactics. Thanks!

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Do you think the effectiveness was more a result of inherent quality and employment of said troops or the inexperience of the Seljuq and Fatimid forces to such formations?

Probably more the quality and deployment, with a dash of religious fanaticism and some sheer desperation. The fact is that several times the Crusaders faced armies that outnumbered them vastly - at Askelon by perhaps as much as 5 to 1 - and every time they kicked butt. There was an element of luck involved at times, such as the timely arrival of the rest of the army at the key moment in the Battle of Dorylaeum. But in other cases it was sheer determination (or desperation) and good generalship, such the defeat of the relieving army at Nicea.

Incidently, there is a newish book by Conor Kostick on the question of the social make-up and divisions of the First Crusade's force, including the role of women, clergy and other camp followers, called The Social Structure of the First Crusade. There's an interview with the author about it at Medievalists.net.

[Juicemisbruk]

many of the armoured soldiers (knights and heavy infantry) actually had to drop their armour when they had to cross a mountain or when it got too hot... so most men had no armour, later when the christians got a foothold there were tons...

[St Naffatun]

Raymond of Aguilers writes that by 1099 there were 1200 knights fielded at Askelon if that interests anyone.

I change my question to "give me every single First Crusade original source for reading once my exams are over"

[wearycelt]

I remember participating in this thread months ago... I haven't read through it to see if there is anything relevant to your specific question, but have a go at it and maybe there is.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=172235

afaik the military orders were made up of heavily armored fighters, but the crusade itself drew all sorts of folks, and to even suggest that there was any sort of "uniform standard" under which they were armed or armored would probably be irresponsible. What you may want to search for, if you haven't given it a whirl, is information on the battles that took place in Anatolia prior to the Crusaders' arrival at Antioch.

Again, if you want real source material.... get a book. I'd suggest Hans Eberhard Mayer's Crusades, but its dated.

[Vince Noir]

According to David Nicolle, when the Pope preached the Crusade he called for knights and foot soldiers, and there were clearly more infantry than cavalry, even at the start of the Crusade. Many were prosperous peasants who could pay their own way and had proper military equipment. Even so properly equipped fighting men were probably in a minatory on the First Crusade, many not being armed at all. Non-combatants of the composition included clerics and monks who had been given permission to go on the crusade, while some women also went along to accompany their husbands. In fact the presence of large numbers of women and children sometimes caused problems and many died on the way. The lowest modern estimate for the size of the First Crusade when it assembled at Constantinople is 30,000 people. – David Nicolle, the First Crusade.

The composition of the forces that marched east as the First Crusade may have been unlike western European armies but their organization was similar, with members of the aristocracy assuming military and diplomatic leadership. This was accepted even by men from urban backgrounds since, with a few exceptions in Italy, the cities of western Europe still operated within a generally, though sometimes only theoretically, ‘feudal’ framework. Other lower ranking crusaders attached themselves to the retinue of a recognized leader. On a few occasions ordinary knights or the ‘the poor’ grouped themselves around one of their own number, for example the ferocious Tafurs. Others, especially infantry may have fought and marched in ‘national’ groups reflecting their place or origin.

Although the official First Crusade demonstrated much greater discipline than the so-called ‘peasants crusade’, it was still more of a host than an army, being characterized by a divided command and a very loose structure. Many people, especially amongst the camp followers, were apparently without an effective leader. The strictly military elements of this Crusading host were organized around lords and their households, and most of the ‘commoners’ may actually have been dependent relatives. The strong bonds of companionship seen between men in the knightly elite have sometimes been interpreted as latently or actually homosexual but this is incorrect since the ideals of male comradeship were fundamental to the knightly way of life, social structure and general ethos as well as methods of combat.

In terms of naval support as contribution to the composition, The Italians played a significant role by providing the naval support that without which the First Crusade would probably not have succeeded. Amalfi had been the first Italian state to emerge as a significant naval power but it rarely took part in the offensive operations against Islamic shipping or coasts; equally Venice was more concerned with the Byzantine Empire.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Crusading Armies were just like any other European army of the time: A solid core of elite knights, a large number of retainers and men at arms both mounted and on foot often with a large levy of indifferent quality composed by zealots, monks and the like who would join the fight.

[motiv-8]

No, crusading armies had a dimension that was unlike most armies of the time -- a significant representation of the church in the form of a Papal Legate -- the nominal "official" leader of the movement -- as well as a large mass of civilian followers, mostly the family of those soldiers who could afford to bring them along. You didn't typically see these in a regular European army forming for campaign or battle, especially the amounts of pilgrims that accompanied the barons to the Levant.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

No, crusading armies had a dimension that was unlike most armies of the time -- a significant representation of the church in the form of a Papal Legate -- the nominal "official" leader of the movement -- as well as a large mass of civilian followers, mostly the family of those soldiers who could afford to bring them along. You didn't typically see these in a regular European army forming for campaign or battle, especially the amounts of pilgrims that accompanied the barons to the Levant.

Of course, the meaning of this is that Crusading armies were merely and usually larger than an average Feudal European Army of the time. Crusading was often better looked at than private campaigns conducted by the nobility or even the king, and so a large number of nobles that would usually stay at home during regional conflict took in arms for Crusading. Example is a simple comparison in numbers between Barbarossa's army during the Lombard war and during the Third Crusade.

However, their essential components were still the same as in an ordinary European army no matter how magnified they were.

[motiv-8]

Right, right, I was specifically referring to the First Crusade.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Right, right, I was specifically referring to the First Crusade.

The paradigm is still roughly the same, that was just the first example in my head. No matter, the Crusading Army took a serious amount of attrition before it even reached the Holy Lands.

[motiv-8]

Indeed, the cost of crossing an arid Anatolia and Syria during the summer-time. Absolutely no rainfall during the season, from what I understand.

[motiv-8]

Oh? I wasn't aware of the existence of heavily armored horseman as in the Western European fashion by Alexios's reign.

[Manco]

I seem to recall that the Muslims in the Levant themselves fielded cavalry very similar to our knights. There's a quote somewhere from a Muslim writer who said that from a distance the troops looked almost the same.
If my memory is correct that means they would hardly be inexperienced with shock cavalry