Crusades armies

[Shqiponja_Hayabusa]

I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" recently and I got intruiged by the western armies, specially by the religios orders, the knights were pretty fascinating. So I read alot about the crusades, the battles,the leaders.

Now how come I read only about one pitched battle where the european armies won against the saracens?
Obviously there must be more, but in comparison to the eastern victories are only a few.

The battle of Arsuf, where there were 4 european powers: English (Richard), French, Austrian, Trippoli, the Templar Order, Hospitallers against one army of Saracens.

In sieges the Europeans showed they were difficult to deal with, that's why Saladin insisted in open battles.
And when he had one in Hattin, immeaditely the disaster.

What made the Eastern armies have the upperhand in pitched battles? The archers, the horse archers? Didn't the knights wear armour that could defflect the arrows? Even if they had advantages in the begining, after 100 years or more coulnd't the already living there europeans learn to deal with them a little better? Example the romans learned how to deal with the Parthians and agaisnt their horsearchers effectively.

Why didn't Richard bring a couple of thousands long bowmen which were famous for hight rate of fire and long shots?

[Manco]

Thiudareiks made a list of Crusader battles once, and the Crusaders actually won slightly more than they lost.

edit: here it is

SMTurnbull was talking about Islamic vs Western European armies. But since it seems some people want to cling to the myth that the Crusaders were incompetent on the battlefield, here's a breakdown of Crusader vs Eastern Muslim battles, as per this list of battles and sieges of the Crusades. Battles involving non-Eastern forces (eg Bulgarians, Moorish and Byzantines) and some battles that were draws have been omitted. M = Muslim victory, C = Crusader victory

1. Siege of Acre - C
2. Siege of Acre (1291) - M
3. Battle of Ager Sanguinis - M
4. Battle of Aintab - C
5. Battle of al-Babein - M
6. Battle of Al-Fule - C
7. Battle of Al-Sannabra - M
8. Siege of Antioch (1268) - M
9. Siege of Antioch (1098) - C
10. Battle of Arsuf - C
11. Battle of Artah - C
12. Battle of Ascalon - C
13. Siege of Ascalon (1153) - C
14. Battle of Azaz - C
15. Battle of Al Mansurah - M
16. Battle of Belvoir Castle - C
17. Battle of Bosra - M
18. Battle of Cresson - M
19. Siege of Damascus - M
20. Siege of Damietta (1218) - M
21. Siege of Damietta (1249) - C
22. Battle of Dorylaeum - C
23. Battle of Dorylaeum (1147) - M
24. Battle of Dorylaeum - C
25. Battle of Fariskur - M
26. Battle of Habv - C
27. Battle of Harim - M
28. Battle of Harran - M
29. Battle of Hattin - M
30. Battle of Inab - M
31. Battle of Jacob's Ford - M
32. Battle of Jaffa - C
33. Siege of Jerusalem (1099) - C
34. Siege of Jerusalem (1187) - M
35. Siege of Kerak - C
36. Battle of La Forbie - M
37. Siege of Maarat - C
38. Battle of Marj Ayyun - M
39. Battle of Marj es-Suffar - C
40. Battle of Melitene - M
41. Battle of Montgisard - C
42. Siege of Nicaea - C
43. Battle of Ramla I - C
44. Battle of Ramla II - M
45. Battle of Ramla III - C
46. Battle of Sarmin - C
47. Siege of Tripoli - C
48. Battle of Yibneh - C

So that's 48 battles and sieges with the Muslims winning 22 and the Crusaders winning 26. Which means, as I first said, they were about even but with the Crusaders being slightly ahead on victories in total.

So can we finally consign this total nonsense about the eastern Muslim armies being superior to the Crusaders in the field to the trash can where it belongs?

[Old_Scratch]

What made the Eastern armies have the upperhand in pitched battles? The archers, the horse archers? Didn't the knights wear armour that could defflect the arrows? Even if they had advantages in the begining, after 100 years or more coulnd't the already living there europeans learn to deal with them a little better? Example the romans learned how to deal with the Parthians and agaisnt their horsearchers effectively.

Some of the more disastrous losses suffered by the crusaders were usually the result of exceedingly poor leadership and decision making. Not as much the result of facing superior forces or tactics. And as already pointed out, the crusaders had their share of successes too.

Why didn't Richard bring a couple of thousands long bowmen which were famous for hight rate of fire and long shots?

The English hadn't yet devoted themselves to the practice of archery to the extent of having a pool highly trained archers by the time of the Third Crusade. That came about more in the 13th and 14th centuries. Also, mercenary crossbowmen were widely available and effective. It would have been an interesting match up though, English longbowmen vs Saljuq ghulams.

[Trey]

I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" recently and I got intruiged by the western armies, specially by the religios orders, the knights were pretty fascinating. So I read alot about the crusades, the battles,the leaders.

Now how come I read only about one pitched battle where the european armies won against the saracens?
Obviously there must be more, but in comparison to the eastern victories are only a few.

The battle of Arsuf, where there were 4 european powers: English (Richard), French, Austrian, Trippoli, the Templar Order, Hospitallers against one army of Saracens.

In sieges the Europeans showed they were difficult to deal with, that's why Saladin insisted in open battles.
And when he had one in Hattin, immeaditely the disaster.

What made the Eastern armies have the upperhand in pitched battles? The archers, the horse archers? Didn't the knights wear armour that could defflect the arrows? Even if they had advantages in the begining, after 100 years or more coulnd't the already living there europeans learn to deal with them a little better? Example the romans learned how to deal with the Parthians and agaisnt their horsearchers effectively.

They didn't always have the upperhand in pitched battles, in fact I believe they lost most of them. You see, the Crusaders were always outnumbered in the 'Holy Land'. Therefore, it was in their interest to engage in decisive battles that would break the enemy. You'll read many battles, where minuscule numbers of knights are able to charge through the enemy.

The reason why the Crusaders won and lost often stemmed from the same reason; Heavily armored cavalry charges. They won or lost on the backs of their knights. The knights were impetuous, and 'tactics' were often deemed as avoiding combat with the enemy. Therefore, the battles would often open with a crusader charge. The Muslim horse archers were often able to feign retreat and string out the more heavy cavalry, eventually exhausting them. They would then use their superior numbers and better tactical organization to overwhelm the enemy. However, if they were not able to avoid the charge, they would often break. I can't find it now, but I'll look for a book I have on the Crusades which lists several battles in detail.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

They didn't always have the upperhand in pitched battles, in fact I believe they lost most of them.

Didn't you see my list of battles that Manco reposted above? It's only one post above yours, so it's hard to miss. They didn't lose most of them at all; and they won more than they lost.

[Trey]

Didn't you see my list of battles that Manco reposted above? It's only one post above yours, so it's hard to miss. They didn't lose most of them at all; and they won more than they lost.

Whoops, that's what I meant.

[hellheaven1987]

Didn't you see my list of battles that Manco reposted above? It's only one post above yours, so it's hard to miss. They didn't lose most of them at all; and they won more than they lost.

Interesting, can you remake this list by adding time of each battle and rearrange it from early to late?

[Ringeck]

Interesting, can you remake this list by adding time of each battle and rearrange it from early to late?

Not be be an asshat, but since the date of the battles are all pretty easy to come by (seeing as they're all on our favorite lowest-common denomitor online encyclopedia), you could always do it yourself? You know, to contribute?

[hellheaven1987]

Not be be an asshat, but since the date of the battles are all pretty easy to come by (seeing as they're all on our favorite lowest-common denomitor online encyclopedia), you could always do it yourself? You know, to contribute?

Well, I want to do that but fear TG would sue me for violating his copy right...

[Ace_General]

I had a discussion with my uncle about this and one reason why the crusader knights were so effective was that after a charge, the knights would retire behind a formation of spearmen and crossbow men and regroup for another attack

During some of the early battles, a good chunk of muslim losses came from them trying to break through the heavily armored and armed crusader infantry that was protecting the Calvary when it was regrouping

So this is how the crusaders wanted the battle to go

Knights charge and try to run over muslims, then if that doesnt work, rest and regroup behind infantry

The muslims attack the crusader crossbows and spearmen and get chopped to hamburger,

Then the well rested crusader knights charge the exhausted muslims and run them over

And if that dosn't work, or the Muslim general was pretty crafty and did things like feign retreat to cut off and kill the knights, then the crusaders were in trouble

[Shqiponja_Hayabusa]

I had a discussion with my uncle about this and one reason why the crusader knights were so effective was that after a charge, the knights would retire behind a formation of spearmen and crossbow men and regroup for another attack

During some of the early battles, a good chunk of muslim losses came from them trying to break through the heavily armored and armed crusader infantry that was protecting the Calvary when it was regrouping

So this is how the crusaders wanted the battle to go

Knights charge and try to run over muslims, then if that doesnt work, rest and regroup behind infantry

The muslims attack the crusader crossbows and spearmen and get chopped to hamburger,

Then the well rested crusader knights charge the exhausted muslims and run them over

And if that dosn't work, or the Muslim general was pretty crafty and did things like feign retreat to cut off and kill the knights, then the crusaders were in trouble

So that's the tactic they used! Thank's to your uncle