Discussion on Muslim medieval warfare

[Zaale]

Well, ansar, in fact one of the inaccuracies of BC is the super-powerful muslim units (cavalry and infantry) that never existed in reality. As KoJ I find myself confronting Egyptians with horse archery (Turkopoles) and avoiding melée because their troops (both cavalry and infantry) are by far superior to mine. That's ridiculous and I modded it.

Muslim armies historically won over the world by sheer might of numbers (with some notable exceptions like the early times in which arab armies were impulsed by islamic faith and good generals) -revised my sources, thread coming soon- but never by their military skills (except for horse archery and some elite corps). To conquer Constantinople or Acre defended by 7,000 men with hordes of 200,000 guys is hardly an achievement.

In almost every battle I read about, once caught in melée by European knights, muslim armies, even with overwhelming massive numerical superiority were utterly destroyed (Ascalon, MontGisard, Arsuf, Antioch etc), I recently read a passage in which a little group of knights lead by Raymond of Toulouse crushed a muslim force of thousands I assume in a single charge.

I know by family and friends that there's a huge amount of propaganda in the Middle East in order to restore the pride for the "military virtues" of ancestors but the true is when coming to hand to hand combat, muslim (and late Byzantines) armies were low-quality until the rise of Mamluks and the arrival of Khwarezmian cavalry (and still, for Mamluks I just discovered that they were not a match against Frankish knights in melee) Muslim armies were basically slave armies, don't forget that liberty as a concept is unknown on muslim world.

And armies of slaves can perform very well, but we know from the time of Darius and the Thermopylae, even with very good training, when confronted against free man they must rely on numbers to win.

[Ansar Warrior]

Well, ansar, in fact one of the inaccuracies of BC is the super-powerful muslim units (cavalry and infantry) that never existed in reality. As KoJ I find myself confronting Egyptians with horse archery (Turkopoles) and avoiding melée because their troops (both cavalry and infantry) are by far superior to mine. That's ridiculous and I modded it.

Muslim armies historically won over the world by sheer might of numbers (with some notable exceptions like the early times in which arab armies were impulsed by islamic faith and good generals) -revised my sources, thread coming soon- but never by their military skills (except for horse archery and some elite corps). To conquer Constantinople or Acre defended by 7,000 men with hordes of 200,000 guys is hardly an achievement.

In almost every battle I read about, once caught in melée by European knights, muslim armies, even with overwhelming massive numerical superiority were utterly destroyed (Ascalon, MontGisard, Arsuf, Antioch etc), I recently read a passage in which a little group of knights lead by Raymond of Toulouse crushed a muslim force of thousands I assume in a single charge.

I know by family and friends that there's a huge amount of propaganda in the Middle East in order to restore the pride for the "military virtues" of ancestors but the true is when coming to hand to hand combat, muslim (and late Byzantines) armies were low-quality until the rise of Mamluks and the arrival of Khwarezmian cavalry (and still, for Mamluks I just discovered that they were not a match against Frankish knights in melee) Muslim armies were basically slave armies, don't forget that liberty as a concept is unknown on muslim world.

And armies of slaves can perform very well, but we know from the time of Darius and the Thermopylae, even with very good training, when confronted against free man they must rely on numbers to win.

That's pretty inaccurate view considering the Mamluks were the only army to defeat a Mongol army in the field, first and only!

[Zaale]

Oh no, Mongol armies were defeated by the the Tang and Ming dynasties in China, and Attila (who was in fact a Mongol) was also defeated by Roman and German tribes in the Catalaunian plains. Russians, on time, also crushed the Mongols, and Byzantines annihilated several Mongol tribes. After the initial brutal impact, Mongol armies were defeated everywhere.

Mamluks were a well trained force yep, but they confronted a weakened Mongol force (Ain Jalut, 100,000 Egyptians against 10-20,000 Mongols) and from there Mongols lost their military superiority. Mamluks were superb horse archers (like Mongols) and perhaps better on melée than Mongols. They were also extremely disciplined, a very flexible force that could rely on archery, melee or complex tactics to defeat their enemies, so the tide turned up against Mongols. No mystery about it.

[Sadreddine]

Well, ansar, in fact one of the inaccuracies of BC is the super-powerful muslim units (cavalry and infantry) that never existed in reality. As KoJ I find myself confronting Egyptians with horse archery (Turkopoles) and avoiding melée because their troops (both cavalry and infantry) are by far superior to mine. That's ridiculous and I modded it.

Muslim armies historically won over the world by sheer might of numbers (with some notable exceptions like the early times in which arab armies were impulsed by islamic faith and good generals) -revised my sources, thread coming soon- but never by their military skills (except for horse archery and some elite corps). To conquer Constantinople or Acre defended by 7,000 men with hordes of 200,000 guys is hardly an achievement.

In almost every battle I read about, once caught in melée by European knights, muslim armies, even with overwhelming massive numerical superiority were utterly destroyed (Ascalon, MontGisard, Arsuf, Antioch etc), I recently read a passage in which a little group of knights lead by Raymond of Toulouse crushed a muslim force of thousands I assume in a single charge.

I know by family and friends that there's a huge amount of propaganda in the Middle East in order to restore the pride for the "military virtues" of ancestors but the true is when coming to hand to hand combat, muslim (and late Byzantines) armies were low-quality until the rise of Mamluks and the arrival of Khwarezmian cavalry (and still, for Mamluks I just discovered that they were not a match against Frankish knights in melee) Muslim armies were basically slave armies, don't forget that liberty as a concept is unknown on muslim world.

And armies of slaves can perform very well, but we know from the time of Darius and the Thermopylae, even with very good training, when confronted against free man they must rely on numbers to win.

Please tell me you are a troll.

[wudang_clown]

Please tell me you are a troll.

I've started to wonder on this, too, to be honest. Last time when I have had a discussion with Zaale he presented milder point of view. Two or three months ago he promised to make a research to back up his claims about alleged crushing Western military superiority, but as I understand, he made none.

Muslim armies were basically slave armies, don't forget that liberty as a concept is unknown on muslim world.

And armies of slaves can perform very well, but we know from the time of Darius and the Thermopylae, even with very good training, when confronted against free man they must rely on numbers to win.

You are wrong on both, composition of Muslim armies and what you think is Islamic conception of slave.

Firstly, slave troops were only one type of elite troops. Slave troops were not slaves for life and were not slaves in Greek sense (you are talking about periods distant from each other for about a dozen of centuries!). They were well trained, well paid, held extremely important offices, and in many cases were even able to establish independent dynasties and states on their own - Khwarezmshahs are only one example, Mamelukes are another. So, they were best motivated troops on the battlefield - elite is elite.

Other type of troops was professional freemen, who served rulers as elite force - for example Saladin had his halqa troops. Other than that, there was a considerable number of iqtadars - those who received fiefs in exchange of military service. Those were all totally free man, not military slaves.

Another thing - to say that Muslim world didn't know any notion of freedom is a total rubbish. Where did you find such thing, I wonder?

About Khwarezmians - they were able to hold line and beat the Mongols on several minor occasions before full invasion started and, reportedly. if not strategic mistakes, they could hold on for longer, if not prevail against Mongols - they had resources they just didn't use properly.

You are also wrong about that alleged propaganda - information I've mentioned above is available mostly in books written by Western scholars. I'm Polish, btw, I don't know any Middle Eastern language, so unless you suspect some worldwide Middle Eastern propaganda going on in the background, you are utterly wrong.

And about smashing of thousands with a single charge - I think you have watched "300" or LotR too many times. Seriously, you should read more on this topic. There is whole library on this in the Internet, I have no idea why do you choose to present simplistic and biased point of view.

[Ansar Warrior]

I was at work earlier so did not have time to properly address this .........

Point one - Muslims only won by superior numbers.

First point about the

7,000 at Constantinople vs 200,000

, anyone who know's history knows conquering that city is about getting past the fortification which was world renowned not the men inside.
Basic point about muslims relying on numbers is BS, during the Rashidun era and Muhammed's the muslim forces were almost always outnumbered in every major engagement with the Byzantines and Persians who not only had numbers but more armour and War elephants etc, the Muslims won not by numbers but by superior tactics and superior cavalry (not in armour but in skill), Khalids Mobile Guard were the main reason for their victories not numbers.

Point two - Muslim armies defeated in melee

(Ascalon, MontGisard, Arsuf, Antioch etc)

which one of these cities had an imperial or royal force protecting it against Europe's best warriors??
First off saying muslim armies is a pretty ignorant term to use, there was no "muslim" army at this time there were multiple kingdoms mainly more concerned with each other not a few coastal towns and forts on the fringe of the arab world.
These cities and towns although they are strategically important they were not at the fore front of any Sultan of that time except the Seljuks who were the current owners, the Abbasids were concerned with Iraq (Baghdad) and the Seljuks were busy trying to stop the rising of independent kingdoms on the Iranian front, the Arabs were pacified into minding their own kingdoms and tribes in Arabia as they had become disillusioned with the Abbasid Caliphate who were giving preference to the Persian and Turkish warriors who supported them, there was no "Muslim" army till Saladin.
So in these towns and forts who were the Crusaders fighting? peasant militia and town guards .... that's it.
The only force worth mentioning that they faced were Seljuks through Anatolia who kicked their butt once and sort of lost the 2nd time.

3rd and probably the worst point - And armies of slaves can perform very well, but we know from the time of Darius and the Thermopylae, even with very good training, when confronted against free man they must rely on numbers to win.

The slave warriors Mamluks/Guhlams have nothing and I mean NOTHING in common with the "slaves" you mention from Darius's time, after you finished watching the movie 300 you should have realised that what they meant by slaves were actually Persian vassal states who had men conscripted to the persians army, so what do a bunch of conscripts have in common with hardened slave warriors trained since childhood like the Spartans except on horse back????
Mamluks were actually proud of their slave status, slave warrior was not quite the same as just a slave, slave warrior meant u dedicated your life to martial prowess and in service to your lord.

Finally this bit of rubbish -

still, for Mamluks I just discovered that they were not a match against Frankish knights in melee) Muslim armies were basically slave armies

.

Fitting when u say melee considering they were cavalry, and even in close mounted combat who told you this Western historians?
Thats like me saying Huns didnt beat the Romans in Infantry combat ....and what?

What I would put to you is this when there was an actual Muslim army (Saladin) the Crusaders got crushed, first time the muslim kingdoms united (Ayubbids/Abbasid) and the Crusaders were basically expelled, this by the guy who westerners celebrate (Saladin) why? because he was a gentleman warrior who alot of muslims felt let the Crusaders off the hook.
In the Middle East it's Baybars who is celebrated, look him up when the Crusaders came back the Ayyubids had been replaced by a Mamluk state, the first time i'd say the Crusaders had to really face the best of the Middle East fully unleashed .......... didn't go to well did it, Baybars not having any of the mercy of Saladin unleashed the Mamluks and they destroyed the Crusaders, no treaties, no agreements .... never came back after that did they.

[Zaale]

Let's see. As I said I have no military formation (I was in the army for almost 2 years but conscripted, not as a professional). My interest on History is mostly about society, and so when it comes to battles and all this entire thing of helmets and tomahawks and orders of battle the readings are very very very difficult to me. But I did it with a lot of suffering b/c I have almost no time in my life.

First of all, I almost finished a biography about Salahaddin (wrote by an Egyptian BTW, will be finished next week I hope) to catch the personality of this guy who is a myth in both Arab and European worlds. He was in fact no military genius at all, at best a mediocre -very very mediocre- general who was lucky enough to deal with Guy de Lusignan and who finished with almost no money because of the HUGE corruption in his family/administration, and begging for money to the Khalifa who utterly ignored him.

For the Agulani, the so much talked agulani, 3,000 of them covered in iron from head to toe in an army of 75,000 Muslim guys (battle of Antioch). 1,000 hungry Frankish knights and some 10,000+ infantry took Antioch from a garrison superior in numbers, smashed the relief army of 75,000 guys (3,000 agulani included) and put the entire army on the run. Then go south, put a Fatimid garrison superior in numbers under siege and took Jerusalem. And then, they still go south and crushed another Egyptian army near Ascalon. from Nicaea to Ascalon they defeated some 200,000 muslim warriors bah! it's ridiculous, unbelievable, but it's true.

Agulani and muslim heavy cavalry of all kinds, Turkish, Arab, Egyptian or Kurdish, its the same, they could do nothing. It's all in the books, nothing but real history. The Raymond of Toulouse story, charging and putting thousands of muslims on the run, the info comes from the book "Les Croisades vues par les arabes" de Amin Maalouf (Most of the time I live in France, so the vast majority of my readings are in French).

Let's see. In Islam all is God wish, all is maktoub, fate, all is already wrote and the believers must submit to his wish and to their fate, that is the wish of God. The Quran actually regulates virtually ALL aspects of life for the muslims so Freedom in the most genuine form is excluded from muslim life. But It's irrelevant, I was not talking about this, but about the influence of Islam as a whole on the military. Religious discussions are absolutely off topic for me so I close this here.

For the Constantinople walls, the 1204 crusaders (some 12,000 guys and not 200,000 with artillery) took the city fighting against Varangians and not against poorly armed/ no trained citizens and a handful of italian and spanish mercenaries. So again, the thing that intrigued me about the fall of Constantinople is "how was it possible for the Byzantines to resist for almost 50 years without army, without economy, with virtually nothing at all against the Turks?????"

Bibliography I consulted until now: "Byzantium" from John Julius Norwich (3 books), The Alexiad from Anna Komnena (not finished yet, it's very loooooooooooooooooooong) and "Le monde Byzantin, vie et mort de Byzance" de Louis Bréhier, reading now "L'empire Roman d'Orient" de Cheynet.

For Baybars, it happens that I love the guy (he and Sultan Qalaun are my favorite ones) and studied the time. When Baybars come to deal with the Crusaders, Crusaders have virtually no army at all and castles and fortress were very poorly garrisoned. Outremer was already dying mate. So he was (unlike Salahaddin) a good and energetic general but he found a kingdom of Jerusalem that was a pathetic shadow of his own past. "The Middle East in the Middle Ages: the Early Mamluk Sultanate" by Robert Irwin, also "Mamluks and Crusaders".

And no, Muslim cavalry, with some few exceptions, were not a match (and by far, very far, not even close in quality and skills) against Frankish knights. Salahaddin knew that and his tactics were almost always oriented to harass and ambush, not to engage (some on his entourage were desperate about his lack of initiative, I assume from here that he was simply "afraid" to engage in close battle and be -again- crushed). In Arsuf and Montgisard, his elite tawashi and his entire elite guys were destroyed in just "seconds". I repeat, *****seconds*****, it was not even a battle, it was a massacre.

All in the books guys but you are not forced to like it. When I do something I like to do it well. :tongue

When I finish the Salahaddin's biography, the Alexiad, and the book I'm reading about Byzantines I'll do the thread.

[Zaale]

Oh and by the way, Baybars made lots of treaties and agreements with Crusaders, it's false to say that he wanted no agreements with the Crusaders

Truces and agreements were made: with Jaffa and Beyrouth (1261), with the Hospitallers and Tyre (1267), with Beyrouth again (1269) with the Hospitallers again (1271) with Tripoli and the Templars of Tartus (1271) with Acre (1272) (source: The Middle East in the Middle Ages -Robert Irwin)

[Ansar Warrior]

Oh and by the way, Baybars made lots of treaties and agreements with Crusaders, it's false to say that he wanted no agreements with the Crusaders

Truces and agreements were made: with Jaffa and Beyrouth (1261), with the Hospitallers and Tyre (1267), with Beyrouth again (1269) with the Hospitallers again (1271) with Tripoli and the Templars of Tartus (1271) with Acre (1272) (source: The Middle East in the Middle Ages -Robert Irwin)

Hmmm I thought on the whole he was more into having them beheaded, but hey maybe your right this time? although I'm sure a bit of research would back my theory over all.

[Zaale]

Well, Salahaddin was a very curious man, thinking about opening a thread only for himself. The fact is that he won over Crusaders but only by a matter of good luck (***personal belief***). For Guy of Lusignan and the Frankish knights you're right. Don't misunderstand me, for the Frankish knights I admire their courage, their strength and skill in battle, but they were arrogant, impulsive and too often behave very stupidly. They were a pure brutal force (and I'm not even European).

Simply I found no traces in all my readings about the equality Muslim-Franksih cavalry wudang_clown and others are talking about. Read a lot about the furusiyya but it's nothing comparable to Knights individual training and mental strength. Knights had "choice" and "freedom", they fought for the glory, for the faith, for the self pride; Mamluks were slaves, mere slaves, they could be Sultans and Emirs with immense power, good training, military skills, but they were slaves. In fact, Egyptians revolted against mamluks screaming that they refused to be governed by slaves.

[Ansar Warrior]

This does not address my debunking of your comments in anyway.

The facts I've stated are also as you put it "all in the books".

You say Saladin was no military genius but then go on to say he was smart enough to wear down the Crusaders before engaging them for the final blow, seems pretty smart to me.

Battles are mean't to be won no matter how, there's no points for standing up posing with your chest all puffed out looking tough when your backs full of arrows and your bleeding to death, it was standard Turkic tactics to use hit and run, why should they do otherwise.

Compared to Guy de Lusignan who led his knights out to dehydrate half to death in the desert chasing a middle eastern army I'd say Saladin looks like a fricken genius.

[Ansar Warrior]

LMFAO at the change of the title for the thread ....... don't know who done it but your a legend. lol

[wudang_clown]

I moved the discussion, because in that other thread it was off-topic.

Zaale, despite all your readings, you are wrong.

I donn't have that much of time to discuss all points of your argumentation right now, so I will only try to address one: you are totally wrong implying that medieval Christians were totally free and Muslims were binded by their fate. Christians also believe in predestination, and in Muslim thought there is huriyya known, which means freedom.

Also, what does it mean that Mameluk can be sultan but he is mere slave anyway? "A king may be a king, but he is only a slave". That can only make sense if you add "he is a slave of God", because otherwise it's a nonsense.

And how do you know the real history? From medieval Western accounts of battles, which were political and rhetorical works, not objective reports, and which you are constantly referring to? Show us any modern scholar source explicitly stating that Western knights were superior.

What you are presenting is in my opinion very simplistic. But I like how you are absolutely sure about you point, after reading few books. Keep it up, and good luck!

[Zaale]

Well, the "absolutely" free is you that put it on the text. I was talking about another thing and not "absolutely". You're trying to understand more than I said For the Knights, all the books I read say more or less the same thing, if not directly:

*Knights were called "Iron people" by the Turks "Chivalry" Maurice Keen -implying there were not accustomed to see warriors covered in Iron from head to toe. They didn't called them "European Agulani" or "Frankish Mamluks", they called them "Iron people"(as a personal belief I assume that covering mounted warriors were an answer for Turkish and Egyptians against Frankish knights and Agulani come in reality from Persia but I could be wrong).

**Fatimid commanders were warned that Frankish knights were "fearful fighters in melee" (Amin Maalouf "Les croisades vues par les Arabes). After the first initial charge, Fatimids made their way running back to Egypt in minutes

***"A Frankish knight could break the walls of Babylon" Anna Komnena (not the Turkish knights or the Agulani or Mamluks or Kataphraktoi or whatever, the Frankish knights, only the Frankish knights)

****Alexius was worried about "Turkish shooting arrows" and his order of battle was thought to minimize losses to arrows (not to prevent Turkish charges, not fearing Agulani or Mamluks or whatever, just arrows, only arrows); on the other hand Alexius was very worried to avoid the Normand's charge against his own cavalry (So he was worried by TURKISH ARROWS and EUROPEAN KNIGHTS, IF muslim cavalry was so extremely powerful, don't you think Alexius should be terribly worried about brutal charges from muslim cavalry? , well he was not, if they were not shooting arrows, muslim cavalry was merely ignored) "The Alexiad" two different chapters confronted and very interesting to read

*****Salahaddin elite cavalry (Tawashi with yellow vests and Mamluks) was cut into pieces by Frankish knights when approached in close combat ("Salahaddin" G. Messadié)

******It's so utterly obvious to everybody that muslim cavalry simply didn't have a chance in close combat that even Arab writers report that in many chapters ("The book of contemplation" U. Ibn Munqidh)

I'll put more in time, but wudang_clown, for me it's the same. I mean, I play Abbasids and use the same tactics Turkish and Arabs used in time against knights. They pursue my horse archers, I bring them to a favorable terrain, surround them and kill them all. It was historically like that and I modded it to be that way without overpowered muslim cavalry that never existed. I also tunned down Kataphraktoi (charge cut by half, no bonus for cavalry fighting, cut also morale to 10) because Kataphraktoi in that particular time were a mere shadow of the ancient ones and were UNABLE to stop Normand knights. I like to play Byzantines but History is History and these Byzantine panzers didn't exist in that period. You can argue about playability, but it's another story then.

And BTW In exchange to my comments you had bring not even a piece of evidence in which somebody in the entire world says muslim and Frankish knights were similar in close combat. As long as I know by all that I read it's unlikely for you to find one Come back to my books (not about Agulani, the others about computers )

[Zaale]

Ansar_warrior, bye and good night

Work? what's that?

[Zaale]

No Moonflower, actually in the vast majority of encounters between crusaders and muslims, muslims outnumbered Crusaders by far (also in the Spanish Reconquista Navas of Tolosa and Alarcos), in the battle of Navas of Tolosa muslim armies numbered about 200,000 and crusaders 50,000 (4 to 1). Muslims employed light javelin cavalry against heavy christian knights but when knights charged, all the entire horde was routed

"According to legend, the Caliph had his tent surrounded with a bodyguard of slave-warriors who were chained together as a defense. The Navarrese force led by their king Sancho VII broke through this bodyguard. The Caliph escaped, but the Moors were routed, leaving some 100,000 casualties on the battlefield."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...avas_de_Tolosa

Muslim armies were HUGE, extremely HUGE when it comes to Jihad because many muslims should/wanted to participate. Europe at the time was a feudal land, composed by small towns and with a very poor economy and a extremely weak demography. Arab and Muslim lands (also the Byzantines) had the larger towns, the most populated areas, the richest economy and subsequently the bigger armies by far. And we are talking here BEFORE the slaughters caused by the Mongols in the Middle East that were also HUGE.

if you read the Ibn Batuta account and the work of the best Medievalist in France G. Duby "Féodalité" (some 1,300 pages ) you will see the disparity in resources, armies, economy and demography between Europe and the Middle East. Europe at the time was little more than hordes of brutal warriors fighting each other for land, pride, freedom, honor and even joy and poor peasants working for them. So Crusader armies must be very limited in numbers. For the Muslim Armies there's still some info for the logistics, food and pays for the soldiers in Muslim Armies and they were huge.

[Moonflower]

No Moonflower, actually in the vast majority of encounters between crusaders and muslims, muslims outnumbered Crusaders by far

Lol yes, I was acknowledging and agreeing with you on that because yes that IS true

[DMX23]

amine malouf is 62 years (and he is christian BTW) i read his book.he never claim that frankish was superior to muslims.and you are very ignorante when you speak about muslims.we are not slaves and we don't live like slaves.and maktoub=destiny= le destin.people like you read three words of arabics and thinks they are specialist on the arabs world

[Ansar Warrior]

*Knights were called "Iron people" by the Turks "Chivalry" Maurice Keen -implying there were not accustomed to see warriors covered in Iron from head to toe. They didn't called them "European Agulani" or "Frankish Mamluks", they called them "Iron people"(as a personal belief I assume that covering mounted warriors were an answer for Turkish and Egyptians against Frankish knights and Agulani come in reality from Persia but I could be wrong).

They may have called them that but they had seen fully armoured head to toe warriors (Cataphracts of Persia) for up to 500 years?

**Fatimid commanders were warned that Frankish knights were "fearful fighters in melee" (Amin Maalouf "Les croisades vues par les Arabes). After the first initial charge, Fatimids made their way running back to Egypt in minutes )

I don't think anyone doubts that when it comes to Infantry the Knights had some of the heaviest infantry in the region.

***"A Frankish knight could break the walls of Babylon" Anna Komnena (not the Turkish knights or the Agulani or Mamluks or Kataphraktoi or whatever, the Frankish knights, only the Frankish knights) )

Also no one doubts that the Knights had the best Frankish charge in the region either.

****Alexius was worried about "Turkish shooting arrows" and his order of battle was thought to minimize losses to arrows (not to prevent Turkish charges, not fearing Agulani or Mamluks or whatever, just arrows, only arrows); on the other hand Alexius was very worried to avoid the Normand's charge against his own cavalry (So he was worried by TURKISH ARROWS and EUROPEAN KNIGHTS, IF muslim cavalry was so extremely powerful, don't you think Alexius should be terribly worried about brutal charges from muslim cavalry? , well he was not, if they were not shooting arrows, muslim cavalry was merely ignored) "The Alexiad" two different chapters confronted and very interesting to read )

It's more than likely Alexius or his armies never saw a Mamluk in their lives, they fought the Seljuks not the Arab caliphs in that time.

[AnthoniusII]

I like this "super warrior" thread about western knights!
Lets see...
In 1204 western knights were like these...


NOT LIKE THIS ONE!!


It is true that 80 knights forced in retreat (not defeated) 512 cataphract style cavalrymen (Athanatoi??).
Those men looked like this.

Archontopulla!
Or like these after the western equipment imports by early Komneneans.


The guarrison of the city was 50000 men when the "besiegers" were only 12000 and only 1/10 of the where knights.
Do you think that the city fell because of the venetian asault on th esea walls?
Lets put it in a logical term.
In the wide streets of Constantinople 12000 warriors will have to deal with 50000 defenders that atleast 2000 were like these.

30000 men looked like this

and the rest of them like those i shown before.
Who would win?

The answer my friend does not rely on the total force each army had. It had to do with the lack of weal to fight because the problem was the two emperors that both ordered the same troops and one of them had those 12000 knights as mercs of him and there for they were not there as qonquerors !
Western eupropeans were extremly lucky in the 1st crusade when found the muslim world devided and in a huge conflict.
Half of muslims hate more the other half than the christians and that is why they were not united to crash those crusaders.
Westerns were also lucky because in 1200-1204 the empire of the Romans were in the middle of a political dispute about who would be the legal emperor (none was) and there for the armed forces simply waited to see who will pay them at the end!!!
If 6500 warriors kept 100000 ones out of the city's walls in 1453 ,with pure equipment and no help to come from outside then what would happen if the numbers would be 50000 defenders and 12000 attackers?
We seam to forget that crusaders had licence to enter the city to buy suplies every day...
Wars can be won or lost not only on the battlefields you know.