Ataraxia25 t1_j3yppq7 wrote
Reply to comment by GRCooper in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
Are you sure bc that logic doesn't track with facts of history- like the European powers were constantly fighting each other back in Europe way more than the the powers in the Middle East fought each other. So by your logic the crusader armies should be harder to maintain in the field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#1st%E2%80%9310th_century_AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East#Medieval_times
GRCooper t1_j3ys1p9 wrote
Yeah, but the crusaders weren’t in Europe at the time. They were, to quote Jake and Elwood, on a mission from god
Yeah, I’m sure they didn’t always get along, but if you and your men decide to go it alone in the Levant, you’re a thousand miles from home surrounded by people who want to kill you. That’s a big incentive toward working together
Additionally, the crusaders kind of congregated in Constantinople. Much of the trip they’d have been with their own guys, and probably wouldn’t have seen their European enemies until they’d entered enemy territory.
It’s a lot easier to bug out and go home if it’s a few dozen miles away.
failsafe07 t1_j3zapad wrote
The crusaders were a deeply fractious bunch almost from the get go though. It would repeatedly bite them throughout the period. It didn’t during the first crusade in large part because the region was, if anything, even more fractious than the crusaders were, and to top it off, the specific parts of the region were something of a liminal space between the major powers of the region so after Antioch there wasn’t really anybody with any particular ability or will to stop the progress of the crusade to Jerusalem, so all the infighting wound up not really mattering
mrgoyette t1_j40lr1m wrote
Yes, in fact the Fatimids arguably encouraged the Crusaders to make progress to Jerusalem. The political situation in the region at the time was far more complex than many responses here are making it out to be.
Irichcrusader t1_j414719 wrote
In addition, the leaders of the First Crusade deserve credit for (mostly) putting their differences aside and trying to work as a unified army. Bohemond, due to having the most war experience, was voted as the overall commander, but he still had to consult the other leaders when a big decision had to be made.
By contrast, a lot of later Crusades included several Kings with large egos that made it very difficult to work with one another. Of course, that's only one factor in why later Crusades failed. The Fourth Crusade, for all its twists and turns, showed remarkable cohesion and that may well be because it was a "Princes" crusades made up of Counts, Dukes, and whatnot that were prepared to fight under a single elected leader.
DJacobAP OP t1_j3yqkme wrote
No they aren't wrong I'd say. Levant was deeply fractured when the crusades began, with the seljuq sultanate in a decline and local warlords vying for power
Mackntish t1_j3zlg4v wrote
>List of conflicts in Europe
Are you joking? Arabs had a different take on the feudal system (Itqa) that was less centralized. The had multiple heads of faith, mostly terrestrial kings an emperors claiming the titles. They had a different marital structure leading to more pretenders to claims. They had a different succession system, often favoring the bold and ruthless. They lived on totally different lands with different forms of sustenance gathering. If you buy into Marx's substructure and superstructure, their dominant economic activities were different, changing every fabric of their society when compared to Europeans. Their armies were drafted differently, paid differently, drilled differently, comprised of different types of units, with different oaths to their lords, and with religion playing a different role.
You can't just wave that away with a chronological list of wars. It's not even relevant! Army cohesion is an internal affair. War is an external affair. What you've said is the worst type of history. It sounds plausible at first blush, but could not misrepresent the situation more if you had tried.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments