DJacobAP OP t1_j3yrfl9 wrote

Thank you, this is the sort of answer I was looking for. That makes sense, the 'Franks' would've been bound to their land and lord whereas these nomads were more mobile and the prospect of a long siege, especially against a city like Antioch wouldn't have seemed very appealing. Infact now that I think about it, I haven't read about any long siege of a major crusader city until very late into the period, whereas the crusaders had pretty much taken Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli by siege. Long and brutal ones in the case of the latter two.


DJacobAP OP t1_j3yo6sa wrote

That one did pop up in my mind because asbridge mentioned that a similar problem plagued saladin's army at Acre during the third crusade. But Saladin's army was more geographically diverse than that of a regional bey like Il Ghazi.

The book is nice, a fun read. I have read other works by asbridge previously and he is a good writer, also uses both islamic and Christian sources to provide a good balanced perspective.