I've been listening to the HIstory of the Crusades podcast, and I think the dumbest part I've come across is how Barbarossa left Germany with an army of 100,000, and by the time it reached Acre, it was only 5,000Must be a really moronic podcast considering Barbarossa could have not wielded more than 23 000 men and that he died more than a thousand kilometers away from Acre, never even reaching Syria, let alone Palestine. The most that the Turks did in Anatolia(not counting the massacre of peasants with farming equipment that is known as the Peoples Crusade) was merely skirmish and pick off undisciplined men who did not hold formation, because as far as we know, the Crusaders were still above 12 000(professional) strong in 1099 at the battle of Ascalon and they themselves report no catastrophic casualties on their way there from Nicea through Muslim territories.Ĭonsidering the amount of siege assaults they did during that couple of years and the fact that they won, simply put any notion of them having major casualties anywhere prior to Ascalon as being misleading. People constantly exaggerate the crusader casualties completely ignoring that that same army managed to (immediately after)besiege Antioch, defeat the large army of united Turks who came to relive the city and capture a good portion of the Levant shortly after. Though he was influenced a lot by the Templars.īut then agaiiiin, you have people Bohemond who somehow got stupider after the crusade ended, for whatever reason he's luck or wit turned 180 degrees.īest example would be Kilij Arslan I and Danishmend Gazi, by all means loss of Nicae and the defeat at Dorrylaem seem catastrophic at least for Kilij, but guess what they just attacked Crusaders again and again and managed to inflict some horrible defeats to them.What horrible defeats? It's like they haven't learned anything, but than again most of imbecilic decisions were made by the newcomers like Guy de Lusignan. It really baffles me, how the Crusaders were at their most successful in the first run, when they had the least bit of knowledge of Middle East and simply applied their usual military doctrine and pragmatism, how could they get so horrible after that is just beyond me. Best example would be Kilij Arslan I and Danishmend Gazi, by all means loss of Nicae and the defeat at Dorrylaem seem catastrophic at least for Kilij, but guess what they just attacked Crusaders again and again and managed to inflict some horrible defeats to them. Well the muslims had obviously more devastating victories than defeats, since their leaders remained in political power. While, on the other hand, the Crusader leaders were all warriors whose culture of chivalry was so insane that even a 16 year old leper could not avoid charging into the fray.Īh, those were the days, when the rich caused wars and then.*gasp*.actually fought in them. Perhaps because the Islamic military leaders barely ever themselves engaged the battle(cheered from the sidelines those guys) and thus, "retreated from the battlefield" the moment something went wrong? Happened more often than the opposite for the Crusaders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |