Keep in mind that Saladin ruled one of the greatest Muslim empires, Il Ghazi meanwhile was the governor of a Syrian city. He simply did not have the resources to maintain his army to the same extent as Saladin.

Yes they were called ‘Amsars’. The parent comment is historically inaccurate

Muslim armies at the time, mainly Ilghazis army were primarily made of Turkmen nomads. These nomads liked short campaigns and lucrative raids, however long sieges where one would sit in front of city or castle walls weren’t popular. These nomads would rather just plunder what was in the open, and go back to their horses and sheep. Another thing to note about them is they did not recognize the local emirs/beys as their rulers. These were wild men of the steppe. They avoided paying taxes and disobeyed laws. When things got tough, they would just move somewhere else without any regard for land ownership. Even the Turkish sultanates including Safavids and Ottomans had a hard time controlling the nomads. As a result, the nomads made for undisciplined armies. A Frankish serf or noble would face repercussions for deserting the army of the king, meanwhile the nomads would just move somewhere else.

Seljuk leaders were especially plagued by anarchy after death of Malik Shah. Seljuk central authority was non existent, and the various armies fielded by them would have very shaky chain of command. Among crusader armies you would have knights, and counts and the king, or an appointed commander above them. Meanwhile Seljuks armies a lot of the time would just have a bunch of lords that were not under a single commander and functioned as looser alliances. These commanders/lords would work with each other when it suited them, and simply desert when it didn’t.

I’d say what the author said is true for this time period. Two main Muslim states, Seljuks and Fatimids were collapsing at the time, and especially for the Seljuks the government authority was non existent. Without a legitimate state to pay and feed armies Muslims couldn’t maintain their armies. Though this changes with Zengids and later Ayyubids who built more centralized states that were as capable as any other state in the medieval times.

I'm pretty sure that at various times the Caliphate(s) did indeed maintain professional armies. Cities like Giza were founded to host muslim armies away from "conquered" locals to avoid provoking rebellions etc.

[removed]

Would you like to suggest any particular text? I know there is a difference but they weren't trapped. If the king of Jerusalem disbanded his levies they didn't go back to Europe

Yeah I originally asked it on the ask historians subreddit for this reason but didn't get an answer there

There are so many inaccurate statements and generalizations here, that I don't know where to start addressing them. A few of the main ones:

• Grouping up the multitude of medieval Muslim kingdoms into one generalized category;

• Arguing that Muslim armies had little to no strategy due to "Jihad", which contextually makes no sense here as a translation or tenant;

• Muslim armies had no specialization;

• Medieval Arabs were all "Tribes" who maintained a nomadic lifestyle;

• Arab political figures only trusted outsiders as fighters.

And more. Please people, it's better not to answer than to make up history as we go!

[removed]

I think you need to do some more research on how the Crusades were actually organized and functioned. There's a BIG difference between "settling down afterwards" and leaving early.

Mamluks were specialized indeed, my bad. Though they were also light cavalry units. Muslims did not have any kind of heavy units (as far as I know) until the ottomans came into the scene.

No worries - really happy to help! For a detailed breakdown of military organisation in the 12th century Levant, check out The Crusader Armies by Steve Tibble. For some more detail on Il-Ghazi, the classic reference is a biographical article by Carole Hillenbrand (whose work on the Islamic perspective on the crusades is essential reading imo).

[removed]

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.

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.

Sorry, but this is definitely not true. There was an elite class of cavaliers, commonly referred to as Fursan, who were supplemented with the highly trained and specialized Mamlukes. They were no less specialized than their European counterparts Alongside that correction, grouping together various kingdoms, empires and states under the monolith term "Muslims" does very little to reflect the diverse array of strategies, units, and tactics found across the medieval Muslim world.

I listened to a podcast with Shawcross not long ago but when I looked at my normal podcasts for history books it wasn't one of those. I'll try to remember who did it b/c it was interesting.

It was on History Extra: https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/mexico-ill-fated-austrian-emperor-podcast-edward-shawcross/

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

I’m really curious about whether other, non-human remains are also found in these bog sites. Are there other bones in there too? Surely a marsh bird must fall into the dark water occasionally. But it sounds as if these human burials are separate and pristine without other species present.

Most of them either returned after the first crusade or settled in the Levant since their lords founded their own states or acquired lordships. Besides they were connected by the sea.

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

Lots of general remarks in this comment section about jihad and fractiousness and “Arab armies,” but it’s helpful to talk about this specific situation. After the Field of Blood, Il-Ghazi didn’t besiege Antioch, but he did lead a raiding army all the way to the Mediterranean coast.

As far as we can tell from the sources, Il-Ghazi’s army in 1119 was made up primarily of Turkmen nomads. These nomads all owned horses and were capable horseback archers, making them very effective warriors in the right situations. However, their main source of income was actually herding sheep and other herd animals - most of them weren’t professional soldiers. Il-Ghazi recruited these nomads mainly from eastern Anatolia, where they would graze their herds and move from pasture to pasture. The longer they were at war and away from their herds, the less they were able to access their stable source of income.

In order to keep his army in the field for as long as possible, Il-Ghazi had to make sure he could pay them. He couldn’t give them wages like one would to professional soldiers, and he couldn’t give them land in exchange for military service like Frankish lords did to their knights. He basically promised them that they would get paid out of the things they were able to steal from raiding the countryside around Antioch.

The good thing about this system is it let Il-Ghazi and people like him do a lot of raiding, because it paid for itself to an extent. The bad thing about this system is that it restricted the things Il-Ghazi could do other than raiding. A long siege was not an attractive prospect for Turkmen nomads - their risk of injury or death was high, and they weren’t able to get wealth from raiding while besieging a city.

Il-Ghazi didn’t have enough money on hand to keep his army together long enough to besiege Antioch - the only thing he could really do (apart from taking a few small castles) was carry out a massive raiding operation, which is what he did. He didn’t achieve any major strategic victory, but he got lots of money in a short amount of time, and he bolstered his reputation with a group of effective Turkmen fighters.

Il-Ghazi couldn’t keep his army together if he wasn’t consistently raiding the countryside around Antioch to pay them. This was why it was so difficult to keep an army together for extended campaigns.

[deleted]

That's a valid point. The Turks during this period would've definitely relied mostly on horse archers mounted on light horses while the European/Frankish forces would've had an elite core of knights (who were still in a very early stage of development)

Yeah but the European forces were basically trapped in Asia and couldn't afford to make it home unless the lord they came with also wanted to leave.