Recent comments in /f/history

Irichcrusader t1_j414719 wrote

Reply to comment by failsafe07 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

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.

1

Irichcrusader t1_j412fdv wrote

Reply to comment by Litenpes in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Armies eat through money like you wouldn't believe and before the rise of modern banking institutions, it was extremely difficult to raise funds for a protracted campaign. I don't know if Arab armies in this time differed much from Europeans in how they raised funds, but I can say that European rulers in the time of the Crusades had to go to extreme measures to get the necessary cash. This usually involved selling or loaning out their land to monasteries for a set number of years, selling titles, taking loans from Jewish moneylenders (or outright stealing it) and gathering whatever they could through new taxes. Even then, most Crusaders who came back alive tended to be near penniless.

10

Spacefungi t1_j41200a wrote

Reply to comment by Irichcrusader in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

The problem is that GRRM gives us an insider view, which confirms all these outsider stereotypes to be true.

If we would only learn about the dothraki culture from outsiders and hearsay in his books it would indeed be more realistic, but instead we witness ourselves that the dothraki do indeed murder/rape people of their own ingroup, senseless killing of sheep and other nonsense ourselves when we follow characters inside a dothraki group.

21

Irichcrusader t1_j411du8 wrote

Reply to comment by Spacefungi in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

I suppose you could argue that this view of the Dothraki in GRRM's works comes from the fact that we're usually getting an outsider's perspective on them. Of course they seem utterly barbaric to more "civilized" peoples because all they ever see is the violence and rape, never what goes on in the quieter moments.

That said, surly it can't be denied that nomadic tribes on the warpath could be utterly brutal. There's a reason why groups like the Mongol's had a fearsome reputation, they tended to make terrible examples of cities that defied them.

2

Spacefungi t1_j40zkbr wrote

Reply to comment by KwisatzHaderach38 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

GRRM based the Dothraki on stereotypes about nomadic people, not on the nomadic horse cultures themselves and is often even as far as from the truth as you could be.

https://acoup.blog/2020/12/04/collections-that-dothraki-horde-part-i-barbarian-couture/

Some notable examples: Dothraki hate sheep to the point of killing them and not eating them and only care about horses, while for nomads livestock is their literal sustenance. Dothraki culture also seems to revolve strongly around rape and murder and other barbaric acts that would not be condoned in true historical nomadic cultures.

This wouldn't even be that bad if GRRM just said it was fantasy. Instead he claims it is realistic worldbuilding based on real cultures with a dash of fantasy.

27

Redingold t1_j40wuj3 wrote

Reply to comment by leb0b0ti in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Because Martin directly claims they're an amalgam of real historical cultures with only a dash of fantasy. He makes a direct claim to historical accuracy and it doesn't hold up in the least. Martin has consciously cultivated the appearance that his series is "how it really was" and that in turn distorts what people think about real history.

14

nykgg t1_j40v50x wrote

Reply to comment by DJacobAP in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

I’m very surprised and pleased by your thread because he was my undergraduate dissertation advisor. I’d also obviously recommend reading his work (especially The Crusades), but also another book he put me on to: Saladin: The Triumph of the Sunni Revival by Azzam. Potentially the best Saladin biography I’ve read

2

mrgoyette t1_j40leoc wrote

Reply to comment by GRCooper in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Specifically regarding Antioch, the Crusaders were definitley not 'unifed in purpose'. Other leading Crusaders disputed Bohemond's claim as 'Prince of Antioch'.

But, there was such an anarchy unleashed in the region at the time that Bohemond basically squatted in Antioch while the other Crusader elements and Byzantine forces were busy pursuing different aims (securing the Cillician borderlands, marching on Jerusalem).

2

mrgoyette t1_j40l3ol wrote

Reply to comment by Stalins_Moustachio in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Thank u for pointing these out.

There's a lot of framing in these responses that it was the Muslims who were landless raiders in the First Crusade. The reality is the opposite. Especially when you are considering the specific case of Antioch.

Bohemond (founder of Antioch) was an Italo-Norman from the Hauteville family. The Hautevilles were raider/mercenaries who emigrated to southern Italy and took their land by the sword. The Italo-Normans left French Normandy because of their inability to pursue landed claims there.

Bohemond is frozen out of his own Italo-Norman claims by his father Robert Guiscard. Guiscard had remarried and declared Bohemond a bastard. Bohemond spent the following decades pursuing (and failing to secure) Byzantine lands for himself in Southern Italy and the Balkans. His campaigns often failed due to his inability to maintain supply, pay, and discipline among his men when attempting to seige strongpoints like Larissa in Thessaly (sound familiar??).

The First Crusade 'starts' while Bohemond is sacking Amalfi (again). He decides his prospects are better sacking the Byzantine/Muslim lands in Asia Minor, gathers a crew, and joins the Crusade.

Bohemond's successes in the First Crusade are won by realpolitik. He prevents his men from pillaging the Byzantine heartland and swears an oath of obedience to the Emperor Alexios. This helps him move in to position in the Byzantine borderlands that he's allegedly winning back for the Byzantines.

When the main Byzantine forces are occupied elsewhere , and Bohemond and his men join the siege of Antioch, he realizes his political opportunity. He opens negotiations with the commander of Antioch once the Byzantine representative leaves. Bohemond cuts a deal with the commander of Antioch (a non-Turk who was stifled by the Seljuk Turk ruling administration of the region). Bohemond pays him off and gains access for himself and his men into Antioch, circumventing the need for a long siege.

Bohemond then declares himself 'Prince of Antioch'. The other Crusaders and Byzantine operatives in the region are otherwise occupied in the anarchy of the moment of the First Crusade. No one disputes Bohemond's claim, likely because these disparate and unaligned forces are focused on the rest of Syria, the Cilician borderlands, and pushing their way to Jerusalem.

Bohemond stays put. He cares about establishing a claim to 'his' land, not 'saving' the Holy Land. After 20 years of fighting (for and against!) Byzantines, Lombards, Venetians, Turkish Muslims, Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, and his own Italo-Norman bretheren, he finally won some land for himself.

13