Greatest Historical Military General in the Middle-East?

[Sipahi]

True to an extent.The Crusaders were also constantly undermining each other due to the fact that different patrons in Europe trying to win supremacy in Jerusalem.

But they all were determine to defend Jerusalem by all means.

True but there were also the Egyptians,the Seljuks in Asia Minor,different emirs in Lebanon,etc.

Already mentioned in my previous post, they were merely city states with power divided, there was a time when crusaders were on the gate of Damascus.

Only the knights,the religious orders and some professional crossbowmen were of good fighting stock but their numbers were few.The infantry was ussually of poor quality vs large numbers of muslim cavalry and archers.Also,European knights were often quite dimwitted in battle,abandoning all reason in suicidal cavalry attacks.

Tens of thousands of mercenaries from all over the Europe were gathered for "salvation" and to get rid of their "Sins".

They are all were better train and equipped then Muslim forces.

No,they didn't .Asia Minor was under Turk and Byzantine rule.The Byzantines,altough Christians and initially supportive of the Crusades in time stopped helping because they got weary of these Western knights.And fot good reasons,as the crusader sacking of Constantinople would proove.

Constantinople helped them in initial phase of their campaign and If you go to history byzantine emperor was the one who wrote a letter to POPE for resurgence of Muslims and ask some knights for help but he was scared when he tens of thousands of knights on the gate of Constantinople.

It was a tremendous task of supplying a base thousands of miles from your home in medieval times,especially when Europeans fought against each other on the continent also.

They have managed to conquer 8,9 cities and there was no shortage of food and logistics and Europe was providing them men power all the time.

Not likely.He was at home with ample troops ,reserves,manpoer and allies on which he could call upon while the Crusaders had little numbers,few reserves and besieged in fortresses with their home bases far away.It was a foregone conclusion.

Surely he was home but he was fighting with other Muslim factions most of the times, when he managed to get syria and egypt under his rule he won against crusader. Unity was the key.

 

[flamer84]

But they all were determine to defend Jerusalem by all means.

That doesn't mean they were always united.The Crusades are filled with infighting between varius christian lords or kings.See the Third Crusade,Philipe of France clashed with Richard and left,same for Leopold of Austria.

Tens of thousands of mercenaries from all over the Europe were gathered for "salvation" and to get rid of their "Sins".

They are all were better train and equipped then Muslim forces.

Tens of thousands over the course of 150 years but at any given time they were mostly outnumbered.

One can not deny that coming by ship (often loosing men and material to storms) or by land through Anatolia (exposed to heat exhaustion and Turk skirmishers) was a heavy task while your enemy was at home with plenty of troops to spare.

How were they better equipped ? They were in unfamiliar ground and altough the knights had superb armour they were n danger of over heating in the desert and they were heavy against quick muslim horse archers.

Constantinople helped them in initial phase of their campaign and If you go to history byzantine emperor was the one who wrote a letter to POPE for resurgence of Muslims and ask some knights for help but he was scared when he tens of thousands of knights on the gate of Constantinople.

Yes,initially,but that changed.

They have managed to conquer 8,9 cities and there was no shortage of food and logistics and Europe was providing them men power all the time.

Yes there was.Many soldiers often left after a few years,same for European royalty who faced challenges at home. I say this again ,to have an ideea what this meant,imagine muslims sailing to Rome,Italy,occupy the city and keeping it for 100 years .

Surely he was home but he was fighting with other Muslim factions most of the times, when he managed to get syria and egypt under his rule he won against crusader. Unity was the key.

He won because of many other factors.Here's a few.

1.Crusader stupidity at Hattin when they strayed away from water supplies.

2.Hospitaler stupidity at Arsuf where they ignored Richard's orders and charged earlier than programmed.Yes,the battle was won for the Crusaders but if they had listened to Richard orders and wait until the entire Muslim army was engaged the victory would have been total and Salladin would be without an army.

3.Because Frederick Barbarossa Holy German Emperor was unlucky when his horse tripped and drowned him.If he would have managed to reach the the Levant with his 20.000 German host after smashing his way through a numerically superior Seljuk force,Salladin ,between the aging but determined emperor (just read about him at Iconium and how he refused to pay for safe passage and decided to cut his way through....one tough old man !) and Richard would have been done for.

4.Because Phillipe of France had to settle dinastic disputes and quickly left the Levant after Acre.

 

[Sipahi]

That doesn't mean they were always united.The Crusades are filled with infighting between varius christian lords or kings.See the Third Crusade,Philipe of France clashed with Richard and left,same for Leopold of Austria.



Tens of thousands over the course of 150 years but at any given time they were mostly outnumbered.

One can not deny that coming by ship (often loosing men and material to storms) or by land through Anatolia (exposed to heat exhaustion and Turk skirmishers) was a heavy task while your enemy was at home with plenty of troops to spare.

How were they better equipped ? They were in unfamiliar ground and altough the knights had superb armour they were n danger of over heating in the desert and they were heavy against quick muslim horse archers.



Yes,initially,but that changed.



Yes there was.Many soldiers often left after a few years,same for European royalty who faced challenges at home. I say this again ,to have an ideea what this meant,imagine muslims sailing to Rome,Italy,occupy the city and keeping it for 100 years .



He won because of many other factors.Here's a few.

1.Crusader stupidity at Hattin when they strayed away from water supplies.

2.Hospitaler stupidity at Arsuf where they ignored Richard's orders and charged earlier than programmed.Yes,the battle was won for the Crusaders but if they had listened to Richard orders and wait until the entire Muslim army was engaged the victory would have been total and Salladin would be without an army.

3.Because Frederick Barbarossa Holy German Emperor was unlucky when his horse tripped and drowned him.If he would have managed to reach the the Levant with his 20.000 German host after smashing his way through a numerically superior Seljuk force,Salladin ,between the aging but determined emperor (just read about him at Iconium and how he refused to pay for safe passage and decided to cut his way through....one tough old man !) and Richard would have been done for.

4.Because Phillipe of France had to settle dinastic disputes and quickly left the Levant after Acre.

The Bottom line is, once Saladin get back Jerusalem from Franks, no one was able to reclaim it for almost thousand years.

He hit right at the nerves and moral.

 

[flamer84]

The Bottom line is, once Saladin get back Jerusalem from Franks, no one was able to reclaim it for almost thousand years.

He hit right at the nerves and moral.

That still doesn't make him a military genius just a good politician and a lucky man owing his succes to circumstances.

Your statement is factually incorect,Frederick the 2nd Holy Roman Emperor did retake Jerusalem in 1229 and held it until 1244 when it was sacked by the Kharezmians.

After that,nobody even seriously tried to retake it.

 

[Sipahi]

That still doesn't make him a military genius just a good politician and a lucky man owing his succes to circumstances.

Your statement is factually incorect,Frederick the 2nd Holy Roman Emperor did retake Jerusalem in 1229 and held it until 1244 when it was sacked by the Kharezmians.

After that,nobody even seriously tried to retake it.

it was not a war, its was an agreement

 

[flamer84]

it was not a war, its was an agreement

But the city was retaken nonetheless.And to enlist Kharezmian help was idiotic to say the least as they sacked Christian and Muslim places of worship to the ground.

 

[Sipahi]

But the city was retaken nonetheless.

Al Aqsa and the dome of the rock was in Muslim control and several other territories also.

Again Al Kamil was scared of his brothers and cousins who were ruling city states in Syria and the truce was a outcome of that fear.

Once again when Muslims got united under a single flag they lost Jerusalem again.

unity is the key always,

 

[flamer84]

Al Aqsa and the dome of the rock was in Muslim control and several other territories also.

Again Al Kamil was scared of his brothers and cousins who were ruling city states in Syria and the truce was a outcome of that fear.

Once again when Muslims got united under a single flag they lost Jerusalem again.

unity is the key always,

You're not getting the points.It's not like the Christians were united and entire Europe flowed to the Levant,they were just adventurers far away from home.

This topic is about military geniuses and Salladin wasn't one of them when it came to commanding an army.Frederick's Barbarossa horse should be equally celebrated.

Do you really think Salladin could have prevailed if the old emperor would have reached the Levant and joined Richard ?

 

[Sipahi]

You're not getting the points.It's not like the Christians were united and entire Europe flowed to the Levant,they were just adventurers far away from home.

This topic is about military geniuses and Salladin wasn't one of them when it came to commanding an army.Frederick's Barbarossa horse should be equally celebrated.

Do you really think Salladin could have prevailed if the old emperor would have reached the Levant and joined Richard ?

For me He was, for you may be not.

Barbarossa never managed to reach holy lands so he is out of the picture.

 

[flamer84]

For me He was, for you may be not.

Barbarossa never managed to reach holy lands so he is out of the picture.

For history he wasn't.(i mean a military genius-he's ofcourse a hero for the muslim world).Yours is an emotional POV ,mine is factually corect.

I mentioned Barbarossa just because he's another clue in Salladin's luck.His arrival would have meant the fall of Jerusalem and it's not like he was defeated en route,his horse slipped and he drowned after destroying the Seljuks in Anatolia.That is sheer bad luck.

 

[Sipahi]

For history he wasn't.(i mean a military genius-he's ofcourse a hero for the muslim world).Yours is an emotional POV ,mine is factually corect.

maybe

 

[BordoEnes]

That still doesn't make him a military genius just a good politician and a lucky man owing his succes to circumstances.

Your statement is factually incorect,Frederick the 2nd Holy Roman Emperor did retake Jerusalem in 1229 and held it until 1244 when it was sacked by the Kharezmians.

After that,nobody even seriously tried to retake it.

Most Historians would agree with what you said. Richard was a good general and tactician, but a lousy politician and ruler. Whilst Saladin was an excellent politician, strategist and ruler, but a lousy tactician. Richard's life is true to his nickname and was a product of his time and as such a warrior first and foremost. At that he excelled.

As a general i would rate Richard 3 out of 5(after all he only fought 4 battles. Granted he won them but still), but as a king and ruler he would have been probably one of the worst out there. He made alot dumb decisions after the Crusades. I mean yeah you can be magnificant, but dont be dumb enough to go through enemy territory when marching back to home(resulting in his capture and "King's random" being payed). And you certainly dont start another war with the Franks after you bankrupted your realm due to your impulsive campaigne against Muslims.

For history he wasn't.(i mean a military genius-he's ofcourse a hero for the muslim world).Yours is an emotional POV ,mine is factually corect.

I mentioned Barbarossa just because he's another clue in Salladin's luck.His arrival would have meant the fall of Jerusalem and it's not like he was defeated en route,his horse slipped and he drowned after destroying the Seljuks in Anatolia.That is sheer bad luck.

Maybe that was a touch of the divine

Jokes aside nobody can tell how alternative history would have turned out to be, you can only guess. Maybe it would have turned out for the worst. I mean from what i know the Phillips, Richard and Barbarossa held no love for each other.

Personally i actually quite like Richards. I mean he was one of the few kings that wasnt just romanized fairy tale. He was actually that brave king that fought alongside his men. I would call him an instinctive leader, which can be for the worst or best.