THE CROSS AND THE CRESCENT ARTICLE IN ERROR
I'd like to make a few comments on the article "The Cross and the Crescent: Islam vs. the Lands of Outremer" (Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 49-52). There are a number of serious, and some not so serious errors in this article, which it is unfortunate to perpetuate.
First, there were a number of statements in the article which were given as if proven historical facts, when in reality they can be nothing more than opinion. For example, "its [Crusader] armies were individually superior to anything else in that region" (p. 49 col. a). This statement is highly dubious and certainly the opposite could be argued (and indeed, I would argue) that it was the Muslim armies that were superior in almost every way to those of Europe.
A minor problem is in the entymology for the name Saracen (p. 49b). It is a Latinization of the Greek Sarakenos which is a corruption of either the Arabic Sharqieen = easterner, or more probably Sharikeen = ally, refering to the fact that the early Ghassanid Arabs served as allies of the Byzantine Greeks before the Islamic conquests.
In the Outremer army list on page 50b the Turkopoles are listed as being mounted bowmen. As I have argued in Slingshot #106 pp. 5-9, there is really no historical evidence for this-the Turkopoles were simply medium cavalry recruited from local peoples or half-breeds (see also R.C. Smail, Crusading Warfare (Cambridge, 1976) p. 112).
The Ayyubid Army list (p. 51b) has a number of inaccuracies. First, a rather picky point. Toassin is a Latinized corruption of Tawashi (which is actually an Arabicized version of a Persian word). If we are going to call the Muslim armies by Latin names, shall we not be fair and call the Crusaders Faranjis?
The actual armies of Saladin consisted of around 2S,000 regular men, roughly 8000 Egyptians, 8000 Syrians, and 8000 Iraqis + 1000 Halqa bodyguard. Of the 8000 Egyptians 6976 were Tawashis, 1553 were Qaraghulams. (See H.A.R. Gibb "The Armies of Saladin," Studies on the Civilization of Islam [London, 19621.) All were mounted archers. Thus there should be 4 times as many Tawashis as Qaraghulams instead of a 3:2 ratio given in the lists. Furthermore, the Tawashi Qaraghulam distinction only applied to Egyptian troops, i.e. less than 1/3 of Saladin's entire army. The Syrians and Iraqis also had large numbers of HC askaris, all of which were also horse archers, but which were not called Tawashis or Qaraghulams, but were known by the generic name of Askaris. The Sudanese and Auxiliary Egyptian archers were almost entirely suppressed by Saladin in 1171 (he massacred them and burnt their barracks in Cairo when they rebeled in favor of reestablishing the Fatimid Caliphate). Thus the list containing these infantry archers is highly anachronistic. Although Saladin occasionally used infantry in open battle, these types oftroops were being phased out ofhis army in favor ofthe mobile HC horse archers.
To say, as the author does, that the "Fatimids appeared similar to the Ayyubids the changeover was political, not military" is a tremendous error. The Ayyubid takeover amounted to a massive military change, from the Fatimid army composed of half infantry and half cavalry relying on cavalry melee/shock tactics to the Ayyubid armies which were almost entirely mounted relying on Central Asian horse archer tactics. Likewise, the Mamluk dynasty initiated further important military changes.
The Seljuk army list (p. 52a) also has some difficulties. The list gives 6 units of Turkoman LI. No self respecting Turkman would ever go to battle on foot. They were all mounted (they were nomads; Turkman [the correct form of Turkoman] means "Turk-like") and armed with bows as well as lances and some type of melee weapon (sword, axe, and/or mace). Seljuks and Turkmans were simply two branches of the Turkish race which included many different peoples. Were there any Turkman infantry at Dorylaum, or any other baffle? When there were infantry in Seljuk armies they were usually local Syrian urban militias (ahdath) who usually would get into battle only in defensive actions around their towns. The ahdath were also phased out of the armies by the second half of the 12th century.
Finally Ghazis were not a special class of Irr/A infantry, as the author indicates on p. 51b. Anyone, professional soldier or volunteer, who fought in a Ahad (i.e. against non- Muslim enemies) was called a Ghazi. Some might be Irr/A, but some might also be Irr/D. For example, the famous Timur Lang in his autobiography wrote, "There arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi; for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a ghazi, and if he is slain he becomes a martyr." (Tuzak-i Timuri tr. by H. Eliot p. 7).
I am fairly certain that if similar mistakes were to appear in the pages of the Courier regarding Napoleonic armies, there would be a massive outcry about it. The poor Medieval Muslim armies, however, have no one to defend their military heritage and honor. The problem essentially stems from the fact that many professional writers on wargaming, who although they are often very well informed, when they come to technical military matters of non-Europeans they usually mix everything up, and their confusion is only compounded by their readers. Thus there is a great deal of misinformation among wargamers as to the true nature of Islamic (and most other non-Western) armies. The study of Islamic military systems is only in its infancy both among wargamers and scholars alike, and care and extensive research should be taken when attempting to reconstruct the nature of Islamic armies for wargaming. -W. HAMBLIN
Let's deal with these points one at a time. First, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that the Franks were not as well-organized or disciplined as the Saracens. Whether or not arms and armor were inferior is a moot point--Frankish arms and armor were perfectly well suited to their fighting style, and it is interesting to note that the Saracens did not disdain using captured equipment (see Mathew Paris and other contemporaries). 'Well-led' is another moot point--and one that is purely a matter ofopinion, as a case can be made either way. In summary, an army that had the problems that the Franks did. as well as being consistently outnumbered by their enemies, and still lasted for two centuries, must have been superior in some way to its opponents.
As to Turkopoles, indications are that they were probably horse archers. The operational word here is 'probably'. Your article in Slingshot does nothing to contradict that supposition. Your methodology assumes that if positive proof is statistically insignificant that means that it doesn't exist. This is faulty logic. The people of Ann Arbor, Michigan who would be in a position to verify your existance are statistically 'insignificant when compared to those thousands of students and residents who never heard of you. Based on your methodology, this would indicate thatyou don't exist.
Your article did, however, show two things. Primus, there is no reference that states that the Turkopoles were not horse archers-quite the contrary! Secundus, Turkopoles often acted as skirmishers. If they weren't horse archers, how could they have been employed as skirmishers against enemies who were? To even try such a feat would quickly put Turkopoles on the endangered species list. Anyway, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I'm willing to stipulate that it's probably a duck rather than a mongoose.
As for all Moslems being sui dissant horse archers. I disagree. Fatimid and Ayyubid Egyptians were indifferent to bows at best, and like many knights, considered the archer in battle to be an unfair and bad-mannered situation (see Les Cruisades by Z. Ouldenbourge, Paris, 1957). Contemporary illustrations reproduced in 'Les Cruisades'show Turkic types with bows, and Syrians, Fatamids, and early Ayyubids without them. The artists were, for the most part local residents.
Now for Seljuk infantry. The Se1juks used Daylamis from western Turkey, as well as regular infantry from Hama, Aleppo, and Damascus. The fact that the latter three were Syrians did not stop them from serving with the Seljuk army. Incidentally, there were infantry present underJosef(his real name; Saladin was a title) at Ascalon, Montgisard, and Hattin (see Armies of the Crusades by T. Wise, London, 1978).
Also please keep in mind that when one gives specific numbers for an army's strength, they are valid only for a specific time and place. William of Tyre quotes 26,000 at Montgisard in 1177for Saladin's army, while the Historia Regni Hierosolymitani estimates 60-80,000 Saracens at Hattin in 1187, and the hinerarium Regis Ricardi estimates 30-40, 000 at Arsouf in 1191, consisting of Sudanese infantry, Bedouins, Syrian and Turkic cavalry, and a largeforce ofMamiuks. As the hinerarium Regis Ricardi is the Latin edition of an eyewitness account, it appears that not only were there infantry in the Ayyubid army, but that new Sudanese regiments were raised after the massacre of the old units in Cairo in 1169.
My remarks about the similarity between Fatimids and Ayyubids holds true up to the death of Saladin, at which time he was still trying to reorganize the army. An Ayyubid army was, after all, a joint Syrian/Egyptian venture-while the Fatimid army was merely the Egyptian elements.
As for the Ghazzi, the researcher at the Islamic Center Library in Washington, D. C. informs me that they were, specifically, religious fanatics who dwelt along the Islamic borders in their own clositered communities, and who sought martyrdom through warfare with the infidels. They were not simply moslems who participated in ajehad against the Franks. This is especially true as there never was a Jehad declared against the Franks. A Jehad is, by Koramic definition, a holy war of extermination by all Islam. In a practical sense, this means the complete agreement ofall caliphs and their imams-unanimously.
As for the epistomological genealogy of the term 'Saracen'; it being a reference to somebody who was once allied to the Byzantines appears unlikely. As the Franks were West/East oriented in their view of the world, Saracen (the spelling I gave, incidentally, was Syrian dialect) probably meant, to the Franks, "Easterner". They also occasionally used the term "paynim ".
By the way, how did you miss the manuscript type on p.50, col. I in my article that put the Bedouins in eastern Europe? Did you really think that's what Bulgarians look like? May your Camel Never Spit Upwind, -F.R. MACCRAE, PHD, ANTHRO.
MORE ON ANCIENT TERRAIN
With regard to Michael Guth's remarks on ancient terrain in the Vol V, No3 "Dispatches from the Field", I maybe able to help, having just waded through 352 ancient and medieval battles analysing terrain as part of my research for WRG 7th edition. 2% of these battles arose from amphibious landings, 2% from attempted night surprises (rarely completely successful), 1% from accidental encounters on the march, 6% attacks from theflank on a marching force (equivalent I suppose to Michael's ambush), and the remaining 89% started with both armies warned and deployed facing each other.
It was normal in the latter for one army to take up a position and wait for the other to arrive. Favourite places to wait were by a friendly or besieged enemy fortress, or on a minor river. An army waiting on a river line rarely stood on the far bank to defend it, but eithercrossed to attack when the enemy arrived, or camped and formed up well back from it. Such rivers were rarely a significant obstacle (except in rout when fugitives drown in a few inches), but were handy for drinking. 48% of face-to-face battles had one or more flanks resting on an obstacle such as the sea, a larger river, hills or marsh, but the centre was usually unencumbered. The most common feature mentioned is a gentle slope with the waiting enemy part way up.
Since 7th has larger ground and troop scales than 6th, the logic of having players choose and position terrain is weaker. At the moment, we plan two methods. The first has players provide pieces as at present, but instead of dicing to keep them, they dice to see where they appear. The player choosing a piece hasa better chance of getting it where he wants it, but things can go wrong. For example, choose a fortress, and it is most likely to appear on your rear corner, but can be on your opponent's. There is however some doubt in either case as to whose troops are inside! The other method uses three 4x2 foot boards with terrain permanently mounted, which can be assembled in 51 different ways. Each player positions one. This is espcially suitable for conventions, and could equally do for 6th.
Sorry, but the Vidlak translation of Arrian's "Order of Battle against the Alans" is not the first to appear. My translation appeared in Slingshot in the 60's, and someone else's in "History Today" more recently. I applaud his efforts, but suggest that "troop" is a better translation of turma than "company". I interpret Arrian's position as on a low saddle, which reduces overhead firing problems. I would be a lucky commander who could count on finding two isolated hills exactly the right distance apart. - PHIL BARKER
Further comments on 'CHICKEN'; (vols. V 1 & 3)
I give Mike Guth 3 cheers. Sorry, Tom, but Mike is right. To further his case, I give as examples the battles of Lake Trasimene, (2nd Punic War), Fabius's near encirclement of Hannibal, AND the attacks on parts of Caeasar's army by the Gauls during the first winter of the Conquest of Gaul. By the way, the battles lost by the Spartans were Leohajons & Sphacteria, not Pylos. - MIKE CARR, Carson, IA.
1066 AND ALL THAT!
Also, as well as being into miniatures I enjoy reenacting. I do ACW, Revolutionary War and WW1. I would very much like to get into reenacting the period of the Norman Conquest. Could you or any or your readers help me in finding an organization that does this or at least puts our a newsletter covering this period.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated. SCOTT BRODNAX
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #4
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1984 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com