Crusading Warfare

Exploring the Military History of the Crusades

William James Hamblin
 Hints
1- Watch at high resolution
(= Youtube Theater Mode)
2- pause to read text panels
3- download pdf of maps
Blue boxes reference primary
sources, and provide
quotations from primary
sources.

Gold boxes contains

references to secondary
sources.

White boxes are summaries

of primary sources.
Color coded
Green text boxes are my
analysis, notes, commentary,
and explanations.
text boxes
Brown text boxes provide
place and location names
1/11- Antioch Campaign
2c- Ralph of Caen
on Lance vs Bow
1097 October 19
 English Translation:
Bernard Bachrach and David Bachrach (trs.),
The Gesta Tancredi Of Ralph Of Caen: A
History Of The Normans On The First Crusade,
(Ashgate, 2005)

1. Publisher
https://www.routledge.com/The-Gesta-Tancredi-of-Ralph-of-Caen-A-History-of-the-Normans-
on-the-First/Caen/p/book/9781409400325

2. Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Gesta-Tancredi-Ralph-Caen-Translation/dp/0754637107/

3. Kindle
https://www.amazon.com/Gesta-Tancredi-Ralph-Caen-Translation-ebook/dp/B00D3JB8HY/
 Latin editions:
1. Radulphi Cadomensis, Tancredus,
ed. Edoardo D’Angelo
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2011)
ISBN: 978-2-503-52829-8
http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503528298-1

2. Recueil des historiens des croisades:

Historiens occidentaux, 3:587-716
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recueil_des_historiens_des_croisades

3. Radulfus Cadomensis, Gesta Tancredi in

expeditione Hierosolymitana
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/raoul.html
from Patrologia Latina
 Value and Accuracy of Ralph?

Bernard S. Bachrach, David S. Bachrach, “Ralph of

Caen as a Military Historian”
in Simon John, Nicholas Morton (eds) Crusading and Warfare in the
Middle Ages (Taylor and Francis, 2014): 87-100
ISBN 9781317156765

Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Crusading-Warfare-Middle-Ages-Representations/dp/1409461033/
Mamistra
Strategic Situation 1097/10/19
Jerablus

s
Mt
✝

s
aeu
Am
Ayas
Cyrrhus

E up
hra
te s
3
3- {10/18} Crusaders
Azaz
Alexandretta Ta March toward Artah

Darbsak Manbij ♜

asu
♜ Qalat al-Najm

Kar
Syrian
Gates
2
Crusader and Turkish armies
♜
Baghras converge on Artah
2- {10/16} Tancred crosses the f rin
A
Syrian Gates (Belen Pass)
{10/17} Tancred marches to Lake
Antioch
Artah.
Artah
Onr
ante
⚔
RF Aleppo
Antioch s
1Iron Harim Aleppo (Ridwan)
Tu Bridge
{1095-1113}
Atharib
s
te
an
nr

St Simeon
O

1- {10/16} Turks
Antioch march to Artah
(Yaghi-Siyan) Qinnasrin Eu
{1086-1098} ph
ra
te
s

Balis

Jisr
al-Shughur
tes
Onran

Bourzey
♜
 Battle of Artah
2b- My interpretation is that the Turks
1097/10/17b
were beginning to surround the
Crusaders, who charged to the east to
break out of the encirclement, and fled
back to Artah. The “charge” was thus a
organized retreat. [→WT 4.7b]

2a- {10/17} [AA 3.29e] [Robert’s Crusaders] sped on a tight

rein from the level plain through the middle of the dense
Turkish battle lines, and charged the enemy with lances held
rigid [= couched lance]. The whole company also charged Artah
with such manly boldness that they escaped from the enemy's
Orantes hands unharmed inside the gates and ramparts.
Iron
Bridge 2
♜
RF
⚔

Ora Tu
nte 1- {10/17} [AA 3.29d] For the Turks, who lay in
s
ambush across their route, took the road before
them in a great horde, so that the Gauls, who had
come out and had no way of returning or taking
refuge in the city, would be killed instantly.

Harim
Or
an
tes
 Lance vs. Bow 1 [Ralph of Caen 46b]

• In the first exchange, the [Crusader] lances were vigorous, piercing and casting down [Turks].
But soon, weakened by such a great burden, [the Crusaders] were no longer able to penetrate fully
the shields, as well as the chest and stomach armor [of the Turks].
1- “first exchange” = multiple charges, regrouping and charging again
2- “lances were vigorous, piercing and casting down” = fresh Crusaders on first attack
3- “weakened by such a great burden” = a man wielding a lance and shield in full armor, tires
rapidly. Humans can operate at peak efficiency in speed and strength only for a few minutes;
medieval combat could not go on for hours.
4- After the first charge, the knights could no longer used “couched lance,” but had to thrust and
jabbed with the lance; this would require much more energy than the couched lance.
5- “no longer able to penetrate fully the shields, as well as the chest and stomach armor” = Turks
have “shields, as well as the chest and stomach armor [peltas, pectora, clavengos]”; This passage
probably refers to soldiers from the ‘askar (‫ )ﻋﺴﻜﺮ‬of Antioch, rather than Turkmen nomad troops.
 Lance vs. Bow 2 [Ralph of Caen 46c]

• A bursting pack saddle [clitellae] weakened one horse, a short spear cut down another [horse],
and a Turkish sword laid low still another so that a [Crusader soldier] brandishing a javelin might be
thought of as a foot soldier armed with a club rather than a heavily armed mounted soldier armed
with a spear.
1- The medieval Latin clitellae generally means “pack saddle” but I take it here to mean a knight’s
saddle. It is unlikely the Crusaders took any pack animals into this battle; they would be back in
Artah. The overall meaning of the passage is that the knights became dismounted and had to fight as
infantry, which I take to mean that the saddle strap of a knight snapped in combat, causing the knight
become dismounted.
2- “short spear” = cuspis truncata, probably means either a javelin, or perhaps that the lances used
by the Turks in cavalry in close combat were shorter than the standard Crusader cavalry lance.
3- Note this discussion does not mention arrows wounding the horses; but many other texts do.
4- The result is that mounted knights became like poorly armed infantry.
 Lance vs. Bow 3 [Ralph of Caen 46d]
• The [Turkish recurved composite] bows, despite being much less expensive [than a knight’s equipment]
gave a much richer count of wounds. Bows always shoot and frequently cause wounds. Arrows are never
cast away and bowmen suffer injury themselves only when it is too late. They are useful up close, far away,
in front, and in the rear.
1- Ralph, like most Crusaders, was impressed with Turkish archery.
2- Ralph is mistaken here; the Turkish recurved composite bow was an expensive and complex weapon.
3- Turkish bows “frequently caused wounds.” The purpose of Turkish archery was to harass, distract,
disorganize, and wound enemies, rather than kill them outright. Turkish arrows could kill even well armed
knights, but that was not their primary purpose or expectation.
4- “[Turkish bows] are useful up close, far away, in front, and in the rear.” Reference here is to the the fact
that Turkish archers could loose to the front, left and rear; shooting to the right, however, was difficult.
5- Turks would loose their bows to within a minimum of 20 or 30 yards from an enemy before either
fleeing, or putting their bow in the bow case, and drawing a sword or other melee weapon for close combat.
Shooting a bow from much closer than that would bring them within range of a knight’s counterattack.
 Crusading Warfare
Next = 1/11/2d: Battle of the Iron Bridge

https://www.crusadingwarfare.net/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/459168451092888/
YouTube channel = “Crusading Warfare”