Inflames

The Byzantine emperor just wanted the crusaders out of his lands seeing how destructive they could be if not given something specific to do. He then made sure he could turn a profit off the crusaders, making them swear loyalty to him in exchange for aid and guide through to the holy land.

The crusaders broke their word as well as the Emperor. Sewing the seeds of distrust that had already been created through misunderstanding and the differences between religions. After all the Crusades were backed and fuelled by religion one that had a lot of skeletons in the closet with the Orthodox Byzantines.

The muslim response was indeed divided but it was also hindered by the fact that no concentrated middle eastern entity was ever formed to directly combat the crusaders. For this was seen as a attack along the lines of a raid or a incursion not a legitimate grab for land and the holy city. If they had realized that this was the intention of the crusaders before they were already faced with fighting them, perhaps they could of beaten the Christian aggressors. Also the eastern form of warfare at this time lagged behind the western European style of combat. The crusaders rode very heavy warhorses and also wore much thicker armour, giving them huge advantages. The Byzantine form of combat was also very accustomed to light horses, mass archers and leather-clad infantry. The inexperience with dealing with westerners also led to mass losses on the side of the muslims. Massive knights in huge armour using long pointed weapons could do incredible damage to those who stand in front of them without proper defences. This would be a shock to the system of some eastern commanders, leading to bigger western successes than normal.

The crusaders "succeeded" to take and hold some land in the East but the kingdoms they set up were never destined to last long.

Perhaps if the first crusaders failed miserably, as the children's crusade did before them the west might not have sent as many crusades to the holy land... it is too bad they did succeed the first time.. perhaps if they failed the Byzantines would have suffered a better fate when the 4th crusade came around.

DreamWeaver

Assumedly....The Rock....contained within, generically important to all abrahamic religions

sturm

Of course Efendi, and do not forget that many of the crusaders (especially in the First Crusade) were fanatics.

DreamWeaver

Controversial. Its not really a question of lagging behind but of there being 2 distinct types, suited to the geogrpahic conditions and societies that practised them. They just practice different styles of warfare, not that one really lags behind the other.

The Muslims for their part even on the First Crusade were doing well. The Battle of Dorylaeum almost met with Turkish success against those heavily armed knights of the west. Likewise continued combat through out the 12th Century showed that Heavy armour and a good charge en masse did not account for actual superirority. Devestating the charge might be, if it can actually get to you. Fast mobile cavalry can play havoc with slower moving heavily armoured ones. As was repeatedy proved in combat. 1101 or Hattin for example. Very hard to destry ones enemy if they can just melt away and come back. Its only towards the end of the 12th Century that the fighting march thecnique become prominent, to deal with the nature of Eastern Warfare. Greater use of Turcopoles as well. Is it really the Msulims who lagged behind, given that the Franks were the ones who had to adapt their tactics? I dont relly think so.



Why? The lasted 200 years. Egypt was almost captured on several occassions. Even with the cataclysmic disaster of Hattin in 1187 the Franks lasted for over another century. Lusignan Cyprus lasts even longer.



You mean the Peasants Crusade in 1095, rather than the Childrens Crusade in 1212.

irishcrusader95

well by the time they got in to syria most of those warhorses were dead and had been replaced with the smaller breed that the turks used. a lot of knights were reduced to riding into battle on donkeys or other beasts of burden. a large advantage they had was in that a large part of their infantry was now made up of unhorsed knights who acted as heavy infantry. by the time antioch had fallen the crusader army was made up of very veternised troops as all the weak and timid had been killed off leaving a hardcore disciplined bunch behind.

alsoubani

actually dome of the rock is the place were Mohammad (PBU) accented into heaven, but that does not mean the place is a holy place.

gaius valerius

Plus Jerusalem is a holy city as well, being that as people often seem to forget, the muslims follow in the jewish and christian tradition and in Jerusalem the acknowledged prophet Jesus was killed.

The crusaders surely would have perished had it not been for the Byzantine logistical support across Anatolia. For a short read on the subject I'd point you to the work by Bachrach (see the link).

http://books.google.be/books?id=ntMe...ylaion&f=false

Hardcore disciplined bunch... not really, the men-at-arms were hardened professionals by default. The crusaders left at Antioch after the succesful siege were at best a starved out bunch. The military victory against their Turkish opponents were the latters own fault in being not cautious enough and thinking that the crusaders would be sitting ducks. The crusaders sallied out and caught their besiegers at a very bad time, causing them to rout and averting their threat.

Mohammed the Persian

The turks (Ottomans) had internal disputes, so they probably thought that it would just be a raid and didn't want to waste resources fighting the crusaders.

Boy ! Were they wrong !

gaius valerius

There was no unified Seljuq empire (so it goes much beyond mere 'internal disputes', the centralised Seljuq empire had collapsed about a decade before the first crusade) nor were there Ottomans (they emerge centuries later). The crusaders entered a Middle East divided amongst several smaller, small, large and larger muslim states.

Mohammed the Persian

yes, basically my point, the turks were quarreling with one another.