Efendi

I think:
Small group of knight will have limited energy. When their energy is over they will be easy target for Alps, turkish knight.

They will also be target for horse archers they will have effective compossite bow, they won't only hit the knight but also their horses. They can also shot back.

Isn't it?

War is not only pushing forwar but also getting back.

Thegn Ansgar

Well the horses did have barding, so they're not entirely vulnerable. But the power of the Frankish charge was able to devastate the Seljuks. The Crusaders also utilized their own horse archers (Turcopoles, Armenians, etc.)

The knights quickly learned the power of the harass and surround tactic though, and generally went to great lengths to avoid being drawn into such a situation. While the knight would not be defenseless without a horse, in that situation, being on foot was a big disadvantage as the guy with the horse and bow now has an easier time of putting an arrow right into your face. Which is also the reason the great helm began to start getting used, as it offered more facial protection than the common spangenhelm and nasal helm.

sylla1

In spite of the several excellent posts that have explored most of the options included in the OP, it is my impression that the following one: ... has been overlooked to some extent.

By "Muslim opposition" we are implying here mostly the sunni Seljuks in Anatolia & Syria and the shiite Fatimid in Egypt & Palestine; naturally, both Islamic states were strongly opposed in both political and religious grounds (not to mention an internal struggle within the Shi'a).

The former seem to have already been in an advanced process of "Balkanization" into several Sultanates that were constantly fighting each other, even across the Crusade.

The latter seem to have been by the time mostly puppet rulers controlled by powerful viziers, mostly with a poor military and administrative performance.

Both states have been struggling for a long time between them and the Roman Empire of Constantinople too; unsurprisingly, it seems that they tended to consider the crusaders as some kind of Roman mercenaries.

This was presumably a critical mistake, as it would have suggested them that it would have been eventually possible to negotiate with the invaders ...

irishcrusader95

they failed also to understand the crusaders obsession with jerusalem when the fatimids refused to hand over the city to the crusaders after taking it from the seljuks. the border areas between the seljuks and byzantines was always changing back and forth and it wasn't expected that the crusaders would push south after taking antioch, as you pointed out sylla they mistaked them for byzantine mercenaries

DreamWeaver

The division and opposition that existed between important individuals such as Kilij Arslan, Ridwan of Alleppo, Kerborgha of Mosul and Duqaq of Damascus, has long been identified as the crucial element in the success of the First Crusade.

I shall plug here, John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade.

By individually challenging the Franks as the progressed southwards, they removed some of the distinct advantages they would have possessed as local military powers, numbers, supplies etc. Each could be met and defated piecemeal. Their own personal rivalries and anamosities turned their attention away from a major threat....benefit of hindsight there for us I guess.

It not unsurprising to hear that the Franks were considered Byzantine mercenaries. Until Antioch such an argument might be made. The had a Byznatine contingent wiht them, led by Tatikios, the Emperor followed in their wake, securing and mopping up behind them. Lands were restored to the Byzantine Empire. Franks had been used before as mercenaries. Its not that surprising really.

How things may have worked out had Alexios continued to Antioch and what may have occurred there after is a matter of some interest.

Jagger

By "Arabs of later periods", I assume you mean the Ayyubid dynasty founded by Saladin? They were a Kurdish dynasty who continued to use similar tactics to the Seljuk Turks, relying largely on mounted archers.

I'm not suggesting that European steel at the time wasn't of a high quality, but that the Damascus steel blades used in the Middle East at the time were comparatvely sharper.

The effectiveness of the Knights' heavy armour was that it could stop arrows from longer distances, thus forcing the archers to come closer in order to be able to penetrate the armour, by which point the archers will be within range for a cavalry charge from the Knights.

At close ranges, the composite bow can easily penetrate through thick steel plate armour, let alone chainmail. Here's a test shown on the History Channel demonstrating the penetration power of a composite bow:


A good journal article to read regarding Crusades-era Muslim archers is W. F. Paterson's "The Archers of Islam", published in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. Paterson describes the great effectiveness and high penetration power of Muslim composite bows at the time, while also discussing the apparent failure of Muslim archers according to Beha ed-Din's account of the Battle of Arsuf. For example, he states:

"What is more likely is that the Crusaders' archers forced the Moslem cavalry to keep its distance at this stage of the engagement and shoot from long range. Coupled with this it may have been that the arrows were too light for such a purpose or that too much use was being made of the light darts shot with the aid of the arrow-guide (majrd). Later, when the Saracens began to press home their attacks the Itinerarium records: "That day our own losses and the sufferings of our horses, who were pierced through and through with arrows and darts...". And again: "With deadliest effect they kept launching forth their darts and arrows". Such statements suggest that with the reduced range the arrows became effective due to the higher velocity on impact and supports the idea that the arrows were too light rather than the bows being too weak. [...] Such a bow should drive a war arrow through any armour or mail up to a range of about 100 yards given, in the case of armour, a reasonably square hit on the surface of the plate. The surprisingly high penetration of arrows has been shown on many occasions."

According to the book, Peter Wilcox & Angus McBride's Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanid Persians, the mail worn by Sassanid Cataphracts was riveted and "made in much the same way as that of Europe". Also, the Arab arrows didn't just pierce through the Sassanids' mail alone, but also through the double-cuirass iron armour worn along with it.

The crossbow could only travel over short distances though, like the video itself points out. The only advantage the crossbow may have had is probably a slightly higher penetration power at close ranges (though a well-made composite bow can have equally high penetration power). The composite bow, on the other hand, could reload much faster, shoot at longer ranges, be used while riding a horse, and still have comparable penetration power at close range, making it a more all-round weapon.

Another article which compares tests with various different types of bows, "Experimental archery: projectile velocities and comparison of bow performances" by C. A. Bergman, E. McEwen and R. Miller, demonstrates that a composite bow can shoot a 25-gram arrow at 60 metres per second, while a crossbow shoots a 13-gram bolt at 62 metres per second. This seems to suggest that a composite bow can shoot heavier projectiles than the crossbow at the same speed.

irishcrusader95

the supply ships that showed up along the cost of the levant greatly helped them by providing reinforcements, vital supplies and boosted moral. the genoese ships that showed up at jaffa greatly helped the siege of jerusalem by providing the engineers that helped in building the siege towers by using the wood from the ships, had those ships not shown up the history of the crusades could have been very different. what we may never know it weather these ships were expected to show up or did they showed up by mere chance

Thegn Ansgar

They utilized more than mounted archers, but what I'm talking about, as per David Nicolle says, "they lacked discipline and were hard to control". Also according to David Nicolle, the horse archers that Salah ah-Din used played a relatively minor role in Egypt and the Levant. "in fact they appear to have degenerated into one of two sources of auxiliary cavalry, the other being the bedouin." The Seljuks also had more of a tendency to shoot their arrows at a rest, whereas Salah ah-Din's ghulans (or Mamluks as they were eventually called) tended to fire while moving.

Infantry was also given a considerably greater purpose in Salah ah-Din's army, compared to that of the Seljuks. Which is why I said his force was truly a combined arms one, rather than strictly horse archers and other cavalry.


Sharpness doesn't mean anything though. You can get really crappy steel to be as sharp as a sword that is made of Damascus steel. There's no such thing as one steel being sharper than another steel. In fact a razor blade made out of stainless steel is sharper than what swords can get to.

Obsidian is significantly sharper than any steel, but it's sharpness means nothing in regards to weapons. The only time the sharpness of a weapon comes into play, is when there is no metal armour involved.

What matters is the ease of sharpening (harder steels are harder to sharpen, softer steels are easier. However you cannot have an easy sharpening steel that holds an edge long, and the opposite is true as well. You cannot have a steel that holds it's edge long, that is easy to sharpen), it's toughness, and it's ability to hold an edge.

The advantage with Damascus steel (as I've said before), is it's ability to hold an edge longer (though that in itself is not that big of an advantage, it just means you have to sharpen it less often), and it's toughness/durability. But even then, both steels were comparatively equal in that regard, with the Damascus being slightly better.


Interesting test, however 1) It's a static object. Shooting an arrow at something that is sitting still is going to be easier to penetrate. 2) It's against something that's relatively solid and has no give like a human body would. 3) There is no gambeson or acketon underneath the armour.

As I've mentioned numerous times before, piercing the metal is not an issue. But the fact of the matter is that the gambeson is the most important piece of equipment in regards to the armour. In nearly every single test I've shown they never show a gambeson being used (which follows the properties of modern armour).

Also, there is no such thing as just a "composite bow". That just denotes the materials it was made of. You can have a longbow that is composite, and when you say composite bow it means the exact same thing. It's properly called the "composite recurve bow". The power comes not from the composite materials (though it does help), but the main power is the recurve. However you can have a recurve self bow (made of just one material).

The importance lies in these statements though. "That day our own losses and the sufferings of our horses, who were pierced through and through with arrows and darts...". And again: "With deadliest effect they kept launching forth their darts and arrows"

The men eventually were without horses. You take out a knight's horse, and he's going to be easier to take out with an arrow. Crusader records also state that most of the deaths came from arrows to the face, rather than through the armour. Notice how it says nothing of deaths by arrows penetrating armour though?

And as I've mentioned before, if it could penetrate the armour and cause a debilitating wound to the man wearing it, they would have either greatly changed the armour to stop this, or they would have discarded the armour altogether. Why didn't they do this, if these projectiles were so effective against it at close range? Why didn't they switch to lamellar armour? Which alone is more effective at stopping arrows (than chainmaille alone, without gambeson), and not have to worry about the stifling heat anymore.

I stand corrected on the maille being riveted. However, the double-cuirass does not mean much if there is insignificant padding beneath it. The maille resists broadheads, but is susceptible to bodkins. The gambeson is weak to broadheads, but bodkins cannot penetrate it. The combination of both creates an extremely effective armour.

The crossbow has significantly more power. A crossbow delivers 220 J of energy. That's a weaker crossbow at 100 meters. If we go to 50 meters, that's 440 J of energy. Regardless, the optimal killing range of an armoured man is generally 27 meters.

Long range shots are merely an annoyance, and would be considered a waste of arrows to fire at anything greater than 100 meters. But comparatively speaking, the crossbow delivers greater energy than a bow could ever do at the same effective killing range.

Salah ah-Din also utilized crossbow mounted archers who could fire at a gallop, so it being used while mounted is moot.


Heavier projectiles travel faster than lighter ones (though the opposite is true at the initial release, but the lighter arrow loses speed rapidly compared to the heavier one), because of Newton's second law of motion. So actually the case is reversed, and shows better than the composite recurve. If the bolt were heavier, the results would be even greater.

What was the kinetic energy of the projectiles launched, because that means more than it's speed.

Those are also relatively light arrows and bolts though. Common war arrows were about 60 grams (around 1000 grain) all included, the average war bolt the shafts have not been found, but just the head was 75 grams, expect the whole bolt to be much heavier (perhaps 100 grams).

Jagger

Saladin's army was a combined-arms one, but mounted archers continued to play a primary role in his army. For example, mounted archers played a decisive role in his victory at the Battle of Hattin. As for the Seljuk Turk cavalry, they were known for firing arrows while on the move, like they did at the Battle of Manzikert for example.

I wasn't suggesting that Damascus steel was significantly better than European steel at the time, but that they were somewhat better, or else they wouldn't have acquired such a reputation in medieval Europe. Nevertheless, I largely agree with what you've said here.

I'm not convinced that a quilted gambeson could stop an armour-piercing arrow shot from a composite bow at close range. Like mail or plate armour, it can stop long-range arrows, but not close-range ones, especially those from a composite bow.

Nearly all composite bows in existence happen to be recurve bows, so they've become synonymous with one other. Also, the composite bow's materials do make a difference, particularly the sinew, which is more energy-efficient than wood.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence of Crusaders being killed by armour-piercing arrows. During the First Crusade, for example, the knight Walter Sans Avoir was killed by Seljuk arrows that pierced through his hauberk armour, and Baldwin of Ghent was killed by an arrow that pierced through his helmet at the Siege of Nicaea.

I've looked for information regarding their joules of energy, but couldn't find any. Could you point me to a source where you got these figures from?

Long-range shots with the composite bow from several hundred yards away was very effective in harassing armoured opponents, giving them non-fatal wounds, and killing their unarmoured horses, thus immobilizing them. The effectiveness of this tactic can be seen in many battles, from the Parthians to the Mongols.

Crossbows are very difficult to reload without using the foot. To reload a crossbow on horseback would take much longer than on foot. For a composite bow, on the other hand, it can be reloaded just as fast on horseback as it can on foot.

The tests are actually referring to the initial speed, not the eventual speed. The composite bow that was tested shot a heavier 25-gram arrow with roughly the same initial speed as a crossbow shooting a lighter 13-gram bolt. In addition, this was despite using a lower draw weight of 27.2 kg for the composite bow, while a higher 40.8 kg draw weight was used for the crossbow. The same source also gives the result for the composite bow shooting a heavier 50-gram arrow, which results in an initial speed of 51 metres per second.

Since kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass and velocity of a moving object, this would mean the composite bow can shoot arrows with a higher kinetic energy than the crossbow. In other words, I don't see any reason to believe that the crossbow is any better than a composite bow in terms of penetration power.

Thegn Ansgar

Not according to David Nicolle.


Despite the fact that there are numerous primary sources? Bodkins can penetrate through the steel, that much is true. But the gambeson is not easily pierced by something that has no actual cutting edge.

Check out this test from MyArmoury

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

(It's also where I got my source of 140 J for a 150 lb English Warbow, which would be similar in poundage to that of a composite recurve, but you can get Joules with the formula I give below.) Being that these are tests where the armour is set up to fail (propped up and such), the bow only penetrated at 15 feet. 2 shots penetrated completely, 1 did not.

But take note at what the tester said "most arrows would not be fired at 20 feet." But what's interesting is that the bow did not penetrate at 20 feet, but did at 15. That's a really close distance, one that someone would probably not take at a charging knight.

Take for example Walter of Chatillion

"...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described"

As for the bow being only 70 lbs, if you look at Atarn you'll see that there were many Turkish warbows that are in the 70lb range. The higher poundage tends to be for flight and target bows. But there are always exceptions.

However, we must take account of blunt force trauma which would have affected the wearer of armour. The arrow does not have to penetrate to cause harm. Such as the archer Benkin written by Gilbert of Bruges.

"And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound."

But I am not saying chainmaille is impervious. Rather it offers a greater degree of protection (even from relatively close range shots at 20 feet)


I'm not saying that there was never a time where an arrow has penetrated the armour and killed the man wearing it. But rather it offers a greater deal of protection from close ranged shots than you're suggesting it does.

The Hospitallers have recorded a larger number of facial wounds as opposed to those on the body though.

E=1/2(M x V^2)

With a goat's foot, it's rather easy to load a crossbow from a sitting and even crouching position.